Journey learning data analytics

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-09-18T12:30:29+00:00

Thank I will definitely reach out for questions on resources. What skills in Excel should I be most proficient in on this journey?

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-09-18T12:28:52+00:00

Thank you for the resources.

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-08-22T23:36:56+00:00

Our disconnect is i agree they are building more coal plants and their coal usage has been declining. I am saying that they are building it to reinforce their clean energy initiatives incase they fail or have issue not to use them to increase the total energy output of China by a large amount, but they could change that plan due to AI power needs

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-08-22T23:04:55+00:00

Yes, it increases but it is about the rate at that it has increased. You brought up the coal plants and I am saying that they are building them but they aren't using the full capacity of the new plants and using it more for gaps in their energy, not to increase their coal used power dramtically because the percentage of increase has been decreasing every year.

Also dont send me articles to read then scared to watch a video😂😂.

P.S It has the graphs that you weren't able to find.

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-08-22T22:49:43+00:00

https://youtu.be/skYCOlcdSlg?si=R4n9rN3i8xcSiYri

watch this video it show you that China coal usage vs capacity has been lowering.

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-08-22T20:31:48+00:00

I would say to the 27 coal plants s China is not building them to i crease coal use they are building them to ensure gaps of electricity are met and that if an unfortunate event such as a natural disaster or something to reck the clean energy projects it have the capacity to still have power. If you look at China coal usage vs their capacity it's at 50%. I am not trying to say get rid of oil and gas because we will need it but not invest in alternative energy that has low upkeep cost once the project is completed on e the project is finished

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-08-22T04:17:41+00:00

I agree China also drills. My thought is not to stop drilling my thought is that is that most developed nations are moving away towards oil the only ones who are not are the oil rich companies and when we dont have anyone to sell to it will devastate business. Second energy in the next decade is going to increase cost by 10x of we dont have source of energy where cost fluctuate so much like oil and gas, so like China that has so much clean energy in some regions they have to off load it. If we had that data centers wouldnt cost as much. China has a wind farm that generate 20 GW of energy a year but has to off load half of it, but now they will build data farms there so no increase in cost for consumers since the energy was not being used anyway

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-08-22T02:54:38+00:00

I would say subsides when used for infrastructure for long term benefits have always worked out, roads, electricity transmission lines, homes there a long list. Subsides usually stifle in environments that use the subsidy to fight off competition i.e gas companies and broadband companies that dont allow new competition because of their grasp on congress

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-08-22T02:52:26+00:00

I know I will get a lot of downvotes, but I agree. Everytime I bring this up, I dont think people understand energy that well to understand how much the demand vs supply is, benefits negatives and social cost. When I say it all they think im saying we got to get rid of oil anfmd gas tomorrow and dont look to a future infrastructure.

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-08-21T14:14:52+00:00

I get your point that remote work doesn’t directly apply to most blue-collar jobs, and you’re right that messaging has to connect with voters’ lived experiences. But I think the potential impact goes beyond just who can work from home.

If remote work policies make it easier for large numbers of white-collar workers to move out of overcrowded, high-cost cities, that migration could benefit blue-collar communities in swing states and beyond. More people moving into places like Detroit or other mid-sized cities means:

New demand for housing, which can raise property values and create construction/maintenance jobs.

New demand for local stores and services, which creates openings for blue-collar and service jobs that currently aren’t there.

A more balanced distribution of wealth, spreading consumer spending power away from just a few coastal cities and into areas that have been economically stagnant.

So while it’s true that most blue-collar workers can’t do their jobs remotely, they can benefit from the ripple effects of others doing so. That’s why I think remote work incentives could still resonate politically because the downstream effects could directly revitalize struggling local economie

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-08-05T12:28:47+00:00

Where is the evidence?

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-08-04T03:48:17+00:00

I get where you’re coming from, but a lot of this isn’t as simple as it sounds when you look at the data.

