Comments kayakkid has made

  • Stoddard's chutzpah

    It is an impossible argument, no matter how you dress it up, to suggest a project that reduces the price per KWH from $.45 to $.15 was not somehow cost-effective.

    For everything that is undefinable about 'additionality', this project is straight forward, the economics overwhelmingly work and the offset dollars make no difference.

    But the key question for any consumer is: where did my money go?

    Regardless of Stoddard's explanation, the key question remains. We know the project needed no money to be cost effective. But even if it did need a small O&M fund above the normal O&M fund, this could not have been more than a couple thousand dollars (Native Energy, why don't you tell us?). So where did my money go?

    Native Energy does not enjoy the level of certification other offset companies have, nor the transparancy, so at a minimum Stoddard could tell us how much money went to the project for how many tons of carbon credits?

    The incredible part is how Stoddard refuses to back down in the face of the overwhelming evidence.

    Perhaps Al Gore feels good knowing his money went to an unneeded O&M fund for a project that was already going to reduce costs by over 50%. I doubt most consumers do.

    Again, consumers should ask, where is my money going? How much went to the project and how much to Native Energy's coffers.On Legit or not? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 11 Responses

  • Follow the money

    The difference between $.15 per KWH for wind and $.45 per KWH for diesel is so extraordinary (a whopping 200%) it can not be explained away, by either AVEC or Native Energy, as needing additional revenue to be cost-effective.

    The O&M argument does not holdup. O&M for wind is typically just 1% of project cost. Let's double or quadruple that to 4% for Alaska and you're still looking at just $.006 per KWH (or $.156 KWH vs $.45).

    The idea that the last 2-4% of the project was not covered while the consumer is saving 66% somehow made the project additional is an incredible argument.

    So what are Native Energy's customers paying for, where is the $12 per ton of carbon offset going, how many carbon credits did they buy and how much did they put into the two year O&M kitty in return for those carbon credits?

    Consumers goodwill should be financing projects that need it, that are on the edge of viability, not projects that are already cost-effective. This is how we move markets. On Legit or not? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 11 Responses