As someone who started watching the decoupled recently I absolutely agree. Mark Nelson is one of my favorites however I think there's a lot of guests for whom there's no need for this one hour rule. I watch and listen to a lot of podcasts that are well above 1 hour mark.
LCOE is the equivalent of driving to a known location across town and, instead of following a roadmap or your GPS, you just take the least busy-looking turn at each intersection. You may have a higher average speed but your chances of getting to your desired destination is pretty low.
Mark Nelson hits the nail with the concept of kWh fungibility, it is crucial to understand this. BTW as a French consumer I am glad to see the govt stepping in to help stabilize prices but I hope it doesn't come at the expense of future investment.
Although I enjoyed the episode overall (and by the way it ended, it seems like there should be a sequel) I think Mark's attempt, presumably not to use too mathematical a vocabulary to frame the issues with LCOE, played against him in this one. If we are going to talk about costs it means we'll be talking about optimization, thus we should engage in discussions about such problems using the vocabulary of optimization as much as the layman can reasonably put up with. Otherwise, we risk getting into excessively long and perhaps a bit obfuscated commentary. For instance, when at 14:18 Mark mentions the irritation we engineers supposedly have with economics and its _hazy categories and nonrigorous definitions_ he's clearly making too broad a statement. We certainly need to have DCF analysis in our mental toolbox to evaluate investment problems: deliberately avoiding to discount cash flows doesn't really makes us wiser, nor does ignoring it necessary lead to better decisions. This is true for engineers as much as for anybody else in charge of allocating capital among competing uses. Tools are tools. On the one hand, LCOE has a very clear meaning: it is the net present cost of generating an extra unit of energy during the lifetime of a power plant or project, given its present and future expected negative cash flows. That's it. As such its calculation does not consider the effect of adding large amounts of that type of power plant to the profile of future negative cash flows (for instance by depleting some key raw material that goes into the construction or operation of the plant), nor any other macroeconomic effect of a concerted rollout on the whole grid. Of course, in such circumstances the updated LCOE would show different values moving forward once the higher costs became apparent, but at any given moment it would only show what the market reasonably expects from the technology, changing continuously. The rising trend of nuclear LCOE in the West during the last decade illustrates exactly that, as LWR technology itself has not changed in that period, but the market outlook _has_ after the EPR and AP1000 debacles. That means if tomorrow a new AP1000 or EPR got built in 5 years and on budget, in the next report from Lazard nuclear LCOE should collapse. I wouldn't say that is a limitation of LCOE but of the way impatient capital assesses investment decisions in general, and for better or worse, that's a big chunk of the consumers of Lazard's reports. On the other hand, LCOE does not reflect the quality of a kWh from intermittent vs. dispatchable sources, because the attribute of reliability is not to be found in the cost to produce a kWh of electricity (which is indeed itself fungible) but in the premium placed on the risk of default from the power supplier. Ideally, either the utility or the ratepayer should be able to account for the risk of default on delivery from intermittent generators. As such, they should be able to hedge that risk either through insurance or capacity markets, in turn providing sufficient income to dispatchable ones. The recognition that such risk of default on the grid might not be adequately priced-in with increasing penetration of wind and solar, and thus that there are not enough incentives in place to preclude future grid instabilities or blackouts, only suggests that energy markets in general and liberalized electricity markets in particular might fail to adequately compensate robustness. Such deficiencies are obviously beyond the scope of LCOE, and this is certainly not a limitation of the former. I agree though on this with Mark, although he really only touched this topic briefly in his previous appearance ("A Soft Landing... "). Still, I think the emphasis on the skyrocketing cost of natural gas when the wind doesn't blow in the UK obfuscated the actual issue at hand. A high penetration of presumably cheap intermittent and variable sources such as wind and solar can increase _both_ LCOE and the value of fast ramping capacity such as natural gas turbines, by both reducing their capacity factor (and thus making their electricity more expensive to produce) and also by increasing the scarcity (and thus the price) of power during wind lulls and cloudy weeks. So what? What really matters is whatever total