Author Topic: Renewable energy investments?  (Read 4551 times)

Frznrth

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Renewable energy investments?
« on: June 02, 2021, 04:04:30 PM »
I listened to a radio show today that highlighted a Calgary startup that is extracting lithium in a new way and a company in Quebec that is recycling batteries with a new process. I think both are private companies. The story really focused how renewable energy such as lithium seems to be the future.
Is this a good sector to make long term investment? Are there good “funds” to look at?

I have some oil stocks that I’m ready to finally give up on.

Thanks for your thoughts

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2021, 06:56:45 PM »
I listened to a radio show today that highlighted a Calgary startup that is extracting lithium in a new way and a company in Quebec that is recycling batteries with a new process. I think both are private companies. The story really focused how renewable energy such as lithium seems to be the future.
Is this a good sector to make long term investment? Are there good “funds” to look at?

I have some oil stocks that I’m ready to finally give up on.

Thanks for your thoughts

The market is over-hyped for this sector. For example, there was a thread late last year where people were convinced the TAN etf was going to the moon! It did not. That being said, it has settled into a boring regular etf with boring normal gains but invests in companies making a big difference in solar and wind power.

Personally I bought solar panels instead and keep my money in standard index funds. I doubt this sector is going to be sufficiently more profitable than other manufacturing sectors to justify the sector risk one would face. Developed countries other than Russia and the US are pushing fairly hard already, and those expected returns are priced in. Russia will probably not push hard for renewables while the oil oligarchs are in power, and if Republicans in US win the House or Senate back in 2022..there goes Biden's plan!

celerystalks

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2021, 05:00:45 AM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.

Better to find ways to make fossil fuels more environmentally friendly and to build nuclear reactors.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2021, 05:18:47 AM »
Might I point to a blog post ;)
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2020/08/22/socially-responsible-investing/

I think MMM hits on a few good points here.

1) As another poster said, I think nuclear power is our best out for global warming, while most "ethical" funds don't support it. Which peeves me off to no end.

2) There are also interesting issues like this: The largest investors in renewable energy are oil companies. Exxon, BP, and Royal Dutch are buying the private startups that you have mentioned. So if you want a piece of that pie, then standard index stocks actually cover you pretty well.

The bottom line is that a general index fund captures all of the gains in renewables in real time. As renewables become a larger chunk of the pie, the index portfolios balance to account for that.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2021, 08:27:12 AM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.

Make things worse? Hahahaha. Good one.


MustacheAndaHalf

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6633
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2021, 08:32:05 AM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.
Solar energy farms are bad for the environment compared to burning coal?

celerystalks

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2021, 10:01:03 AM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.
Solar energy farms are bad for the environment compared to burning coal?

Its probably a toss-up between the two.

celerystalks

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2021, 10:14:19 AM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.

Make things worse? Hahahaha. Good one.

Yes. Laugh all you want.  Wind and solar make things worse.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2021, 10:24:01 AM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.

Make things worse? Hahahaha. Good one.

Yes. Laugh all you want.  Wind and solar make things worse.

Hey, don't worry. You're in good company. I laugh at Q conspiracies too.

celerystalks

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2021, 10:26:12 AM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.

Make things worse? Hahahaha. Good one.

Yes. Laugh all you want.  Wind and solar make things worse.

Hey, don't worry. You're in good company. I laugh at Q conspiracies too.
What are Q conspiracies?

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2021, 11:56:33 AM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.
Solar energy farms are bad for the environment compared to burning coal?

In specific scenarios, yes. Baseload fossil fuel plants are cleaner burning than "peaker" plants that have to meet demand when wind/solar isn't producing. The process of turning on these plants quickly is a dirty process (rather than having them running and just adjust their output). So if you have a bunch of wind farms, you still need to build fossil plants that can handle the ENTIRE grid capacity should wind not be producing. These plants are awful for the environment (CO2 and especially particulates).

You could supplement with batteries... but those are a looooooong way from grid ready.

The only reason we are shutting down coal plants in this country is because we are switching to natural gas. Solar and wind hardly make a dent in our CO2 emissions.

Mind you, nuclear has none of these problems, is clean burning, and is the safest power we've made to date.


« Last Edit: June 03, 2021, 11:58:24 AM by StashingAway »

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2021, 08:08:53 PM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.
Solar energy farms are bad for the environment compared to burning coal?

In specific scenarios, yes. Baseload fossil fuel plants are cleaner burning than "peaker" plants that have to meet demand when wind/solar isn't producing. The process of turning on these plants quickly is a dirty process (rather than having them running and just adjust their output). So if you have a bunch of wind farms, you still need to build fossil plants that can handle the ENTIRE grid capacity should wind not be producing. These plants are awful for the environment (CO2 and especially particulates).

You could supplement with batteries... but those are a looooooong way from grid ready.

The only reason we are shutting down coal plants in this country is because we are switching to natural gas. Solar and wind hardly make a dent in our CO2 emissions.

Mind you, nuclear has none of these problems, is clean burning, and is the safest power we've made to date.

I don't believe that wind + peaker NG plants is more polluting than coal, which was the specific comparison here. True that peaker NG plants are more polluting than baseload NG plants. So the question is what % of our power would need to be from peaker plants to make the offset from wind & solar not worth it? This is a very complicated issue related to distribution issues, environmental cost from mining for batteries, etc so there's no clear number. It is also clouded by politically slanted analyses widespread on the internet. That being said, I am sure the answer is not 0% wind & solar and all baseload NG (and to be clear, I don't think that's what you are implying, but the person upstream in the comments was).

Nuclear is a good baseload source and (relatively) clean burning given how much it produces, but hard to see how it's safer than solar or wind. There have been 0 solar plants causing widespread evacuations and I don't see a plausible scenario for that happening.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2021, 08:16:48 PM by Abe »

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2021, 04:23:23 AM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.
Solar energy farms are bad for the environment compared to burning coal?

In specific scenarios, yes. Baseload fossil fuel plants are cleaner burning than "peaker" plants that have to meet demand when wind/solar isn't producing. The process of turning on these plants quickly is a dirty process (rather than having them running and just adjust their output). So if you have a bunch of wind farms, you still need to build fossil plants that can handle the ENTIRE grid capacity should wind not be producing. These plants are awful for the environment (CO2 and especially particulates).

You could supplement with batteries... but those are a looooooong way from grid ready.

The only reason we are shutting down coal plants in this country is because we are switching to natural gas. Solar and wind hardly make a dent in our CO2 emissions.

