Thanks for the comment. From an engineering point of view, you’re right, one type of energy, electric or chemical isn’t more efficient or inefficient than the other.

My point is that, in practical terms, we have efficient capital costs in oil energy, say. It’s efficient energy because the equipment is already paid for, essentially. If we built another energy source, no matter what type, it is, from a financial point of view, inefficient because we have to pay to build the energy capture.

If you buy an oil company for a $1 a share you’ve bought 70-cents say of existing energy capture equipment and the revenues from X-amount energy produced. If you buy a new windfarm for $1 a share you have to pay for the equipment so you can’t make money until the equipment is paid for. Naturally, there will be debt and it get all very complicated. The main thing is, from an money-efficiency point of view, the energy source with the most existing equipment has less expenses to deduct from revenues.

Or let’s go the other way. We live in a world of only green energy. All the oil infrastructure has been mothballed. Let’s say all the oil stuff is turned on. Won’t prices fall (deflation) because the oil companies can sell energy cheaper than green because they don’t have to factor in the costs of building anything.

But I hope you get my point? Have I answered your question?