cost the weighted sum of low-price-but-unreliable wind and solar power with extremely-high-price-but-seldom-fired natural gas OCGT electricity gives you. That total cost is the actual objective function to minimize, and it can be higher or lower in the described VRE-rich grid than in a completely different one with only nuclear and some pumped hydro storage, or better yet, in a balanced mix of all these clean sources. That's the real question. In the end, and going back to the importance of framing the problem in terms of optimization, what you guys in this episode run circles around was the intuition that minimizing LCOE might not lead to a minimum total cost trajectory for energy provision at the final-user level. The precise way to express it is that exploiting the energy resources with the lowest LCOE, at best, only guarantees reaching a local minimum in total cost but not a global optimum. By sequentially building whatever energy source that is perceived as cheaper right now and updating that knowledge along the way, we might miss a huge opportunity to optimize the system in a way that is incompatible with a small-steps development, such as a Messmer Plan. We might need to take a big jump to the other side which we won't be willing to take. And this is because in a highly nonlinear system such as the global energy network and its geopolitical ties, the (total) energy cost landscape is bound to be full of mountains, valleys, craters and ridges, and it would be very easy to get stuck in one such local minimum -which could well look like a bunch of wind and solar plus natural gas-fired backup.
Thank you for your exceptionally thoughtful commentary on the episode! You make great points and explain concepts with clarity. I'll make sure this reaches Mark :)
Page 5 of the 2023 Lazard LCOE study shows Nuclear LCOE as $141-$221 but with a footnote 4 that shows that the midpoint of Marginal cost of a fully depreciated nuclear plant as $31/MWh.
I want to understand this topic but I had a difficult time following the presentation. Mark is an interesting guest - I have heard him before on Robert Bryce's podcast. I will listen to this again. It is really important to understand both the concept of the LCOE and other real life costs of nuclear versus renewables. There has to be a simple and understandable way to compare costs. The renewable fan club keeps insisting that renewables are cheap but our energy bills keep growing and electricity is less reliable. This has to be fixed. I love this podcast. I will listen my way through all the old episodes. 👍
Generally grids are more reliable so no you cant blame renewables for that one. Your bills are growing because the cost of energy input is growing ie the Ngas. For renewables the price of wind and sun is still 0.
Typically renewable pushers will tend to use the lowest market rate that you'll get in a day like at peak Peak solar production for example in the midday - Unfortunately power demands tend to peak in the evening just when solar is going down in its production. This is when the price for electricity starts to Skyrocket again supply and demand rules. A lot of them will try to imply that that lowest Peak production rate is actually the typical cost for renewablesa it isn't It's hard to reduce Complexities of the Electric market down to levelized cost of energy they're a lot more complex issues involved like for example wind Turbines typically have a life around 20 to 30 years and nuclear reactor properly maintained can have a lifespan of almost a century. There's another problem with wind turbines is that they have a low energy density so thus you do not get very much return on investment compared to what you get for a nuclear reactor Terms of kilowatt hour per kilogram of material invested In infrastructure- Here's a very good example of actually why it's kind of b******* why is it that France has the lowest power rates in Europe and they are mostly nuclear and Germany has some of the highest power rates in Europe and they've been going with solar and wind Investments? As the old Chef adage goes the proof is in the pudding France has the lowest electricity rates on the European continent and they have mostly nuclear energy production for electricity. Data speaks for itself Solar and wind is a waste of money bad for the environment in terms of footprint. Yeah it seems well in Dandy but it isn't really impractical in real terms when you actually evaluate Real life conditions of the electricity market and the life Cycle of things like wind turbines and solar cells I mean you have to eventually recycle them when they actually start to wear out. Parts on a nuclear reactor tend to be much more durable than we have nuclear power plants now that have been online for close to 60 years Are perfectly fine with your upgrades mind you but yes
What's changed recently is the increasing number of nations committing to net-zero (as opposed to 80% reduction). That final 20% forces the storage element into the equation because gas for backup of intermittent renewables is no longer an option.
