The Green Energy Bubble Has Finally Burst
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 20 июл 2024
- Stop data brokers from exposing your information. Go to my sponsor
aura.com/wallstreet to get a 14-day free trial and see if your personal information has been compromised
In this video, we delve into the intriguing world of renewable energy stocks, which, against all expectations, have been underperforming despite significant governmental support. In 2022, President Joe Biden's Inflation Reduction Act injected a staggering $380 billion into the renewable energy sector, aiming to catalyze a surge in demand for wind and solar farms. This move was anticipated to be a boon for companies across the renewable energy supply chain.
However, the reality has been starkly different. The ICLN Clean Energy ETF has seen a 35% decline over the past year, lagging considerably behind the S&P 500. Major players in the solar industry, such as Enphase, SolarEdge, and SunPower, have witnessed their stock prices plummet by over 70%, attributed to waning demand in both the US and Europe. Similarly, wind energy giants like Orsted have experienced significant setbacks, including a halved share price and the recognition of a $5.6 billion impairment charge following the cancellation of a major offshore wind project in New Jersey.
Why is this happening? Renewable energy, already pegged as a growth sector, was expected to soar with the influx of government subsidies. This video takes a comprehensive look at the economics of renewable energy. We'll explore the challenges and obstacles that the industry faces, and what needs to change for a robust recovery. Join us as we unpack the complexities behind the struggling renewable energy stocks and forecast what the future might hold for this vital sector.
0:00 - 2:30 Intro
2:31 - 6:22 Renewable Energy
6:23 - 11:17 Cost Competitiveness
11:18 The Bubble Bursts
Check out our second channel Broken Business Models where we discuss unusual or otherwise suspect businesses that may be unviable: / @brokenbusinessmodels
Email us: Wallstreetmillennial@gmail.com
Check out our new podcast on Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/4UZL13d...
All materials in these videos are used for educational purposes and fall within the guidelines of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. If you are or represent the copyright owner of materials used in this video and have a problem with the use of said material, please send me an email, wallstreetmillennial.com, and we can sort it out.
#Wallstreetmillennial #renewableenergy #solar #windenergy
------------------------------
Buddha by Kontekst / kontekstmusic
Creative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported - CC BY-SA 3.0
Free Download / Stream: bit.ly/2Pe7mBN
Music promoted by Audio Library • Buddha - Kontekst (No ...
------------------------------ 
Кино
Stop data brokers from exposing your information. Go to my sponsor
aura.com/wallstreet to get a 14-day free trial and see if your personal information has been compromised
It's confusing when you talk about the title of your video for almost a minute and a half, then shift gears to data protection. Can you try to find advertisers that are more aligned with your content, such as maybe a petroleum producer for this video? Feel free to make a video about data protection for the data protection advertiser.
7:37 The statements about too much energy produced isn't true. Simplistic assumptions at best. Energy production companies don't work alone. Their energy is always put in the grid, which served the country. If the solar production is too high, they can slow down or even shut down completely the other production components, like hydro, which is always good as it conserves the water levels for when it's needed.
If water release must happen, they can do it without turning the electricity turbines. Same with wind.
Also, the title of this video is click-bait and has nothing to do with the content. Video didn't exposed a bubble, busting or not. It simply discussed the recent financial difficulty of wind and solar energy projects due to their dependency on interest rates, which have sky rocketed as of recently.
Pause for a few years and it will come back.
Maybe finally after all this falls apart, we realize that we should have gone nuclear
Unfortunately that misses the point. Modern politics is based on unsolvable crisis. These crisis are used to lie cheat and guilt the population into compliance. If the crisis is solvable, they have to find a new one, and that's hard. So they vilify any solution to the crisis at hand, like nuclear, and instead harold solar, wind, and fusion as our saviors - things they either can't work or at least don't have any short term viability to solve the "crisis". All the while, if political power was pushed asside and we just did the obvious safe solution, we'd probably be nearly 100% nuclear by now in most of the western world. But then the "crisis" wouldn't exist, and we just can have that. As the old saying goes "you are the carbon they want to control"
True, no people no problem
Yes
We would blow ourselves up though
Nuclear should remain a big piece of the puzzle for sure
The windturbine developers took the risk of fluctuating prices and interest rates. If the prices fell they would have made a profit, but the nature of risk is it can go both ways. This is not good or bad, its just the nature of business.
cope
They took subsidies paid by tax payer and stolen from citizens by politicians.
Rotten west "free" economy.
Russia and Arab countries has carbohydrates.
Palestinians have/has oil and gas...
This is exactly right. But you know, clickbait video based on a couple of fact points to construct an opinion.
@@oscarcharliezulu True, this video is just an opinion piece.. it would be much better if it had a broader grasp of the facts.
Rather than using batteries to store power, it may eventually be more economically viable to manufacture hydrocarbon chains from carbon dioxide and water, using excess grid power when it is not needed for anything else. These manufactured hydrocarbons can directly replace oil and coal, and can be used in existing combustion engines as a renewable fuel, and are a stable form of energy storage allowing long distance transport from equatorial regions where the sun is the most intense and solar power is the most abundant. Research continues to find more efficient methods of splitting both carbon dioxide and water molecules apart, recombining the individual atoms into hydrocarbons, and then scaling up these technologies from the lab to working continuously and reliably in the field.
Surely comparing costs after the subsidies creates a completely distorted number. To figure out if something is truly economically viable we need to know the costs without subsidies.
Fossil fuels receive far more government subsidies. Do your research.
@@MrArtist7777 This is an often proclaimed statement, which actually turns out to be untrue. The proper way to measure energy subsidies is: "How much taxpayer money does the government pay per unit of energy?" Every per-unit analysis using data from the US Energy Information Administration is clear: solar and wind get dozens of times more subsidies than fossil fuels. Claims that fossil fuels get more subsidies than solar/wind use "total subsidies," not per-unit subsidies. By that logic Walmart is more expensive than Nordstrom because Walmart takes in more total $. It's nonsensical.
A comprehensive analysis of federal subsidies per unit of electricity generated from 2010-2019 found that solar got 211 times more subsidies than natural gas and wind got 48 times more subsidies than natural gas. It gets a STAGGERING amount more subsidies, thus, if you look at it from a "cost/per MW" stance.
