Comments Energy745 has made

  • 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, 7 months ago 18 Responses

  • 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, 7 months ago 18 Responses

  • 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, 7 months ago 7 Responses

  • 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, 7 months ago 23 Responses

  • 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, 7 months ago 23 Responses

  • Five dollar break point

    Most literature on coal to liquids technology show a five dollar per gallon gasoline cost before a coal to liquids plant can be financed.  Under this level ($3-4 per gallon) is gas to liquids technology.  Gas from the mid-east is converted to liquid then shipped to the US.

    Bottom line: in the mid term (10 to 15 years) I would not expect to see coal to liquid production plants being built.On Shenanigans everywhere posted 2 years, 7 months ago 23 Responses

  • odograph

    I did not have much time for research.  I have been un-able to reproduce the graph, there is no reference to the data used.

    Here are the top five states for per Capita electric power consumption, from the EIA:

    1. Texas 1,101
    2. Ca  814.5
    3. FL  741.7
    4. OH  519.4
    5. NY  491.5

    Units  BTU x 10^9

    I have not been able to find a year with California being less than national average for per capita power consumption.  What I suspect is that the graph is for power generation per capita and left off are power imports, which of course add to national average and reduce California.  I could be wrong on this.On The seductive lure of toys that promise solutions without change posted 2 years, 7 months ago 39 Responses

  • odograph

    Not sure.  I have to look at this more closely; the graph you are pointing to shows a deviation in the early 1970's as compared to the rest of the US.  I need to understand the reasons.  This will take some time, because I was not in the energy markets at this time.  I have a few guesses, but I will need time to examine energy use patterns, probably several days.

    Admittedly my response above was emotional and driven by not living in Ca.  and being very cynical about the reports from Ca., and thinking of people from Ca as being prosperous, living in huge houses.  If there is more progress being made in Ca. than the rest of the country I would be surprised.  Not because I suspect that Ca. is doing nothing, but because there are equal efforts in other states.  
    On The seductive lure of toys that promise solutions without change posted 2 years, 7 months ago 39 Responses

  • Uhm no

    California power Imports

    Imports of power 2005 - 62,456 GwHr
    Imports of power 2006 - 64,763 GwHrOn The seductive lure of toys that promise solutions without change posted 2 years, 7 months ago 39 Responses

  • Just Curious

    I don't have national average for 2006 handy.  But national and California are about the same 2001 to 2005 8.5%.  2006 was a big jump for California, most likely weather related.  On The seductive lure of toys that promise solutions without change posted 2 years, 7 months ago 39 Responses

  • GreyFlcn

    All this work California has done has resulted in an increase in electricity use by California by 11% since 2001.

    California uses more electricity each year, and is trying to be greener by importing power from coal power plants outside the state.  Don't use California as an example of self-sacrifice and hard work.On The seductive lure of toys that promise solutions without change posted 2 years, 7 months ago 39 Responses

  • But we do live in an economy

    You said:

    "We don't live in an economy; that's an abstraction, a theory that is useful for some purposes and not others."

    No. No. No.  

    We do live in an economy, and always have.  A long time ago it was not as complex an economy but when a person trades with another person it is an economy.  The economy is the most important factor to all human endeavors.  The economy is how we feed ourselves, how we move around, allows us to communicate beyond face to face contact, and affects every activity in our lives.  When the economy suffers we all suffer.

    You must understand this most basic fact before you can begin to change anything.   The economy is why things are so difficult to change.  Its like brain surgery, it would be easy if you did not have to worry about patient health.  You could simply cut out the brain slice it up and take out the part you want.  If you propose to make a change to laws or to human action and you do not consider the economy you will not be successful.  If you want to pass laws to protect the environment and do not consider how people will live and provide for their families then you are always going to fail.    
    On Is climate change the most important global problem? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 31 Responses

  • Carbon Trading

    It seems that any trades done with countries which do not have a carbon dioxide emissions cap will always yield an increase in carbon dioxide output.

    Let me give an example.  Suppose you were a manufacturing company in the UK and needed to buy credits to continue operations.  One way to do this would be to invest in an energy efficiency program in Mexico, say to install a co-gen system in a manufacturing plant.  There is an instantaneous reduction in carbon dioxide emissions overall, but also an increase in available capital in the Mexican plant.  Long term the capital will be re-invested in plant operations, thus increasing carbon dioxide emissions.  

    Economies expand with trade, whether it is trading steel or carbon dioxide emissions credits.  The problem with the current system is that it helps developing economies (Mexico in the above example) to the detriment of developed economies.  
    On Gee whiz posted 2 years, 7 months ago 8 Responses

  • I don't have time for a long response

    Your statement:

    ..such drastic action strikes most people as fantastical and is easily dismissed...

    is very true.

    Such a plan if proposed would be fought by every means available, it is pure fantasy, not based on clear thinking.On Here's what we have to accomplish posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

  • No debate

    It bothers me a great deal that the climate debate is being shut down.  Debate of ideas is the very core of good government, it is the very core of justice.  For example without defense lawyers at a trial could there be justice?  

    It is critical that there be debate in this issue, without it there will be backlash and nothing will get done.  On It's hard out there for a skeptic posted 2 years, 7 months ago 3 Responses

  • GreyFlcn

    What is the source of your estimates for gal/acre/year?

    Are they scalable based on land and growing climate?  Corn is used because it grows over the large flat portion of N. America.  I am not sure about land area available for the crops you show.  I also am not sure about the current technology to convert crops to a useful biofuel for a reasonable $/GJ.

    In the present biofuels depend heavily on subsidies, but looking out to 2030 can they stand on their own?  Will changing to a differnt feed-stock like Algae Starch decrease the cost per GJ of the fuel?On And cellulosic might too -- plus it's still a decade off posted 2 years, 7 months ago 26 Responses

  • gmunger

    In the short term a higher demand for corn by the ethanol producers will increase the price of corn.  More bidders for a fixed amount of production will cause the price to go higher.  

    In later years corn production will increase to meet demand as in all markets.  The supply increase does not happen overnight because more land must be procured for farming, along with more equipment for planting and harvesting.  

    Assuming of course that demand for ethanol remains high.On And cellulosic might too -- plus it's still a decade off posted 2 years, 7 months ago 26 Responses

  • From the EIA

    This is the best short summary of what we should expect from the transportation sector.

    Petroleum products continue to dominate energy use in the transportation sector, the use of alternative fuels is expected to remain relatively modest through 2030. The IEO2006 reference case projects a 1.4-percent average annual growth rate for transportation petroleum demand from 2003 to 2030. Much of the projected growth in demand for petroleum products in the transportation sector comes from the non-OECD economies (2.3 percent per year) as compared with the OECD countries (0.8 percent per year).  

    In the United States, the transportation sector continues to account for more than one-fourth of the country's total energy consumption; and in the IEO2006 reference case, U.S. transportation energy demand grows from 27.1 quadrillion Btu in 2003 to 33.1 quadrillion Btu in 2015 and 39.7 quadrillion Btu in 2030. The United States, currently the largest user of transportation energy among the OECD economies, accounts for 55 percent of total OECD transportation sector energy use in 2030.  On If you won't go after them, we will posted 2 years, 7 months ago 9 Responses

  • Nothing is free

    There is no practical way to store electric power in a home.  Electric power must be consumed as soon as it is produced.On Helping homeowners monitor electricity use posted 2 years, 7 months ago 6 Responses