Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Saturday March 20 2021, @07:16PM   Printer-friendly

Over-valued fossil fuel assets creating trillion-dollar bubble about to burst:

A major new report has warned that conventional energy assets including coal, gas, nuclear and hydro power plants have been consistently and "severely" over-valued, creating a massive bubble that could exceed $US1 trillion by 2030.

The report is the latest from Rethinx, an independent think-tank that was co-founded by Stanford University futurist Tony Seba, who is regarded as one of few global analysts to correctly forecast the plunging cost of solar over the last decade.

According to the new report, co-authored by Rethinx research fellow Adam Dorr, analysts and the broader market are still getting energy valuation badly wrong, not just on the falling costs of solar, wind and batteries, or "SWB," but on the true value, or levelised cost of energy, of conventional energy assets.

"Since 2010, conventional LCOE[*] analyses have consistently overestimated future cash flows from coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro power assets by ignoring the impacts of SWB disruption and assuming a high and constant capacity factor," the report says.

Where the analysts are going wrong, according to Seba and co, is in their assumptions that conventional energy plants will be able to successfully sell the same quantity of electricity each year from today through to 2040 and beyond.

[...] This assumption, says the report, has been false for at least 10 years. Rather, the productivity of conventional power plants will continue to decrease as competitive pressure from near-zero marginal cost solar PV, onshore wind, and battery storage continue to grow exponentially worldwide.

"Mainstream LCOE analyses thus artificially understate the cost of electricity of prospective coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro power plants based on false assumptions about their potential to continue selling a fixed and high percentage of their electricity output in the decades ahead," the report says.

[...] "In doing so, they have inflated the value of those cash flows and reported far lower LCOE than is actually justified ... and helped create a bubble in conventional energy assets worldwide that could exceed $1 trillion by 2030."

[*] LCOE: Levelized Cost Of Energy.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday March 20 2021, @07:44PM (72 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 20 2021, @07:44PM (#1126811) Journal

    "Since 2010, conventional LCOE[*] analyses have consistently overestimated future cash flows from coal, gas, nuclear, and hydro power assets by ignoring the impacts of SWB disruption and assuming a high and constant capacity factor," the report says.

    Where the analysts are going wrong, according to Seba and co, is in their assumptions that conventional energy plants will be able to successfully sell the same quantity of electricity each year from today through to 2040 and beyond.

    In other words, the variation in power from solar and wind (SWB is "solar, wind, and batteries") is disrupting the use of base load power (I'm lumping load varying sources like natural gas and hydroelectric in with that). So why are we attributing this cost to base load sources rather than to what's causing it, namely, solar and wind? After all, if we remove "SWB" we get back to the traditional base load model. If we remove base load OTOH, we end up in a more unstable situation - depending on massive quantities of batteries to smooth out power supply (and hoping we don't get some weather condition that outlasts our batteries). This particular cost goes away only when you remove solar and wind.

    Given that this is alleged to be a cost big enough to be called a bubble and solar/wind is still smaller scale than base load sources, then it looks to me to be a massive bubble in solar and wind, not a somewhat smaller bubble in base load sources.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Insightful=2, Overrated=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 20 2021, @08:14PM (29 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 20 2021, @08:14PM (#1126824)

    "In other words, the variation in power from solar and wind (SWB is "solar, wind, and batteries") is disrupting the use of base load power"

    The issue isn't daily variability costs but that SWB is growing faster than demand and undercutting base-load generation. Base-load is therefore overvalued by forecasts that assume that base-load sales will continue to grow with demand despite increasing market pressure from alternative sources. This over-valuation is driving an over-investment in base-load facilities that isn't supported by actual demand trends and if not corrected will inevitably lead to a crash.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday March 20 2021, @08:23PM

      by HiThere (866) on Saturday March 20 2021, @08:23PM (#1126830) Journal

      I think I use "base load" differently than you do, as I don't consider "peak usage" to be a base load. Rather the base load is the predictable continual use. This is the kind of thing where solar power depends on battery backup, which rather raises the cost. But with battery prices dropping recently, it may be that power from other source will be less necessary. If you can maintain your load through a month of clouds and rain, that will cover most needs, and perhaps it makes sense to buy power from an external vendor when you start approaching your limit.