In addition to exorbitant subsidies solar and wind get numerous other unfair advantages, including:
- Mandates that force us to pay for solar panels, wind turbines, and long-distance transmission lines, regardless of cost3
- No price penalty for solar/wind's costly unreliability
Also, even if you had been right, it would still be true that it's better to have the numbers without subsidies, so that the base-line of cost versus benefit becomes more clear.
How about the cost of cancer from carcinogens.
Gotta get rid of subsidies for fossil fuel also then.
@@MrArtist7777 You say do your research after repeating a falsehood.
Their fundamental problem is they can't meet the demand during peak power demand time and can't store energy during their peak production time.
exactly. Large scale storage has been undermined for decades, and that was by design. Its essential to volatile energy sources
@fetB not by design, it's just not viable financially with today's battery technology.
@@saltymonke3682 Todays battery tech is the result of research on the topic. If nobody made the effort, there would be no such tech. Some people started after the 70's oil crisis because, you know, the issue became apparent, but oil interests lobbied against it, and even created war on the ME for it. It was very much by design. If it wasnt for the tesla company, tech still wouldnt be there because legacy automakers had no incentive to. But since the tesla cars sold like hot cakes, they needed to keep up. The result, large scale batteries research and the catalyst to make renewable source viable. As for finances, the return of investment always comes after it. You have to plant the seed first for something to grow
Utility scale battery storage, lead by Tesla’s Megapack battery units are selling like hotcakes to utilities in the US and overseas such as in Australia. Their Lathrop, Calif plant is ramping to capacity of 10 k per year, another such factory is being constructed in Shanghai. The sky is the limit in this sector. Tesla is getting into the electricity business and is disrupting it with these battery storage units and their AI driven Autobidder software system.
@@saltymonke3682- Look up Tesla Megapacks.
For the last 200yrs, average interest rates were around 6%. Did people really think almost zero rates would last?
I mean they would have if it weren't for the massive supply shock that Covid delivered to the global economic system, resulting in inflation.
@colingenge9999, but is that land lease, or is that or cash?
@@andrewyork3869
If we removed Fossil Fuel’s roughly $7 trillion in unattributed costs and subsidies, we would stop using them overnight.
$7T / year in extra health care costs
$?T/ year in premature deaths that are >3,000,000 people per year
$7T for Iraq war is typical of military costs of protecting Fossil Fuel interests vs local renewables
$5T to $50T/yr in climate change costs varies depending on wide range of calculation methods. Stanford University puts the cost at $70T/year but climate change costs alone would be $7T on the low side.
$T/yr in destroyed ground water especially from fracking
$?T/yr in the corruption of every gov’t on Earth at every level to promote Fossil Fuel interests over good governance
10,000 deaths per year in fires. Ironically even though EVs are accused of dangerous fires, Gasoline in 30 times worse.
Continued production of relatively short lived Fossil Fuel vehicles vs new age EVs that should last twice as long with less maintenance.
Not counting the one time destruction of several billion years or irreplaceable Fossil Fuel that has other uses.
Yes, thinking much beyond the next quarter is seemingly impossible for modern business.
@@bogatyr2473 there is a myth that there is a lot of intelligence in pricing that it somehow perfectly represents all conditions which works 99% of the time until it stops working. Then crash.
I have been right about the direction of the market numerous times to be out in my timingby several years. It’s not only getting the direction right but also the timing of that direction.
In Brazil the electric grid is based on hydroelectric dams and boy, it was a lousy choice. In the last 20 years Brazil had TWO serious droughts and had to ration energy twice for more than 6 months each time and ALMOST had to ration a third time. And the first time government sponsored the building of natural gas plants because they were cheaper and faster to build and because of them we didn't MORE scares. But a new government was installed and they decided to forgo wind and solar farms and build hydroelectric dams in the Amazon, since supposedly there were no draughts there. Wrong !!! Not only the dams went over budget (planned: US$ 15 billion for 3 dams , over US$45 billion and only 2 work and transmission lines far from completion for another US$15 billion) but historical draught doesn't allow their working, there is NO water, currently they sit on dry land.
Wind farms, on the other hand, built by private companies in the Northeast region, perenially short on electricity but with a reliable wind all year round, are a great success, made the region , up till then dependent on south/southeast states for its energy, self sufficient, met with enthusiasm by locals, who receive a small percentage of "royalties", and wellcome any expansions with open arms.They also had a very positive impact on locals who were among the poorest inhabitants in Brazil.
In times of global warming do NOT count on precious water for energy, go for solar (especially if the country is tropical) , wind or efective natural gas. Dams destroy the environment much more effectively than natural gas, disrupt the people who used to live around, their way of life, the families parted by arbitrary settlement in places they are not used to ( generally big cities where they live in slums) and leave scars on the land and its climate, not to mention the huge costs.
P
Thank you for giving your perspective. This is helpful.
I totally agree about the loss of the land in the catchment area of a new dam. This usually results in the loss of quality agricultural land and the displacement of the former residents. I do think existing dams should be upgraded where possible to incorporate pumped energy storage, to work in tandem with renewable energy.
Also, Brazil is an absolute shithole.
Properly sited hydroelectric dams make way more sense than wind and solar. The USA has many gigawatts of potential hydroelectricity at water reservoir dams that don't currently have turbines.
Dams are only viable in mountain regions. That is where they don't cause drought, cqn even regulate water supply and have high efficency from great depth. This true for example for nations like Austria. The brazilain government were a bunch of idiots though... and still are.
The way they lie: they provide nominal maximal capacity mixed together with things that actually work.
The major factor you have left out of these calculations is the effect of adding electricity storage to the system. Storage would dramatically even out the supply when wind and solar are not producing power. I have batteries in my home solar system for this reason.
Storage dramatically increases the system cost.
@@gregorymalchuk272 Battery costs seem to be reducing by over 20% per year, now to under $100 per kWh.
@@gregorymalchuk272 So does using gas or oil over solar especially though. Solar and wind are already cheaper. Why are you ideological on renewable energy, Greg?
Let's not forget the subsidies for petrol and gas ... on a global picture, if they all had to play on the same level field it would probably not be as clear cut
The problem with Hydro-electric is that our need for power has increased to the point that it can't produce enough anymore.
