Re: (Score: 1) by mlmitton on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 @ 14:11:39 EST (User Info  Send a Message)  John, I can't believe you haven't backed down on this yet. I'm not trying to be mean, but you are making yourself look silly.
You are imagining that they use "operational cost" in the normal way, and then calling it a coincidence when that number turns out to be something else. They never say that there is a 1.9 cent per kWh materials or fuels cost. Remember this machine is not supposed to have any fuel. They say that it costs a little less than $3000 for a 24 kWh/day capability. Then they divide a little less than $3000 by 200 months to get a little less than $15 per month, or 50 cents per day. Then they divide 50 cents per day by 24 kWh / day to get a little less than 2 cents per kWh. Then they call that an operational cost.
It's as plain as day that they do say there is a 1.9 cent per kwh materials cost. The fuel is water, and the cost of water is negligible, so the 1.9 cents is just the cost of replacing the filters.
Now, I will grant you that the following sentence is not worded very well:
Again, using the above example of an Edison System configuration (producing 23.3 kWh and 3.3 therms of gas per day) , the cost of operation based on the system purchase price, plus the periodic cost of replacement filters divided by the total amount of Kilowatt Hours and therms of gas produced during the system's 20 year projected life would be as follows:
But your interpretation not only doesn't make any economic sense, but it requires a convoluted attempt to interpret the above sentence. Occam's Razor, and any charitable reading, would do the following:
Replacing filters is a periodic cost, and how often you have to replace them is directly proportional to the capacity of the device. The example system produces 800 kwh per month, or 192,000 kwh over the 20 year life of the device. Remember, the denominator they describe is the total energy produced over the 20 year life of the device, 192,000.
So what's the numerator? "the cost of operation based on the system purchase price, plus the periodic cost of replacement filters" Note that, according to GWE, the numerator has nothing to do with the purchase price of the device. It is *the cost of operation* (which will vary depending on the capacity of device, in other words, on the purchase price) plus *the cost of replacement filters*. They do not tell us what the value of the numerator is, but they do state clearly what does into the numerator, and the purchase price is clearly not included.
Then they tell us that the result of the division, with the numerator X and the denominator 192,000, is 1.9 cents.
Have they failed to account for discounting? Maybe, maybe not. As they state, the filter costs are periodic. In so far as the period of operational costs is not monthly, then yes, they should use discounting to estimate the monthly cost. But this would make virtually no difference. That is, if the filters need to be replaced once per year (or more precisely, once per 9600 kwh), and it costs $180 (15 * 12) to replace the filter, then that 180 would need to be converted to a monthly estimate using the discounting formula I gave in a previous post.
Now let's turn to your description. First, their example device does not have a 24kwh/day capacitythey state quite clearly that it's 23.3 of electricity and 3.3 of gas, for a total of 26.6. The machine does have fuel, water. They do not divide $3000 by 200 months, nor do they make any such claim that they've done such a division. As I described above, they state clearly that the numerator is the cost of operation, not the cost of the device. And they state quite clearly that the denominator is the total energy produced by the device over it's 20 year lifespan. I have absolutlely no idea how you could confuse their wording to think they suggest the denominator is the number of months.
John, for the love of God, just admit that you are neither an economist nor an accountant, apologize, and move back to the things you know. At least in my eyes (an economist), you're ruining your credibility.

 Parent Re: by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 11, 2003 @ 14:38:32 EST
 Re: by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 @ 10:02:54 EST
 Mixing means and extremes by chipotle_pickle on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 09:47:46 EST
 Re: Mixing means and extremes by mlmitton on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 11:00:24 EST
 Still mixing means and extremes by chipotle_pickle on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 11:26:21 EST
 Re: Still mixing means and extremes by mlmitton on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 12:10:57 EST
 Mixing means and extremes by chipotle_pickle on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 12:52:22 EST
 average=max by chipotle_pickle on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 14:14:05 EST
 this dialog? by Anonymous on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 14:22:03 EST
 Sorry by chipotle_pickle on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 15:35:30 EST
 Re: ?? by Anonymous on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 17:44:06 EST
 Anthony by chipotle_pickle on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 18:08:13 EST
 Re: Anthony by Anonymous on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 18:57:57 EST
 Re:follow up question by Anonymous on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 19:07:24 EST
 good questions by chipotle_pickle on Saturday, November 15, 2003 @ 06:51:59 EST
 Re: next by Anonymous on Saturday, November 15, 2003 @ 16:48:30 EST
 Tougher question by chipotle_pickle on Sunday, November 16, 2003 @ 09:46:06 EST
 Re: Tougher question by Anonymous on Sunday, November 16, 2003 @ 10:34:59 EST
 Re: Follow up by Anonymous on Sunday, November 16, 2003 @ 17:47:45 EST
 Easier said than done by chipotle_pickle on Monday, November 17, 2003 @ 07:08:33 EST
 Re: silence by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 18, 2003 @ 17:36:51 EST
 Re: silence by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 19, 2003 @ 06:08:34 EST
 Re: silence by Anonymous on Thursday, November 20, 2003 @ 09:27:54 EST
 Re: silence by Anonymous on Thursday, November 20, 2003 @ 11:38:15 EST
 Re: silence by Anonymous on Friday, November 21, 2003 @ 10:27:28 EST
 Re: silence by baldy on Friday, November 21, 2003 @ 11:22:37 EST
 Re: Pickle? by Anonymous on Friday, November 21, 2003 @ 20:12:06 EST
 Re: silence by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 @ 14:55:00 EST
 Re: silence by baldy on Tuesday, November 25, 2003 @ 15:28:29 EST