Great informative episode as always! I think the housing analogy would be better by using building types in Florida where hurricanes frequently occur. Sure it costs more to build robust structures, but then people also don't die from the natural disasters and houses don't get flooded or destroyed.
LCOE is a great tool for investment decision but not for calculating system costs. That is provided you are able to guess correctly which will be your capacity factor, as it will reflect economic and technical curtailment, meaning that it will reflect the value of electricity compared to the your running costs. Same applies to nuclear but for the downregulation. E.g. You would see that the LCOE of a nuclear power plant will increase sharply in France as they have so much nuclear (same source with same marginal pricing) that it needs to be curtailed to cater for periods of low demand. Capacity Factors of 70% vs 90% in other countries.
In developing any relevant analysis of circumstances, the immediate limitation is comprehensible data self-defining from First Principle Observation, in which case the (Singularity-point) Observation is taken by Agnostic neutrality free of bias(?), no such thing, the WYSIWYG QM-TIME resonance Actuality is constantly connected in/by empirical laws of probabilistic correlations in the Mind-Body context of Actuality. So any presentation of facts outside typical experiences takes repeated recursive resetting to be comprehensible. (You just did a great job of outlining how deliberate ignorance has designed the present state of inverted "levelized costs" of propaganda induced stupidity, ie without accurate data, stupidity is the natural consequence)
As well discussed in the excellent comments of Grobocopatel, LCOE needs to better include insurance costs for the failure to deliver power on time. Isn't this exactly what finance guys live for?This is not a new problem as anyone from California will tell you.
The cost of a power failure is not talked about enough. A good example is that of a baker. if there is a power failure then the bread will not rise. and batch of bread can be spoiled. I read that a fiberglass manufacturer if they have a power failure then their cost can be extensive if done during their process. many petrochemical plants and pharmaceutical companies if they have a power failure then the cost to production can be extensive even if they have cheap power at low as 6 cents per KWhr. a power failure is worst then $1.00 per KWhr. with now power failure. The worst is a patient on an operating table and a power failure. cost of system. C=total cost R=rate $per Mwhr. T=time of use in total hours N=number of power failures L=length of power failure ( minutes ) K= cost of no power . this could be lost profits, lost sales , redoing work dumping material in garbage. this K factors is variable highly dependent on industry as in no power for aluminum smelter lost data in a data center spoiled food because no refrigeration etc etc. therefore C=RT+NLK
wow Mark comes w/ fire. extra points for Cinderella analogy I'd propose LCOE_SS "Leveled Cost Of Electricity as Sole Source". What would be cost per MWhr if that one source was used? This would need to account for spare capacity n batteries. In case of Solar you'd need ton of extra capacity + batteries. this is not perfect but better.
Mark is not only knowledgeable, but also insightful... athwbproblwnlm is he branches on too many tangents within a sentence, then branches s on tangents of the tangents. If I didn't already know this topic well prior to listening, I would have been en utterly lost.
31mins, You need to do a LCOE of the system, all the parts of alternative systems. You appear to be saying that renewables + storage = nuclear but really its + storage. ie renewables + storage = nuclear + storage. You could argue then maybe the storage on each side cancels the other out, interesting.
Great episode on the limits of comparing energy sources by LCOE! I would just point out the irony of your intro, where you apply the exact same fallacy to ranking food by calories - another metric which out of context is very flawed. A slice of cheesecake (perfect combo of fat and sugar) vs it’s calorific equivalent in a home cooked meal has a very different outcome!
"Risk from nuclear innovations is not good" well if one does not take that risk then how come they reap the rewards of passive decay heat removal and inherent control. Without these two attributes nuclear renaissance won't be feasible.
