- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Biden Coal Rules ‘The End of Coal as a Power Source’
Posted on 4/30/24 at 3:43 pm to billjamin
Posted on 4/30/24 at 3:43 pm to billjamin
"also ME and MBA". kinda weak cards to play.
My BSCHE-LSU, Loyola Law school, trumps your logic capability baaaad.
Energy projects must be based on Chemistry, Physics and Econ 101, if you plan for a 30 year investment life.
To base project economics on government subsidies is good if you recover the capital within the current 4 year election cycle. Subsidies disappear as fast as they are found by a new administration.
Best example is what happened to Puerto Rico following Ronald Reagans shifting from a two tier pricing of oil to Singulair . The Puerto Rico people suffered greatly.
this whole topic is ending responsible energy management at all levels
My BSCHE-LSU, Loyola Law school, trumps your logic capability baaaad.
Energy projects must be based on Chemistry, Physics and Econ 101, if you plan for a 30 year investment life.
To base project economics on government subsidies is good if you recover the capital within the current 4 year election cycle. Subsidies disappear as fast as they are found by a new administration.
Best example is what happened to Puerto Rico following Ronald Reagans shifting from a two tier pricing of oil to Singulair . The Puerto Rico people suffered greatly.
this whole topic is ending responsible energy management at all levels
1
Posted on 4/30/24 at 3:55 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
kinda weak cards to play.
He asked my background after stating his. Not playing any cards. I don't offer it freely to try and get cred.
quote:
My BSCHE-LSU, Loyola Law school, trumps your logic capability baaaad.
but not math
quote:
To base project economics on government subsidies is good if you recover the capital within the current 4 year election cycle. Subsidies disappear as fast as they are found by a new administration.
Every energy project is based on some form of subsidization. And while you're correct about ones that are long term tax incentives (ex. PTC), in the almost 20 years now that they've been around they have remained and been extended with bi-partisan support. Anyone talking about subsidies "drying up" is talking about something they don't really understand because they don't know how the tax credits are taken or used to finance projects.
For example, the solar ITC can't go away for a given project because its awarded to the asset owner in full at the tax year of interconnection. Therefore, there is no risk of forfeit.
It's a bit like saying that all the eminent domained pipelines are at risk of having their status revoked. While technically true, it's never going to happen.
You could argue that the PTC could get tanked by an admin but thats highly unlikely since they span multiple R and D admins at this point.
Now if you want to go off in a rabbit hole about DOE programs and things like that you might have a point for some specific programs but those are rare and impact such an incredibly small percentage of projects that i've never even worked on one because they don't use traditional project finance vehicles. But even a discussion about those needs to be project specific because they're all over the map.
This post was edited on 4/30/24 at 4:08 pm
Posted on 4/30/24 at 4:24 pm to billjamin
"but not math". Took linear algebra in 1969. Well before 1 & 0 matrics, became commonly understood programing language.
"every energy project is based on some form of subsidization". The downfall with subsidized is they are not competitive solutions .
"every energy project is based on some form of subsidization". The downfall with subsidized is they are not competitive solutions .
Posted on 4/30/24 at 4:29 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
Took linear algebra in 1969. Well before 1 & 0 matrics, became commonly understood programing language.
Then this should be easy for you to understand.
quote:
The downfall with subsidized is they are not competitive solutions .
Is there a point in there?
Posted on 4/30/24 at 4:39 pm to billjamin
simple point, if you are doing billion dollar projects make sure the basic parameters do not change mid life. Hopefully you are well versed in failure analysis techniques in your endeavors
Posted on 4/30/24 at 4:44 pm to thelawnwranglers
quote:
Or let’s use Dems as fuel for electricity. I mean it is a renewable resource after all.
Not sure they are a renewable resource. They are aborting themselves out of existence. Can't wait till they do.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 4:44 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
simple point, if you are doing billion dollar projects make sure the basic parameters do not change mid life. Hopefully you are well versed in failure analysis techniques in your endeavors
We get pretty deep in the woods on this stuff. I'll use a resi PV portfolio i just wrapped up as an example. 25 year useful life, most equipment under warranty for all 25 but some string inverters and batteries need an in-contract replacement plus build in some extra money for in-warranty failure expense above recoverable, so you build that reserve into the model, then you have your avoided cost, expected production, degradation, cost of capital, servicing fees, monitoring, other O&M (insurance, non-comm tuck rolls, communications issues like a 3G sunset situation, etc). For these we don't have to worry about a subsidy falling off because the tax equity investor takes it all in the year of PTO then the asset manager just keeps the lights on.