Mind you, nuclear has none of these problems, is clean burning, and is the safest power we've made to date.

I don't believe that wind + peaker NG plants is more polluting than coal, which was the specific comparison here. True that peaker NG plants are more polluting than baseload NG plants. So the question is what % of our power would need to be from peaker plants to make the offset from wind & solar not worth it? This is a very complicated issue related to distribution issues, environmental cost from mining for batteries, etc so there's no clear number. It is also clouded by politically slanted analyses widespread on the internet. That being said, I am sure the answer is not 0% wind & solar and all baseload NG (and to be clear, I don't think that's what you are implying, but the person upstream in the comments was).

Nuclear is a good baseload source and (relatively) clean burning given how much it produces, but hard to see how it's safer than solar or wind. There have been 0 solar plants causing widespread evacuations and I don't see a plausible scenario for that happening.

I agree with all of this, with the exception of the safety of solar and wind. There are more deaths from solar/wind due to the hazardous install/maintenance conditions compared to nuclear. Nuclear power has an incredible safety record, with an incredibly stringent safety regulatory body. It is one of the reasons that nuclear is so expensive: it's the safest power we have, yet we are still trying to make it safer due entirely to public perception.

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/?sh=7fca98865467

Currently our CO2 emissions are dropping pretty quickly in the US, at least in commercial and industrial sectors. The reason is entirely because of our switch to natural gas. Renewables get a lot of credit in the public eye, but natural gas is doing all of the work.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2021, 04:25:12 AM by StashingAway »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2021, 05:30:12 AM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.
Solar energy farms are bad for the environment compared to burning coal?

In specific scenarios, yes. Baseload fossil fuel plants are cleaner burning than "peaker" plants that have to meet demand when wind/solar isn't producing. The process of turning on these plants quickly is a dirty process (rather than having them running and just adjust their output). So if you have a bunch of wind farms, you still need to build fossil plants that can handle the ENTIRE grid capacity should wind not be producing. These plants are awful for the environment (CO2 and especially particulates).

You could supplement with batteries... but those are a looooooong way from grid ready.

The only reason we are shutting down coal plants in this country is because we are switching to natural gas. Solar and wind hardly make a dent in our CO2 emissions.

Mind you, nuclear has none of these problems, is clean burning, and is the safest power we've made to date.

I don't believe that wind + peaker NG plants is more polluting than coal, which was the specific comparison here. True that peaker NG plants are more polluting than baseload NG plants. So the question is what % of our power would need to be from peaker plants to make the offset from wind & solar not worth it? This is a very complicated issue related to distribution issues, environmental cost from mining for batteries, etc so there's no clear number. It is also clouded by politically slanted analyses widespread on the internet. That being said, I am sure the answer is not 0% wind & solar and all baseload NG (and to be clear, I don't think that's what you are implying, but the person upstream in the comments was).

Nuclear is a good baseload source and (relatively) clean burning given how much it produces, but hard to see how it's safer than solar or wind. There have been 0 solar plants causing widespread evacuations and I don't see a plausible scenario for that happening.

I agree with all of this, with the exception of the safety of solar and wind. There are more deaths from solar/wind due to the hazardous install/maintenance conditions compared to nuclear. Nuclear power has an incredible safety record, with an incredibly stringent safety regulatory body. It is one of the reasons that nuclear is so expensive: it's the safest power we have, yet we are still trying to make it safer due entirely to public perception.

 https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/?sh=7fca98865467

Currently our CO2 emissions are dropping pretty quickly in the US, at least in commercial and industrial sectors. The reason is entirely because of our switch to natural gas. Renewables get a lot of credit in the public eye, but natural gas is doing all of the work.

+1

Nuclear has a serious perception problem. Sure there are risks in the abstract, but really, other than the risk of a deliberate terrorist attack, nuclear's extreme safety record speaks for itself. The biggest issue with nuclear is that it still requires a non-plentiful fuel source akin to fossil fuels. However, it could be a great interim measure while other things are developed. The negative perception is frustrating. I remember vividly my college English professor giving me a B on a paper, counting off pretty much solely on my persuasive essay promoting nuclear power with the extremely well thought out response to my paragraphs of detailed and cited explanations on nuclear power being safe with the comment "No it's not."

Frznrth

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 69
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2021, 06:42:00 AM »
Thanks Abe.  I sort of thought this sector would be overinflated in general.  I’m sure there must be companies that have breakthroughs in technology that will do very well but how to find those...
Should have bought renewable 20 years ago. 

Fishindude

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3075
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2021, 06:55:25 AM »
Renewables (wind, solar) cannot meet out future energy needs. In fact they make things worse for environment.

Better to find ways to make fossil fuels more environmentally friendly and to build nuclear reactors.

This is an unpopular opinion in many circles, but it's mine as well.
The US is not going to get off of coal to generate electricity (which isn't all bad considering the abundance of this material), unless we get serious about nuclear.

celerystalks

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2021, 07:53:00 AM »
The arguments against nuclear and fossil fuels and for wind and solar are primarily feelings based.  It gives certain people the warm fuzzies to talk about them often and to see solar panels and wind farms.  It doesn't take much digging to understand the reality of the situation though...

Once installed and before replacement, it is true that wind and solar produce few byproducts during their lifetime power generation phase.  But, the amount of mining activity and energy used in order to produce these wind and solar collectors and the amount non-recyclable waste produced after their useful life cannot be ignored.  In many cases it is more efficient to just mine the fossil fuels and burn them directly than to produce a large solar or wind farm.

Further, the intermittency of these power sources is something that is not often effectively addressed by their proponents.  Battery technology is touted as the solution. But it's not ready for prime time and we don't know if it ever will be.  So, to counteract the intermittency problem more reliance on gas and coal is required since these fossil fuel reactors can be more easily turned up and down to counteract the fluctuations in solar and wind.  Or, like California, this too can be ignored and fossil fuel power plans can be decommissioned and then dense population centers can experience rolling blackouts when there is a heat wave and/or the wind dies down -- much like what happened in August of 2020.  In fact the cynical among us believe that legacy fossil-fuel energy companies support wind and solar because they know it will never over take fossil fuels, but counterintuitively would increase our dependence on them.

Then there is the diluteness problem.  I don't think people truly understand how much land would need to be devoted to these projects.  So much for our pristine natural environmental beauty..