Solar & wind require batteries as it is not always available when you need it. Nuclear requires batteries as it is always available, even when you do not need it. Batteries are widely available and also becoming cheaper rapidly. During summer periods there is no way nuclear can now or ever in future compete with solar + batteries. Without high utilization, Nuclear plants are tremendously expensive. Appreciate your point of view, but do not agree with it.
22:00 Sorry but that is false, consumers in France were not paying more because EDF hedges their prices, this is one of the main reasons why EDF had to be bailed by the french government. By August, 8 months had cost them €8bn to subsidize power prices to consumers. They have had exactly the same issue as other countries in Europe but instead of relying on renewables they relied on nuclear.
Renewables cannot and should not be used in the same calculation as renewables unless the renewables include the value of delivered electricity that includes time of day prices and storage costs.
at 28:25 the guest starts getting mad about the LCOE of Nuclear, and then says Lazard is accurate, 5 seconds after saying lazard is innaccurate. This guy is a freaking spazz, and is off his meds. i cant watch this guy spaz out like this.
Every time this guy stretches his brain to explain economics, he swaps in a lie, and then he ends up making an emotional argument that is completely incoherent, and can't even remember the question by the time hes emotionally exhausted most of your brains.
"The lazard brothers basically invented the idea of mergers in the 1800s" No, the concept of mergers is older than the 1800's, so thank you for the worlds most useless piece of information.
He needs to drop his one hour rule when he has Mark Nelson on.
As someone who started watching the decoupled recently I absolutely agree. Mark Nelson is one of my favorites however I think there's a lot of guests for whom there's no need for this one hour rule. I watch and listen to a lot of podcasts that are well above 1 hour mark.
LCOE is the equivalent of driving to a known location across town and, instead of following a roadmap or your GPS, you just take the least busy-looking turn at each intersection. You may have a higher average speed but your chances of getting to your desired destination is pretty low.
Mark Nelson hits the nail with the concept of kWh fungibility, it is crucial to understand this. BTW as a French consumer I am glad to see the govt stepping in to help stabilize prices but I hope it doesn't come at the expense of future investment.
Although I enjoyed the episode overall (and by the way it ended, it seems like there should be a sequel) I think Mark's attempt, presumably not to use too mathematical a vocabulary to frame the issues with LCOE, played against him in this one. If we are going to talk about costs it means we'll be talking about optimization, thus we should engage in discussions about such problems using the vocabulary of optimization as much as the layman can reasonably put up with. Otherwise, we risk getting into excessively long and perhaps a bit obfuscated commentary.
For instance, when at 14:18 Mark mentions the irritation we engineers supposedly have with economics and its _hazy categories and nonrigorous definitions_ he's clearly making too broad a statement. We certainly need to have DCF analysis in our mental toolbox to evaluate investment problems: deliberately avoiding to discount cash flows doesn't really makes us wiser, nor does ignoring it necessary lead to better decisions. This is true for engineers as much as for anybody else in charge of allocating capital among competing uses. Tools are tools.
On the one hand, LCOE has a very clear meaning: it is the net present cost of generating an extra unit of energy during the lifetime of a power plant or project, given its present and future expected negative cash flows. That's it. As such its calculation does not consider the effect of adding large amounts of that type of power plant to the profile of future negative cash flows (for instance by depleting some key raw material that goes into the construction or operation of the plant), nor any other macroeconomic effect of a concerted rollout on the whole grid. Of course, in such circumstances the updated LCOE would show different values moving forward once the higher costs became apparent, but at any given moment it would only show what the market reasonably expects from the technology, changing continuously. The rising trend of nuclear LCOE in the West during the last decade illustrates exactly that, as LWR technology itself has not changed in that period, but the market outlook _has_ after the EPR and AP1000 debacles. That means if tomorrow a new AP1000 or EPR got built in 5 years and on budget, in the next report from Lazard nuclear LCOE should collapse. I wouldn't say that is a limitation of LCOE but of the way impatient capital assesses investment decisions in general, and for better or worse, that's a big chunk of the consumers of Lazard's reports.