      Note that I don't think we've reached that level of coverage yet, but it might not make sense to forecast that we won't reach it within a decade.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday March 20 2021, @08:29PM (13 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 20 2021, @08:29PM (#1126833) Journal

      The issue isn't daily variability costs but that SWB is growing faster than demand and undercutting base-load generation.

      Would SWB be growing that fast, if its costs were taken into account?

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 20 2021, @09:33PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 20 2021, @09:33PM (#1126863)

        That's a bit of a change from your usual free market shtick. "SWB is undercutting the old model, therefore SWB is the problem."
        Got your 401K invested in fossil fuels have you?

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @05:48AM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @05:48AM (#1126980) Journal

          That's a bit of a change from your usual free market shtick.

          Not at all. My take is that much higher subsidizes (per electricity generated) for solar and wind are distorting the power production markets even more than usual. After all, if businesses are getting paid a lot of money to do something dumb, then they'll do it.

          And even if it were a free market, faulty accounting still is faulty accounting. The economics of fossil fuels and other forms of power generation have been worked out. I don't buy that this group has figured it out while the rest of the electricity providers have not. If, for example, we see a huge drop in solar and wind subsidies, that will make competing sources look a lot more attractive in comparison.

      • (Score: 2) by legont on Sunday March 21 2021, @01:11AM (2 children)

        by legont (4179) on Sunday March 21 2021, @01:11AM (#1126918)

        I agree with you on this and above points. I've another observation though. I am heavily invested in "energy services" and I am loosing a shitload on them. It appears that the US does not need or wants energy of any kind any more. Is it the case? What am I missing?

        --
        "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @04:33AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @04:33AM (#1126968)

          The drive to higher efficiency means demand is not increasing in line with population. Combine with 'eco-friendly' virtue signalling, and traditional energy suppliers are not going to make anywhere near their historical profits. Wall St doesn't like that and punishes the stocks, the dinosaurs raise prices and that just pushes more SWB.

          I would get out of the energy services market, it is a cheap, rugged, long-life battery away from a major crash. Off-grid solar/batteries become economic when storage costs are less than some factor of (expected no of cycles) x (price KWh). Lithium is still too high, lead acid too prone to dying and you can't use all the capacity, nickel-iron would work except it requires maintenance and is still ridiculously expensive for some reason. Add in that small backyard windmills in the 0.5 ~ 2 KW range are becoming available and I foresee within a few years most of suburbia and pretty much all rural properties going off grid. There will be a runaway effect at some point - as customers leave maintaining the grid for the remainder becomes more expensive pushing more into the home SWB systems.

          Draw some graphs of 1/ (amortized off-grid power system cost vs Year) and 2/ (Grid-power cost vs Year). 1/ is falling, while 2/ is rising and they are pretty close to crossing over. Really, the whole thing is a good cheap battery away from imploding.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @12:40PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @12:40PM (#1127074)

          What am I missing?

          Half a million geezers and more croaked in the last year, they ain't need power no more.
          And their replacement are still sharing the cages at the southern border until sorted out, not much power demand from a shared accommodation.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 21 2021, @04:47AM (7 children)

        by sjames (2882) on Sunday March 21 2021, @04:47AM (#1126971) Journal

        Costs are being taken into account and wind and solar are coming out on top. Do you REALLY think corporations are building out wind and solar without looking at cost?

        And before you cry subsidies, don't forget to look at fossil fuel subsidies and externalized costs.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:01AM (6 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:01AM (#1126982) Journal

          And before you cry subsidies, don't forget to look at fossil fuel subsidies and externalized costs.

          Subsidies! Going to cry that anyway. Of course, these things don't make sense until you look at subsidy per unit of electrical energy produced, rather than the fatuous acknowledgement that every form of electricity generation is subsidized.Wind and solar just happen to be heavily subsidized by that metric.

          Once again, someone has answered their own question.

          But let's actually compare [soylentnews.org] subsidies rather than just bullshit around.

          Let's look at a study [europa.eu] that did so. On page 262, they break down subsidies by energy source with "RES" being all renewable sources (hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, etc.). Fossil fuels are the expected 55 billion Euro in 2016 (and near constant through the previous decade through 2008) while RES is 75 billion (grew from 25 billion Euro in 2008).

