I work in energy and utilities sector and still my mind is blown...mind blown. LCOE is so sacrosanct to us and you have taken the rug under it.. Never bothered to look into the under lying assumption of the LCOE .. 2020s would be transformational.. can't wait
The topper is near the end (around 18-minute mark): Don’t let your state’s utility commission sign off on new fossil plants! They will be the Mother of All Stranded Assets, with YOU left to pay bloated utility bills. Great presentation, gentlemen.
Ontario. What nuclear proponents don’t disclose is that they are granted a capacity factor of 100%. If industry supply exceeds demand nuclear does not cut back but the others do. So on a windy & sunny day wind and solar are not guaranteed to be able to sell 100% of their capacity.
The Czech republic government wants to build 2 to 4 new nuclear reactors to lock in high prices and guaranteed profits for private companies for the next decades.
Fascinating! As usual this is probably the result of a mix of incompetency, malice, laziness and greed. Thanks for pointing this out and hopefully this reaches the people that need to hear it!
18:00 this would be a really great law for ensuring a smooth transition to renewables actually. Utilities cannot be allowed to punish ratepayers for decision that they (the utility or PUC) made!
i am using a electric cycle here in India for the past 1 year. my 1600cc petrol car costs me rs 10 / km (0.15 usd). my electric cycle costs me 100x cheaper than that. it has a portable lithium battery which i charge in my apartment. this is it. can always book a uber if needed. I am out of car market. no more petrol taxes.
Artificially high LCOE / utilized capacity projections allows energy companies to claim high compensation from tax payers when lawmakers decide to set an end date to gas, coal, and nuclear generation.
@@Sekir80 nah, delusion and stupidity are the main culprits behind stagnating paradigmes. People are personally invested into yesteryears thinking, and keeo themselves and their peers in a group-think bubble. It happens everywhere. Kuhn said that people believing in a paradigme to not change paradigme, they die out. Either by old age, or profesionally because new players put them out of a job.
I absolutely love your incredible accurate forecasts and analyses, which are always on point and accurate. My wife and I have enjoyed solar PV for 9+ years on our all electric home and PW2 batteries over past 3 years. We have been net positive over the entire 9 years, 350% last year, which also included charging both our Teslas.
The power companies know this is coming. Our local utility is spinning their existing gas, coal, and nuclear generation assets off into their own company.
Hi Tony, As usual, this is another insightful presentation with convincing data and conclusions. Thank you for the hard work and look forward to seeing you again soon in the Bay Area!
Solar-Powered Manufactured Home Retirement Communities! 50+ megawatt solar farms built high enough to pull manufactured homes under. Make money from the sun and the shade. Just 2% of the 100 million US senior citizens = 40+ gigawatts. Over 800 communities with 50 megawatt solar + storage will improve efficiencies and technology while creating thousands of jobs.
@@porchzombie No, he's not part of the problem. If the comment is true, Buffet just made a very bad investment for his fellow investors and you can benefit from his loss should it materialize. If you act on this news you can benefit where he might not. How is that bad for you, IF your invested properly??
@@sailingsolar Although it does give those of us who understand what's coming an opportunity to make money, it's still bad overall because it helps continue to socially legitimize fossil fuel generation and because it helps give them greater access to cheap capital, which encourages them to waste more resources on building new gas and coal plants.
Jeez Tony - what an eye opener. How acronyms can con governments could be a sub title. I had no idea about this so thank you!! It should be sent to every MP in the UK, nay, every member of every government in the world.
Amazing vlog. Policymakers and investors should take this seriously. Very few understand the dynamics of technology evolution and adoption than Tony Seba does. Great work. Thanks !
So now I'm subbed, the bell is on and I got this notice. How did that happen, not by my hand? I'm not complaining? However it did happen, this is very interesting information. Take that Uber analogy in this video. Before Uber showed up and took off in NYC Taxi medallions were selling for very close or just north of 1 Million dollars because it was a protected market. In just a very FEW short years Taxi Medallion's value evaporated (crashed). An immigrant I read about had sadly went all in and bought one at the top of the market's pricing. It's value collapsed shortly after and he committed suicide. He never saw Uber coming. Very Sad but it happened. Don't let this happen to you in your life. Being informed IS BEING forewarned.
More than 20 years ago during an internship at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory the analysts I worked for were trying to explain this to me. A decade later I got an inkling of how crucial capacity factor was when assessing the sustainability of biomass electricity. Throughout this entire period I heard belly-aching about EIA's obtuse methods. But never have I heard such a clear argument for change. Gentleman, you need a Congressional sponsor to write a request to GAO to investigate how such a death spiral could bring on a massive recession. THAT will bring action.
Fascinating research! One cannot help but laugh hysterically at the IEA’s continued attempts to make linear projections from exponential curves. Hopefully with research like RethinkX, policy makers will finally be able to understand disruption, at least in the case of solar, wind and batteries.
Nuclear power generation cost for construction of new power plants is currently $2000-$6000 per KW of power generation capacity - minus long term sustainment, nuclear fuel and liability costs. Stationary batteries cost about $1200 KW of power generation. These batteries can buy power at near zero during peak solar/wind output and sell power at peak demand. They require almost no sustainment and fuel and have almost no liability, not to mention cells can be recycled later.
