Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Katelew who wrote (252668)	12/30/2007 5:48:57 PM
From: Bearcatbob	Read Replies (3) of 281500

Katelew, I understand the point you are trying to make. Here is the problem I have with your scenario. First, I do not believe the energy density of sun light is sufficient at any conversion efficiency to produce surplus power from a large building. Now, there can well be a savings in that the draw from the grid can be reduced. That reduction is cash for calculation on ROI. Next, back in the days when I used to do those calculations the key parameter was the time value of money. Basically any revenues in the out year (greater than 10) were not meaningful. The next aspect of consideration is the investment value of money. I read Chris to say once the investment cost is paid off it is all gravy. Well in economics that is not correct. The investment money would have been earning money if nothing else at bank interest rates. So - even if the base investment has been recovered - the system could still be loosing money. Now I think it is a good idea to subsidize alternate energies - the question is how. I simply want people to use real numbers when they discuss the issue. One last thing - the amoratization of capital is one of the major costs of oil shale or coal gasification projects. Bob

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next