Re: attn: William Mook - How is your company doing?
From: William Mook (william.mook_at_mokindustries.com)
Date: 01/06/05
- Next message: charliew2: "Re: attn: William Mook - How is your company doing?"
- Previous message: Roedy Green: "Re: Final Warning?"
- In reply to: charliew2: "Re: attn: William Mook - How is your company doing?"
- Next in thread: charliew2: "Re: attn: William Mook - How is your company doing?"
- Reply: charliew2: "Re: attn: William Mook - How is your company doing?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 6 Jan 2005 06:08:53 -0800
As the cost of electricity from sunlight changes the best way to market
it changes. This thinking can be compared to the best way to sell
computing power as the cost of computing changes. These 'platform'
changes occur with falling costs.
I see three major channels developing as electricity prices fall.
These are;
1. - The cost of equipment exceeds the value of the energy produced
over the lifetime of the equipment's operation. At these prices, it
makes more sense to sell the equipment rather than the energy the
equipment produces. This limits us to niche markets. This is where
solar energy is today.
2. - The cost of equipment is less than the value of the energy
produced over the lifetime of the equipment's operation. At these
prices, it makes sense to sell energy, not equipment. This is when
solar energy will become mainstream. As the cost falls we move from
home and site of use installations to centralized installations as the
transmission costs are easily supported by sufficiently low solar
generator costs.
3. - The cost of equipment is less than the value of the energy
contained in fuel costs alone from conventionally generated energy
equal to the energy produced over the life of the equipment. This is
when it makes sense to make synthetic fuels from solar energy. As we
drop below this cost we can make synthetic fuels from sunlight and sell
them at a profit. This allows us to capture energy at times and places
that allow efficient solar operation, and sell the resulting fuels we
make with that energy anywhere that fuel is needed. London for
example, might never be a good place to generate solar energy, but
people in London can easily buy solar derived fuels made in the deserts
on the world's energy exchanges.
So, to answer your question directly. It makes more sense to sell
synthetic fuels produced in large efficient centralized solar
operations - fuels like hydrogen to utilities who efficiently operate
fuel cells that convert that hydrogen to electricity, than to sell you
panels that you then must pay someone to install and someone else to
maintain, and that you must operate as best you can.
Of course pricing is set by the market. So, you will always pay what
the market will bear for your energy, regardless of the costs to me or
anyone.
Where will the profits show up? That's an important question. And who
will pay in terms of their profits? That's another important question.
Creating a new disruptive technology has the potential to attract
negative attention of very poweful players. But, it also has the
potential to attract positive attention - depending on where in the
supply chain you position yourself and how you enter the market and the
price points you maintain.
We are working through all of this now, and very shortly you will see
the results of our efforts.
charliew2 wrote:
> "william mook" <william.mook@mokindustries.com> wrote in message
> news:407c5321.0412042153.1d98462f@posting.google.com...
> > Sherry Walton <WaltonSherry162@yahoo.deacron.edu> wrote in message
> news:<WU5RJDSF38316.7199537037@anonymous.poster>...
> > > Mr. Mook, you have favoured us with a detailed, interesting and
> > > entertaining account of your plans for making electricity
cheaply.
> > >
> > > Can you tell us where things stand now? Any predictions for
progress in
> > > the near-future?
> >
> > We're about ready to change our web site to report of our progress.
> > But, we believe we have beaten $0.35 per peak watt for solar energy
> > using an advanced concentrating PV technology.
> >
> > With a fixed capital cost of $0.35 per peak watt, a projected 20
year
> > lifespan, no real recurring costs, and a reasonable discount rate,
> > this means the equipment incurs a cost of about $0.03 per watt
year.
> > In most locations in North America this translates to 1.5 kWh or
more
> > per watt-year because most locations in the US receive more than
1,500
> > hours of sunlight per year. So, one watt solar collector produces
1.5
> > kWh or more per year. This means the cost of electricity is 1/5th
> > cent per kWh or less.
> >
> > At 1/5th cent per kWh the cost of 50 kWh - the energy needed to
make 1
> > kg of hydrogen from water (including losses and capital costs) -is
> > $0.10 - so a metric ton of hydrogen is $100.00
> >
> > So, we are very near a practical hydrogen economy.
>
> If you sell me a PV collector that produces electricity for 0.2 cents
per
> kWh, and I can find a way to use this electricity in my home, I will
> displace electricity costing me 8-10 cents per kWh. This would
seemingly
> make more sense than using the electricity for producing hydrogen.
- Next message: charliew2: "Re: attn: William Mook - How is your company doing?"
- Previous message: Roedy Green: "Re: Final Warning?"
- In reply to: charliew2: "Re: attn: William Mook - How is your company doing?"
- Next in thread: charliew2: "Re: attn: William Mook - How is your company doing?"
- Reply: charliew2: "Re: attn: William Mook - How is your company doing?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