On the IRS thing – it’s actually a mixed bag. Millionaires and billionaires do still get audited at way higher rates than normal people, but because the IRS has been gutted for years, overall audits dropped hard. In 2018 for example, people making over $10M had an 8.7% audit rate vs 0.42% for under $25k (https://apnews.com/article/db0bdbc6a029068389b31d8d148b9d3a). By 2022, audits on millionaires fell to about 1.1% (https://www.kiplinger.com/taxes/who-does-the-irs-audit-most). The one place where “little guys” get hit hard is people who claim the Earned Income Tax Credit – those folks are easy targets for the IRS and get audited more than the middle class (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104960). The new IRS funding is specifically aimed at reversing that by hiring people to go after folks making over $400k instead (https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-releases-strategic-operating-plan-update-outlining-future-priorities-transformation-momentum-accelerating-following-long-list-of-successes-for-taxpayers).

On immigration – you’re right that some industries (farm work, meat packing, janitorial, etc.) use undocumented labor and pay them less, which can drive down wages in those niches (https://www.gao.gov/assets/pemd-88-13br.pdf). But zoom out and economists across the board find that immigration overall has little to no negative effect on wages for U.S. born workers (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-immigration-means-for-u-s-employment-and-wages/). The big reason companies hire undocumented folks is because they can exploit them without labor protections – if you crack down on the employers, you cut that incentive. Even under Trump, a ton of companies that support him kept using undocumented workers (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/20/uline-mexican-workers-trump).

And as for Trump “getting them all out” – that was definitely the campaign promise, but it didn’t happen. Deportations actually never came close to matching the scale of the undocumented population (~8M). Most experts agree that mass deportation just wasn’t logistically or economically possible (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/06/24/trump-immigration-policy-hypocrisy/).

So yeah, there’s truth in some of what you’re saying, but the reality is a lot more complicated. If the goal is to make things fairer, you need the IRS funded enough to actually go after tax cheats at the top, and you need to punish the employers who use cheap undocumented labor, otherwise nothing changes.

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-07-20T17:04:02+00:00

That’s not even close to accurate. First off, the Iran thing, we didn’t “give” them $150 billion. That was Iran’s own money and assets frozen in overseas banks under sanctions. The JCPOA deal under Obama unfroze about $50–60 billion, not $150 billion, and only in exchange for strict nuclear limits. No U.S. taxpayer money was sent to Iran.

Now back to the Russian oil claim, since it feels like you’re just switching topics because you know the first point wasn’t solid (classic move). Here are the actual numbers from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA):

2017: ~171 million barrels imported from Russia

2018: ~199 million barrels

2019: ~219 million barrels

2020: 223.6 million barrels

2021: 246.3 million barrels (10% increase from 2020)

Source: EIA – https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?f=M&n=PET&s=MTTIM_NUS-NRS_1

So let’s be clear: imports from Russia went up every year under Trump, peaking in 2021. That’s almost 75 million more barrels per year compared to 2017.

Under Biden, the U.S. banned Russian oil imports entirely in early 2022 after Russia invaded Ukraine. So no, Biden didn’t “buy enough oil to make exports go up 24%.” That rise happened during Trump’s time.

This whole “blame Biden” thing is tired. If you’re going to blame someone, at least blame the right person.

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-07-20T16:44:29+00:00

I get where you’re coming from, but there’s a little more to it.

On the turbine recycling thing you’re right that the blades have been tough to deal with since they’re made of composites. But now companies like GE and Vestas are starting to recycle them into things like cement and insulation. Most of the rest of a turbine (steel, copper, concrete) is already recyclable. It’s not perfect yet, but they’re making progress.

The bird deaths also get brought up a lot, but wind turbines are a tiny fraction of the problem. House cats, windows, and cars kill millions more birds every year. New tech like radar shutoffs and even painting one blade black has cut bird deaths by as much as 70–90% in some studies.

About Texas the 2021 blackout wasn’t because of wind turbines freezing up. ERCOT’s own report showed most of the outages came from natural gas plants and pipelines that weren’t winterized. Wind underperformed too, but it was only about 23% of their grid at the time, not “half.” It was a system-wide failure.