On the other hand, LCOE does not reflect the quality of a kWh from intermittent vs. dispatchable sources, because the attribute of reliability is not to be found in the cost to produce a kWh of electricity (which is indeed itself fungible) but in the premium placed on the risk of default from the power supplier. Ideally, either the utility or the ratepayer should be able to account for the risk of default on delivery from intermittent generators. As such, they should be able to hedge that risk either through insurance or capacity markets, in turn providing sufficient income to dispatchable ones. The recognition that such risk of default on the grid might not be adequately priced-in with increasing penetration of wind and solar, and thus that there are not enough incentives in place to preclude future grid instabilities or blackouts, only suggests that energy markets in general and liberalized electricity markets in particular might fail to adequately compensate robustness. Such deficiencies are obviously beyond the scope of LCOE, and this is certainly not a limitation of the former. I agree though on this with Mark, although he really only touched this topic briefly in his previous appearance ("A Soft Landing... ").
Still, I think the emphasis on the skyrocketing cost of natural gas when the wind doesn't blow in the UK obfuscated the actual issue at hand. A high penetration of presumably cheap intermittent and variable sources such as wind and solar can increase _both_ LCOE and the value of fast ramping capacity such as natural gas turbines, by both reducing their capacity factor (and thus making their electricity more expensive to produce) and also by increasing the scarcity (and thus the price) of power during wind lulls and cloudy weeks. So what? What really matters is whatever total cost the weighted sum of low-price-but-unreliable wind and solar power with extremely-high-price-but-seldom-fired natural gas OCGT electricity gives you. That total cost is the actual objective function to minimize, and it can be higher or lower in the described VRE-rich grid than in a completely different one with only nuclear and some pumped hydro storage, or better yet, in a balanced mix of all these clean sources. That's the real question.
In the end, and going back to the importance of framing the problem in terms of optimization, what you guys in this episode run circles around was the intuition that minimizing LCOE might not lead to a minimum total cost trajectory for energy provision at the final-user level. The precise way to express it is that exploiting the energy resources with the lowest LCOE, at best, only guarantees reaching a local minimum in total cost but not a global optimum. By sequentially building whatever energy source that is perceived as cheaper right now and updating that knowledge along the way, we might miss a huge opportunity to optimize the system in a way that is incompatible with a small-steps development, such as a Messmer Plan. We might need to take a big jump to the other side which we won't be willing to take. And this is because in a highly nonlinear system such as the global energy network and its geopolitical ties, the (total) energy cost landscape is bound to be full of mountains, valleys, craters and ridges, and it would be very easy to get stuck in one such local minimum -which could well look like a bunch of wind and solar plus natural gas-fired backup.
Thank you for your exceptionally thoughtful commentary on the episode! You make great points and explain concepts with clarity. I'll make sure this reaches Mark :)
@@decouplemedia My pleasure! Thank _you_ for providing us in the audience with so much food for thought.
Page 5 of the 2023 Lazard LCOE study shows Nuclear LCOE as $141-$221 but with a footnote 4 that shows that the midpoint of Marginal cost of a fully depreciated nuclear plant as $31/MWh.
I have been saying this (everything in this podcast) in online debates for YEARS.
I want to understand this topic but I had a difficult time following the presentation. Mark is an interesting guest - I have heard him before on Robert Bryce's podcast. I will listen to this again. It is really important to understand both the concept of the LCOE and other real life costs of nuclear versus renewables. There has to be a simple and understandable way to compare costs. The renewable fan club keeps insisting that renewables are cheap but our energy bills keep growing and electricity is less reliable. This has to be fixed.
