The French company Neoen that owns that battery promptly filed for an IPO after publishing first year financials. Part of its revenue comes from a government contract - and so a quick IPO is just what the doctor ordered. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... -in-a-yearJulito wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 1:16 pmAnd then there´s this....
https://www.popsci.com/tesla-building-w ... -will-work
From my perspective it's a repeat of the dot-com IPO bubble - unproven, mysterious technology (the more mysterious, the better) used as a pretext for raising vast amounts of money. What makes this case stand out is the South Australian government's direct involvement. Let's just hope that the roaring success is not promptly followed by a roaring fire - after the IPO, of course.Julito wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2019 2:43 pmYes the Australian Federal Government, with no workable climate change/emissions policy due to a cabel of right wing pro-coal climate change denialists, poured scorn on the idea. Hopefully they´re going to voted out into oblivion next month. The South Australian state government went ahead with it, the project has proven to be a roaring success and it´s since been connected to the national grid.
- Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
- Posts: 2050
- Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2008 6:35 pm
- Location: In Chile
To put its capability into perspective, it could replace the installed generating capacity of the Punta Arenas area for roughly one hour. But that isn't its purpose.
http://hrudnick.sitios.ing.uc.cl/alumno ... 0Chile.htm
Of course that begs the question of why its needed in the first place, but that's where the arguments start.
Après moi, le déluge
On April 21st, the University of Chicago's Energy Policy Institute (EPIC) released the results of a comprehensive study comparing states that have renewable portfolio standards (RPS) with states that don’t.
It reported that seven years after passage of an RPS program, renewable power generation was, on average, 1.8% higher and retail electricity prices were, on average, 11% higher.
It reported that 12 years after passage of an RPS program, renewable power generation was, on average, 4.2% higher and retail electricity prices were, on average, 17% higher.
It also reported an all-in cost of $130 to $460 per metric ton for CO2 abatement.
When RPS programs that favor less than 10% of annual electricity production drive average retail electricity prices up by 11% to 17%, something is desperately wrong.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/425717 ... block=true
Now, Britkid, go ahead and kill the messenger
The article says:Julito wrote: ↑Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:45 pmOr this.....?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-04-26/ ... t/11041964
"JP Morgan energy and utilities analyst Mark Busuttil said returns on a $55/MWh PPA — assuming the project was 80 per cent debt funded — would be around 11 per cent.
"We estimate that a wind farm costing $2,000/kW (kilowatt) with a $55/MWh offtake contract over the first 15 years, then reverting to a merchant power price of $75/MWh for the remaining 10-year life of the plant, would achieve a nominal internal rate of return of five per cent," Mr Busuttil said."
So, 80% debt funding, and 5% return (if all goes well). Would you put your money into such a thing? The powers that be are using free liquidity to stimulate economic activity, is all this is.
- Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
- Posts: 2080
- Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:59 pm
- Location: Talagante area, Chile
I read the article. First, this article may be biased because the author (of the article, not the study it's based on) is short on Tesla. The study looks at the past 7 years but renewables (especially solar and wind) have improved a lot in cost over that time. The points he makes about renewables imposing extra costs on the grids in terms of capacity add, transmission and retiring capital early look accurate, but are probably not a huge cost add overall.
In general based on articles I read and stats I saw I think renewables are broadly comparable in cost to fossil fuels/nuclear these days although I don't have detailed knowledge. I looked at the prices of the suppliers in the UK that provide 100% renewable electricity and on average they are about the same as the ones that provide electricity that is mostly fossil fuels/nuclear. Remember fossil fuels also benefit from subsidies of various kinds.
However, even if/where renewable energy is more expensive, I still think we should use it. We need to make ethical rather than economic judgements, and value the prevention of climate change more than a little difference in cost. Otherwise we are saying it's worth causing death and suffering to get things a little cheaper in the short term.
Fighting climate change is generally thought to be cheaper for society in the long run (e.g. Stern report, US government report this year or last), once you factor in the costs of fighting climate change over the next 50 or 100 years. So buying cheap fossil fuels now is just like taking out a loan that your kids and grandkids are forced to pay back with interest. Assuming they'll be still around to pay it and haven't died in a flood or a drought. So cheap fossil fuels is not only forcing your kids to pay back your loan, it's leaving them with an aggressive and unpredictable loan shark.