But at least wind and solar will provide the do-gooders with the feeling have done good!

https://youtu.be/LZXUR4z2P9w

https://youtu.be/N-yALPEpV4w

https://youtu.be/RqppRC37OgI

https://youtu.be/ObvdSmPbdLg

Edited to add additional youtube video.

« Last Edit: June 04, 2021, 08:36:45 AM by celerystalks »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #17 on: June 04, 2021, 10:26:08 AM »
Once installed and before replacement, it is true that wind and solar produce few byproducts during their lifetime power generation phase.  But, the amount of mining activity and energy used in order to produce these wind and solar collectors and the amount non-recyclable waste produced after their useful life cannot be ignored.  In many cases it is more efficient to just mine the fossil fuels and burn them directly than to produce a large solar or wind farm.

Wrong. Completely wrong.

There are numerous life-cycle assessments out there.

A meta-study from World Nuclear. See Table 2; the primary references are listed at the bottom.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/uploadedFiles/org/WNA/Publications/Working_Group_Reports/comparison_of_lifecycle.pdf

Result: NG 499; Solar 85; Nuclear 29; Wind 26 (life cycle tonnes CO2/GWH)

https://www.worldenergy.org/assets/downloads/PUB_Comparison_of_Energy_Systens_using_lifecycle_2004_WEC.pdf

Figure 6.1 ^^, even if CO2 sequestration is used.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/57187.pdf
Etc., etc.


Quote
Then there is the diluteness problem.  I don't think people truly understand how much land would need to be devoted to these projects.  So much for our pristine natural environmental beauty..

And Daddy, won't you take me back to Muhlenberg County?
Down by the Green River where Paradise lay
Well, I'm sorry, my son, but you're too late in asking
Mister Peabody's coal train has hauled it away



No one denies that we need peaker plants (standard NG combustion peaker plants run only 10% of the year) and possibly load-followers but that's a far cry from getting rid of all solar and wind power.

Nuclear is the cleanest, and most compact, power plant. The initial costs are ginormous, and the levelized costs are high, which is another reason they're not getting built.

"Hey, voters, we need $20B from bonds to build a nuclear power plant that'll be ready in (maybe) 10 years. (And we might ask for more money.)"
vs
"Hey voters, Power Plant Amalgamated is investing $300M to build some wind turbines and they'll start producing next year."

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #18 on: June 04, 2021, 12:16:00 PM »
Nuclear is the cleanest, and most compact, power plant. The initial costs are ginormous, and the levelized costs are high, which is another reason they're not getting built.

Best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago...

Bottom line is we need nuclear yesterday to reduce global warming. Today is fine as well.

We built tons of plans for pretty cheap in the 70's. Most are still running today. Some nuclear plants are getting approved to run 80 years by the commissioning body.

So what changed in cost? Safety and public perception. Getting plants approved to run need public forums...which causes delays... which costs money. Lots of money. We can build a plant in 4-5 years, but the NIMBY public backlash drags that to 8+ years. Planning commissions and local governments going back on their word and the like. It's circular logic. Naysayers say it's too expensive, but then place restrictions on the plants that no NG or wind farm would have to pass.

We have super safe plants; all of the ones in the 70s have better tech than TMI and Chernobyl and they are plenty safe. Coal plants give off significantly more radiation than nuclear ones. And the new plants are safer, but public somehow still doesn't care. It's all balogna.


Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #19 on: June 04, 2021, 12:26:04 PM »

No one denies that we need peaker plants (standard NG combustion peaker plants run only 10% of the year) and possibly load-followers but that's a far cry from getting rid of all solar and wind power.

Nuclear is the cleanest, and most compact, power plant. The initial costs are ginormous, and the levelized costs are high, which is another reason they're not getting built.

"Hey, voters, we need $20B from bonds to build a nuclear power plant that'll be ready in (maybe) 10 years. (And we might ask for more money.)"
vs
"Hey voters, Power Plant Amalgamated is investing $300M to build some wind turbines and they'll start producing next year."

I agree that there's a big perception gap to overcome with nuclear, but I mean, there's negative feelings towards wind/solar/etc. as well - evidence in this thread. Perceptions need to be changed no matter what, and I feel like nuclear is worth pursuing, as it can work  well in conjunction with more renewable type of energy generation like wind and solar where we can get even further away from fossil fuels. To me, it's a hill worth dying on in terms of promoting it.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #20 on: June 04, 2021, 12:42:46 PM »
Nuclear is the cleanest, and most compact, power plant. The initial costs are ginormous, and the levelized costs are high, which is another reason they're not getting built.

Best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago...

Bottom line is we need nuclear yesterday to reduce global warming. Today is fine as well.

Sure but I'll repeat myself.

"Hey, voters, we need $20B from bonds to build a nuclear power plant that'll be ready in (maybe) 10 years. (And we might ask for more money.)"
vs
"Hey voters, Power Plant Amalgamated is investing $300M to build some wind turbines and they'll start producing next year."

How do we overcome the cost and safety perception?

It's not just in the US, either. France has over-budget nuclear plants (at Flamanville-3 in 2019) that rely on public funding.

Quote from: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-09/edf-lifts-cost-of-french-nuclear-reactor-by-14-to-13-6-billion
Electricite de France SA said repairs of faulty welds at a nuclear plant under construction in western France will boost the project’s cost by 14% to 12.4 billion euros ($13.6 billion), adding further financial strain to the cash-strapped atomic power giant.

The latest budget hike at the Flamanville-3 reactor is yet another blow to the French state-controlled utility, which raised its cost estimate for two similar reactors it’s building in the U.K. just weeks ago.

Given the recurring theme, every builder low-balls because the real costs are crazy-high or no one can do it correctly.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #21 on: June 04, 2021, 12:57:00 PM »

No one denies that we need peaker plants (standard NG combustion peaker plants run only 10% of the year) and possibly load-followers but that's a far cry from getting rid of all solar and wind power.

Nuclear is the cleanest, and most compact, power plant. The initial costs are ginormous, and the levelized costs are high, which is another reason they're not getting built.

"Hey, voters, we need $20B from bonds to build a nuclear power plant that'll be ready in (maybe) 10 years. (And we might ask for more money.)"
vs
"Hey voters, Power Plant Amalgamated is investing $300M to build some wind turbines and they'll start producing next year."

I agree that there's a big perception gap to overcome with nuclear, but I mean, there's negative feelings towards wind/solar/etc. as well - evidence in this thread. Perceptions need to be changed no matter what, and I feel like nuclear is worth pursuing, as it can work  well in conjunction with more renewable type of energy generation like wind and solar where we can get even further away from fossil fuels. To me, it's a hill worth dying on in terms of promoting it.