This post was edited on 4/30/24 at 4:47 pm
Posted on 4/30/24 at 5:28 pm to billjamin
"then the asset manager just keeps the lights on". Meanwhile the project that needed subsidies to be competitive, is no longer competitive because of high raw material, labor, energy costs. The smuck asset mgr just deals with it through short cutting costs till a boom happens.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 5:34 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
Meanwhile the project that needed subsidies to be competitive, is no longer competitive because of high raw material, labor, energy costs. The smuck asset mgr just deals with it through short cutting costs till a boom happens.
I'm not sure you understand the way the asset owner and asset manager relationship works.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 5:43 pm to Night Vision
This should do well in S. Pennsylvania w. Virginia an Kentucky
Posted on 4/30/24 at 5:46 pm to billjamin
Probably not....I used to adjust young engineers to the fact they work for the stock holder, that was expecting a profit to boost share price and dividend.
profit was simply the left overs from sales and costs.
An example of the smuck maybe the railroad companies that run off the track because they can not fund track repair.
profit was simply the left overs from sales and costs.
An example of the smuck maybe the railroad companies that run off the track because they can not fund track repair.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 5:59 pm to Trevaylin
The asset owner collects the revenue from the ppa then pays the asset manager fees to keep the assets performing. They could not do that, but they have to report asset performance to the owner who will can their arse pretty quick if they aren’t properly taking care of the assets and keeping them producing at an expected level. And since revenue and production are 1:1, they would blow that up real quick if the manager fricked up.
I've also never seen a deal that didn't have a back-up servicer in place and ready to take over in case.
I've also never seen a deal that didn't have a back-up servicer in place and ready to take over in case.
This post was edited on 4/30/24 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 4/30/24 at 7:52 pm to billjamin
sounds like you are in the business of funding 10-30 million real estate projects.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:14 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
sounds like you are in the business of funding 10-30 million real estate projects
Only energy. Size varies but I typically don’t get anything below 150M. Anything smaller just doesn’t justify the expense of the diligence.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:18 pm to billjamin
quote:Id be amazed if we haven’t crossed paths IRL.
Only energy. Size varies but I typically don’t get anything below 150M. Anything smaller just doesn’t justify the expense of the diligence.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:20 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:
Id be amazed if we haven’t crossed paths IRL.
I imagine we have. Or at least been on the back end of transactions.
Posted on 4/30/24 at 8:25 pm to billjamin
quote:
Coal has been dying for over a decade because it has a shitty $/MWh. Nothing is going to change that.
This is completely not true. I am very well versed in the coal industry
Posted on 4/30/24 at 9:06 pm to texag7
I will handle this gently, go to wikipedia, "energy costs by source" and they have a reasonable amount of data that shows
coal electric generation is about 10 ct/kwh variable cost currently in the ballpark of wind, solar, and nuclear, if not less
Coal capital costs are 10-15% better than wind, solar and nuclear without consideration for spinning reserve.
Coal operates 24/7, wind/solar only 25% of each day requiring additional capital/operating expense to supplement
coal electric generation is about 10 ct/kwh variable cost currently in the ballpark of wind, solar, and nuclear, if not less
Coal capital costs are 10-15% better than wind, solar and nuclear without consideration for spinning reserve.
Coal operates 24/7, wind/solar only 25% of each day requiring additional capital/operating expense to supplement
Posted on 4/30/24 at 9:32 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
Coal capital costs are 10-15% better than wind, solar and nuclear without consideration for spinning reserve.
Just fyi, LCOE already captures capital cost and capacity factor so it’s already baked into the $/Wh presented.
Posted on 5/2/24 at 11:01 pm to billjamin
You are a fricking idiot. That is not the same as renewable tax credits.
Are you still on this board?
Did you see EIA stated 6.2 GW of renewable energy were added but the capacity factor went down anyway? That means capital needs to be used for baseload generation to make up for the lack of energy production from renewable energy sources.
That was and continues to be the case I made for inefficient allocation of capital on a previous thread.
You just don’t get it.
Are you still on this board?
Did you see EIA stated 6.2 GW of renewable energy were added but the capacity factor went down anyway? That means capital needs to be used for baseload generation to make up for the lack of energy production from renewable energy sources.
That was and continues to be the case I made for inefficient allocation of capital on a previous thread.
You just don’t get it.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News