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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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