I love this podcast. I will listen my way through all the old episodes. 👍
Generally grids are more reliable so no you cant blame renewables for that one. Your bills are growing because the cost of energy input is growing ie the Ngas. For renewables the price of wind and sun is still 0.
@@gzcwnkWind and solar continue to be infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis.
Typically renewable pushers will tend to use the lowest market rate that you'll get in a day like at peak Peak solar production for example in the midday - Unfortunately power demands tend to peak in the evening just when solar is going down in its production. This is when the price for electricity starts to Skyrocket again supply and demand rules. A lot of them will try to imply that that lowest Peak production rate is actually the typical cost for renewablesa it isn't It's hard to reduce Complexities of the Electric market down to levelized cost of energy they're a lot more complex issues involved like for example wind Turbines typically have a life around 20 to 30 years and nuclear reactor properly maintained can have a lifespan of almost a century. There's another problem with wind turbines is that they have a low energy density so thus you do not get very much return on investment compared to what you get for a nuclear reactor Terms of kilowatt hour per kilogram of material invested In infrastructure- Here's a very good example of actually why it's kind of b******* why is it that France has the lowest power rates in Europe and they are mostly nuclear and Germany has some of the highest power rates in Europe and they've been going with solar and wind Investments? As the old Chef adage goes the proof is in the pudding France has the lowest electricity rates on the European continent and they have mostly nuclear energy production for electricity. Data speaks for itself Solar and wind is a waste of money bad for the environment in terms of footprint. Yeah it seems well in Dandy but it isn't really impractical in real terms when you actually evaluate Real life conditions of the electricity market and the life Cycle of things like wind turbines and solar cells I mean you have to eventually recycle them when they actually start to wear out. Parts on a nuclear reactor tend to be much more durable than we have nuclear power plants now that have been online for close to 60 years Are perfectly fine with your upgrades mind you but yes
What's changed recently is the increasing number of nations committing to net-zero (as opposed to 80% reduction). That final 20% forces the storage element into the equation because gas for backup of intermittent renewables is no longer an option.
Great informative episode as always!
I think the housing analogy would be better by using building types in Florida where hurricanes frequently occur. Sure it costs more to build robust structures, but then people also don't die from the natural disasters and houses don't get flooded or destroyed.
This was fantastic
LCOE is a great tool for investment decision but not for calculating system costs. That is provided you are able to guess correctly which will be your capacity factor, as it will reflect economic and technical curtailment, meaning that it will reflect the value of electricity compared to the your running costs. Same applies to nuclear but for the downregulation. E.g. You would see that the LCOE of a nuclear power plant will increase sharply in France as they have so much nuclear (same source with same marginal pricing) that it needs to be curtailed to cater for periods of low demand. Capacity Factors of 70% vs 90% in other countries.
In developing any relevant analysis of circumstances, the immediate limitation is comprehensible data self-defining from First Principle Observation, in which case the (Singularity-point) Observation is taken by Agnostic neutrality free of bias(?), no such thing, the WYSIWYG QM-TIME resonance Actuality is constantly connected in/by empirical laws of probabilistic correlations in the Mind-Body context of Actuality.
So any presentation of facts outside typical experiences takes repeated recursive resetting to be comprehensible. (You just did a great job of outlining how deliberate ignorance has designed the present state of inverted "levelized costs" of propaganda induced stupidity, ie without accurate data, stupidity is the natural consequence)
As well discussed in the excellent comments of Grobocopatel, LCOE needs to better include insurance costs for the failure to deliver power on time. Isn't this exactly what finance guys live for?This is not a new problem as anyone from California will tell you.
Dense topic to be sure. Still scratching my head.
The cost of a power failure is not talked about enough. A good example is that of a baker. if there is a power failure then the bread will not rise. and batch of bread can be spoiled. I read that a fiberglass manufacturer if they have a power failure then their cost can be extensive if done during their process. many petrochemical plants and pharmaceutical companies if they have a power failure then the cost to production can be extensive even if they have cheap power at low as 6 cents per KWhr. a power failure is worst then $1.00 per KWhr. with now power failure. The worst is a patient on an operating table and a power failure.
cost of system.
