Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
On 2/18/2025 at 12:57 PM, Brisketexan said:

The fact that all of these ROI discussions purposefully exclude externalities is the fucking problem.

Imagine energy source A -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $10 million.

Energy source B -- can power 10,000 homes for a year for $7.5 million.

No brainer, right?  But.....energy source B, to operate at that level of performance, will pollute the primary water source for the area.  And, it will emit toxic emissions that will cause an additional 100 fatal cancer cases a year.

 

The relevant question is not the relative EROI of A and B.  The relevant question is the external costs of obtaining the $2.5 million a year in savings by choosing source B.  The cost of saving $2.5 million is an unusable water source and 100 extra deaths per year.  Are THOSE costs worth the money?

Of course, we all know the answer.  The savings could be a dollar, and the cost 1,000 additional deaths, and the obvious choice would be "save a buck, because shareholder value and we've convinced consumers that saving an extra few cents is worth making things a hellscape."

 

Hey man, the only time socialism is good is when the societal costs are socialized. 

Profits however, capitalize those, of course. What are you, a commie?

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 2/18/2025 at 2:01 PM, Dahobbs said:

It is more complicated than that, but they could all be the same. For instance, any generator is free to sell on the ERCOT real time market. If they do so, they get whatever price is posted by ERCOT. If my solar panels at home generate power to the grid in the middle of August when prices are $.50 per kwh, I'd get the same $.50 per kwh as a 500MW combined cycle turbine power plant.  But most power plants sell some or almost all of their generation based upon longer term contracts with averaged pricing. A combined cycle powerplant usually is going to get a better long term contract price because its energy is dispatchable and can fill needs at anytime. Dispatchable powerplants may get lower longer term contract prices if they primarily generate electricity when real time prices are lower. 

typo that I didn't catch in time. 

 

Are you sure this is correct? Because I think the extra my home solar panels generate is bought from me by my provider, at a set rate, that I agreed to when I chose that provider. 

 

Posted
22 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 

Are you sure this is correct? Because I think the extra my home solar panels generate is bought from me by my provider, at a set rate, that I agreed to when I chose that provider. 

 

It is correct. Whether you personally get it or not, depends upon your contract with your retail electric provider. Technically speaking, your retail electric provider is the beneficiary of the production from your solar panels. They sell that energy on the real time market when produced (although, theoretically, with enough customers with solar they could actually enter into log term contacts rather than just sell on the real time market). So, the energy from your panels get purchased for the same price as an other energy. You'll then have an agreement with your REP that will determine to what extent you share in those funds. 

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...