Plus environmentalists will not let turbines turn too fast - you might kill some animals.
@@mscolli3 u don't need to be a hippie for that, hydro in certain rivers are extremely damaging to wildlife. Oil plants are much better, coal is much dirtier & produce more radioactive waste than several nuclear power plants. CO2 is actually extremely good for life, regardless of what people's schizophrenic nightmares may say
Most US dams are very old and not maintained. Cost to refurbish or rebuild is huge.
@@mscolli3 Do you have a link for that claim?
Have they thought of raiding villages to kidnap children and forcing them to turn giant turbines to generate electricity? I saw it in a documentary called Conan the Barbarian.
The big winners of the renewable energy bubble are battery farms. I live in South Australia where renewable energy producing all our energy needs is common. But to go all day without falling back onto fossil fuels we use a lot of battery backup. The people that own these batteries can get paid to take the power during the day, and then they charge like wounded bulls to get it back onto the grid at night.
Nuclear energy: Allow me to introduce myself
Ironically hydropower dams are disastrous for local ecology. So while they may be better for the climate in the long term, they destroy ecosystems that evolved for millennia in the process. It's also deeply concerning to anyone who actually cares about the environment that these billions of solar panels are, at present, destined for landfills at their EOL. There's no such thing as a perfect solution and given the options I don't know which ones are actually best for the planet, to say nothing for the short term costs. Right now 100% of the electricity that comes to my house is produced by earthbound wind turbines.
I reckon they should just put fish friendly turbines into the river and take the electricity that comes when it comes. Not nearly as good as a large dam but far less environmental impact.
Disposing of wind turbines is also a huge problem.
Yeah there´s no perfect solution, that´s true. However what we *do* know is, that if we keep firing up coal and gas, we won´t need any solutions anymore in a few hundred years.
But then again my country decided to go full medieval and got rid of all nuclear power, so what do we know. lol
@@Mightydoggo If we use fossil fuel for electricity then the whole worldwide environment will be damaged better a small hit to individual pockets of the environment thru hydro, than all or nothing.
@@joshuamaka876 Yes that was my whole point.
The fossil fuel industry and those invested in it, will continue to work tirelessly to keep the status quo. Public hit pieces on why clean energy is not economically viable will continue without mentioning how the current mix isn't sustainable for future generations.
We need to keep innovating, optimizing the construction and operating process, and subsidizing the transition.
If "green energy” was viable, companies would be doing it without huge subsidies. There are more known oil and gas resources now than ever before. The earth’s core makes it. Also the world needs more CO2 not less. There is only 400 ppm in the atmosphere. Office environments are commonly at over a thousand and submarines are allowed 6,000 ppm.
Dude spent 16 minutes outlining the economic challenges of "green" energy and how we got here. Yet all you can reply with is the same boiler plate excuses of shadowy figure behind the curtain controlling world energy sources that I heard in grade school decades ago. They weren't true then and its not true now and the content creator brought receipts and an analysis.
Realty doesn't care about your feelings. Until the economics works without massive government subsidies or zero percent interest rates dictated recklessly by central banks...these energy sources aren't viable to be a wholesale replacement of the status quo. That is, unless you want to go back to living in caves and wearing animal skins for warmth.
Most of you eco-zealots don't think more than one step ahead. That kind of thinking is irresponsible dangerous for society. Grow up.
@@marktapley7571you're dense
Why invest in "renewable energy" when we could go nuclear? Nuclear energy is fantastic, all the alternatives to fossil fuels/nuclear energy are being pushed in spite of the fact they suck
You should be using solar and wind to meet temporary demands, using nuclear to fulfill the standard consistent power draw, and then have some natural gas on hand in case the renewables can't keep up for whatever reason. The big issue here is that we need far more nuclear to handle the base level power demands.
You don't seem to understand how electricity works.
@@LMB222 lol oh really? Well please elucidate all of us...
@@LMB222, I don't know which of you is right in this instance, but I'm genuinely curious to learn more about this issue if you can elaborate. We've heard @ultimaIXultima's proposal. Can you please provide some background as to why it's not practical?
@@brett22bt Nuclear is the most expensive form of energy. It requires a ton of water. It's slow to build. The idea that we need it for baseload power is a myth. We already have the solution, which for some reason is completely missing from this video: It's energy storage from batteries to giant water reservoirs. It's currently being deployed everywhere and with costs declining rapidly. With a smart grid even electric cars to help stabilize the grid with vehicle to grid technology discharging energy to the grid as needed.
@@brianrcVids rather than just follow green propaganda try some facts and maths - yt vlog Economics of Nuclear Reactor by Illinois EnergyProf
Not counting subsidies in the cost wind/solar is like not counting sales tax on a new car.
We have to pay for the subsidies just like we have to pay the sales tax.
The fossil fuel industry is also subsidised.
The fossil fuel industry is also subsidised.
The fossil fuel industry is also subsidised.
The fossil fuel industry is also subsidised.
@@nordic5490 I haven’t received my tax credit for all the gas I’ve purchased. Have you received yours?
Welcome to the time where we realize that infrastructure is expensive
the person putting the sponsorblock section -- thank you
I don't know. The deep dive into the impact of changing interest rates on a project initiated before the infrastructure bill is bad for this one project. I'd be interested to see how projects bid in this current environment would fare given the new subsidies in place.
They're not fareing is the issue. Like most tech start ups these projects were solely based on the ability to not pay back as much money over time because they take so long to make money.
Grants only help a little bit. They do not fix the issue of interest rates because they don't cover the entire cost but a % of it
Wall Street Millennial has some stupid takes every now and then and this is one of those. The video’s title is “The green energy bubble has finally burst” and dude only talked about 2 companies getting screwed over by increased interest rate. How tf is this a burst? Clearly dude doesn't have much to back up his claim, because that deep dive only took up 1/3 of the video while the rest is some economic theory crap on green energy. Sometimes I have to remind myself to stop watching this donkey.
This is why we needed to start building nuclear power plants in the early 1990s.
Or not regulate away research and investment into alternative nuclear fuels like Thorium
Or not regulate away recycling facilities that turn "nuclear waste" into additional fuels, which themselves decay to relatively harmless isotopes.
Or...
