Just a note: check the calculations on that page, and the charts.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > " > > Summary of the calculations > > First of all I want to state that my calculations might include > mistakes that I have not realized. Also, I know for a certain I have > not included any accounting gimmicks that big companies might use to > make their returns look better. Also, the fixed tariff price that I > used in every calculation might give wind power some advantage over > solar. > > Without subsidies the profitability of solar energy is surprisingly > low. Especially when considering that it is the one from these three > that seems to be the most talked about in India. Although all that > changes when subsidies are added in to the calculation. > > Also the hydropower gives a mediocre return on invested capital but it > makes it up with its flexibility. By this I mean that hydropower can > be used whenever the electricity prices are high. It should also be > noted that in these calculations I used lifetime of 50. If the > lifetime was 100 the ROCE would be higher. The subsidies did not > affect the hydropower’s profitability that much. Unfortunately I > didn’t find any subsidy schemes for large hydropower plants. > > In these calculations the wind power is easily the most profitable > form of energy. The incentives didn’t change the ROCE that much > because most of the incentives were tax based and only show on the > profit line. Although, I believe that the used electricity price is a > bit too high for wind power. > > As for Atlantic Tele-Network’s statement, solar power can be > profitable without subsidies but only barely." > > From: http://www.huntingvalue.com/renewable-energy-profitability/ > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:56 AM, Ken Hohhof <af...@kwisp.com> wrote: >> I think you're reading too much into the provision in the land lease to >> remove the concrete foundation and restore the land at the end of the lease. >> >> If you watch the whole process of developing a wind farm, the actual wind >> turbines are a small part of it. The question would be, if it's still >> profitable at the end of 20 or 30 years, what would it take to extend the >> land leases and refurbish the infrastructure to keep it running? I'm >> guessing a small fraction of the original cost. Maybe just inspect the >> towers and foundations, replace the blades. They still have the power >> wires, access roads, permits, etc. It seems that a certain number of >> turbines get worked on each year as part of regular maintenance. I've seen >> blades break, they just go out with a crane and replace them, it doesn't >> seem to be that big a deal. These things are in rural areas and have access >> roads, they plan on regular inspections and maintenance. >> >> A lot depends on the regulatory environment, are there subsidies, is the >> power company required to buy the power, what does it cost to generate power >> from coal/nuclear/gas, has some other renewable energy like solar taken off. >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 11:36 AM >> To: af@afmug.com >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread >> >> So 30 years of generating power - (certain maintenance types + production >> resource usage) >> >> I can't see that not being not only carbon neutral, but carbon negative. >> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:30 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> the turbines here are on 20 year renewing land leases with an expected >>> removal at the 30 year mark if theyre still in production >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> "The manufacturing, transportation, and erection of these things is >>>> not offset by the gains, its a net carbon loss at the end of the day." >>>> >>>> I haven't seen any data that corroborates that statement. You >>>> basically have to look at how long they plan for them to run, the >>>> power generated during that time, include maintenance, and compare >>>> that to the cost to manufacture and erect. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 11:21 AM, That One Guy /sarcasm >>>> <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > realistic dependency reduction is something we havent seen, >>>> > regulating industries out of buisines or to the point consumers >>>> > cannot afford things is not the way to go. >>>> > Imagine how many of these millions of windmills we have in the US >>>> > without huge consumptions of oil. exactly zero. The manufacturing, >>>> > transportation, and erection of these things is not offset by the >>>> > gains, its a net carbon loss at the end of the day. They dont even >>>> > account for the technician carbon footprint driving from turbine to >>>> > turbine. I would like to see an actual report on the oil cost per >>>> > turbine, taking into account all factors, including the oil for >>>> > fedex to deliver replacement parts, and oil consumption in rope and >>>> > rigging. >>>> > >>>> > Solar is a joke en mass, from a carbon perspective, especially here >>>> > where all our power comes from nuclear. >>>> > >>>> > hydroelectric, maybe not a whole lod of oil consumption, but >>>> > ecological impact is catastrophic, what do we have now 2 salmon >>>> > variants >>>> > >>>> > shut it all down >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Josh Reynolds >>>> > <j...@kyneticwifi.