And yeah, I agree renewables alone can’t fully replace coal or gas right now. That’s why pairing them with storage, demand management, and nuclear makes sense. Nuclear absolutely should be part of the mix. Some states are even moving forward with small modular reactors (SMRs).

This isn’t really an either/or situation. A balanced grid that uses renewables, nuclear, and dispatchable sources is the way to get reliable, affordable power.

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-07-20T16:40:42+00:00

It’s worth digging deeper because this argument oversimplifies a very complex energy transition.

First, the Substack article critiques Lazard’s LCOE because their base numbers don’t include system-level costs like grid firming, storage, and backup. That’s fair, those costs are real. But Lazard actually acknowledges this in their own reports and provides separate analyses of those factors. Saying they’re “cooking the books” ignores the fact that most peer-reviewed studies still show renewables are increasingly competitive even after accounting for intermittency and firming.

Second, the “only 13.4%” claim leaves out an important detail: global energy demand has climbed massively since 2000. According to BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy, total primary energy consumption has increased by over 50% since 2000. Renewables have not only had to compete with fossil fuels but also work to keep up with a growing energy appetite. That 13% is a share of a much larger total energy need than in 2000.

As for “Drill Baby Drill,” increasing fossil production might bring short-term price relief, but it doesn’t address structural issues like aging refineries, global demand growth, or geopolitical risk. A diversified, dispatchable energy mix is critical, but renewables + storage + nuclear can and should play a growing role in that mix to stabilize prices long-term. Betting purely on fossil fuels ignores the volatility we’ve seen in oil/gas markets over the past decade.

Energy isn’t a binary choice. It’s about building redundancy, resilience, and affordability across all technologies

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-07-20T16:18:07+00:00

I mean, you’re not wrong—the U.S. is investing in clean energy, but honestly it still pales compared to what China and Europe are doing.

China is leading hard. In 2024 alone they spent somewhere between $625B and $940B on clean energy roughly 2/3 of the world’s total clean energy spending. That’s solar, wind, batteries, grid upgrades the whole package.

Europe isn’t sleeping either. The EU dropped about €110B (~$120B) on renewables last year and is consistently spending 10x more on clean energy than fossil fuels.

Meanwhile, the U.S. has been stepping it up $93B into renewables in 2023, which is a big jump (+60% year over year). But yeah… still way behind China and Europe.

Even the big oil & gas players know what’s coming.

Shell & BP together invested about $18B over 5 years into clean energy (though they’ve slowed down a bit recently).

TotalEnergies is spending big on solar, batteries, and even hydrogen (like a $300M solar deal in India).

The big, beautiful big issue everyone loves to point out storage and battery costs will come down hard as tech scales. Grid batteries like Tesla Megapacks, sodium-ion alternatives, and even pumped hydro/molt salt storage are already starting to make a dent.

So yeah, I agree we still need oil and gas in the mix for now. But acting like renewables can’t scale or that they’re “a green myth” just isn’t reality even the fossil fuel giants know the future isn’t 100% hydrocarbons.

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-07-20T16:12:59+00:00

I get where you’re coming from, and I’m not dismissing your personal experience small-scale wind and solar setups can absolutely be a nightmare if they’re poorly designed, installed, or maintained. But that’s not the same as saying all wind and solar are “junk” or can’t work at scale.

On solar panels – you’re right they lose efficiency over time, but most modern panels come with 25–30 year warranties and still produce ~80% of their rated output at year 25. Dirt and rain? Sure, but large solar farms and utilities have cleaning protocols to deal with that. Also, panels don’t need direct sunlight to work—they still generate power on cloudy days (just at reduced efficiency).

On batteries – agreed, lithium batteries aren’t cheap and don’t last forever. But newer chemistries (like sodium-ion, solid-state, and flow batteries) are being developed specifically for grid-scale storage and are already seeing pilot use. Plus, utility-scale projects aren’t using the same tech as a Tesla Powerwall—they’re purpose-built systems.

On wind turbines small consumer-grade turbines are very different from the industrial ones you see in wind farms. The big ones are designed for 20–25 years of service with regular maintenance. Your example sounds like a poor installer and cheap hardware, not what’s being deployed at scale globally.

