27 ms·
AMAZING. That $2000 bottle of Margaux takes over 600 times as much energy to produce as Three Buck Chuck. I knew it tasted better for a reason. edit: and fine,
by throwaway5752 12y ago
AMAZING. That $2000 bottle of Margaux takes over 600 times as much energy to produce as Three Buck Chuck. I knew it tasted better for a reason.
edit: and fine, be a pain. Let's make it apples to apples and make it an ROI comparison. So $500 you can keep the panel, but I keep the retail power cost of $.15/kWh and will also increase retail prices by 4% over a 25 year period. I'm going to use 10mWh again. So 400kWh/yr, or $60 in year 1. In year 1 dollars, that is $1500 over the life of the system. However, using a handy compounding interest calculater, the 4% annual increases in power cost increase the lifetime cost of non-solar power by a factor of 2.5, so that's $3750. So we have a 600% financial ROI. That's unrealistic for solar and I'm ignoring the NPV, but I'm just working with the numbers you handed me.
- ars 12y ago> That $2000 bottle of Margaux takes over 600 times as much energy to produce as Three Buck Chuck. Profit is not exempt from my argument. Because at the end of the day profit gets spent, and by paying for the more expensive item you are contributing to energy use once that profit is spent. Some expensive (in money and energy) item that otherwise would not get purchased has now been purchased because the profit enabled someone to afford it. > and will also increase retail prices by 4% That's fine, but I'm not following your math. If you made $60 the first year, and prices went up 4% each year (inflation presumably), your total generation after 25 years is $2,499 worth of power. Now lets take our $500 and invest it at 6% (which is pretty low), after 25 years you have $2,240. Or in other words your ROI is virtually nil.