The feelings against nuclear are far greater than the feelings against wind/solar. Oil-rich Texas has wind turbines added every year but no new nuclear plants.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=19c4085b7d0a4edb92deafc50a397e2f

Both were started in 1974 (Comanche Peak started construction in 1974 and came online in 1990!). Are there new plants being constructed? I couldn't find any in my quick search.

Comanche was going to expand but...

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
As of November 2013, expansion had been suspended due a natural gas boom dramatically lowering power prices in Texas

The Bay City Reactor was also going to expand but didn't because of permitting costs and the NG boom.


The public doesn't like nuclear energy. Full stop. We can promote it, and it's worth it, but we should also be funding better battery technology. If you had to bet, which would you expect to happen first -- a public shift to nuclear plants or better battery tech for wind/solar?

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #22 on: June 04, 2021, 02:06:32 PM »
I listened to a radio show today that highlighted a Calgary startup that is extracting lithium in a new way and a company in Quebec that is recycling batteries with a new process. I think both are private companies. The story really focused how renewable energy such as lithium seems to be the future.

I don't know how to invest, but these companies could potentially make a lot of money. There aren't enough lithium mines in the world for our coming demand:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-not-so-clean-energy-transition-11620752282
https://www.iea.org/reports/the-role-of-critical-minerals-in-clean-energy-transitions

StarBright

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3270
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #23 on: June 04, 2021, 02:11:54 PM »
I've been in a renewable REIT for a while - HASI. They do "sustainable infrastructure."

It was definitely overvalued for the last couple of quarters but seems to be coming back down to earth.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #24 on: June 04, 2021, 02:19:55 PM »
The arguments against nuclear and fossil fuels and for wind and solar are primarily feelings based.  It gives certain people the warm fuzzies to talk about them often and to see solar panels and wind farms.  It doesn't take much digging to understand the reality of the situation though...

I think that you are failing to acknowledge the cost of current nuclear technology. Or maybe I'm the only one with friends in Tampa?

Further, the intermittency of these power sources is something that is not often effectively addressed by their proponents.  Battery technology is touted as the solution. But it's not ready for prime time and we don't know if it ever will be.

I would expect pumped hydro storage to end up being the final solution. Pump water uphill during times of excess production, and down in times of excess demand. Also, everyone ignores time of use pricing. There are times where commercial power is really expensive and others when it is figuratively (or literally) free. Do we have to smelt the steel when it is convenient or can we do it when its cheap?

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #25 on: June 04, 2021, 07:12:26 PM »
I would expect pumped hydro storage to end up being the final solution. Pump water uphill during times of excess production, and down in times of excess demand. Also, everyone ignores time of use pricing. There are times where commercial power is really expensive and others when it is figuratively (or literally) free. Do we have to smelt the steel when it is convenient or can we do it when its cheap?

Until that is done, nuclear is the only proven carbon free large scale power source we have. Peirod. Everything else at this point is vaporware. The largest grid scale battery pack employed in Australia can only supplement the grid it's on at full capacity for a couple of hours. It does great at smoothing out the power spikes, but for a true power reserve it is completely worthless.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2021, 07:15:35 PM »
The public doesn't like nuclear energy. Full stop. We can promote it, and it's worth it, but we should also be funding better battery technology. If you had to bet, which would you expect to happen first -- a public shift to nuclear plants or better battery tech for wind/solar?

The worst part is that I think you're right. We're handed a golden egg of nuclear power but fighting the tide of public ignorance might not ever pay off.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2021, 07:28:19 PM »
It's not just in the US, either. France has over-budget nuclear plants (at Flamanville-3 in 2019) that rely on public funding.

What do you think all of the wind/solar subsidies are if not public funding? Coal is cheap. With fracking, natural gas is even cheaper. Every carbon free solution we use is going to cost public funding, we just have to suck it up and do it. State of emergency or whatever. We could do it fast and cheap if we don't ask permission (I'm not suggesting we do that, but if we were at war and needed power, there wouldn't be any question).

Here's the crux: nuclear power provides steady baseload power at massive scale. This is something that it doesn't get credit for compared to renewables. We can make a few 200mW solar arrays and think that we have the equivalent of a 1gW nuclear plant. But it's faaaaar from being able to manage grid power like the nuclear plant. They aren't even in the same category. So solar gets credit for producing a huge amount of energy, but that energy is almost all on the sun's terms... not the grid's. This calculation is usually not weighted correctly in renewable discussions. It's really easy to get large amounts of intermittent power from solar and wind, but it's near impossible to get reliable long term power with it.

In any off grid solar power system that is installed, batteries are far and away the most expensive component. Not the panels, or electronics or support structure. It's batteries. Powering grid sub station with batteries for one day would be an insanely large battery bank. Orders of magnitude than even the supplemental ones built in Australia. And powering for two days it would have to be 2x, and for three days, 3x. There is no scaling. The nuclear plant stays the same size in all scenarios.

With climate change, we are going to have unpredictable weather. And there is no way we want our grid to only have a day's worth of battery power with no production. Infrastructure would completely collapse in any extreme weather event. Or forest fires blocking solar production or wind patterns changing making Iowa a still zone. It's just not something we can rely on unless we can invent a better battery. Or use what we already have with nuclear.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2021, 07:29:52 PM by StashingAway »

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2021, 07:50:46 PM »
The public doesn't like nuclear energy. Full stop. We can promote it, and it's worth it, but we should also be funding better battery technology. If you had to bet, which would you expect to happen first -- a public shift to nuclear plants or better battery tech for wind/solar?

The worst part is that I think you're right. We're handed a golden egg of nuclear power but fighting the tide of public ignorance might not ever pay off.

Along those lines the US has basically neglected Thorium nuclear reactor research for longer than I've been alive, right?

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #29 on: June 04, 2021, 08:08:33 PM »
I’m curious to everyone’s thoughts on Fukashima- was that catastrophe a result of nuclear fuel’s inherent toxicity, poor siting, poor design, or what? The latter two can be fixed, the former not. I just have a hard time imagining that a natural disaster breaking a solar or wind installation will result in an entire province being uninhabitable for a decade. Once can talk until they are blue in the face about an incredible safety record on average, but major disasters have a disproportionate toll on an industry’s success. Ok so three mile island almost blew up but didn’t so go Us! Ok, the USSR screwed up, but they are commies so what’s new. Ok Fukashima got hit by a literal tidal wave but that’s not here so whatever. A major or near-major disaster every 2-3 decades is not an extreme safety record, guys. I guess making them in sparsely inhabited areas would be acceptable to most people, as long as they are not the person living in said sparsely inhabited area.

