You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


by

South Australia is renowned as a renewable energy ‘superpower’: by some strange coincidence, it’s also renowned for having the highest retail power prices in the world.

Wind and sun worshippers keep telling us that by plugging into nature’s wonder fuels we’ll soon enjoy power at 1970s prices. Except that that mantra is part myth and part fantasy and, wherever you find endless seas of solar panels and windmills, power prices just keep on rocketing. In SA, wholesale power prices doubled in just 12 months:

For power punters battered with crippling bills, predictions don’t count for much. But still renewables rent seekers keep pumping the line that, one day soon, power prices will plummet. Here’s Donn Dears spelling out precisely why they won’t.

EIA Energy Forecasts Part 1

Power for USA

Dnn Dears

6 March 2018

What’s happening at the Energy Information Administration (EIA)?

Are holdovers from the last administration producing reports that undermine this administration’s energy policies?

The EIA has just issued its latest Annual Energy Outlook, AEO 2018, and it contains a plethora of misinformation.

This and the next two articles will highlight a few of the more egregious items of misinformation.

It’s a mistake for any business or political entity to rely on the EIA energy forecasts.

It should also be noted that the focus of the latest annual energy outlook is on CO2 emissions. According to the latest AEO, CO2 emissions will remain constant through the forecast period ending in 2050.

This substantiates the fact cited in Nothing to Fear that it’s impossible to cut CO2 emissions.

EIA Distorts Cost of Electricity

The EIA predicts that the cost of electricity will decline by 2050 due to the low cost of wind and solar.

If wind and solar generation increase, as forecast by EIA, the cost of electricity will increase … Not decrease.

Holdovers at the EIA have assumed that the cost of wind and solar will be lower than the cost of electricity using natural gas or coal, and this is a huge error.

In addition, the EIA forecasts that wind and solar will dominate the growth in power generation, accounting for two-thirds of the growth in power generation.

If the EIA forecast is accurate, it’s clear the cost of electricity will increase substantially.

California, New York, and the New England states, which emphasize renewables, have much higher costs for electricity than do states that rely on coal and natural gas for generating electricity.

Those facts are abundantly clear and were available to the EIA when it created this distorted report.

These facts are accentuated by the EIA forecast growth for renewables, which is predominantly for PV solar, an extremely expensive method for generating electricity.

Not only is PV Solar expensive, it requires storage, which, at a minimum, doubles the cost of electricity.

In addition, the EIA has created a new measurement, Levelized Avoided Cost of Electricity (LACE) to justify its cost estimates.

“The calculation of avoided costs is based on the marginal value of energy and capacity that would result from adding a unit of a given technology to the system as it exists or is projected to exist at a specified future date and represents the potential value available to the project owner from the project’s contribution to satisfying both energy and capacity requirements.”

LACE uses marginal cost, which ignores total costs. See, The System is Rigged.

Conclusion

The EIA has become an albatross left over from the Obama administration, distorting facts to promote renewables and the cutting of CO2 emissions.

Any organization that uses the EIA’s forecasts are perpetuating misinformation and promoting distortions in the economy.

It should be noted that Navigant Research has embraced the EIA information and published articles extolling the EIA forecasts.

The EIA is an excellent example of what happens when ideologues assume responsibility for a government administration that is supposed to provide accurate information to the public.

Hopefully, the Department of Energy (DOE) will take steps to eliminate the biases prevalent at the EIA.

Power for USA

Having trouble making the connection between heavily subsidised, intermittent, market distorting wind & solar and rocketing power prices? See above the Australian experience (so far) and below for what’s about to happen in the US.

EIA Distorts Energy Forecasts, Part 2

Power for USA

Donn Dears

9 March 2018

The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is providing misinformation to Americans in support of cutting CO2 emissions and promoting renewables.

The following is another example of how the EIA is making unsubstantiated, misleading claims.

In this chart, EIA forecasts that PV solar, rooftop installations, will account for 200,000,000 KW of installed capacity by 2050.

The average single, family-owned home requires about 8KW of installed PV solar capacity.

There are approximately 75,000,000 such homes in the United States, of these, using 8KW for the average installation, 25,000,000 will have installed PV rooftop solar according to the EIA forecast.

This is 33% of all single-family homes in the United States.

On the face of it, this is an absurd number of installations.

In essence, it says that virtually every single family home in the Southern US would have PV rooftop solar installed.

While the cost of solar panels could come down, the cost of inverters and the physical installation won’t decrease by very much.

Based on current costs, without subsidies, and the price of electricity, only Southern California (8 years) and Hawaii (3 years) require fewer than ten years to recover the cost of installing PV rooftop solar.

Here are some other break-even calculations for various states, showing the number of years it takes to recover the cost of installing PV rooftop solar. (From Nothing to Fear)

Alabama 18, Arizona 10, Arkansas 23, Colorado 14, Florida 11, Georgia 15, New Mexico 11, Texas 15 and Louisiana 19.

These PV rooftop solar systems are supposed to last about twenty years.

Any PV rooftop solar installed today will probably be replaced at least once by 2050.

In addition, it should be noted that the roofs themselves need to be replaced every twenty years or so. Replacing roofs will require removal and reinstallation of the PV rooftop solar system unless the two events take place simultaneously.

According to the EIA, AEO 2018, “Social influences will contribute to the continued adoption of residential photovoltaic (PV).”

This infers government forcing the adoption of PV solar by propaganda and intimidation using the fear of global warming.

It should be noted that the EIA, AEO 2018 makes similar unsubstantiated claims with regard to the use of energy by industry.

The EIA is a rogue agency that the Department of Energy must get under control.

As it stands today, no one should believe anything published by the EIA in its energy forecasts.

Power for USA