C=total cost
R=rate $per Mwhr.
T=time of use in total hours
N=number of power failures
L=length of power failure ( minutes )
K= cost of no power . this could be lost profits, lost sales , redoing work dumping material in garbage. this K factors is variable highly dependent on industry as in no power for aluminum smelter lost data in a data center spoiled food because no refrigeration etc etc. therefore
C=RT+NLK
wow Mark comes w/ fire.
extra points for Cinderella analogy
I'd propose LCOE_SS "Leveled Cost Of Electricity as Sole Source". What would be cost per MWhr if that one source was used? This would need to account for spare capacity n batteries. In case of Solar you'd need ton of extra capacity + batteries.
this is not perfect but better.
do you have more sources? i wanna present them to my party.
Waiting on the link to that food energy density article, I'm curious :)
Mark is not only knowledgeable, but also insightful... athwbproblwnlm is he branches on too many tangents within a sentence, then branches s on tangents of the tangents. If I didn't already know this topic well prior to listening, I would have been en utterly lost.
31mins, You need to do a LCOE of the system, all the parts of alternative systems. You appear to be saying that renewables + storage = nuclear but really its + storage. ie renewables + storage = nuclear + storage. You could argue then maybe the storage on each side cancels the other out, interesting.
Great episode on the limits of comparing energy sources by LCOE!
I would just point out the irony of your intro, where you apply the exact same fallacy to ranking food by calories - another metric which out of context is very flawed. A slice of cheesecake (perfect combo of fat and sugar) vs it’s calorific equivalent in a home cooked meal has a very different outcome!
sounds like creative book keeping at 22:00
8:53 "...how much it costs to get 1 *_MWh..."_*
Which is irrelevant, since what the market is demanding is *_power service,_* not energy.
"Risk from nuclear innovations is not good" well if one does not take that risk then how come they reap the rewards of passive decay heat removal and inherent control. Without these two attributes nuclear renaissance won't be feasible.
It's the dad from cloudy with a chance of meatballs
Solar & wind require batteries as it is not always available when you need it.
Nuclear requires batteries as it is always available, even when you do not need it. Batteries are widely available and also becoming cheaper rapidly.
During summer periods there is no way nuclear can now or ever in future compete with solar + batteries.
Without high utilization, Nuclear plants are tremendously expensive.
Appreciate your point of view, but do not agree with it.
22:00 Sorry but that is false, consumers in France were not paying more because EDF hedges their prices, this is one of the main reasons why EDF had to be bailed by the french government. By August, 8 months had cost them €8bn to subsidize power prices to consumers. They have had exactly the same issue as other countries in Europe but instead of relying on renewables they relied on nuclear.
Renewables cannot and should not be used in the same calculation as renewables unless the renewables include the value of delivered electricity that includes time of day prices and storage costs.
@@iancormie9916that is true for any source that is not flexible including nuclear. Not sure how it is relevant to my comment on EDFs debt problem.
at 28:25 the guest starts getting mad about the LCOE of Nuclear, and then says Lazard is accurate, 5 seconds after saying lazard is innaccurate. This guy is a freaking spazz, and is off his meds. i cant watch this guy spaz out like this.
Bob Lazard?
Every time this guy stretches his brain to explain economics, he swaps in a lie, and then he ends up making an emotional argument that is completely incoherent, and can't even remember the question by the time hes emotionally exhausted most of your brains.
"The lazard brothers basically invented the idea of mergers in the 1800s" No, the concept of mergers is older than the 1800's, so thank you for the worlds most useless piece of information.
Come on was the trucker joke needed?
Absolutely! Gave us a chuckle - beats spending your money on phone Apps that cost many millions more than they should have.