Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Stop BLM givaway to corporations!!!! - Page 5

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by websurf1 on July 22, 2008, 2:52 am
 
On Jul 21, 6:52 pm, maur...@tpg.com.au (Mauried) wrote:

There are too many variables for my poor head to contemplate at one
time.
However, two things are pretty clear:
1. If we got to the point where there was so much solar feeding the
grid that the company couldn't make any money to stay in operation,
then the whole scheme would be modified.  That's obvious.
2.  Considering that so far only a minimal number of people are doing
this (and so far I don't see a big herd of people clamoring for solar
panels, unfortunately), and that lots of people think they aren't as
good looking as a sea of wavy roof tiles and therefore never would put
them up, I don't foresee that Item #1 above is in any danger of
happening in the foreseeable future.

Posted by T. Keating on July 22, 2008, 1:53 am
 
On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:25:56 -0400, "daestrom"


False Assumptions..

   1. That Energy Co makes all it's own power and doesn't purchase it
from afar or indepentant producers.
   2.  That fuel costs don't dominate during the peak hours.
   3.  That maintenance costs aren't tied to energy generation.
   4.  That maintenance costs aren't tied to grid loading.
   5.  That utility won't use the discounted energy production
supplied by PV to reduce future capital costs.  
   6.  That utility won't retire it's most expensive/least efficient
generating capacity early (to save costs and improve profit margin).



SO your claiming that it looses money during peak hours..  

   Even better.. since it's receiving sellable energy from B at a
significant discount without the wear and tear of actually generating
and delivering it to Customer A. .



You got that backwards..    It's loosing money during peak hours since
it's overall efficiency decreases by a I^2R function..


See .. false assumptions.


Attempting to claim any of B's PV energy production as lost billable
hours is fallacy.   They could of gone off-grid instead of letting the
Energy Co make 30 to 40% profit margin on the excess energy
production.  
    

Yup and costs(or payments)  would decrease for both Customer A and B..
However in a world were Peak Oil and future carbon taxes ... I suspect
fuel costs are going to soar to unheard of levels.  


Again customer B's load would have disappeared anyway..
  So you could never book that as revenue.. under ANY scheme..


It's just a matter of time before PUC's around the country take are
hard look at the economics I've presented and mandate even better
terms for PV grid tie systems.  (Like Germany)..

Lastly, I take it that you also object to the various load shedding,
energy saving measures sponsered by the Energy Co's because they
reduces Energy co's profit??

Posted by T. Keating on July 22, 2008, 1:56 am
 On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:25:56 -0400, "daestrom"


False Assumptions..

   1. That Energy Co makes all it's own power and doesn't purchase it
from afar or from indepentant producers.
   2.  That fuel costs dosen't dominate during the peak hours.
   3.  That maintenance costs aren't tied to energy generation.
   4.  That maintenance costs aren't tied to grid loading.
   5.  That utility won't use the discounted energy production
supplied by PV to reduce future capital costs.  
   6.  That utility won't retire it's most expensive/least efficient
generating capacity early (to save costs and improve profit margin).



SO your claiming that it looses money during peak hours..  

   Even better.. since it's receiving sellable energy from B at a
significant discount without the wear and tear of actually generating
and delivering it to Customer A. .



You got that backwards..    It's loosing money during peak hours since
it's overall efficiency decreases by a I^2R function..


See .. false assumptions.


Attempting to claim any of B's PV energy production as lost billable
hours is fallacy.   They could of gone off-grid instead of letting the
Energy Co make 30 to 40% profit margin on the excess energy
production.  
    

Yup and costs(or payments)  would decrease for both Customer A and B..
However in a world were Peak Oil and future carbon taxes ... I suspect
fuel costs are going to soar to unheard of levels.  


Again customer B's load would have disappeared anyway..
  So you could never book that as revenue.. under ANY scheme..


It's just a matter of time before PUC's around the country take are
hard look at the economics I've presented and mandate even better
terms for PV grid tie systems.  (Like Germany)..

Lastly, I take it that you also object to the various load shedding,
energy saving measures sponsered by the Energy Co's because they
reduces Energy co's profit??

Posted by MarineBrat on July 9, 2008, 10:53 pm
 
Government is not people, private companies are people.



Posted by Eeyore on July 12, 2008, 10:05 am
 

Bill wrote:


At VAST expense.

So ?

Graham


This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread