|
Posted by Pete C. on May 10, 2008, 7:58 pm
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> >>
> >> And the cost of the equipment is????
> >
> > Substantial, but it's a long term "green" investment that would probably
> > generate revenue from selling emissions credits.
>
> What credits? It would not cover the cost or needs of our operation let
> alone allow for selling credits. Many of our products save energy yet we
> get no credit for anything by doing that either. That brings up another
> point. Starting later this year (EPA regulations) we must use our boilers
> to oxidize what would otherwise be a VOC emission so we could not go 100%
> solar even if it was practical.
>
> That brings up another government mandated folly. We are installing
> $400,000 in equipment to do this. The EPA says the payback is in 10 years
> if we run a full capacity 365/24. Fact is, we only need this particular
> equipment days 6 hours a day to support the rest of the plant. But they
> still base their figures on 365 because we "could" run 8760 hours a year
> even thought they'd never issue a permit to do so or we could ever need it.
> .
That 6hr/day could align nicely with the 2nd/3rd shift when you'd have
to run the fossil fuel boilers anyway. You'd still be cutting some 33%
of both your fuel consumption and your emissions. Again, you are the
only one saying 100% solar, I have consistently said ~33% solar. What
would 33% of your annual oil/gas consumption amount to in $? Probably a
hefty chunk of change towards building the daytime solar boiler.
|