8283Re: [hreg] Re: Nuclear Energy-its long, sorry....
- Oct 30, 2008Greetings,
I do agree about putting numbers on pages, but I wish I had my
accounting books still. There are tables that give present values of
future payments etc. that could be useful. The thing is, if we take the
rise of power costs for the last five years, as a trend, I bet your 26.8
years rapidly becomes 15. Power companies have taken to applying for
raises as often as possible and adding new fees to the bill yearly.
I think power to choose is using the basic electric charge and ignoring
all the extra charges that are on an electric bill. To me that is not
reality, I have to pay all that other stuff as part of my eletric bill,
it is part of the cost of the grid.
I still don't see you making allowances for the cost of the grid being
down, in you calculations. I am not picking on you, but trying to get a
true picture of the cost of both. For me, the grid being down is super
expensive. If I didn't have back up power of my own, I would have about
500 dead fish, cattle walking the neighborhood [expensive to get back if
impounded], freezers full of meat gone bad, not to mention the ordinary
frustration of trying to eat without opening a fridge. Attaching
monetary value to the benefits of being off grid, when crunching
numbers, is a good thing.
Jay Ring wrote:
> Hey Kim :)
> My math isn't faulty - it is simplified. At least I hope it isn't
> faulty - someone should still check it :)
> My assumptions aren't perfect but you -do- have to put some numbers on
> the page at some point. People will just keep talking about things in
> the abstract if you let them. Ask them to send you a quote and lets
> see how the numbers work out - people suddenly get more grounded in
> reality when they realize they are going to have to actually buy it or
> build it.
> I am very familiar with this because I am running the numbers for my
> own home!
> I picked $.14 because it was the going price on "Power To Choose".
> I'll go ahead and take it past your $.187 and make it $0.20 and that
> still makes the repayment period... 26.8 years.
> My point is that 15 year repayments are not old news, they are present
> reality - and actually pretty optimistic views of present reality,
> which I was "granting" the anti-nuclear crowd with all their most
> optimistic projections. 30 years is a lot more realistic.
> In the meantime, we will be burning coal and buying oil. We need to
> "exercise the nuclear option"!
> - Jay
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>