          That doesn't accurately describe the subsidy issue since fossil fuels are consumed for far more energy than renewables. Here [europa.eu], it is claimed that in 2016 there was fossil fuels consumption of 1093 million tonnes of oil equivalent while renewable sources generated 216.6 million tonnes of oil equivalent - including energy consumption of transportation. So we have roughly 50 Euro subsidies for one unit of fossil fuels consumed and 350 Euro per unit for renewable sources. The subsidy per unit of consumption is seven times higher for renewable sources compared to fossil fuels.

          So seven times higher subsidy per unit of energy generated for renewable sources. So sure, businesses can see the thumb on those scales and which energy source is presently favored. Maybe part of the reason that some businesses are still building other sorts of generation is that they don't buy that these subsidies will continue indefinitely. This may be yet another warning that things won't last, which would be a strong indicator of a bubble in renewable energy (particularly, SWB).

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:48AM (4 children)

            by sjames (2882) on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:48AM (#1127005) Journal

            You missed the subsidies on the fossil fuel production. You also missed the externalities. All that fly ash doesn't just go away, nor does the CO2.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @08:10AM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @08:10AM (#1127014) Journal

              You missed the subsidies on the fossil fuel production.

              Nope.

              You also missed the externalities.

              Let us note that a terrible case has been made for high externalities from fossil fuel use with proper pollution controls.

              All that fly ash doesn't just go away, nor does the CO2.

              Doesn't sound like much of a problem here.

              Notice that we're moving the goalposts now. These weren't important enough to mention when you thought you had a lock on fossil fuel subsidies.

              • (Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:03AM (1 child)

                by sjames (2882) on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:03AM (#1127020) Journal

                They certainly were important enough. Gee, awfully damned sorry I didn't post 1,000 pages of details. No goalposts moved. Sorry, but "Nope" isn't a counter argument. Nor is "Doesn't sound like much of a problem". For example "But it will kill 3/4 of the Earth's population!" "Doesn't sound like much of a problem!".

                Try again.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:39AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:39AM (#1127028)

                  As long as it doesnt disrupt The Bachelor then fine.

            • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday March 21 2021, @11:04AM

              by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Sunday March 21 2021, @11:04AM (#1127053) Homepage
              He also seems to have used the EU to counter a comment which I had presumed was about the US.
              --
              Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
          • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:07PM

            by deimtee (3272) on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:07PM (#1127124) Journal

            While I am in favour of cleaning up the environment I would just point out that your subsidies argument includes hydroelectric which, when viable, is mostly pre-existing and would have a lot lower subsidy than solar or wind. (I am not disagreeing, this strengthens your point.)

            Putting aside direct subsidies you can argue forever about externalities without getting anywhere. It is a never ending rat-hole of each side attributing a cost to the other, each more vague than the last. Direct subsidies, indirect, environmental damage, disposal costs, military actions, social cost of vastly enriching medieval level governments, earthquakes, flammable tap water, etc, etc, etc.

            --
            No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
    • (Score: 2) by fakefuck39 on Saturday March 20 2021, @10:14PM (13 children)

      by fakefuck39 (6620) on Saturday March 20 2021, @10:14PM (#1126873)

      In other news, you have zero idea of what base load means, and why things like solar and wind turbines are not something that can compete with a power plant capable of generating electricity for a base load. Solar is not undercutting base load generation, unless some misguided hipsters take risks. Risks like power to heat your home or keep your fridge running, not being available at the worst of times.

      Base load requirements grow every year. Because there are more people, and more homes. Until we have rolled out city-scale energy storage that can shift load from peak production times, there is no over-valuation. There is if we pretend short-term extends to long-term. Until some area gets a sustained period of no wind or overcast skies that are not common to the area. And then people freeze to death and learn what base load is.

      There is no need to assume base load sales will continue to grow. There is no increasing market pressure from alternative sources, because those sources cannot provide base load. They only provide extra energy generation at random times that have nothing to do with when people need the energy. You know what works on a cold dark windless winter day? Firing up a gas turbine to meet extra demand. You know what works to provide a consistent 24/7 level of power? A steam turbine powered by some decaying uranium. You know what powers demand from extra cooling requirements on a hot summer day? A solar panel.

