4 ms·
Yes, of course, but a futures contract definitely adds cost, is my point. Google is in effect doing the same thing as 'buying a future' and it's unreasonable f
by edblarney 10y ago
Yes, of course, but a futures contract definitely adds cost, is my point.
Google is in effect doing the same thing as 'buying a future' and it's unreasonable for him to make the argument that this is 'inherently a better thing about green'.
I could buy a futures contract for Oil today and would it be fair for me to say 'Oil is has more stability in prices'?
- papercrane 10y agoThe difference is you know the supply of wind. It fluctuates with the weather, but on average you know if you have X windmills you'll have Y joules, the risk in future contracts is a lot smaller, and priced accordingly. The oil supply is a lot more complicated, and the risk priced into future contracts is priced accordingly.
- edblarney 10y agoOk, I see that. But Oil shouldn't fluctuate too-too far between $50 and $120 a barrel. And that's just the raw costs. With all other components, which costs will be more fixed, the actual end price of fuel should not change more than 40% in either direction, max. I'd argue that the greatly varying costs of wind installations, aggregate availability, huge one: supply and demand for electricity overall, specifically for renewable electricity - regulator changes, improvements in technology - definitely create a situation wherein the 'end cost' of renewable electricity is somewhere in the range of the variability for fuel produced by other means.