Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit | aarong's comments login

Good stuff. My only objection is, as a hiring manager, I don't really care what format the resume is in. With me, candidates can use a text file, word or a napkin if it's clear. Just help me understand your education, career track, any key projects and passions.

-----


Rock on guys~

-----


Sweet post... this should be a great blog to follow. Thanks for doing Rand!

-----


Rock! Congrats Ed and Francis on the launch. FWIW, Ed and Francis are incredibly great guys...

-----


Depressing.... but,

-----


Good post.. But I do think this general line of argument is a bit one sided. IMO there's just no one size that fits all. Some things have more R&D up front and that costs cash, others less so. Each business needs to try to figure out a reasonable tradeoff of how much needs to be done before entering the market.

-----


Looks awesome, expensive though. Maybe there could be a pricing option based on volume? Maybe there is and I haven't seen it yet...

-----


Ha. How would consultants make their money if this was easier to figure out?

It's natural for any smart person to ask "Why would someone who sells energy want to drive energy efficiency?."

The short version is utility spending on energy efficiency is largely driven by 2 key factors - one is regulation and the other is capital deferral.

On the regulation side, it's 31 flavors... E.g. you have decoupling, renewable portfolio standards which have efficiency components, efficiency portfolio standards, mandates to target all cost effective savings (e.g. WA), etc... Some flavor of this applies to about 35 of the 50 states.

On the capital deferral side, it's more about a utility getting more rate payers on the same capital assets. Turns out it's not easy to permit a new coal based power plant. So more users on existing plant may mean less revenue but more profit depending on the circumstances. In some markets (e.g. FL) the utility commission lets the utility charge consumers for conservation programs. So in these case, the utility has effectively marginal CGS/OPEX on a program which drives up profitability.

-----


You are right that it's not an apples/apples comparison regarding environmental damage, destruction, loss of life, etc... No question.

The comparison isn't really trying to do that though. I think the point is to compare "oil spill economics" with energy efficiency economics.

That we have the rig in the first place is the issue...

-----


What is really cool is that the $10k can often reduce a home's POWER demand by 30%.

Pricing varies, but this gets to around $0.12-$0.5/kW. BUT. That's kW not kWH (e.g power, not energy). So the power demand reduction translates to energy savings for the lifetime of the building or systems in it..

-----

More

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: