4 ms·

It assumes a blended cost of capital of 10% which is very reasonable for utility infrastructure projects even in developing countries. The World Bank charges r

by derriz 5y ago

It assumes a blended cost of capital of 10% which is very reasonable for utility infrastructure projects even in developing countries. The World Bank charges rates of about 3% for infrastructure projects. I don't get the capital cost argument, both onshore wind and solar PV have between a third and a quarter the capital cost per KW capacity compared to a modern coal plant for example. As I said combined cycle gas is currently competitive but the price trajectories mean that solar and wind will not only be cheaper over their lifetimes but the capital cost will be less. Nor do I get the grid argument which is an argument against all utility scale generation, not just solar or wind. Storage or more commonly idling gas backup is required to support fossil fuel generation also. Repeating the claim that deriving more energy from solar and wind or hydro will impoverish people doesn't make it true. To support the claim you need to show that it's a more expensive way of providing electrical energy to people compared to alternative fossil fuel based generation. I've read no analysis which would support such a claim.

whatever1 5y ago
"It assumes a blended cost of capital of 10% which is very reasonable for utility infrastructure projects even in developing countries. The World Bank charges rates of about 3% for infrastructure projects." - I invite you as an investor to go to a developing country's bank and ask for a 10-million-dollar loan with <=10% interest rate to build anything. I don't know where they get these numbers (they conviniently say "Lazard estimates"). They are plain wrong. "I don't get the capital cost argument, both onshore wind and solar PV have between a third and a quarter the capital cost per KW capacity compared to a modern coal plant for example. As I said combined cycle gas is currently competitive but the price trajectories mean that solar and wind will not only be cheaper over their lifetimes but the capital cost will be less. Nor do I get the grid argument which is an argument against all utility scale generation, not just solar or wind. Storage or more commonly idling gas backup is required to support fossil fuel generation also. " - Had they had the access to cheap capital (or any capital) to build a grid they would have done so. What you propose is for them to starve for some generations until they can build a grid. And even when they do, you will want to sell them more expensive equipment (electric cars, batteries for their grid etc). Fossils can work without a grid, and they can already improve dramatically life and productivity to enable later public investments to infrastructure. It is renewables that require huge initial capital investment to work without a grid. Fossils are pay as you go. You only need for example fuel oil in winter to warm your house with a couple of heaters. That is a cost of < $500 USD / year. To run two electric heaters (~10kw), you will need a big enough solar panel and battery to keep it running at night. So now you are in the tune of $20,000 USD. * " Repeating the claim that deriving more energy from solar and wind or hydro will impoverish people doesn't make it true. To support the claim you need to show that it's a more expensive way of providing electrical energy to people compared to alternative fossil fuel based generation. I've read no analysis which would support such a claim." * - Covered already.

by derriz 5y ago

whatever1 5y ago

"It assumes a blended cost of capital of 10% which is very reasonable for utility infrastructure projects even in developing countries. The World Bank charges rates of about 3% for infrastructure projects." - I invite you as an investor to go to a developing country's bank and ask for a 10-million-dollar loan with <=10% interest rate to build anything. I don't know where they get these numbers (they conviniently say "Lazard estimates"). They are plain wrong. "I don't get the capital cost argument, both onshore wind and solar PV have between a third and a quarter the capital cost per KW capacity compared to a modern coal plant for example. As I said combined cycle gas is currently competitive but the price trajectories mean that solar and wind will not only be cheaper over their lifetimes but the capital cost will be less. Nor do I get the grid argument which is an argument against all utility scale generation, not just solar or wind. Storage or more commonly idling gas backup is required to support fossil fuel generation also. " - Had they had the access to cheap capital (or any capital) to build a grid they would have done so. What you propose is for them to starve for some generations until they can build a grid. And even when they do, you will want to sell them more expensive equipment (electric cars, batteries for their grid etc). Fossils can work without a grid, and they can already improve dramatically life and productivity to enable later public investments to infrastructure. It is renewables that require huge initial capital investment to work without a grid. Fossils are pay as you go. You only need for example fuel oil in winter to warm your house with a couple of heaters. That is a cost of < $500 USD / year. To run two electric heaters (~10kw), you will need a big enough solar panel and battery to keep it running at night. So now you are in the tune of $20,000 USD. * " Repeating the claim that deriving more energy from solar and wind or hydro will impoverish people doesn't make it true. To support the claim you need to show that it's a more expensive way of providing electrical energy to people compared to alternative fossil fuel based generation. I've read no analysis which would support such a claim." * - Covered already.