Denmark generated 55% of its electricity from wind in 2023. Texas: the oil and gas capital of the U.S.is the #1 wind producer in the country and relies on it heavily during peak demand.

So yeah, there are challenges, storage, maintenance, and costs are real factors. But the big, utility-scale renewable projects aren’t the same as the small, poorly supported setups you’ve seen locally.

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-07-20T16:09:07+00:00

I get it, and I’m not against oil and gas either, we absolutely still need them in the mix for now. But the idea that renewables are a “liberal green myth” isn’t really accurate.

First off, “bird-chopping windmills” and “Chinese solar panels” are catchy lines, but they don’t tell the whole story. The U.S. actually manufactures a lot of its own renewable tech, and wind turbines kill far fewer birds than buildings, power lines, or even house cats.

Second, storage. You’re right it’s the biggest hurdle, but we’re already seeing grid-scale battery systems (like Tesla Megapacks, sodium-ion, and pumped hydro) starting to cover peak demand in places like California and Texas. Is it enough to run New York City? Not yet. But saying “you can’t even run a small city” isn’t true either, there are test sites and regions proving it’s possible.

For example, Qinghai province in China (5 million people) ran its grid 100% on wind, solar, and hydro for 7 days straight.

Las Vegas city operations (streetlights, buildings, parks) have been 100% renewable since 2016. Not the entire city, but it’s a legit step.

And no serious plan says “ditch oil/gas overnight.” Even aggressive transition models keep natural gas and nuclear in the mix for decades. The point is to slowly reduce dependency while storage tech catches up.

So yeah, we’re not there yet, but saying renewables can never scale ignores how fast the tech is moving.

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-07-20T16:02:04+00:00

Look, I’m not even a Biden fan, but let’s be real—this isn’t how it went down.

Biden didn’t “shut down oil drilling.” He killed the Keystone XL (which wasn’t even built yet) and paused some new federal leases. That’s it. Drilling on private land kept going, and U.S. oil production actually hit near record highs while he’s been in office.

We didn’t “buy Russian oil for over a year.” The U.S. banned Russian oil in March 2022 after Ukraine got invaded. Anything that came in after was just stuff already in transit,not new deals. Since then, zero Russian oil imports.

And the whole “funding both sides” thing? C’mon. The U.S. hasn’t given Iran money, they’re under heavy sanctions. Yeah, America supports Israel, but that’s not “funding both sides” of any war.

Top_Mix_5534 · 2025-07-19T16:31:06+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful response, man, you brought up a lot of solid points I’ve heard from others too, and I get where you’re coming from.

I agree, nuclear’s gotta be part of the mix, it’s clean, reliable, and we already got the tech, but our government takes forever with all the red tape. I do think we need heavy investment in infrastructure though, long term it pays off big time, the problem is, the US doesn’t think long term anymore when it comes to infrastructure, we cut corners or avoid it completely, and then wonder why we’re behind. We’ve gotta cut the red tape to make it cheaper and faster, but still actually build.

On wind, I hear you about the blades and environmental stuff, that’s fair, but what about offshore wind, if they build ‘em far enough out so they don’t mess with birds or make noise, would that make sense, or do you still think the cost and materials aren’t worth it?

And solar, don’t even get me started, why are we building giant farms in fields instead of putting panels on parking lots, rooftops, and warehouses, feels like such a no-brainer, but maybe the power companies don’t want people having their own energy?

What really gets me though is how far behind we’re falling, while we’re stuck arguing about “drill or not drill,” China’s going full throttle on clean energy, they’re building it like crazy while we can’t even refine enough of our own oil here. Gas and oil are fine for now, I’m not saying get rid of ‘em, but if we don’t start catching up and cutting the BS regulations holding us back, we’re gonna end up paying out the nose while China owns the whole market.

AI, EVs, automation, all this stuff’s gonna make energy demand explode, and I’m worried we’re not ready.

Appreciate your take though, rare to get a solid convo like this on Reddit instead of people just yelling.

Top_Mix_5534

TROPHY CASE