Re:Google's Goal: Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal
by ivankirigin on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @11:27AM
(#84306)
Solar doesn't win on marginal cost. What are you talking about? The marginal silicon based photovoltaic system has higher $/W than marginal increases in capacity of coal burning plants.
Why sell futures? Can't they sell energy or at least shares of companies they are investing in?
Re:Google's Goal: Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal
by byrneseyeview on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @06:11PM
(#84450)
Marginal cost as in the cost of generating X+1 Watts versus X Watts. With coal, you dig for more coal; with solar, you wait for more sunlight. The systems (coal plants, photovoltaic systems) are capital costs.
Re:Google's Goal: Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal
by ivankirigin on Wednesday November 28, 2007 @07:40PM
(#84476)
Then to answer your question, people look to capital costs for the cost of energy. Considering the rate of expansion of energy demand, it is the only number that matters.
The only way I can think of actually trying this is to sell future contracts for, say 1% of Google's alt-power production in 2008, 2009, etc., and to declare the project a success iff the value of 1% of the power, indefinitely, X 100, is less than the amount invested in the project.