Energy745’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  JMG

  There are many companies out there which will finance a project at a 15% ROI.  So, let's say you run a company and want to put in a new heating system with a payback of 20%, but capital is short and there are investments to be made in your core business with ROI's of 30 and 40 percent, then you would not do the heating project.

  This is where third party financing comes into play, the third party gives you the capital, or installs the heating system(there are many variations) and is paid out of the savings.  This type of system is common, of course in the case of the 'Y' this could be done but the project is a little small, and I am sure the Y's credit is a little shakey.  

  With an offset scheme you could say that money from offsets could be used where normal capital pays too small a return.  This way you could finance crappy projects with an ROI from 0 to 15%.  Of course a tax on energy has the same effect; by artificially raising the price of energy you increase the ROI of projects.  The tax has the advantage of making sure the best projects attract capital first and raises government revenue.  The down side of energy taxes is also obvious, raising the price for all goods, reducing exports, increasing the burden of the poor etc.  
  On Dueling assumptions posted 2 years, 6 months ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Reduce 25% in 6 months

  I work as an energy efficiency expert for industry, and I know how hard it is to reduce energy use.  

  I am not so sure about residential, but I have gone through my house to look for savings that have a payback.  There are no such projects.  All energy savings projects I studied have a net financial loss.  

  Not to say there can not be savings, but all savings require a change in how a person uses energy, for example: keeping the house colder in the winter and warmer in the summer,  buying a small TV, not a plasma, buying a smaller house, turning off the A/C.  Unfortunately making lifestyle changes are much more difficult than technology changes.  People work hard for their money and want to spend it on stuff.  Secondly people have this feeling that they are a sucker if they sacrifice when others don't.   There is a fear that your neighbor will come over to your house and say "Nice tiny TV, thanks for keeping energy prices down so I can run my 65 inch super XLT monster video system.  You dumb schumck."

  You can talk about a 25% reduction all you want but without being a sucker there is no way to reduce energy use.
  On Dueling assumptions posted 2 years, 6 months ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I don't understand this

  Is there a rate of change over historical with this water, or is this just a discovery?  On Bad news from down south posted 2 years, 6 months ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I have some data on wind

  Here are some data points, developer and location are left off:

  Site 1: 54 MW capacity, cost: 741 $/kw installed
  Site 2: 310 MW capacity, cost:1,042 $/kw installed
  Site 3: 20MW capacity, cost: 1,500 $/kw installed

  These sites were installed in 2003 to 2005.

  To calculate costs use the following for wind:

  O&M $28.5 per kw installed
  Back up power: depends on the state: $25/MwHr to $45/MwHr
  Average capacity factor: 25%

  If you do some basic project finacing calculations you will find the costs to range from $97/MwHr to $140/MwHr.

  One quick point, to quote Charlie Maxwell, each wind power project is better than the last, and I would expect improvements in the future.   On Shenanigans everywhere posted 2 years, 6 months ago 23 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I should also note

  I don't see more than one or two coal burning plants with Carbon sequestration in the next twenty years.  Those plants will be government funded by the DOE as experiments, most likely coupled with IGCC technology.

  Here is my prediction for the future:  

  1.  A tax on carbon emissions imposing $8 per MwHr cost increase put in place in the next two years.
     
  2.  Revenues from this tax will be earmarked for Carbon sequestration, and will be used to build one or two plants in ten years.
     
  3.  By this time higher costs from other government operations will divert funds from the carbon tax to Medicare or other social programs.
     
  4.  There will be no tolerance for yet another tax on power consumption for another 10 years.
     
  On Shenanigans everywhere posted 2 years, 6 months ago 23 Responses