Also, nuclear needs a huge safety infrastructure because it is so toxic, and remains toxic for a long time. We can over-engineer and then blame the public for being too afraid, but obviously that isn’t a viable solution in a democracy. We need actual solutions that will actually happen, and I’m not seeing that with nuclear reactors, unfortunately. The intermittency of solar and wind is obviously an issue also, but that is more likely to be compensated for at some point.

Another thought - do we actually need to be completely zero or net zero CO2? As long as the emissions are a manageable amount, a lot of the coming disaster is not preventable and reaching the last 10% of this goal may be enormously expensive without a clear benefit.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2021, 08:16:23 PM by Abe »

ice_beard

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 251
  • Location: East Bay, CA
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #30 on: June 04, 2021, 08:51:22 PM »
The arguments against nuclear and fossil fuels and for wind and solar are primarily feelings based.  It gives certain people the warm fuzzies to talk about them often and to see solar panels and wind farms.  It doesn't take much digging to understand the reality of the situation though...

Once installed and before replacement, it is true that wind and solar produce few byproducts during their lifetime power generation phase.  But, the amount of mining activity and energy used in order to produce these wind and solar collectors and the amount non-recyclable waste produced after their useful life cannot be ignored.  In many cases it is more efficient to just mine the fossil fuels and burn them directly than to produce a large solar or wind farm.

Further, the intermittency of these power sources is something that is not often effectively addressed by their proponents.  Battery technology is touted as the solution. But it's not ready for prime time and we don't know if it ever will be.  So, to counteract the intermittency problem more reliance on gas and coal is required since these fossil fuel reactors can be more easily turned up and down to counteract the fluctuations in solar and wind.  Or, like California, this too can be ignored and fossil fuel power plans can be decommissioned and then dense population centers can experience rolling blackouts when there is a heat wave and/or the wind dies down -- much like what happened in August of 2020. 

I actually agree with nuclear as a reasonable option and am a proponent of using the natural gas that exists essentially everywhere, burns a lot cleaner than coal and we have in infrastructure already in place... but, the "rolling blackout" in California last August impacted about 200,000 people in the central valley for a couple hours on August 15 and 16.  This was not some recurring, life taking event certain segments of the news media like to make it out to be.  This was primarily caused by an extremely large and hot airmass that required more power than the state could provide at the time.  In similar instances in the past, CA imports power from other western states.  That power wasn't available, so a fraction of the population had their power cut for a few hours. 

The much larger power outages in other parts of the late summer/fall months were purposefully done during wind events by PG&E to prevent wildfires.

As far as investments in rewnewables...  I'm under the impression this sector got over heated during the Covid recovery play.  I'm sure there are some good options out there still but I personally think ETFs like TAN are overvalued still and could use a correction. 
« Last Edit: June 04, 2021, 09:01:00 PM by ice_beard »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #31 on: June 05, 2021, 05:46:22 AM »

No one denies that we need peaker plants (standard NG combustion peaker plants run only 10% of the year) and possibly load-followers but that's a far cry from getting rid of all solar and wind power.

Nuclear is the cleanest, and most compact, power plant. The initial costs are ginormous, and the levelized costs are high, which is another reason they're not getting built.

"Hey, voters, we need $20B from bonds to build a nuclear power plant that'll be ready in (maybe) 10 years. (And we might ask for more money.)"
vs
"Hey voters, Power Plant Amalgamated is investing $300M to build some wind turbines and they'll start producing next year."

I agree that there's a big perception gap to overcome with nuclear, but I mean, there's negative feelings towards wind/solar/etc. as well - evidence in this thread. Perceptions need to be changed no matter what, and I feel like nuclear is worth pursuing, as it can work  well in conjunction with more renewable type of energy generation like wind and solar where we can get even further away from fossil fuels. To me, it's a hill worth dying on in terms of promoting it.

The feelings against nuclear are far greater than the feelings against wind/solar. Oil-rich Texas has wind turbines added every year but no new nuclear plants.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=19c4085b7d0a4edb92deafc50a397e2f

Both were started in 1974 (Comanche Peak started construction in 1974 and came online in 1990!). Are there new plants being constructed? I couldn't find any in my quick search.

Comanche was going to expand but...

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
As of November 2013, expansion had been suspended due a natural gas boom dramatically lowering power prices in Texas

The Bay City Reactor was also going to expand but didn't because of permitting costs and the NG boom.


The public doesn't like nuclear energy. Full stop. We can promote it, and it's worth it, but we should also be funding better battery technology. If you had to bet, which would you expect to happen first -- a public shift to nuclear plants or better battery tech for wind/solar?

The public doesn't like nuclear energy, but I don't think it's a full stop. Public opinion can change, and for what my tiny, insignificant voice is worth, I will promote nuclear energy because it makes sense. That does not mean battery tech needs to not be promoted. They both have a place.

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #32 on: June 05, 2021, 11:08:09 AM »
I’m curious to everyone’s thoughts on Fukashima- was that catastrophe a result of nuclear fuel’s inherent toxicity, poor siting, poor design, or what?
...
Also, nuclear needs a huge safety infrastructure because it is so toxic, and remains toxic for a long time. We can over-engineer and then blame the public for being too afraid, but obviously that isn’t a viable solution in a democracy. We need actual solutions that will actually happen, and I’m not seeing that with nuclear reactors, unfortunately. The intermittency of solar and wind is obviously an issue also, but that is more likely to be compensated for at some point.

I was going to point out that the GE Mark 1 reactors at Fukushima didn't have core catchers, because they hadn't been invented yet when the Mark 1 was designed. So a modern reactor design would have made the meltdown less bad.

But, none of that changes the fact that you need to keep spent fuel rods submerged in water for years after they are removed. Failing to do so would be bad, although I'm not 100% sure how bad because I'm not a nuclear engineer. But I think open air nuclear fire Chernobyl bad.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2021, 11:09:49 AM by PDXTabs »

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #33 on: June 05, 2021, 03:27:51 PM »
I’m curious to everyone’s thoughts on Fukashima- was that catastrophe a result of nuclear fuel’s inherent toxicity, poor siting, poor design, or what? The latter two can be fixed, the former not. I just have a hard time imagining that a natural disaster breaking a solar or wind installation will result in an entire province being uninhabitable for a decade. Once can talk until they are blue in the face about an incredible safety record on average, but major disasters have a disproportionate toll on an industry’s success.