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> That's a pretty irrational stance to take, being 100% against a >>>> >> resource I mean. >>>> >> >>>> >> It is not irrational to reduce dependency on anything though, for >>>> >> a variety of reasons. >>>> >> >>>> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 10:08 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >>>> >> > Try to make industrial amounts of electricity without oil. Even >>>> >> > hydroelectric turbines need lube. Transformers are filled with oil. >>>> >> > If >>>> >> > you >>>> >> > are against oil, be against oil. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds >>>> >> > Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:58 AM >>>> >> > To: af@afmug.com >>>> >> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread >>>> >> > >>>> >> > I'm trying to figure out what electricity has to do with oil >>>> >> > from your statement. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > You can also make a decision to reduce oil consumption where logical. >>>> >> > This would be a good thing from a monetary and national defense >>>> >> > standpoint among other things. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:55 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Being against oil but using oil... >>>> >> >> Think FedEx can do its thing without oil? >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> If you are truly against oil, stop using it. >>>> >> >> Go to the forest. No kerosene lamps, deer fat tallow candles >>>> >> >> perhaps. >>>> >> >> No guns, takes oil to make guns... >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> etc >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Josh Reynolds >>>> >> >> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 8:53 AM >>>> >> >> To: af@afmug.com >>>> >> >> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Would you mind clarifying the follow a bit? Thanks >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> "Being against oil but using electricity and vehicles and FedEx." >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 9:32 AM, <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote: >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> I like driving my gas and diesel vehicles. >>>> >> >>> I like the products derived from oil like the jacket on CAT 5 >>>> >> >>> cable and printed circuit boards. >>>> >> >>> I like the price of oil to be as low as possible. >>>> >> >>> I prefer having sources in this hemisphere and not funding the >>>> >> >>> Arab world. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> I too have built many miles of copper and fiber over public >>>> >> >>> and tribal lands. I have gone through the exact same NEPA and >>>> >> >>> FLPMA process as the pipeline many many times. I consider >>>> >> >>> myself a NEPA expert and am currently advising the US Senate >>>> >> >>> on ways to make that process work faster. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> Pissing and moaning that folks with more money than you are >>>> >> >>> building a pipe to make even more money than you sounds like >>>> >> >>> sour grapes and jealousy. >>>> >> >>> If >>>> >> >>> you are against the “commons” don’t use common frequencies. >>>> >> >>> Don’t use ROWs. >>>> >> >>> Don’t use electricity. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> I don’t get several things: >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> Being against oil but using electricity and vehicles and FedEx. >>>> >> >>> Being against certain forms of arguably safer and more >>>> >> >>> efficient oil transportation. >>>> >> >>> Being against certain rich people doing business but >>>> >> >>> attempting to become a richer person yourself. >>>> >> >>> Being against the use of public and private ROWs for oil >>>> >> >>> pipelines but not for water pipelines, natural gas pipelines, >>>> >> >>> sewers, fiber cables or electric. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> And being a second or third generation wanna-be 1960s social >>>> >> >>> justice warrior going thousands of miles to hang with other >>>> >> >>> like minded people and think you are really doing anything be >>>> >> >>> being cold, being an ass, being stupid and wasting your time >>>> >> >>> and the resources of local, state and federal authorities. >>>> >> >>> Those folks are punks. (Their parents probably have BA in >>>> >> >>> liberal arts). >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> And yes, BTW, I too have made deals with tribes. It is as >>>> >> >>> Lewis describes. >>>> >> >>> You make the deal, you pay the money and more often than not >>>> >> >>> when tribal leadership changes, the deal no longer exists and >>>> >> >>> you have another round of payola. I have native American >>>> >> >>> heritage in my blood. Don’t get all butt hurt when I say it is >>>> >> >>> called “indian giving” for a reason. Tribes have communal >>>> >> >>> property. You never own anything, you just possess it for a >>>> >> >>> time until some other tribal member decides they need it. >>>> >> >>> That spills over to dealing with non tribal members. >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_giver >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >>> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>>> > team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the >>>> > team. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> If you only see yourself as part of the team but you don't see your >>> team as part of yourself you have already failed as part of the team. >> >>
