Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's yet another cost analysis of power production comparing a new solar plant vs a new gas-fired plant: initial cost of solar more than 10x cost of gas.
The whole global warming/climate change agenda is to institute a carbon tax on anyone who uses power, regardless of how "green" it is. Almost always, those who use the most power, also have the most money. In that regard, it is another socialist redistribution program. The Republicans are in cahoots with the Democrats on this one. All top-tier politicians are fed by the same hand.
One must not overlook the UN Agenda 21 (most recently Agenda Post-2015) which is behind the environmental initiatives to push citizens into large metro areas, reserving broad swaths of rural land for "non-human" uses, and encouraging people to use public transportation while giving up their cars. This is not about environmentalism. This is about Socialism, and redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor ones.
Furthermore, those posters here from about age 50 and up, are unlikely to be fooled by all the rhetoric. We simply didn't go to school during recent times when all this rubbish was given legitimacy by the teaching staff. We can spot another tax coming from a mile away, and our "bull-**** meters" were never disabled by Common Core or political correctness.
Good point. The Carbon Exchange, now defunct, was a financial"institution", an investment of Al Gore and several of the top BO environmental advisers, among others.
It was to work like this: farmers & foresters who grow things were to sell "carbon credits" to those who burn fossil fuels, you know, power companies, steel companies, etc.
Now, do you think the sellers of carbon credits were going to stop growing things if the credits were not bought? Of course not. Those "credits" would always be there anyways for all us common folks to enjoy free of charge.
But 12,000 employees @$60K/yr to build 130,000 vehicles = $600,000/vehicle just in payroll?? Something does not compute.
touche back at you, my brother.
Very Good.
That number . . . . 12,000 (in 2015) -- I have to admit I do not fully know who all that includes.
I think I am clear it DOES NOT include anyone in SpaceX, per se -- although also an Elon Musk venture -- it is an entirely separate Corporation and does not even have any mission overlap.
The 12,000 does likely include folks involved on the Owner / Operator side of things with the Gigafactory . . . but since the construction is likely contractors . . . I would NOT think that any legit body count should have included the site construction workers, Engineers of Record, or various suppliers and vendors?
So the Gigafactory -- during Design, Build, Operation, and Maintenance -- actual Tesla employees would likely be in the body count . . .
Looks like some Massive Growth by however they are doing the math. But here is what I am finding . . .
Here's yet another cost analysis of power production comparing a new solar plant vs a new gas-fired plant: initial cost of solar more than 10x cost of gas.
And they don't even mention the large loss of natural habitat & aesthetic impact of an extensive solar array.
Dunno if you are in or close to the power generation industry? . . . but if not -- that "article" is almost stupid like a parody piece from the Onion or something.
Did you follow it was ONLY comparing build cost (not the Operations, Maintenance and Fuel) costs for the Natural Gas Plant?
That would be like trying to compare costs of ownership of a Semi-Truck without considering Fuel. The fuel burnt through during the Service Life will be many times the cost of the Machinery, itself.
And then they go into Total Nonsense about "Storage." There is NO use for storage (remember that Time of Use stuff, a couple posts back?) since ALL the daytime power produced would be USED during the Daytime. And Night-time Power is Already Vastly Surplus and likely to stay that way for years ahead.
Finally your point about Central Power Plant models for Solar PV. Yep. That is rather stupid. Especially since Central Power Plant can only earn Wholesale Prices for power generation. (earns gross of about 2.5 to 5 cents per KWH.
MUCH Better to place Solar PV at the Retail End User Site -- Behind the Retail Electric Meter. (offsets about 10 to 15 cents per KWH). That cuts out layers of Billing and Capital Recovery. So . . . . who would Not Like That? also typically uses little to no land . . .
You should check your calculation. One even don't need a calculator to realize that your result is wrong.
12,000 * 60,000 = 720,000,000
720,000,000 / 130,000 = 5,538.46 per vehicle.
Gimme a break. I was only off by one lousy power of ten. thanks for the correction.
By coincidence, this article appeared yesterday about the "new" technology that is the basis of Tesla's new battery plant and the lower cost of its proposed "Volks" version. Pay attention to the numerous "comments" that expose the pitfalls to be encountered. It seems that these new batteries have never actually been manufactured or tested under road conditions and that they will not live up to the hype. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/...-game-changer/
Pay particular attention to the longer comments by "ristvan."
My problem with the green energy folks is they ignore the simple things that can be done right now to improve efficiency. For example. We recently moved into a home that was built like an igloo cooler. The walls have 2x6 studs, and are completely filled with foam board insulation. The entire home is air sealed, it has triple pane windows and special doors. The end result is we barely have to use A/C in the summer, and use very little heat in the winter. Our average summer electric bill is 70 bucks a month. That is with 6 people taking showers and washing clothes. In winter it is 130 a month. For comparison, our last home which was "built to code", averaged 160 a month in summer, 250 a month in winter. This is almost a 50% reduction in electricity usage.
My question is this, why hasn't laws been passed to require all new construction, and all major renovation to be built this way. From the contractors I spoke with, the increased cost runs about 5% to 10% more per new project during construction. This doesn't require any risky new technology.
Think if every new home in the U.S. was built this way, how much electricity and natural gas could be saved.
Instead, we have politicians targeting industries with oppressive regulation, driving up the cost of goods, and not really helping the problems.
Think if every new home in the U.S. was built this way, how much electricity and natural gas could be saved
Instead, we have politicians targeting industries with oppressive regulation, driving up the cost of goods, and not really helping the problems.
I'm all for less regulation, but what you've suggested is more regulation:
$100K to construct a home + 10% = an additional $10K per home. An additional $10K on your 30 yr mortgage winds up costing you $40K. Save $100/month (probably a little high-- my winter gas bill in Chicago area only totals $150/m) ) and it takes almost 40 yrs to get your money back. (I bet you'd save no more than $50/m and pay back would be 80 yrs.)
OTOH- my bill went down by $75/m just by setting the thermostat @ 64 and wearing a hoodie to stay warm. (old, poorly insulated building) We've planted trees & vines growing on the house and only use the AC a handful of days each summer, mostly to reduce humidity inside, not for cooling per se.
I'm all for less regulation, but what you've suggested is more regulation:
$100K to construct a home + 10% = an additional $10K per home. An additional $10K on your 30 yr mortgage winds up costing you $40K. Save $100/month (probably a little high-- my winter gas bill in Chicago area only totals $150/m) ) and it takes almost 40 yrs to get your money back. (I bet you'd save no more than $50/m and pay back would be 80 yrs.)
OTOH- my bill went down by $75/m just by setting the thermostat @ 64 and wearing a hoodie to stay warm. (old, poorly insulated building) We've planted trees & vines growing on the house and only use the AC a handful of days each summer, mostly to reduce humidity inside, not for cooling per se.
Conservation is best served by conserving.
Guido, you should give it up on financial analysis. It just isn't something you have any competence in. Let me correct you, again.
Your numbers:
$100K to construct a home + 10% = an additional $10K per home.
Save $100/month... I bet you'd save no more than $50/m -- we will use your low ball number.
Let's look at the actual cash flows:
$10k added on to your mortgage @ 4% interest costs you about $33/month. BTW that is non taxable since mortgage payments are a deduction from AGI on the federal tax form.
Your $50/month utility bill would be an after tax cost so the pre tax cost, assuming you are in a 25% rate, would be about $67 per month.
So if you take this deal, each and every month you have an additional $34 dollars in your pocket. See how this works? Instant payback. All savings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
also typically uses little to no land . . .
thanks for the correction.
