X-Message-Number: 2210
Date: Fri, 7 May 93 11:05:59 CDT
From: Brian Wowk <>
Subject: CRYONICS Reply to Michael Riskin
Michael Riskin:
> In your analysis / comparison of current storage costs in dewars
> vs.cold room , you chose to base the comparison solely on whole body
> suspensions. I will take it as correct that the cold room capacity
> is 100 whole bodies. However, at Alcor, the current ratio of neuro
> to whole body suspensions is 1.7 to 1.0. The yearly cost of neuro
> storage is significantly less than whole bodies (the analysis of
> such may show the neuro cost to be approximately 1/3 that of wb's).
Because a neuropatient occupies 1/10th the volume occupied by
a whole body patient, the annual neuro storage cost is *by definition*
1/10th that of whole bodies. This assumes the same storage system is
used for both neuros and whole bodies. Right now neuros cost about
20% as much to store as whole bodies at Alcor because they are in
vault-protected XLC-1520 dewars, which are less efficient than
Bigfoots.
In my coldroom (which will be vault protected) you can compute
neuro storage costs by just dividing the annual whole body storage
cost ($150) by ten to obtain $15 a year. This is ONE TENTH the
current cost of maintaining neuropatients.
> Therefore, comparing coldroom yearly costs of $15,000 to costs of
> 80,000 ( when 100 whole bodies are suspended , per your example)
> should realistically be comparing $15,000 to perhaps $35,000 ( When
> Alcor has 100 patients, at the current ratios, that equates to 63
> neuros and 37 wb's). (And of course, that will require averaging 7
> suspensions per year for ten years, a possible figure, but of course
> much higher than currently occuring).
It was not my intention to compare storage costs when Alcor
had literally 100 patients, but rather when Alcor had enough patients
to fill the coldroom. For simplicity I chose to do this with just
whole bodies, assuming everyone would realize the implications for
neuros (1/10th the cost). Evidently this was not obvious.
The comparison you cite above is irrelevant because the 100
neuro and whole body patients you describe would only fill the
coldroom to 43% capacity. Nobody is going to fill the room to 43%
capacity and then stop. In about a decade you are going to fill it to
100% capacity, which will represent 146 neuros and 85 whole bodies
using your proportions. Over the next 90 years they will all be
maintained for $15,000 a year versus $90,000 a year using current
systems. As you can see, by complicating the analysis and considering
neuros the coldroom economy gets even better.
> The then yearly storage
> costs of $35,000 is high, because the dewars are being amortized
> over 15 years as a conservative estimate, when in reality, some
> knowledgable people questimate that the dewars could last
> 50 to 100 years.And , of course, these dewars are paid for.
The 15 year amortization period was arbitrary. I used it
because the Blue Book used it. If you want to amortize over longer
periods, I can play that game too. There is no reason an above ground
coldroom would not last 100 years. Over many years the foam
efficiency would decline by about 30% due to air infusion, and you
would continue to replace pairs of cryocoolers every 15 years. This
would give you a long-term annual operating cost of $8000 compared to
a $40,000 annual LN2 expense with dewars.
What do you mean by "these dewars are paid for." Will the
coldroom be borrowed?
> Unless a lot of members start deanimating , it will be quite a while
> before even close to $150,000 in new dewars is necessary, especially
> if the current neuro to wb ratio continues. (9 neuros fit in one
> neuro dewar).
Well, a lot of members *are* going to start getting into
suspension. Last year's flury was just the beginning, and Alcor had
better prepare for it. At an annual growth rate of 30%, Alcor can
expect to do 20 suspensions per year five years from now, and 70
suspensions per year in 2003. When I joined Alcor six years ago,
there where 5 patients in suspension. Now there are 26 (or is 27?).
By extension, we will have 130 in another SIX years. A coldroom will
fill *fast*.
> When you add the cost of financing $150,000 (which
> could of course be much higher depending on the unknown labor factor
> and the screwup factor for coldroom number ONE) we have, at 7%,
> $10500/YR additional expense.
Seven percent? How do CDs and T-Bills yield 7% after
inflation? Alcor's policy of holding most of the Patient Care Fund in
low-yielding cash instruments has simply got to stop, or that Fund
will have no long term survival. Inflation will kill us (literally).
One of the best ways to hedge against inflation is to buy hard
assets-- especially assets that you need to care for your patients.
This includes real estate (which is why Alcor should consider giving
the PCF a stake in its new building), and it certainly includes things
like dewars and coldrooms. We don't borrow to buy dewars. Why would
we borrow to build a coldroom?
> There may in fact, be very little or no financial advantage for a
> long time to come. In addition, $150,000 or more, plus lots of
> technical and administrative effort, needs to be weighed against
> its' lost opportunity equivalent
> (research, facility, suspension readiness.....).
Alcor fully intends to be around for a long time to come. And
it is over that long haul that enormous financial gains will accrue
from coldroom technology. Patients stored at -130'C today can even be
moved to still larger and more economical coldrooms in years ahead.
Fifteen years from now, Alcor may store all its patients in a 1000
patient (whole body) cold room with tremendous savings. By contrast,
every patient we put into LN2 today is being stored with obsolete
technology that will never have economies of scale. These patients
will be a long-term minority, and frankly a perpetual pain to care
for.
Finally, great strides in research will not be worth anything
if you don't have a place to put patients afterward. -130'C storage
is essential to reversible preservation of organs.
--- Brian Wowk
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=2210