4 ms·

€100/MWh surely beats having to choose between recent gas spot prices or shutting down your economy.

Gwypaas 4y ago
Definitely, but how do you feel about locking that in for the next 35 years? Given that the wholesale price usually hovers around €30-50/MWh depending on energy mix.
- adev_ 4y ago
  > Definitely, but how do you feel about locking that in for the next 35 years? Given that the wholesale price usually hovers around €30-50/MWh depending on energy mix. - €30-50/MWh is the price of intermittent, uncontrollable renewable enegy. - Continue to burn cheap Russian gas emitting CO2 and funding dictators for the next 35 years can not be part of the solution. - If what we aim is controllable low carbon energy at reasonable price, the answer become obvious and contain at least partially is Nuclear energy
Schroedingersat 4y ago
That's not the choice though because it's €100/MWh for power that would maybe possibly start being produced in 17 years tying up enough capital the entire time to produce 4x the net wattage in renewables that could fully pay itself back and fund another 4x the net wattage well before the nuclear comes online. I'd far rather turn all of the gas turbines off 60% of the time than 15% of them off 80% of the time. Add storage to the mix and nuclear is a terrible solution for avoiding having to choose between recent gas spot prices or shutting down your economy.
- erichocean 4y ago
  Do you have an explanation for why, since solar/wind seems to not only pay for itself, but earns enough to 4x it's initial investment in 17 years, that it's not being done? BlackRock has $10T in liquid capital available to put towards the best investments. Putting just 1% of that towards wind/solar ($100B), given the incredible returns you are indicating, seems like a wise and prudent (and lucrative) investment. Is that happening? (I honestly don't know, but if it isn't, I'd like to know why—BlackRock is a major ESG supporter so they're clearly on the solar/wind train.)
  - philipkglass 4y ago
    Do you have an explanation for why, since solar/wind seems to not only pay for itself, but earns enough to 4x it's initial investment in 17 years, that it's not being done? It is being done. According to the International Energy Agency, $44 billion was invested globally in nuclear powered electricity production in 2021. $119 billion was invested in fossil powered electricity production. $367 billion was invested in renewables. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-energy-supply-investment-by-sector-2019-2021-2 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-energy...
    - erichocean 4y ago
      Good to know! Thanks
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    > Do you have an explanation for why, since solar/wind seems to not only pay for itself, but earns enough to 4x it's initial investment in 17 years, that it's not being done? 4x the energy nuclear would net you for the price not 4x the investment (merely the original invested money and some residual value of a system that will run at 70-90% of original capacity but has a limited remaining lifetime). If we use the normally touted 3% discount rate used to make nuclear look viable then financial payback for LSS is about 6-11% pa. (ie enough to pay back your loans and fund another system before the nuclear deploys, then fund a third system before the first wears out). You may need to model things at a steeper discount rate to reflect reality, but then nuclear is a complete non option. And people are doing it. Solar capacity is growing yoy at 20-25% in spite of supply chain issues and the first module price increase in years. I don't know why it isn't receiving even more investment. Probably because of some constraining resource, fear of destroying the trillions invested in fossil fuels before they can divest, limits in available markets due to time lag on storage being as viable or maybe uncertainty that emerging tech will crater the energy price even further. It's not that solar is an incredible investment, it's more that nuclear is such a bad idea that doing something sensible looks like free money in comparison.

Definitely, but how do you feel about locking that in for the next 35 years? Given that the wholesale price usually hovers around €30-50/MWh depending on energy mix.

adev_ 4y ago
> Definitely, but how do you feel about locking that in for the next 35 years? Given that the wholesale price usually hovers around €30-50/MWh depending on energy mix. - €30-50/MWh is the price of intermittent, uncontrollable renewable enegy. - Continue to burn cheap Russian gas emitting CO2 and funding dictators for the next 35 years can not be part of the solution. - If what we aim is controllable low carbon energy at reasonable price, the answer become obvious and contain at least partially is Nuclear energy

Schroedingersat 4y ago

That's not the choice though because it's €100/MWh for power that would maybe possibly start being produced in 17 years tying up enough capital the entire time to produce 4x the net wattage in renewables that could fully pay itself back and fund another 4x the net wattage well before the nuclear comes online. I'd far rather turn all of the gas turbines off 60% of the time than 15% of them off 80% of the time. Add storage to the mix and nuclear is a terrible solution for avoiding having to choose between recent gas spot prices or shutting down your economy.

erichocean 4y ago
Do you have an explanation for why, since solar/wind seems to not only pay for itself, but earns enough to 4x it's initial investment in 17 years, that it's not being done? BlackRock has $10T in liquid capital available to put towards the best investments. Putting just 1% of that towards wind/solar ($100B), given the incredible returns you are indicating, seems like a wise and prudent (and lucrative) investment. Is that happening? (I honestly don't know, but if it isn't, I'd like to know why—BlackRock is a major ESG supporter so they're clearly on the solar/wind train.)
- philipkglass 4y ago
  Do you have an explanation for why, since solar/wind seems to not only pay for itself, but earns enough to 4x it's initial investment in 17 years, that it's not being done? It is being done. According to the International Energy Agency, $44 billion was invested globally in nuclear powered electricity production in 2021. $119 billion was invested in fossil powered electricity production. $367 billion was invested in renewables. https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-energy-supply-investment-by-sector-2019-2021-2 https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-energy...
  - erichocean 4y ago
    Good to know! Thanks
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  > Do you have an explanation for why, since solar/wind seems to not only pay for itself, but earns enough to 4x it's initial investment in 17 years, that it's not being done? 4x the energy nuclear would net you for the price not 4x the investment (merely the original invested money and some residual value of a system that will run at 70-90% of original capacity but has a limited remaining lifetime). If we use the normally touted 3% discount rate used to make nuclear look viable then financial payback for LSS is about 6-11% pa. (ie enough to pay back your loans and fund another system before the nuclear deploys, then fund a third system before the first wears out). You may need to model things at a steeper discount rate to reflect reality, but then nuclear is a complete non option. And people are doing it. Solar capacity is growing yoy at 20-25% in spite of supply chain issues and the first module price increase in years. I don't know why it isn't receiving even more investment. Probably because of some constraining resource, fear of destroying the trillions invested in fossil fuels before they can divest, limits in available markets due to time lag on storage being as viable or maybe uncertainty that emerging tech will crater the energy price even further. It's not that solar is an incredible investment, it's more that nuclear is such a bad idea that doing something sensible looks like free money in comparison.