Re: World's Largest Solar Array to use Stirling Engine

"Johnny Bravo" <baawa_knight@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jgd5g1trbq70r2qbb10f0mvk6pmnugkhfk@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:53:55 -0700, "Don W."
> <dNOSPAMwiddersAThotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Johnny Bravo" <baawa_knight@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:7ce2g11940dhfrsdcr7pd3bej0iblofg7r@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 17:37:00 -0700, Don Lancaster <don@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Lets see: 25 kw for eight hours a day is 200 kwh or $20
> >> > worth of electricity per day.
> >> >
> >> >At ten percent interest and a ten year payback, financing
> >> >$45,780.00. total initial investment would match the
> >> > produced electricity.
> >>
> >> Assuming that they need a bank loan in the first place.
> >
> >Here you are wrong. The project must be financed whether with a bank
loan
> >or will money from a cookie jar. If money from a cookie jar is used,
then
> >the cost of that money is called 'lost opportunity' because you can't
use
> >the money for any other opportunity if you use it for this project.
>
> And you don't need to pay it back at 10% interest.
>

If there are investment opportunities yielding 10%, then those would be
lost opportunities if the money is tied up in this solar project and thus
the 10% is still lost. That's why they call it lost opportunity. It
doesn't matter whether you pay the bank 10% interest or you lose a 10%
return on your money because it's tied up in a solar project. Either way
you lose 10%. Get it?

>
> >> >I predict that the total, fully burdened cost of the venture
> >> >ridiculously exceeded the value of the electricity produced.
> >>
> >> Then once again you would be incorrect.
> >>
> >
> >Because you say so?
>
> Why not, your "prediction" is "because you say so".
>
That was not my "prediction". That would be Don Lancaster's prediction.
I've already posted the 'real' numbers that indicate Don Lancaster may be
correct and here they are again:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W6B8310AB

First, proof of concept for the project has already been subsidized by
government funds:
"To prove the technology works, Slawson, the DOE's Sandia National
Laboratories in Albuquerque, N.M., and Boeing, have together spent $3
million developing and launching a model power plant--a six-dish system
that produces 150 kilowatts"

So the only six 25 kW dishes in existance have cost $500,000 each (much of
which was paid for by U.S. taxpayers, and none of which is accounted for in
subsequent figures.)

The proposed Southern California Edison system is supposed to cost $150,000
per 25 kW dish and they are hoping that with greater production that can be
trimmed to $80,000 per.

Don W.


.

Quantcast