      You're saying that solar panel competes against the base load generated by a nuclear power plant, and that nuclear energy should hence decrease in price. You are simply wrong.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:46AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:46AM (#1127032)

        In other news, you have zero idea of what base load means, and why things like solar and wind turbines are not something that can compete with a power plant capable of generating electricity for a base load. Solar is not undercutting base load generation, unless some misguided hipsters take risks. Risks like power to heat your home or keep your fridge running, not being available at the worst of times.

        Maybe they are using the freedom market definition pioneered in Texas? Texas power grid stability and base loadiness.

        You know what works on a cold dark windless winter day? Firing up a gas turbine to meet extra demand.

        Texas ....

        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:53PM

          by fakefuck39 (6620) on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:53PM (#1127146)

          yes, and a car wrongly built with no engine doesn't get you to work. not winterproofing and being built wrong has zero to do with base load vs green generation. in fact, both green and base energy went offline in texas. so what's your point? ah, you don't have one.

          texas issues were with both base and green energy. yes, if you cut corners and build wrong, all your shit breaks. wow, what insght you have.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 21 2021, @01:04PM (10 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @01:04PM (#1127083) Journal

        Nothing energy storage can't solve.
        At $100/kWh [energy-storage.news] my energy storage for a week will set me back by $8400. Likely, just by timing the market (fill it up at low prices, at night, consume at daytime from buffer), I'll get my investment back in 5-6 years; thus I'll have to use LiFePO chemistry [wikipedia.org], doesn't catch fire and have a larger number of recharge cycles than LiPo.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:12PM (5 children)

          by deimtee (3272) on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:12PM (#1127126) Journal

          If you can get them, and don't mind topping them up with distilled water occasionally, nickel-iron is currently the best for stationary systems where you don't care so much about weight or volume. Infinite recharge cycles, and are not damaged by overcharging or running to completely flat.

          --
          No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:20PM (4 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:20PM (#1127129) Journal

            Thermal runaway will kill them, but otherwise a pretty solid chemistry.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
            • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday March 21 2021, @04:38PM (3 children)

              by deimtee (3272) on Sunday March 21 2021, @04:38PM (#1127159) Journal

              Easy to avoid with a properly set up system. If you are using a grid charger just go constant current, and if you are charging from solar or domestic windmill, put enough batteries in parallel that they can't supply enough current to damage them. I think you can also resurrect them from thermal runaway unless they get hot enough to actually melt something. Simply losing all the electrolyte as H2 gas won't permanently kill them.

              --
              No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 21 2021, @10:47PM (2 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @10:47PM (#1127250) Journal

                Easy to avoid with a properly set up system.

                Not when the ambient temperature goes 40C+. It rarely does, but it all it takes is once.
                And no, I'm not giving up habitable space. The problem is of course still solvable, but it's no longer "easy to void".

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
                • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Monday March 22 2021, @07:22AM (1 child)

                  by maxwell demon (1608) on Monday March 22 2021, @07:22AM (#1127387) Journal

                  Not when the ambient temperature goes 40C+. It rarely does, but it all it takes is once.

                  What if you just put it underground?

                  --
                  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 22 2021, @09:01AM

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 22 2021, @09:01AM (#1127394) Journal

                    What if you just put it underground?

                    The problem is solvable, just not trivially easy.
                    E.g. underground, waterproof, breathable, still easy to access to fill in extra water from time to time.
                    Size may start to matter too, just a fancy hole is something (scale horizontally for accessibility), a "basement" build on purpose is something else (as also something else is a wine cellar)

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by fakefuck39 on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:47PM (3 children)

          by fakefuck39 (6620) on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:47PM (#1127141)

          can't theoretically solve -no. but then again, theoretically we can build a colony for a million people on mars. doesn't solve? it indeed does not.

          your solution is for each of the 3mil households in chicagoland, 1/3 on food stamps, to get at 8k battery? yeah, we'll break even i'm sure, in many years, ignoring that this cash is needed for food, and ignoring that in the real world, that money would have doubled in 6 years by being invested. boy yo so schmart!

