If you want to check in terms of raw profitability, which is equally interesting (to me), there is a very interesting report of a 3.5mw wind farm in Ireland. http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1101&context=engscheleart2
They determined that their ROI was 6.5 years. On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote: > 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. >>> >>>