@@robertbeisert3315 lol! those facilities turn low level nuclear waste that can be put into barrels that only take decades to decay and can be put in a concrete bunker into high level nuclear waste that last millions of years that to store requires it to be mixed with leaded glass that requires robots to store into special underground storage facilities that costs of billions of dollars to build.
Doesnt exactly mean we demand energy from nuclear power pllants. we're moving ahead of our time i think
Nuclear plants are significantly more expensive and time consuming to build then any other option, and produce a lot less energy per dollar spent as a result. It simply won't work. Plus the fact is the public largely doesn't like nuclear plants in their backyard because they fear that incidents like three mile island could happen to them, and no amount of telling them "but nuclear is perfectly safe today because X Y Z" will convince them otherwise.
That's the only sustainable option. Don't worry. These foolish countries will build it sooner 😂😂.
I have one word to say about all this - Nuclear!
I agree too but I can’t trust humans not fucking it up by cheating out on design and construction to save profits.
Why do renewable projects get tax credits if they are cheaper than fossil fuel powered systems - the low cost should win economically? Also the Installed wind power of 533TW is the sum of the label of each wind turbine? Which probably only gets 30% in reality unless in really good wind locations.
As if fossil fuel systems do not get tax credits? ...
@@gerhardwesp3995 Farmers and Business get credits otherwise they would be taxing the customer twice and be even more inflationary to the end consumer.
If renewables are so economically cheaper to setup and run, than they wouldn't now need the government to prop them up they should just blow fossil fuel industry out of the water.
The governments keep telling us they are cheaper than the existing or Nuclear but the governments subsidizing them up front, paying for the transmission infrastructure as they are all over the place and then guaranteeing them a set price to sell their energy into the market.
Because the gov't is trying to speed the market curve, like they have with countless technologies...
Costs are finally overrunning profits since literally everyone is scrambling for resources needed for the energy transition. You cannot profit in that situation.
15:56 "So long as the financing environment remains tight, the energy transition will take a lot longer than many had previously hoped." Well said & good overview of the problem. Interest rates do an incredible number on capital investment. Not just renewable energy investment, of course. I do believe that rates will fall in 2024 but probably not back to 2019 levels. Good to know solar/wind is at least CLOSE to par with Natural Gas facilities even at ~4% APY. And yes batteries need to become a lot cheaper for this to all work out. Ultimately I still think it is going to happen but this certainly underscores how dependent on oil we still are in 2023. Ironically, cheaper oil prices will probably HELP green energy adoption because cheaper oil means cheaper rates.
exactly. You just explained why this video is bullcrap. the premise of the video is that only green infrastructure investment is crashing, but in reality, all infrastructure investment is crashing
False.
@@jeff-hh9mc Which part lol
@@LuKiSCraft There IS no 'green energy transition', the entire concept is a lie. There is no industrial sized battery option, its not even on the table. Because the wind does not always blow, and the sun does not always shine, these systems need to be BIGGER than the full load a coal plant might run, to have extra power for cloudy, low wind days, AND you still need the hydrocarbon option, for when the renewables are not flowing at all. This means like 3x to 4x the buildout of a coal plant, and all that infrastructure must be paid for. The only way that even seemed slightly viable is in the Fantasy land of free government money. The idea that we will go back to low interest rates is also fail, because 0 % loans is not the market rate for loans, even in boom times. These fake rates are 100 % government created with printed money, and that scam clearly would not last forever, and covid was probably the last straw that broke the back of the Free Money Camel, and now we are in Inflation World, and if rates ever go back to 0 %, that inflation genie, that is most certainly NOT back in the bottle, will just get stronger and stronger, forcing economic reality on these giant boondoggles.
@@LuKiSCraft so the simplest part to deconstruct per unit of energy would be solar panels. 90% of which are made in china via slave labor with coal fired plants and are non recyclable all while being only 17% effective. So you’re loading up with subsidies on something that only produces 17% power efficiently roughly 10 hours per day and is causing landfills to swell.
I noticed you made the classic mistake of quoting installed capacity for solar and wind. But that’s irrelivent compare$ to the amount of power generated from them. I.e. if your solar terawatt capacity is similar to hydro, but the delivered quantity of power is 1/20th (since the hydro is insensitive to weather and darkness.)
Better going into LOCE.
Publishing the cost of renewables without including subsidies and the eye watering cost of the storage required is just plain telling lies.... Nobody wants to invest in renewables in UK any more unless there is a large increase in the price they get for each KW....
A fair amount of emphasis placed on the inability to store electricity generated from renewables. Very little re: battery storage, pumped hydro, house to grid, vehicle to grid,, the development of a truly national grid in the U.S. Also, is it wise to look at renewables over such a short timespan? With any new tech, big improvement steps are made initially which then tail off so the graphs depicting this are not a surprise. Of course none of this applies to China. Long term planning and commitment has put them ahead and with the West's economic capriciousness, China will continue in this position.
Wow. A whole video about green energy with complaints about intermittency yet no mention of energy storage which is currently being deployed everywhere at decreasing costs. It's like we're in the 1990s again with the same old tired arguments. The basis of this video, LCOE projections are also completely unreliable because they fail to take into account declining cost curves. Watch ReThinkX's video: "The Great Stranding: How Inaccurate Mainstream LCOE Estimates are Creating a Trillion-Dollar Bubble."
if wind stocks are dropping, that means big pensions with their ESG scores are not buying them. Why?
12bln price increasing - would be enough to build full size nuclear power plant itself plus 10 years maintenance cost, staff and fuel.
So basically the deal was agreed to in a world that does not exist anymore
The video is good, can't deny it .. but we have to be aware that US energy needs are completely different from most of the world.
US energy consumption is based on the car centered infrastructures of the country, which is different from regions like Europe and Asia where mass transport requires more direct energy than fuel (trains, Trams, etc).
Single homes, mass use of cars, no public transportation, zoning laws forcing low-density and Energy-ineffective buildings... US is one of the most inefficient countries in matter of energy use, so is not a surprise that US still need cheap coal energy to sustain the machine.
This should be higher. US energy consumption is unreal, and absolutely geared towards max consumerism. Fighting global warming requires consumption awareness, yet the US has a deeply ingrained culture of "I do what I want", not to mention apocalypse fulfillment fantasies.
It's a problem.