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 21 2021, @10:55PM (2 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @10:55PM (#1127254) Journal

            Because everybody lives in chigacoland and, besides, if a solution is not perfect it must be garbage, yes.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
            • (Score: 1, Troll) by fakefuck39 on Monday March 22 2021, @12:15AM (1 child)

              by fakefuck39 (6620) on Monday March 22 2021, @12:15AM (#1127287)

              Yes, the solution of every household getting a lithium battery in order to make solar energy base energy is absolute garbage spouted by a complete retard, and should not be considered. No, not every place is Chicagoland. But every place that has high base energy needs is a big metro area, like chicagoland, because that is where most people live, and that's who uses most electricity. Let me guess, you're one of those people that thinks land gets a vote too.

              And by the way, your investment is literally the opposite of an investment. Because you can't do basic logical thinking, or basic math. By the time you recoup your battery cost, that cash put into a safe mutual fund doubles. Then it quadruples in the same time. Then it's up 16x in that same time. Your battery saves you only the base cost and depreciates. You are literally losing tens of thousands of dollars over your lifetime by buying this $8.5k battery. So not only is your solution garbage for shifting peak production to peak load, it is garbage for the personal use case you bought it for.

              Because, again, you are a complete and udder moron.

              A solution doesn't have to be perfect to be good. But when it does literally the opposite of your goal, it is garbage. Like if you buy a grenade to prevent thieves from stealing your expensive TV, which destroys your TV and half your outer wall. It is a garbage solution, that does the opposite of what you want, created by a skull full of rotting garbage. Your skull. You fucking retard.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 22 2021, @01:14AM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 22 2021, @01:14AM (#1127303) Journal

                Yes, the solution of every household getting a lithium battery in order to make solar energy base energy

                You forgot your ADHD medication again? Show me where did I imply that every household should.
                With enough buffer capacity in a percentage of households, your big metro areas are covered and the burbs and country side can make their money providing a buffering service.

                By the time you recoup your battery cost, that cash put into a safe mutual fund doubles.

                Hey, forget doing anything productive, everybody invest in safe mutual funds. They double your money by magic, you can retire early in chicagoland area, it's the peak of your American dream.
                (safe mutual funds are also know to provide you with the electric power you need when you need it, don't worry about)
                there may be the small problem in finding the true "safe mutual funds", but let's not get bogged in details.

                Your battery saves you only the base cost and depreciates.

                And participating into the energy market: buy low at offpeak, feed-in high at peak.

                Because, again, you are a complete and udder moron.

                You bumbling idiot, you forgot making fun of autistic persons. Are you sliding deeper into senility or it's just that you acquired a kink for udders?

                But when it does literally the opposite of your goal, it is garbage.

                Besides spewing non-sense and make-believe stories 'bout mythical safe investment funds, do you have any other purpose in life?

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 20 2021, @08:16PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 20 2021, @08:16PM (#1126827)

    >> a massive bubble in solar and wind

    You don't know what you're talking about... Elon Musk didn't get to be the richest man in the world on the back of a massive bubble.

    • (Score: 0, Touché) by khallow on Saturday March 20 2021, @08:23PM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 20 2021, @08:23PM (#1126829) Journal

      Elon Musk didn't get to be the richest man in the world on the back of a massive bubble.

      Three bubbles (dotcom, electric vehicles, and new space).

      • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Saturday March 20 2021, @09:25PM (3 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 20 2021, @09:25PM (#1126857) Journal

        Yeeees, those are bubbles just waiting to burst.
        You just wait, any moment now the world will realize how wrong they were and will revert at burning coal.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Saturday March 20 2021, @10:13PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 20 2021, @10:13PM (#1126871) Journal

          Yeeees, those are bubbles just waiting to burst.

          Dotcom already burst in 2000-2001. As to the other two, can you really claim that the businesses, which most of Elon Musk's estimated wealth are bassed on, are valued appropriately? Is Tesla really worth seven times as much as General Motors? SpaceX doesn't seem that overvalued, but we'll see if it's worth its $6 billion valuation.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:42AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:42AM (#1127029)

            Are you saying the invisible magic pricing wand in the sky isn't factoring in all the information you just blew out your ass?

