- Joined
- 5 March 2008
- Posts
- 951
- Reactions
- 141
JB,
The reason I was given is that "they don't know how long they will last". I asked for the difference in replacement times for the second and third stacks, it is assumed the technology will get better and the company will learn from the longer term operation of the initial units.
My point/question in regard to the "cash burn rate" is how does the company get to the future where the cost of the units is cheap enough to compete with solar generation, that has no ongoing costs?? Current revenues do not even cover the remuneration packages of directors and 'key personnel'. So where does the money come from for further research or production, or ongoing maintenance as per existing leases??
Frank,
Which numbers are you referring to?? The ones I have used are actual current existing numbers, no fiction whatsoever. If you have different, real existing numbers please provide them.
Feed-in tariffs for solar are at maximum 66c/kwh (Origin Energy in Vic) for less than 5kw systems, larger than that it is close to ordinary retail tariffs. The solar systems produce zero GHG emissions in the creation of electricity.
The BlueGen unit creates GHG in the production of electricity, certainly it is less than coal fired production, but it still produces them. It does not qualify for the rates attributed to solar, nor should it.
Assuming that it attracts the same feed-in rates as other small scale generation ~23 cents/kwh (peak and ~9 cents off-peak), what is the point of producing electricity at a cost of $1.37 /kwh during the first 2 years??
As a former, and about to be new again shareholder of Origin, to have one or two makes sense in terms of research. However considering that the cost of generating plant at a new modern large scale gas turbine plant is around $1200-$1500 per kw of capacity, and the efficiency of these newest gas turbines is around 57%, around the same as the BlueGen unit, then unless the cost of the units were to be ~$3,000, with ongoing maintenance at an equivalent to the large scale operation in terms of $/kwh of production, then it makes no economic sense to buy any more.
What don't we know??
Frank, your failure to acknowledge the existing numbers, begs me to ask the question of whether you have an association with the company in any capacity other than being a small shareholder??
brty
The reason I was given is that "they don't know how long they will last". I asked for the difference in replacement times for the second and third stacks, it is assumed the technology will get better and the company will learn from the longer term operation of the initial units.
My point/question in regard to the "cash burn rate" is how does the company get to the future where the cost of the units is cheap enough to compete with solar generation, that has no ongoing costs?? Current revenues do not even cover the remuneration packages of directors and 'key personnel'. So where does the money come from for further research or production, or ongoing maintenance as per existing leases??
Frank,
Which numbers are you referring to?? The ones I have used are actual current existing numbers, no fiction whatsoever. If you have different, real existing numbers please provide them.
Feed-in tariffs for solar are at maximum 66c/kwh (Origin Energy in Vic) for less than 5kw systems, larger than that it is close to ordinary retail tariffs. The solar systems produce zero GHG emissions in the creation of electricity.
The BlueGen unit creates GHG in the production of electricity, certainly it is less than coal fired production, but it still produces them. It does not qualify for the rates attributed to solar, nor should it.
Assuming that it attracts the same feed-in rates as other small scale generation ~23 cents/kwh (peak and ~9 cents off-peak), what is the point of producing electricity at a cost of $1.37 /kwh during the first 2 years??
As a former, and about to be new again shareholder of Origin, to have one or two makes sense in terms of research. However considering that the cost of generating plant at a new modern large scale gas turbine plant is around $1200-$1500 per kw of capacity, and the efficiency of these newest gas turbines is around 57%, around the same as the BlueGen unit, then unless the cost of the units were to be ~$3,000, with ongoing maintenance at an equivalent to the large scale operation in terms of $/kwh of production, then it makes no economic sense to buy any more.
What don't we know??
Frank, your failure to acknowledge the existing numbers, begs me to ask the question of whether you have an association with the company in any capacity other than being a small shareholder??
brty
(of course $70,000 will only buy 5 years of use with BlueGen, I suspect the upgrade will last longer.)
