Quote:
Originally Posted by casper
I think we are heading in that direction. The ability of Europe to transition off Russia to the extent they have in a short time was impressive.
|
Decades from now when the history books are being written, I think the Ukraine invasion is going to be a pivotal marker in the development of clean energy and the energy independence of Europe. Putin went way too early. And now Europe will both cut out Russia and reduce demand for fossil fuels, dampening global demand (somewhat) over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by casper
The analysis of the transition to solar and wind leaves out the sunk costs. Hydro and Nuclear have upfront costs. That money is already spent the operating costs are much lower. While we may hit the tipping point where it is not economically viable to build new facilities I the existing ones will still be in operation for years or decades. There is also a floor to how low solar and wind can go. Where exactly that is less clear.
|
Nobody suggested renewables are going to replace existing generation. But eventually as recapitalization is needed, a lot of conventional assets may face a poor business case for further investment. Hydro is in a category of its own. Because it provides clean, cheap (on marginal cost) dispatchable power 24/7. But as we see with natural gas peaker plants, sometimes the best option is not to double down on existing tech and simply to use the locations and gets connections for other purposes or types of generations.
I am bullish on nuclear. But Jigar Shah has absolutely been on the mark. The nuclear industry has talked more than they've delivered. Taking over a decade to build Vogtle 3 & 4 is not a scalable model. There's so few who would finance a build like that and even fewer who would insure it. If it can't be done in 3-5 years, it's not going to be competitive. This where SMRs might save the industry. Too bad it took them decades to understand this.