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:20PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:20PM (#1127189) Journal

              Are you saying the invisible magic pricing wand in the sky isn't factoring in all the information you just blew out your ass?

              Sure, why not? It's just also pricing in what people are willing to pay for Musk businesses at the time he had them.

  • (Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Saturday March 20 2021, @09:22PM (16 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 20 2021, @09:22PM (#1126855) Journal

    Given that this is alleged...

    Thanks for the laugh of the day. Especially when it is used to justify a categorical conclusion.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:09AM (15 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:09AM (#1126986) Journal
      I just need to be right. You have a reason to think otherwise?
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:16AM (13 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:16AM (#1126988) Journal

        I just need to be right.

        Yes, I know khallow, being a con right is a compulsion with you.
        Even a non-leftie soylenter would notice.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:34AM (12 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:34AM (#1126999) Journal

          Yes, I know khallow, being a con right is a compulsion with you. Even a non-leftie soylenter would notice.

          I don't even care what "con right" is supposed to mean. Do you have a reason to think I'm wrong, incorrect, etc here?

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 21 2021, @07:19AM (11 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @07:19AM (#1127008) Journal

            Do you have a reason to think I'm wrong, incorrect, etc here?

            I have that hunch that you underestimate how fast renewables displace fossil.

            Solar panels switched off by energy authorities to stabilise South Australian electricity grid [abc.net.au] - too much energy generated, not enough demand.

            5 years after a blackout [abc.net.au] with a govt built buffer of 100MW/129MWh [abc.net.au], the private sector starts to make big plans (250MW with 1GWh capacity [energy-storage.news].

            As for being right or wrong in regards with "accounting"? I can't care less. But the word of mouth is that storage provide quite a good ROI, while still delivering saving to the consumer [reneweconomy.com.au].

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @08:12AM (10 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @08:12AM (#1127015) Journal
              I'm fine being wrong here.

              I find it interesting though how hard the narrative of obsolete fossil fuels is being pushed. That tells me that it may not be all that close after all. You don't need to push water downhill, for example.
              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:20AM (9 children)

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:20AM (#1127023) Journal

                I find it interesting though how hard the narrative of obsolete fossil fuels is being pushed.

                If that's a narrative, you should be more than fine betting on the stock market against them.

                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:25PM (8 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:25PM (#1127131) Journal

                  If that's a narrative, you should be more than fine betting on the stock market against them.

                  Because? We still have the political activity that led to huge solar and wind subsidies. I'm not going to bet against a well-funded mistake. Not yet anyway.

                  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:39PM (7 children)

                    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:39PM (#1127138) Journal

                    We still have the political activity that led to huge solar and wind subsidies.

                    Good choice of verb tense, they are rolling them back. At least in Australia.

                    --
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:50PM (6 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:50PM (#1127144) Journal
                      Might be worth looking at some Australia investment then.
                      • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday March 21 2021, @04:45PM (5 children)

                        by deimtee (3272) on Sunday March 21 2021, @04:45PM (#1127163) Journal

                        They are rolling back the solar subsidies because it was being installed faster than they could adapt the grid to. Power prices here (~ $0.25 / KWh) are high enough and the weather sunny enough that solar is economical without a subsidy in most of the country.

                        --
                        No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @05:59PM (4 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @05:59PM (#1127181) Journal
                          We'll see if solar is still being install fast when the subsidies are removed.
                          • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Sunday March 21 2021, @10:40PM

                            by deimtee (3272) on Sunday March 21 2021, @10:40PM (#1127242) Journal

                            They are pretty much removed now, and it is still being installed. But they have a roadmap of how fast they want it, and if it slows down too much the subsidies will come back.

                            --
                            No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
                          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday March 21 2021, @10:53PM (2 children)

                            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @10:53PM (#1127252) Journal

                            I get YT ads from a company that want to sucker suckers in their program: get paid to install PV on your roof. I suspect a scheme of "we are the PV owners, will sell you power made on your roof".

                            Otherwise, I'm charged 27c/kWh consumed and paid 6.5c/kWh fed into the grid - no longer subsidized.

                            --
                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 22 2021, @01:01AM (1 child)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 22 2021, @01:01AM (#1127297)

                              > I'm charged 27c/kWh consumed and paid 6.5c/kWh fed into the grid

                              Do you have more installed solar than your "base load"? By base load, I mean minimum load during the day when solar is making power--all the clocks, computers, etc that are always on.

