Lots of things are head scratchers. Like supposedly Chevy loses money selling the Bolt. But maybe that makes sense if it helps them achieve required fleet averages. But what if Trump's EPA nixes all that? Does it still make sense to lose money on Bolts? Maybe it still does, if it helps your brand image and gets people into the showrooms. Maybe to buy a diesel Cruze: http://media.chevrolet.com/media/us/en/chevrolet/home.detail.html/content/Pages/news/us/en/2017/feb/0213-cruze-diesel.html
It's like all the naysayers who thought Google Fiber didn't understand the cost of wiring houses with fiber. Now Google Fiber seems to agree and is looking at wireless. But for years, the naysayers were just losers who needed to be taught a lesson by the geniuses at Google. -----Original Message----- From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 12:15 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread 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 <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a note: check the calculations on that page, and the charts. > > On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Josh Reynolds >>> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 11:36 AM >>> To: [email protected] >>> 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 >>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> 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 >>>>> <[email protected]> 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 >>>>> > <[email protected]> >>>>> > 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, <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >>>>> >> > 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, <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] >>>>> >> >> 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, <[email protected]> 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. >>> >>>