It's a valid concern. Everything should be withing context. First off, Fukashima was a multi front failure whammy. Lack of access to the site because of earthquake. Earthquake that damaged the reactors. And a tsunami itself that flooded the very poorly placed backup generators. And then human error (they had the ability to flood the reactors sooner to stop the runaway meltdown, but held off because it would damage expensive equipment).

I suggest reading the wiki on casualties. Most people drastically overestimate the amount of human suffering as a result of a nuclear meltdown. It's not zero, but it's also quite low given the power produced. It is also much lower than the long term health issues with working at a gas or coal plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties

If you have more time, I highly suggest reading the timeline of the Fukushima natural disaster. It is much more concrete than vague perceptions of what happened based on media reportiong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

As far as worrying about a providence being uninhabitable for a couple of decades, that is child's play compared to the damage we are causing our atmosphere by dumping our CO2 waste up there.

Also, keep in mind that the newest gen reactors are designed in ways that they will safely turn off without any human intervention in the event of a failure. A sort of deadman's switch.

Abe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2647
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #34 on: June 05, 2021, 06:39:01 PM »
I’m curious to everyone’s thoughts on Fukashima- was that catastrophe a result of nuclear fuel’s inherent toxicity, poor siting, poor design, or what? The latter two can be fixed, the former not. I just have a hard time imagining that a natural disaster breaking a solar or wind installation will result in an entire province being uninhabitable for a decade. Once can talk until they are blue in the face about an incredible safety record on average, but major disasters have a disproportionate toll on an industry’s success.

It's a valid concern. Everything should be withing context. First off, Fukashima was a multi front failure whammy. Lack of access to the site because of earthquake. Earthquake that damaged the reactors. And a tsunami itself that flooded the very poorly placed backup generators. And then human error (they had the ability to flood the reactors sooner to stop the runaway meltdown, but held off because it would damage expensive equipment).

I suggest reading the wiki on casualties. Most people drastically overestimate the amount of human suffering as a result of a nuclear meltdown. It's not zero, but it's also quite low given the power produced. It is also much lower than the long term health issues with working at a gas or coal plant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties

If you have more time, I highly suggest reading the timeline of the Fukushima natural disaster. It is much more concrete than vague perceptions of what happened based on media reportiong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

As far as worrying about a providence being uninhabitable for a couple of decades, that is child's play compared to the damage we are causing our atmosphere by dumping our CO2 waste up there.

Also, keep in mind that the newest gen reactors are designed in ways that they will safely turn off without any human intervention in the event of a failure. A sort of deadman's switch.

I appreciate your comments on the multiple failures that lead to the Fukashima disaster, but take exception with your brushing off the severe consequences to the surrounding population. I would like to know what your response would be if a nearby nuclear reactor failed and you are forced to evacuate for years. Deaths are not the only consequence possible to humans, and the people of Fukashima would not agree that their suffering and losses are child’s play. Rather they are emblematic of the uncertain future facing all of us as disasters (natural or not) make our current habitats unlivable for unclear periods of time. All the more reason that siting of reactors is more fraught with dangers and unforeseen consequences that can lead to future Fukashimas.
Regardless, that is a somewhat non-sequiner argument since the comparator is solar and wind plants + battery storage, which again don’t lead to a clear path to catastrophic consequences as has happened at Fukashima and Chernobyl. Both seem to be the result of human errors combined with unforeseen (or ignored) consequences of designs. It is not at all clear that the nuclear industry has provided significant improvements on these designs, per the Union or Concerned Scientists report on these designs: https://ucsusa.org/resources/advanced-isnt-always-better
I do not claim to have much knowledge of the technical aspects of nuclear reactors, but know that in general complex systems are usually not as resilient as initially thought. Thus extensive testing will be necessary to prove they are before further reactors are built. That timeline will not be fast enough to intercede in the climate crisis, unless we just ignore people’s concerns. Doing so would be paternalistic and unlikely to succeed.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3551
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #35 on: June 05, 2021, 07:03:43 PM »
So what changed in cost? Safety and public perception. Getting plants approved to run need public forums...which causes delays... which costs money. Lots of money. We can build a plant in 4-5 years, but the NIMBY public backlash drags that to 8+ years. Planning commissions and local governments going back on their word and the like. It's circular logic. Naysayers say it's too expensive, but then place restrictions on the plants that no NG or wind farm would have to pass.

That's really not correct.  Let's look at at the last three nuclear power projects in the US:

Progress Energy Levy Power Plant in Florida.  Siting was at an existing nuclear plant and was 100% approved all the way to the governors office, and once all the eyes were dotted and all the tees were crossed, and all the NIMBY backlash had been put to bed,  a rate hike was granted to pay for future production.  Once construction started, there were  cost over runs and delays, and more cost overruns and delays, and another rate hike was need to pay for all the new future costs so that was passed, and now there was a bunch of new money there were more cost overruns and delays...at which point the utility commission concluded it would cheaper to simply build new gas-fired plants rather than pay for the costs to finish the existing project. 

Summer Nuclear Plant in SC.  Again this was an expansion of an existing nuclear plant.  Siting was 100% approved through the top level, so all the NIMBY backlash was put to bed and construction began.  Consumers graciously agreed to a rate hike to pay for electricity they wouldn't get to use until years in the future.  Once construction started, there were  cost over runs and delays, and more cost overruns and delays, the contractor went bankrupt, and finally the utility commission concluded it was cheaper to simply walk away from all of the billions of dollars already spent than try to finish the project.

And finally Vogtle 3&4.  Again, an expansion of an existing nuclear facility.  After all the siting was 100% approved through the top level and construction began, the cost overruns started.  There was delay, after delay, after delay.  The project came this close >< to being canceled, and managed to squeak through on the strength of new investor money.  And then there were more delays and cost over runs.  If the project is eventually completed, the power will be amazingly expensive compared to say, natural gas. 

Surely, the process added cost.  But in each case, the cost increase problems started after the process was completed.  And it is a false equivalency to suggest that wind farms get unfair treatment.  Those projects have lots of process too.  NEPA, SEPA, all that. I know first hand.  That said, if a wind turbine falls over, that's a different outcome than a Fukushima-style meltdown.  So it is entirely reasonable there should be a higher level of scrutiny for a nuclear plant than a wind farm. 