                              Given the poor sell/buy ratio, it would seem like a disincentive to have much more solar than your base load?

                              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 22 2021, @01:21AM

                                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 22 2021, @01:21AM (#1127307) Journal

                                Given the poor sell/buy ratio, it would seem like a disincentive to have much more solar than your base load?

                                True. 'xcept the storage prices come down fast lately and then one can move in storing all that's needed and feed-in nothing. Totally achievable with the rooftop area available.
                                We're early on in the process; once it picks up speed it will accelerate the downfall into the death spiral for power utilities - the more money you try to squeeze, the less participants to squeeze will choose to stay with you.

                                --
                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:43AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:43AM (#1127030)

        > I just need to be right.

        Even a broken clock is right half the time.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by helel on Saturday March 20 2021, @11:10PM (7 children)

    by helel (2949) on Saturday March 20 2021, @11:10PM (#1126889)

    Remember when the SWB percentage contribution to the Texas grid doubled because you they couldn't keep the hydrocarbons or nuclear running in the cold? Renewables are simply more reliable than oil or coal.

    Face it, everyone from common home owners to big power produces are buying up the new technology and you're on here shilling for the horse-and-buggy because you can't imagine a world without it.

    --
    Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:24AM (6 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:24AM (#1126993) Journal

      Remember when the SWB percentage contribution to the Texas grid doubled because you they couldn't keep the hydrocarbons or nuclear running in the cold?

      Nope, and you don't either. For example, this link [seia.org] indicates that there was a drop of around a third from peak power production for solar and wind, while "thermal power plants" declined from peak by a little less. Certainly, there was no doubling of the share of SWB.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by helel on Sunday March 21 2021, @11:44AM (5 children)

        by helel (2949) on Sunday March 21 2021, @11:44AM (#1127063)

        Thermal Power Plant Output Down 25% ... Renewables Down 1%

        According to your link...

        Pre-freeze Renewables: 4428MW/57595MW = 7.6%
        Peek Freeze Renewables: 4364MW/44428MW = 9.8%

        So in full fairness they didn't double. I think I had previously seen reporting based on renewable numbers from 2018is and Texas has been putting in allot of wind since then.

        --
        Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:36PM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @03:36PM (#1127136) Journal
          Read my post again. 4364/7647 = 57% (which is much more than my earlier estimate of a third). 40037/53150 = 75% (all numbers in MW). If renewable kept on going at that peak, it would have eased the deficit (~69000MW demand - 44000MW supply = 25000MW deficit) by about an eighth. Not enough to save the situation, but it'd make things a little better.
          • (Score: 2) by helel on Sunday March 21 2021, @04:32PM (3 children)

            by helel (2949) on Sunday March 21 2021, @04:32PM (#1127158)

            Yes, but that 7647 MW was during the freezing event. If we want to cherry pick that number then production during the freeze would be 7647(freezing)/4428(normal production). That would give us 172% production. 4300ish MW is the expected output of the renewables on an average day. When you have massive winds you wind up with extra power but you don't install infrastructure off of that once or twice a year peak.

            --
            Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @05:15PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @05:15PM (#1127167) Journal

              Yes, but that 7647 MW was during the freezing event.

              Yes, and the lower number was also during that freezing event.

              • (Score: 2) by helel on Sunday March 21 2021, @05:39PM (1 child)

                by helel (2949) on Sunday March 21 2021, @05:39PM (#1127175)

                Yes, that's why I compared the lower number to the pre-freezing number. Renewables weren't unaffected by the weather, they lost about 1% capacity. They just faired a hell of a lot better than non-renewables which lost 25%.

                --
                Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @05:58PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @05:58PM (#1127180) Journal

                  Renewables weren't unaffected by the weather, they lost about 1% capacity.

                  I disagree. I think the difference between the peak and the next day was the better comparison (which incidentally would be a 43% drop), because that was all out production. The grid was underpowered by then.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday March 21 2021, @01:23AM (10 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @01:23AM (#1126921) Journal

    Yeah, and automobiles did some serious undercutting of the horsewhip, buggy, and horseshoe industries too.