But US produces the least amount of greenhouse gases compared to the world and it is on track to be on or at least near climate change goals. Also the US leads the world in green energy research and production.
Can the US do better? Yes.
But to say they are inefficient especially compared to the rest world is flat-out wrong.
Just say you hate the US and I will respect you more than coming here to talk lies because you do not like the US.
Agree. I do think BEV's can solve this problem but it will take time. It won't be until AT LEAST 2035 that the majority of automobiles in the US are fully battery-electric.
@LuKISCraft EVs will just make the problem worse.They require tons of electric power and are charged at night,when solar is useless.And they require batteries,so they will be competing for these with renewables.
It is better to go nuclear.
I agree, but you're ignoring the developing world. Hydrocarbons are the key to lifting countries out of poverty.
The best energy source is nuclear, but investors do not want to wait 10 years for a return on investment.
We will not solve the climate crisis until investors invest for long term advantage.
We should really double down on nuclear. With the smaller and more economical nuclear research reactors coming online now is the time to invest and connect our grid to more nuclear power.
The smaller ones aren't more economical, the large ones are. The problem is that no one bank can eat one nuclear unit bankruptcy. The solution is government guaranteed, low interest loans, not reengineering the reactors to make them smaller with more expensive electricity.
Fascinating. Thank you!
renewables without batteries is ZERO. If you want to compare costs with conventional energy sources you must add the cost of batteries to make the types of energy and their availability to the customer equal. The cost of the necessary large scale batteries is TRILLIONS of $! Not counting replacement every 20 years and recycling costs!
Lazzard finally did the levelized cost of storage, and the cost of electricity was as expensive as the most expensive nuclear unit ever, Vogtle unit 1, and costs are already declining on AP1000 reactors.
@@gregorymalchuk272 No it wasn't. Lol. Even including battery storage it was cheaper than oil and gas in Lazzard's 2023 analysis.
Grid scale batteries are already rapidly being deployed in Texas and California with great success, though. It doesn't cost trillions.
There was a windfall for Blackrock, but not individual investors or the massive amounts of jobs promised. I haven't seen any job postings in my area of CA and there are tons of wind and solar farms by me.
Literally just Google "Jack Conness IRA" and click the first link. There are 14 pages of tracked investments from the IRA in batteries, solar, EVs, wind, etc totaling $101 billion for an estimated 81k jobs. California is already saturated in this sector.
They still haven't learned anything from the Jimmy Carter Administration 😂
It’s also good to subtract federal subsidies. We are paying those too. It’s not free money
It’s all about kick backs to government
lmfao do you really believe this? What single kick back is there?
@@coreyleander7911 are you kidding ? Through campaign donations
@@davidbrooks1724 from who? You are disastrously wrong
@@coreyleander7911 ok troll. Keep your head in the sand.
The use of 25 years lifespan for wind power is highly optimistic. European experience shows it is nearer ten years before the costs of renewing gear boxes and repairing blades of operating costs versus capacity means they need to be scrapped. The scam used by wind power companies is to hive off wind farms into separate companies and sell them to insurance and pension companies that then have the costs of cleaning up the sites at a substantial lost whilst the original owner makes a capital gain or can offset capital costs against tax. In Norway where new wind farm contracts require owners to pay for energy from gas plants when the wind does not blow means there are no new wind farms since it has been about harvesting subsidies not wind.
Yuuuup. Subsidies sound so amazing...until you discover the Cobra effect. The amount of damage they have done to economies, health, research, education, and more is huge...and incredibly hard to measure except in rough estimates.
@@feldamar2 Scary anyone could believe what you just wrote.
@@coreyleander7911 do you know what the cobra effect is? or what hidden costs are? cause you just admitted you dont know them.
@@feldamar2 by noting that it’s scary that you’re generally opposed to subsidies but somehow only mention that when it has to do with clean energy and not fossil fuels being subsidized?
Nuclear was, still is, and will always be the most cost effective form of clean energy.
Until a meteor impact hits the reactor containment dome/shell. Or a foreign power with explosives.
Cheapest .... maybe.... most risk of disaster BY FAR.
@@jackripper8337 risk of disaster? because of coal thousands of people die each year, how many died because of nuclear power plants?
Not when you take LCOE at 6% into account.
I mean the video disproves this despite the fact we still do need nuclear energy. Why not just NOT lie about renewables, yet still advocate nuclear?
with all the screens in commercial buildings, electric cars, and battery powered everything, it's no wonder all the energy demands are up
All that is dwarfed by burning fossil fuel to mostly make heat and a little forward motion. Electrifying transportation and heat pumps will reduce primary energy use compared with burning crap.
Talking about subsidies, you forgot to mention that according to IMF last year fossil fuel companies received an explicit subsidy of 1.3 Trillion dollars and a total subsidy (explicit and implicit ) of 7 Trillion dollars. From 174 countries. That is a lot of subsidy coming out of tax payers. This is happening every year for many decades. Compared to that,subsidies given to renewable energy is puny. These fossil fuel companies are asking for more subsidies. Easy oil is done, now to extract oil they need to dig more and spend more to get it. Also, the quality of oil is getting lower and that requires complicated refining process. All these subsidies are given to fossil fuel companies just to do their work, pollute the environment, executives gets paid enormous bonuses and report huge profit year after year with your tax dollars. No body even talks about that.
Metals needed for making batteries are completely recyclable once the battery reaches end of life. You can extract 95% of the metals back to build a new battery. Also, it will cost 50% less to get recycle metals back from old batteries than to examine for them. In case of gasoline, there is no recycling. You spend enormous energy to explore oil wells, dig deep to get them, pump very dirty oil, transport in huge vessels to refinery, spend huge energy to refine ( It takes 4 kwh of electricity to refine one gallon of gasoline) and transport to pump. Then it is burnt in vehicles and pollute the environment where the toxic gases stay for ever. There is no recycling here.
hahaha!!! yes, wind farms cost more now that the interest rates are up. Their electicity is still profitable with a cost of less than 1/3 of the Vogtle Nuclear plant. You didn't post a comparison. You merely explained how nobody builds infrastructure when interest rates are percieved to be high.
Its math, either interest rates are to high and the ROI becomes negative compared to the next best alternative or they're not. There is no "perceived" about it.
