antr

That's possible, but it's still an argument about Apollo's incentives rather than the thesis itself. By all means scrutinize anyone talking their book, but then show where the analysis is wrong. Otherwise we've moved from “Apollo is conflicted” to “Apollo must be wrong because it invested,” which is not much of an argument.

So Apollo believes in the thesis strongly enough to put billions of its own capital behind it. That sounds more like putting their money where their mouth is than a rebuttal.

I’ll say something unpopular, but the best VPP alternative out there is the transmission system operator (doing its job well).

VPPs are a great way for utilities and other companies to get customers hooked into long-term contracts and milk for more fees.

If you scratch the surface of the article you will realise that the biggest loser is Chile. This draconian law, if anything, will make investing in lithium production unattractive, regardless where in the value chain one invests.

1% change in revenue can result in a material deviation in net income and cash flow

Putting aside the absurd attack labeling my argument as pro-car (don't own one by the way), I'll I'm saying is that public transport ain't cheap nor free, and has a cost. You can cover your eyes, be against x or y, but that won't stop things from being different.

The problem with "free or extremely cheap transportation" is that it's neither free nor cheap. It's expensive and paid for by tax payers through constant budget deficits and debt issuance that will indebt future generations.

Article from 2018