ZPE_Logo
  
Search        
  Create an account Home  ·  Topics  ·  Downloads  ·  Your Account  ·  Submit News  ·  Top 10  
Mission Statement

Modules
· Home
· Forum
· LATEST COMMENTS
· Special Sections
· SUPPORT ZPEnergy
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Books
· Downloads
· Events
· Feedback
· Link to us
· Private Messages
· Search
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Top 10
· Topics
· Web Links
· Your Account

Who's Online
There are currently, 134 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.

You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here

Events

Hot Links
Aetherometry
American Antigravity
Closeminded Science
EarthTech
ECW E-Cat World
Innoplaza
Integrity Research Institute
New Energy Movement
New Energy Times
Panacea-BOCAF
RexResearch
Science Hobbyist
T. Bearden Mirror Site
USPTO
Want to Know

Other Info-Sources
NE News Sites
AER_Network
E-Cat World
NexusNewsfeed ZPE
NE Discussion Groups
Energetic Forum
EMediaPress
Energy Science Forum
Free_Energy FB Group
The KeelyNet Blog
OverUnity Research
Sarfatti_Physics
Tesla Science Foundation (FB)
Vortex (old Interact)
Magazine Sites
Electrifying Times (FB)
ExtraOrdinary Technology
IE Magazine
New Energy Times

Interesting Links

Click Here for the DISCLOSURE PROJECT
SciTech Daily Review
NEXUS Magazine

The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Still mixing means and extremes (Score: 1)
by chipotle_pickle on Friday, November 14, 2003 @ 11:26:21 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://freehydrogen.blogspot.com
Lets assume that the 1.9 cent per kWh figure is the basis for the $15 per month. In that case, multiplying a cost (1.9 cents per kWh) by maximum (26.6 kWh/day * 30 days) would yield a maximum monthly cost of $15/month. Not a cost, a maximum cost. But they don't call the $15 a max. So that doesn't work.

OK, assume that the $15 per month is the basis, and divide by the max usage and you get a minimum cost of 1.9 cents per kWh. But they don't call the 1.9 cents a min. That doesn't work either.

The only way you can get the 1.9 cents to agree with the $15 is if it's a capacity cost, not a materials cost. That this is an improper use of the term "operational cost" is an error that's a little to subtle to complain about.


| Parent

 

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2002-2016 by ZPEnergy. Disclaimer: No content, on or affiliated with ZPEnergy should be construed as or relied upon as investment advice. While every effort is made to ensure that the information contained on ZPEnergy is correct, the operators of ZPEnergy make no warranties as to its accuracy. In all respects visitors should seek independent verification and investment advice.
Keywords: ZPE, ZPF, Zero Point Energy, Zero Point Fluctuations, ZPEnergy, New Energy Technology, Small Scale Implementation, Energy Storage Technology, Space-Energy, Space Energy, Natural Potential, Investors, Investing, Vacuum Energy, Electromagnetic, Over Unity, Overunity, Over-Unity, Free Energy, Free-Energy, Ether, Aether, Cold Fusion, Cold-Fusion, Fuel Cell, Quantum Mechanics, Van der Waals, Casimir, Advanced Physics, Vibrations, Advanced Energy Conversion, Rotational Magnetics, Vortex Mechanics, Rotational Electromagnetics, Earth Electromagnetics, Gyroscopes, Gyroscopic Effects

PHP-Nuke Copyright © 2005 by Francisco Burzi. This is free software, and you may redistribute it under the GPL. PHP-Nuke comes with absolutely no warranty, for details, see the license.