David Mack’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  ids

  I'd be interested in an explanation about the Citizen Utility Board's support as well.On Another rate increase in the name of cheap coal posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 27 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  ids

  If you just divide the capital cost by the capacity, you get around $4700/kW of capital costs, about $1000/kW higher than coal plant Sean says is already very expensive in his initial post. This may not increase rates more than 2% because the cost of this small facility may be averaged with other cheaper plants. The point is that new coal plants, let alone clean coal, are not cheap. On Another rate increase in the name of cheap coal posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 27 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sean

  Can you comment on combined heat and power's ability to attract venture capital. How profitable are CHP projects under today's regulatory regime? Are you worried that your access to capital will be reduced if and when the "greentech" boom goes bust?On The VC models are to blame, not the green technologies posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 34 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Sean

  I feel your frustration. You and your dad have been at it for so many years. Keep up the good fight. The more profitable Recycled Energy is, the more competition you will have and the more investment in cogen. Maybe if wall street realizes it can make money on this, and even more with deregulation, it will get on board. On The electric sector's price inversion posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Who are your allies in achieving deregulation?

  You do an excellent job a pointing out the signs of rapidly increasing electricity prices. The conventional media spends very little time discussing how future electricity generation will affect power prices. A few weeks ago you showed coal plant proposals at $3700/kW as an example of expensive coal.

  Picken's plan is for wind to generate 20% of US electricity, replacing natural gas that could then be used for transportation. He estimates it would cost 1 trillion plus 200 billion in transmission and that seems really expensive. Does that figure even seem realistic to you? It also doesn't make sense to replace peak power with intermittent power, so I'm pretty sure he's pushing this policy out of self-interest.

  It seems to me that industry has noticed the electricity inversion caused by the regulated market. They see it as an opportunity to lobby the next set of regulations in their favor for the next build cycle. If regulations stay the same and expensive coal gets built, the ratepayer pays. If plans like Pickens' or other big renewables get subsidized, the taxpayer pays. If we're paying anyway, we might as well build renewables, but let's look at other options first.

  CHP seems to be the only cheap source of power. I've seen your company make claims that CHP could replace 20% of US capacity for only 350 billion in capital costs, less than a third of the wind plan  estimate. So you're lobbying for deregulation, in your interest and the rate/taxpayers'. There must be a constituency for cheap and efficient electricity that can help your lobbying efforts. I see you're trying to get the environmentalists on side by posting here. How about manufacturing? Are they not lobbying for CHP because the utilities buy them off with cheap power deals? Is there another cheap power source that is held back by regulation?On The electric sector's price inversion posted 1 year, 2 months ago 5 Responses