Also, a nuclear plant is capital intensive but they operate 24/7, 365 days a year. Wind and Solar don't. Also nuclear plants have more locations they can be built at than wind and solar.
Untrue, Vogtle - a massively mismanaged nuclear build - still results in cheaper system costs than solar and wind
Not a single person intended for the IRA to spur "demand" for green energy. Spurring massive short-term profits for political donors on the other hand. . .
Thanks for an interesting analysis. I think that some technologies and ideas have this frenzy/hype/bubble at the beginning. This is like the Dotcom bubble in the late 1990s where it was all the rave. I see renewables going through the same sort of pattern and settle down in 5-10 years.
Some mention of batteries seem relevant
Any serious discussion involving them will just make renewables seem worse.Batteries are expensive and require mining.
@@naamadossantossilva4736 Fossil fuels will not run out soon, but the consequences of climate change are affecting us right now. Batteries can be recycled, and their lives are dramatically improved. Everything required mining; where do you think oil and coal came from?
@@naamadossantossilva4736 So what? Fossil fuels are expensive and require "mining" i.e. dirty extraction. There's also moon mining to be done if we run out, unlike when we run out of gas/oil
Why is renewable energy expensive? It is not cheap. Excess electricity could be used for district heating plans.
If renewables only currently provide up to 20% of unreliable energy, how many more solar panels and windmills would be required to fill the gap? It is nonsense, clearly.
Money laundering for politicians.
I never thought that interest rate have such a wide spread effect on energy sector.
Using LCOE is criminal. Is does not capture the cost of the backup systems needed when the intermittent power is off
do you know do they take into account also connection costs, fe offshore wind have huge connection costs as well.
A side note on the comparison to the S&P 500: it is propped up by the AI bubble, if you strip the FAANG companies the index is down/at near 0% growth this year as well (granted, that's not as bad as how much the renewable companies got hit).
Your analysis only considers the Levelized Cost Of Electricity (LCOE) but there are important costs associated with integrating variable renewable energy and this can considerably change their cost impact. Examples include balancing costs, profile costs, grid and connection costs. It would be useful if you did a video in this.
Can't ignore the environmental cost of fossil fuels which is the primary reason behind the need for cost effective renewables. Also, the analysis needs to consider the use of battery storage to store excess energy to level out variation in demand.
Actually for this analysis you can. No fossil power company in the US is having to pay for emissions right now. So by every metric that will affect a power producer, yes, you can ignore those broader societal costs because they aren’t going to pay them. It’s up to the government to handle that impact, be it by taxing fossil power producers or subsidizing green energy even harder to make it profitable. Also, careful what you wish for, if you add storage to a wind or solar project you can quadruple it’s construction and O&M costs instantly.
It's an economic analysis. Doesn't include any moral dimension. If you could make a profit by throwing live animals into a giant meat grinder, economic analysis... oh, right. Egg industry. It's not concerned with what you should do morally, only with the type of outcome you can measure in dollars.
Renewable capacity is not the same as production.
And the timing of the production matters too. California can pay Arizona & Nevada to take their extra wind & solar during the day but then pay exorbitant to reimport from AZ/NV at evening & morning.
What happened? All the key players got their checks and bailed… standard Fascism
Analysis does not take into account cost of distribution or storage. Cost of distribution to households via grid is 2/3rd of the retail price of electricity.
The cost of solar & wind don’t decline annually. They decline in accordance with wrights law learning curves and those learning curves have been steepening in recent years not slowing. Also, I’m not sure you can point out green stock performance this past year as evidence that these businesses aren’t viable. If I compare a solar ETF like TAN to a long term treasury ETF like TLT it seems pretty clear that solar stocks are just very sensitive to interest rates.
"They decline in accordance with wrights law learning curves and those learning curves have been steepening in recent years not slowing."
You can thank bitcoin for that.
Solar and wind could be free and the variability would still make them non-viable.
@@gregorymalchuk272 Literally false. The variability does nothing to make them non viable why do you think that? You are trying to ignore the fact that we obviously can use the energy as it comes in, but more importantly can effectively store it now for use when there's no production.
I don't understand being willing to waste all that free energy when there's 200 years worth, a very finite amount, of gas/oil left beneath our feet. Sun still has a few billion, with a B, years left to burn...
@9:00 you mention that costs for solar and wind are after subsidies, but you don't comment on subsidies for gas. Why?
All of this depended ENTIRELY on taxpayer subsidies to be viable. Electric cars are the same! Eliminate the subsidies and they will be relegated to the "wild idea trash pile" where every other subsidy driven industry ends ends up as the cost of the subsidies gets unmanageable. I'm in Texas, which has the most wind power in the USA. The fossil fuel generated electricity is still cheaper to the final user than 100% wind. From 2022 to 2023 my electric bill went up 40%!!! Initial generating cost does not set the price of the user electric bill! Inflation is the real driving cost!
Build them, both pumped hydro and windfarms. The US runs on energy and the US should protect what can bring it down, or at least the companies that didn't waist too much money.
If the interest rate makes or breaks your project, your margin of safety was too small and you never should have done it
lol then tell every company in every sector to stop complaining about interest rates.
ALL subsidies need to be eliminated. If these projects can't survive as viable businesses, then they need to be put out to pasture. Is the government going to subsidize carbon paper because they think it's better than a photocopier? The most "green" energy out there is nuclear and that is no where on the subsidy list. These also are neither "green" nor renewable. By the time any excess energy is created, the device needs to be replaced so energy will NEVER be cheap or free and just controlled by the government. Look to California if you want to see what will happen to the rest of our country or the world. Continual power outages, forced migration to electric versions of cars or appliances. skyrocketing costs of construction due to regulations and taxes. All in the name of 'the environment' when these industries pollute far more than traditional methods.
A 50% decline in stock price is normal.
Long-term solar/wind and battery.
Electric heating seems the most cost-effective ?
And if we priced externalities into the cost of fossil fuel power?
Then voters would see the new cost of filling their car's gas tank and vote the responsible government out at the next election.
Please mention the $7T global subsidy for Fossil Fuels on $4T in sales before you go trashing renewables which by results are cheaper than Fossil Fuel. Look at UK and Denmark; mostly Fossil Fuel and near zero coal and doing fine.
The solution is to live like the Amish, so we don't need to build these ridiculous green energy machines.