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3551
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #36 on: June 05, 2021, 07:18:06 PM »
As far as worrying about a providence being uninhabitable for a couple of decades, that is child's play compared to the damage we are causing our atmosphere by dumping our CO2 waste up there.

I agree with you.  Now convince all the people in that province they should be willing to take one for the team.  They might not share your priorities.  They might even vote.

Again, I agree with you, but it is a hard sell that one group of people needs to take all the risk right now, so there will be a collective benefit in the future. 

PDXTabs

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5160
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Vancouver, WA, USA
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #37 on: June 05, 2021, 07:47:24 PM »
As far as worrying about a providence being uninhabitable for a couple of decades, that is child's play compared to the damage we are causing our atmosphere by dumping our CO2 waste up there.

I agree with you.  Now convince all the people in that province they should be willing to take one for the team.  They might not share your priorities.  They might even vote.

Again, I agree with you, but it is a hard sell that one group of people needs to take all the risk right now, so there will be a collective benefit in the future.

Yup. What did the folks in the Chernobyl exclusion zone get for compensation?

Simpleton

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 177
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #38 on: June 05, 2021, 09:39:43 PM »
The real question which seems to be ignored is: Is global warming actually a bad thing? Even the worst case scenarios do not take us outside the historical max/mins. Life has thrived in a variety of climates.

Seems to me that to a certain extent, faster vegetation growth, better farming, more habitable/arable land is a good thing in some ways. The fact that some areas of the world will surely suffer, doesn't answer the question of if the world will overall be better or worse, more habitable or less.

I think the case against fossil fuels probably has some merit, but the science is not nearly as conclusive as the political consensus. The number of false prophecies in the past decades is laughable. Goalposts are moved on a weekly basis. That being said, I think there is some effect - again, the question being: Is it certainly a bad effect?

As millions of tax-subsidized wind turbines chop birds to death every rotation, I question weather those birds have a dying dream about a world where their favorite food/plants grow more plentifully thanks to heightened atmospheric CO2.





« Last Edit: June 05, 2021, 09:43:50 PM by Simpleton »

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #39 on: June 06, 2021, 05:48:34 AM »
The real question which seems to be ignored is: Is global warming actually a bad thing? Even the worst case scenarios do not take us outside the historical max/mins. Life has thrived in a variety of climates.

They do take us outside of those max/mins in terms of rate of change, though. In other words, when climate changed before, the world had millions of years to adapt.

No one can really answer how different global warming will be. It may be better- most signs point to it being worse, though.

> I think the case against fossil fuels probably has some merit, but the science is not nearly as conclusive as the political consensus

Hard disagree. the science is MORE conclusive. Public/political consensus is somewhere in the range of 50-80% agreeing with climate change. A lower percentage thinks that it is human caused. Climate scientists are well into the 95+%. We are about as sure about human caused global warmimg as we are about evolution. It's a proven deal. You are mixing arguments here. Whether or not it is a bad thing or that we can adapt- those are all up in the air. But the fact that it is happening is not really up for debate.

There are still people who deny evolution. There will always be dissenting voices. But those voices should be weighted appropriately.
« Last Edit: June 06, 2021, 05:53:35 AM by StashingAway »

celerystalks

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #40 on: June 06, 2021, 06:17:22 AM »
I’m curious to everyone’s thoughts on Fukashima- was that catastrophe a result of nuclear fuel’s inherent toxicity, poor siting, poor design, or what? The latter two can be fixed, the former not. I just have a hard time imagining that a natural disaster breaking a solar or wind installation will result in an entire province being uninhabitable for a decade. Once can talk until they are blue in the face about an incredible safety record on average, but major disasters have a disproportionate toll on an industry’s success. Ok so three mile island almost blew up but didn’t so go Us! Ok, the USSR screwed up, but they are commies so what’s new. Ok Fukashima got hit by a literal tidal wave but that’s not here so whatever. A major or near-major disaster every 2-3 decades is not an extreme safety record, guys. I guess making them in sparsely inhabited areas would be acceptable to most people, as long as they are not the person living in said sparsely inhabited area.


All things considered Fukushima wasn't that bad of an event.  No one died from it. Most of the radiation was released to the ocean. 

 When taking into account increased mortality due to air pollution, nuclear is way safer by orders of magnitude.


Simpleton

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 177
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #41 on: June 06, 2021, 06:27:44 AM »
The real question which seems to be ignored is: Is global warming actually a bad thing? Even the worst case scenarios do not take us outside the historical max/mins. Life has thrived in a variety of climates.

They do take us outside of those max/mins in terms of rate of change, though. In other words, when climate changed before, the world had millions of years to adapt.

No one can really answer how different global warming will be. It may be better- most signs point to it being worse, though.

> I think the case against fossil fuels probably has some merit, but the science is not nearly as conclusive as the political consensus

Hard disagree. the science is MORE conclusive. Public/political consensus is somewhere in the range of 50-80% agreeing with climate change. A lower percentage thinks that it is human caused. Climate scientists are well into the 95+%. We are about as sure about human caused global warmimg as we are about evolution. It's a proven deal. You are mixing arguments here. Whether or not it is a bad thing or that we can adapt- those are all up in the air. But the fact that it is happening is not really up for debate.

There are still people who deny evolution. There will always be dissenting voices. But those voices should be weighted appropriately.

Yes I agree with you. I don't think I expressed my thought clearly.

What I had meant was that the science about how positive/negative the effects of climate change will be is not clear. I did not mean that the science about warming itself wasn't compelling.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #42 on: June 06, 2021, 06:56:40 AM »
What I had meant was that the science about how positive/negative the effects of climate change will be is not clear. I did not mean that the science about warming itself wasn't compelling.

Yep, that's all good for me. I tend to hit hard back at the "is it really happening?" type of comments, though, because I think it is very important to work with the same understanding (preferably scientifically based).

The two get mixed up quite often in the more conservative leaning discussions. It makes it really hard to have any kind of reasonable though process when the basic premise keeps getting muddled. Replublicans tend to throw in the "is it really happening, is it really new?" quips that completely undermine any kind of reasonable conclusions. There is a pretty big movement of young republicans fighting against this, but there are some otherwise level headed people who still seem confused about what is meant by by "climate change".

Democrats tend to throw in the "guaranteed doomsday" quips as well, which I think is also leading to terrible policy and not productive (and what you're arguing against). But at least most of those discussions aren't confused about the base premise. I don't know which worries me more, but I get terribly frustrated with the former because I think if they got their heads around it they would put forth some great policies.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #43 on: June 06, 2021, 07:01:57 AM »
As far as worrying about a providence being uninhabitable for a couple of decades, that is child's play compared to the damage we are causing our atmosphere by dumping our CO2 waste up there.