    This is the Free Market at work. Your God, remember? Shut up and worship, blasphemer.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:25AM (8 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @06:25AM (#1126994) Journal

      This is the Free Market at work.

      As I noted before, with these kinds of subsidies and regulations, there is no free market in power generation.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 21 2021, @08:17AM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday March 21 2021, @08:17AM (#1127016) Journal
        Thinking about this, electricity markets are freer now than it was oh, 30 years ago, particularly in the US. But it continues to mystify me why people think these are free markets (close to the ideal, that is) with all the government overhead and constraints?

        Government interference could, for example, make geothermal attractive (through a combination of subsidy and penalizing the alternatives). If that were to happen, would we then applaud the inevitable shift in the market to geothermal or ask whether we could be doing better things with the effort and resources going into that?
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:46AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21 2021, @09:46AM (#1127033)

          Those zany kids and their whacko plans! Bah!

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 22 2021, @01:17AM (5 children)

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 22 2021, @01:17AM (#1127306) Journal

        So it's only the Free Market when it's something you like, and when it's not something you like. Duh Eebil Gubbamint And Its Regulations From Thuh Pits'o'Hell are responsible? Oh, you stupid, lying motherfucker...

        I will agree with you on one thing, though: fossil fuels never should have gotten subsidized. Had that never happened, maybe we'd have gotten a decade or two ahead on the renewables curve than where we are.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 22 2021, @05:48AM (4 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 22 2021, @05:48AM (#1127369) Journal

          So it's only the Free Market when

          Words have meaning. A true free market is an impossible ideal, but in practice, we call anything close a free market. Here, there are number problems that make the market not free. A key pair are heavy regulation and large market distortions (particularly, subsidies) of the market.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday March 22 2021, @06:32AM (3 children)

            by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 22 2021, @06:32AM (#1127380) Journal

            Yes. Words DO have meaning, which is what I and several others have been pounding into your greasy self-serving smirking ignorant face for years to no avail. You don't argue in good faith and never did.

            The Free Market (why are you not capitalizing the name of your God, blasphemer?!) is a fucking *stupid* solution to most problems of human endeavor. The less elastic the demand for something is, which is to say, the more important and basic it is for survival and social intercourse, the stupider an idea "let's apply Free Market ideology to this!" becomes.

            You, in your demon-worshiping Free Market religion, have forgotten that markets emerge from and were created for human prosperity, NOT the other way around. If you want to bitch about regulation being applied poorly, do so, but STOP USING THAT TO IMPLY REGULATION ITSELF IS BAD. You disingenuous little fuck. Do you think we can't all see what you're doing with this?

            --
            I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 22 2021, @03:48PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 22 2021, @03:48PM (#1127520)

              It is now apparent that in addition to the mental disorder of homosexuality, you have Tourette's. Just kidding. You do seem to have a real case of depression, though.

              • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday March 23 2021, @11:57AM

                by Azuma Hazuki (5086) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 23 2021, @11:57AM (#1127873) Journal

                So~o, did you have anything germane to the points I was making to say, or did you just want to tone troll?

                --
                I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
            • (Score: 1, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday March 23 2021, @01:49PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 23 2021, @01:49PM (#1127928) Journal

              Yes. Words DO have meaning, which is what I and several others have been pounding into your greasy self-serving smirking ignorant face for years to no avail. You don't argue in good faith and never did.

              I suggest looking up the meaning of free market and asking yourself, how does that apply to a heavily subsidized and regulated situation? And then apologize for being an idiot here. As to the rest of your post, there's a quote that seems so very appropriate "People make up how things work." [reason.com]. Nobody worships free markets here. Nobody claims all regulation is bad. Pull your head out of your ass.

              And remember, truth remains an absolute defense against your bullshit.

    • (Score: 2) by helel on Sunday March 21 2021, @11:50AM

      by helel (2949) on Sunday March 21 2021, @11:50AM (#1127064)

      The free market is only an unquestionable god when it causes mass suffering and death. When it helps someone, even just coincidentally, it's a sign of market failure and an indication that the government should give even more money to anyone burning coal. After all, the markets just not fair if solar and wind cost a third less than gas and coal!

      --
      Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]