If you remove the subsidies, wind and solar are not viable, adding in the higher interest rates makes this even more obvious.
In my country, we have no subsidies. Solar is still the cheapest way to produce electricity.
They've been viable without subsidies.
Not sure about the US, but EPC companies with renewable energy focus are minting money in India. companies have strong order books, they are increasing their capacities...this growth is unlike anything seen in the last 10 years
I think thats.because America has cheap gas and cheap electricity
For places without cheap fossils fuels renewables are competing against higher electricity price anyway
not updating our energy infrastructure ever is the most economically viable option so let's count that against green energy.
How is spending billions of tax dollars in subsidies going to reduce inflation? Won't it do the opposite?
The wholesale cost of electricity varies hugely, but if just buying electricity when there is not a shortage $0.03/kWh is a good rule of thumb. This is the cost the California grid is willing to pay for wholesale electricity it is not in shortage. When in storage electricity rates can go up tens of times! The electric company is contractually required to always provide electricity, not just when it makes money doing so. In Virginia the offshore wind energy electricity rate is set and insisted such that the power grid has to buy the electricity and that price was set at about $0.077/kWh or over twice what the California power grid would on is free will purchase electric power of $0.03/kWh when not requiring it to meet demand.
There is another huge problem with solar panels and wind turbines in that the power output is erratic and not at power grid power. It has to be conditioned to be power grid power. Then there is the fact renewable power is simply not aways available. These aspect make solar and wind power only reliable to supply power storage facilities, typically batteries.
So the thumbnail is misleading. It is not that renewables are too expensive, it is that the contracts were wrong.
Yeah your right he's getting into more complicated technical topics. Not like reporting on a simple ponzi scheme. Obviously all mega projects are potentially in trouble if interest rates shoot up. Click bait title makes it sound like all renewables unprofitable. Problem he normally reports on more pure financial issues spacs bitcoins etc. This topic a lot different.
The contracts were wrong because renewables are too expensive.
So.... We should invest in data brokers?
Back in 2010 an engineer friend of mine told me solar didn't have much room to improve. Then we were able to capture about 30% of solar energy that hit the panels, meaning realistically we could never make a panel that was 4 times as good as the ones we have now. Even 3x as good might break thermodynamics. Which as far as a future looking tech, isn't a good growth forecast.
That is ignoring 2 big factors though.
1) It is not only about the maximum percentage of conversion, it is also about how the curve looks in non-optimal conditions. Future panels might not get more than your current mentioned 30% at noon, but there have and still are big advances to how many % conversion and output we can get in the evening in the last 2-3 hours of shunshine for the day, or when there are clouds etc.
2) cost is an important factor. New cell and panel tech is continuing to make progress to require cheaper input materials for the same results, and simpler processes allowing for further price cuts for the panels.
The efficiency of solar panels is not important, as we have no shortage of space to put them. The cost of making them and availability of materials are the important things. 30% is close to the efficiency of most fossil fuel generators in any case (which are also close to the theoretical maximum).
Agree with @reappermen and @nazxuul that the $ per kWh is what matters the most. Not the efficiency percentage.
@@nazxuulnah, peak efficiency of internal combustion engines is near 60% for large stationary diesel engines, and F1 has been near 50% in some ranges of RPMs..
@@nazxuul "The efficiency of solar panels is not important, as we have no shortage of space to put them."
What an idiotic statement. Yes, let's destroy nature by covering it with solar panels. Clearly you have no idea how much land solar takes up. Or how the Sun doesn't shine at night, when people use electricity the most. Or how electricity gets delivered to someone's house.
When you talk about a base load in front of a bunch of “greenies” they have a blank look on their face. Not …a…clue.
I don't know what to bet on the Rust Battery, sodium ion batteries. Flow battery, hydrogen, aluminum air. Oh lithium fell by 80% in the last 6 months. Sodium batteries have no Cobalt or nickel, won't catch fire and are 10 times cheaper to manufacture.
Why is the fact that the two offshore projects were delayed because people didnt want them to be built and held it up in lawsuits. Thats the only two projects you use to prove the point. Yeah higher interest rates hurt renewable projects but at least the costs are predictable once theyre made vs fissil fuel with very wildly swinging prices.
What would the real costs be if the billion$ of public grants and tax credits were included.
25 year project graph shows seems to show 10000$ maintenance per annum not 100 000 as commentated. Not sure if this is significant in later calculations...
$10K thats cheap if it includes labor
It's essential to differentiate between the financial and real economies in the green energy discussion. While renewable energy stocks like hydrogen and solar have seen a downturn, this doesn't reflect the actual progress in the real economy. As someone working in this field in Europe, I can attest to the exponential growth in renewable energy deployment. This growth is driven by advancements in technology, reduced costs, and increased efficiency, making renewables more viable than ever.
The need for grid enhancements to handle the variable nature of wind and solar power and the often lengthy approval processes for new projects like wind farms currently are bottlenecks. Despite these challenges, renewables remain highly profitable. After initial installation, operational costs are low, mainly because there's no fuel cost, leading to significant long-term savings. Also, the cost of relying on autocratic regimes for our basic energy needs hasn't really been factored into the calculations. Consider Russia or the Middle East, not a democratic bone in any of their leaderships.
Thoughts on effects of IRA on European renewable energy industry?
Maybe do not put all the eggs in one basket, like Sweden or Finland have a mix of hydro, nuclear and wind… increasingly there will be more solar too
Most green energy projects aren't viable without substantial government subsidies. Effectively deferring to cost to the tax/rate payer.
Grid stability can handle 15% passive generation. There is room for a few percent more. If you exceed this the result will be uncontrollable energy costs. This will shut down expansion of all projects.
How much Western tax payers money has been flushed down the drain…. And who benefited?
20% is absolute max what any country can use renewable because no storage. That bubble goes so big because they paid even if farm did not sold the power to anyone...over production.
Generating excess energy is not just bad because it is wasted. The biggest problem is it leads to negative electricity prices. This leads to base load power plants like coal and gas having to pay to generate electricity. This is effectively a transfer from reliable energy to unreliable solar. Ultimately the reliable power starts to shut down because of these losses no longer making their plant viable. This is what is happening in South Australia. The government is forcing reliable operators to stay online and pay to generate power during the day for grid stability. The operators are then mothballing their plants. It's a vicious cycle and I believe the South Australia electricity market is now fundamentally broken.