I agree with you.  Now convince all the people in that province they should be willing to take one for the team.  They might not share your priorities.  They might even vote.

Again, I agree with you, but it is a hard sell that one group of people needs to take all the risk right now, so there will be a collective benefit in the future.

I'm trying to sell it right now. Nuclear has had a bad PR campaign for decades. What needs to change? The PR campaign!

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3551
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #44 on: June 06, 2021, 10:42:15 AM »
^ The thing that would pretty much fix the problem is a carbon or a cap and trade system.  If there were a price on carbon then nuclear would become more attractive.  There are plenty of places in the US were nuclear plants could be sited (like at existing facilities) but it is cost-prohibitive to do so. 

NN6

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #45 on: June 07, 2021, 05:17:45 AM »
Wow, there has been a quite interesting discussion here. Some points I couldn't disagree more with but I guess it's good for all of us to see some arguments from people outside of our own little echo chamber. Couple of thing that were mentioned I would like to comment on:

1. Basically saying there is no environmental advantage (thinking GHG emissions here) of wind or solar over fossil generation is from all I have ever read just factually incorrect. If anyone has any credible source pointing to the opposite for recent wind or solar installations I would love to read it.

2. Nuclear has gotten some very positive comments here. While I don't want to go into the pros and cons of nuclear I think it is important to not keep it in mind as the silver bullet but it can be part of a successful technology portfolio. From an emission standpoint solar and wind are great if the system is flexible enough, hydropower is fantastic but location dependent, wave and tidal power are usually not economically viable, and biomass can be good to if sourced from waste products. The drawback of nuclear is largely the huge investment costs in my opinion. Couple that with a lot of political uncertainty and I don't see who (except for maybe Bill Gates) would want to invest billions into it.

3. Variable generation is seen here by some as an non integrateble resource it seems. I would urge people to look at countries like Denmark where the wind share is already over 50% and the power system is still very reliable. A portfolio of flexibility measures can help cope with the intermittency not just battery storage. Sector coupling, interconnection, demand side flexibility etc. are great sources of flexibility.

4. We all went off topic. My belief is renewable stocks will continue to do well. I prefer index funds because it is hard to pick winners and there is substantial risk of some of the companies messing up and loosing you a lot of money. Stocks in this sector are richly valued no doubt but so is the S&P500. Why I think renewables could outperform is because of all the subsidies the world is handing out which allows some companies to profit nicely. But generally speaking I don't know more than many here on the stock side of things so don't take my word for it.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2021, 08:32:51 AM by NN6 »

celerystalks

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #46 on: June 07, 2021, 07:00:53 AM »

No one denies that we need peaker plants (standard NG combustion peaker plants run only 10% of the year) and possibly load-followers but that's a far cry from getting rid of all solar and wind power.

Nuclear is the cleanest, and most compact, power plant. The initial costs are ginormous, and the levelized costs are high, which is another reason they're not getting built.

"Hey, voters, we need $20B from bonds to build a nuclear power plant that'll be ready in (maybe) 10 years. (And we might ask for more money.)"
vs
"Hey voters, Power Plant Amalgamated is investing $300M to build some wind turbines and they'll start producing next year."

I agree that there's a big perception gap to overcome with nuclear, but I mean, there's negative feelings towards wind/solar/etc. as well - evidence in this thread. Perceptions need to be changed no matter what, and I feel like nuclear is worth pursuing, as it can work  well in conjunction with more renewable type of energy generation like wind and solar where we can get even further away from fossil fuels. To me, it's a hill worth dying on in terms of promoting it.

The feelings against nuclear are far greater than the feelings against wind/solar. Oil-rich Texas has wind turbines added every year but no new nuclear plants.

https://www.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=19c4085b7d0a4edb92deafc50a397e2f

Both were started in 1974 (Comanche Peak started construction in 1974 and came online in 1990!). Are there new plants being constructed? I couldn't find any in my quick search.

Comanche was going to expand but...

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche_Peak_Nuclear_Power_Plant
As of November 2013, expansion had been suspended due a natural gas boom dramatically lowering power prices in Texas

The Bay City Reactor was also going to expand but didn't because of permitting costs and the NG boom.


The public doesn't like nuclear energy. Full stop. We can promote it, and it's worth it, but we should also be funding better battery technology. If you had to bet, which would you expect to happen first -- a public shift to nuclear plants or better battery tech for wind/solar?

Basically, most of the obstacles to new nuclear power plants are man made.  Either public perception, regulatory requirements.

We can either throw up our hands and say that nothing can be done. Or we can work on shifting the discourse and Overton window with respect to nuclear power so that the political climate becomes more accepting of using it as a solution.

Imanuels

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 57
  • Location: Germany
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #47 on: June 07, 2021, 07:58:25 AM »
I recently read a paper from ETH Zürich on this subject: https://arxiv.org/abs/2101.10220
They compare different electricity generation technologies based on various sustainability criteria (health,  environment,  grid,  economics  and resources) scores from an expert group. One could of course argue if this is the best approach and if the results strongly depend on the participant ('expert') selection.

Anyhow, the top three technologies were nuclear, combined cycle gas and hydroelectric. The bottom three were solar PV, biomass and tidal lagoon.

They mention that: "..it  seems that  energy  policy  is  based more  on  hope  and  populism  than  on physics and economics."

NN6

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #48 on: June 07, 2021, 08:31:47 AM »
Interesting read and approach indeed. And I guess it really depends on the criteria how these technologies come out. Me, I would be mostly interested in GHG emissions and the economics which would definitely let diesel and coal rank a bit lower.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3551
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Renewable energy investments?
« Reply #49 on: June 07, 2021, 10:10:01 AM »
You could supplement with batteries... but those are a looooooong way from grid ready.


Grid storage is already a thing.  As in, up and running on the megawatt scale. 

https://e360.yale.edu/features/in-boost-for-renewables-grid-scale-battery-storage-is-on-the-rise

And it is cost competitive:

https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/us-solar-plus-storage-prices-plunge-in-utility-contracting-surge-51328301

Compare with new nuclear.  Much cheaper and faster to build. 

Caveat:  Obviously, this is optimal for the southern desert where it is sunny all the time.  At higher latitudes it makes less sense.  But point is it can and is being done in a cost effective manner right now.