We need a store for the excess generation capacity. I nominate hydrocarbon synthesis - it's scalable to a rather useful degree, the raw materials are readily obtained, and the output is liquid or gaseous fuel that is highly transportable.
South Australia electric rates are about 50% higher than the rest of Australia. It's expensive to go green. The government doesn't care about poorer people who have a hard time paying the added costs. Also, none of the climate protesters talk about China, which burns more than half of the world's coal. That's right, more than all other countiries combined. It's all about virtue signalling.
Ever heard of batteries?
Yep. The only fair way is to force renewables to pay for their own backup for face the same steep penalties from the grid operator that coal and gas plants get for failing to put out the contracted energy.
@gerhardwesp3995 they're not scalable to the requirements. If every lithium battery ever made were backing up the grid, it still wouldn't smooth the curve enough to support more than like 30% solar/wind. Presently, most of the unreliability is covered by the highly rampable (and reliable) natural gas generator technology.
Plus, they have half lives, meaning that they can only charge and discharge so many times before they noticeably lose their ability to store the listed charge. Due to the fun properties of Lithium and similar batteries, you can't even tell they're failing until they are basically gone. And they can explode into stupid hot fires that are essentially unquenchable, at a risk that grows with exposure to the elements and number of charge cycles.
If financing is the problem then it's not only wind and solar that'll suffer, all forms of energy will suffer...unless there's a miracle source of energy out there that doesn't need financing
If renewable energy was capable of profitably producing energy, there would be no need for a subsidy. If a temporary subsidy is used to kickstart the industry, it simply serves as a way to reward early entrants while stifling competition in the long term. In other words, there is no reason for a subsidy other than reward political donors and provide a political talking point.
THAT IS THE BEST RESPONSE ON HERE!!!
Yes. It's a get rich quick scheme for the banks and the originators.
Fossil fuel also gets subsides
Oil and Gas get an insane amount of subsidies lol
@@iraklimgeladze5223Only in foolish countries 😂😂
fossil and nuclear energy sources can be build anywhere & turned on & off at will. solar and wind don’t have that luxury.
the problem is, with fossil fuels, we store & transport the source of the energy. we cannot do that with renewable energies, so you have to store the energy itself! which is stupid.
on a scientific level, it’s just hard to beat Carbon & Oxygen when it comes to energy production & their chemical reactivity.
solar farms even in sunny places shut down cause the energy is useless, the energy output also goes down significantly afer a few years... it's extremely polluting with all the mining and toxic chemicals...
Umm all that tax payer money on energy subsides. I got solar on my boat you can see the tour on my RUclips channel but ultimately the foot print of my solar set up is about a house door and a half and in the UK most of the time it's not even enough to power my fridge.
You sure? Rising interest rates have demolished green energy STOCKS, but there may still be artificially high demand for the companies themselves.
Thank you for your well prepared observations. Governments and corporations have decided to reduce fossil fuel combustion. The channels are wind solar and transport fleet electrification among others. Of course with the government involved it has turned into a record breaking vote buying expedition. There is a key you could discuss in a future video. Carbon credits. This is particularly unpredictable, but, large corporations are attempting to plan for a future where they are penalized for C02. My point here is that since 2010 to 2019 - 290 coal plants have closed. Many of these were retirements, but it reveals the extent of greenwashing underway. If you want to build a new coal plant? You must get funding and permitting and no person or entity in the US wants anything to do with it. Least of all politicians.
From a subsidy standpoint the government subsidizes fossil fuels also...and this is why, the politicians are owned by the oil folks of course and have been since the 1890's.
I think we are clearly stuck with EV's, solar and wind. They are just as bad as the fossil fuel systems they replace with some distant hope that future solar panels will be more efficient than today.
EV`s powered using electricity from coal or natural gas just crazy and pure greenwashing.
It scares me you could possibly believe that "They are just as bad as the fossil fuel systems they replace with some distant hope that future solar panels will be more efficient than today."
It's just not in the same universe as anything true.
@@joshuamaka876 I mean no, this is wrong too. EVs powered by a coal grid is STILL better than a pure internal combustion engine car. But then, since gas burns much cleaner than coal, a gas charged EV is even better than previously.
What happens when the grid increasingly becomes sourced from solar and other renewables, and nuclear? That will give you net zero.
So it's the opposite of crazy or greenwashing, it's how we deal with the finite amount of gas/oil beneath our feet.
More spending causes more debt risk which causes higher interest rates which increases cost which causes more spending.
And around the bowl we go, until the inevitable.... FLUSH!!
Like Bill Ackman said, the transition to renewable is not as simple as we think.
Yes, it’s quite impossible in fact
It's very simple...put lives over profit.
It could be tremendously simple if only for a split second the politicians put people and the planet's future over their immediate bottom line.
This seems very pessimistic. Any energy generation will look bad if you look at the worst case scenarios. New energy sources are all about innovating around the problems, whether physical or financial.
6:43 does it really cost less to build a coal powered plant than solar/offshore wind? I don’t know, but that sounds surprising, especially as isn’t it difficult to turn off a coal power plant so it is kept running?
I would have thought with all the limitations and environmental damage, coal power plants are a much more expensive source of power when taking into consideration the long term (including decommissioning).
Funny enough for everyone concerned about radiation coal power plants are more radioactive than nuclear power plants something due to them being built to contain radiation to certain areas means they make sure that they don't leak radiation as much as possible. Do note everything is radioactive even you just how much is the key and what type of radiation.
Yeah, early nuclear energy was ridiculously expensive and dangerous. The assumption seems to be that technology should mature within a decade. Doesn't happen that way.
Aaah, the irony. Americans talking about hydropower while they are letting their existing hydropower infrastructure literally decay to dust.
Also not mentioning all the disadvantages of hydro about which we are learning nowadays.
Problem with natural gas electricity is that environmental costs, not all costs are taken into account. With CO2 emission rights, now €160 per ton CO2 (imho overhyped by investors) natural Gaz will be more expensive, also with €30/ton CO2 emitted…
Good video, everything well explained, esp how pricing can be done, and investment de isions on economic hrounds a🎉e made..