If you add the actual costs of damage that is caused by certain technologies, it become even more off. What about the costs of storage and "dealing" with nuclear waste? What about the cost of demolishing nuclear power plants? There are estimations that getting rid can cost up to 40.000.000.000 € in case of some european plants. What about the cost of fixing environmental damage from coal - I haven't even mentioned the CO2-thing...
The contract to decommission Three Mile Island specifies "within *60 years* "! (I assume that will both overrun and be over budget as well....... I won't be around to find out)
Actually the cost of handling nuclear waste and decommissioning of plants are paid for in advance. Plants in the US and Europe are required to set aside money for that from their income. Also nuclear energy could be 10-100x cheaper with modern technologies, still including waste management. The only problem is political, mostly the huge political influence of Big Oil.
@@andrasbiro3007 Reality is quite different. The money set aside is much lower than the real decommissioning/waste handling cost. France is, not surprising, the worst example of this, with very low amount of money set aside, but it’s too low everywhere. What you already see happening is companies spinning out their dead assets so they can shake their responsibilities and shove these costs to the government and hence society as a whole. The problem with nuclear isn’t politics, it’s reality; it’s just too expensive. If it wasn’t we’d already have those magically cheap reactors nuclear proponents keep rambling on about. I’ve come to realise that nuclear power is for the insecure, the fearful at this point. Scared of the prospect of a society powered by solar/wind/batteries. Ironically their irrational fear of intermittency is so great that they gravitate to the worst possible option, nuclear, from a cost, environmental and risk perspective. Fascinating and tragic, as it only postpones the inevitable.
Some additions: If you have a local SWB atructure ... you still must operate this environment (local electricity network, ... distance ~20-30-40 km). In countries, like e.g. Germany is the wind produced in the north . the solar energy in the south part of the country (it means, that energy must be transfered ~800-1000 km). The solution is the "supergrid". It transfers ~5-10 GW (three lines are planned) in a HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current environment), ... the cables are in the earth, ... that causes ~30% additional costs). It´s not cheap. This means, that the SWB system does´nt have zero network costs ... and only the "difference" plays in "GOD-parity".
March 2022, an Australian national TV Prime Time promoted nuclear energy, and referred to the Small modular reactors, SMR,like BWRX300 from GE Hitachi and Rolls Royce. The against was one under prepared lady. I immediately thought of the extreme costs in a no fossil fueled world. 5fold increase in the ENTIRE existing grid. 5fold decades and decades and $TRILLIONS of work. Transmission lines and poles and wires and power plants. Then the military defence costs against the West's enemies, all with their own nuclear industries. The renewable technology suddenly looked extremely economical. I now think that the 'money' will be in the EXISTING grid.
Fantastic insights provided! I’ve just filled my roof with solar panels. I started with two in 2014 and now I upgraded from 32 to 53 panels to reach net-zero, including our Tesla. Our house has very thick insulation and a heat pump for ventilated air, heating the radiators. Very efficient!
Another interesting thing: The EU carbon price has risen to the point that even a high capacity factor can't bring coal-fired power plants back to profitability. In fact, the situation has been turned around: the more electricity they sell, the more money they lose! In Germany, the last remaining nuclear units are scheduled to shut down permanently by end of 2022. These nuclear plants have generated about 15% of germany's electricity in 2020. Operators of coal-fired power plants have been waiting for this, hoping to make some fat profits. If the carbon price doesn't crash (the system is market-based with no minimum price) they are in for a nasty surprise.
So the government is unfairly taxing one source of energy to make it appear abnormally high, while subsidizing another to make it appear abnormally low......got it.
I turn 60 next week. Life is largely unchanged since 2011 when I turned 50. I will not be able to say the same thing when I turn 70 in 2021. In 2021, autonomous EV will be the norm. Shopping, working and learning remotely will be the norm for many. This year, we made the choice to purchase groceries online from Walmart with free home delivery. No more trips to the grocery store, eliminating the risk of car jacking, purse snatching, kidnapping, gang warfare crossfire, dented car doors, traffic accident, speeding ticket. The infrastructure is emerging for people to suburban homestead. The average family unit will be able to get by with one vehicle. Huge demand destruction coming. Don't invest in companies that make grocery shopping carts.
Tony & co please communicate this directly with large investment funds like Berkshire Hathaway, Ark Invest and others. Help them to rethink energy. Thanks for your work.
I've been an engineer in the electric energy industry for 30 years. This is great information. Why is the capacity factor of hydro declining? What capacity factors are used for Solar, Wind, Batteries?
@@imyouralibi6208 I'm a year late, but doesn't the capacity factor for solar also dramatically increase once you add batteries to it? Like the LCOE for solar right now is based on an industry average capacity factor of 11% or so (according to wikipedia), so is it fair to say that the LCOE for solar is also gonna become much lower thanks to battery storage?
Another example of Rethink X being ahead of other analyst. I hope this message gets to the right decision makers so we don’t waste even more more on non renewable energy sources.
I estimate the bubble is over $5 trillion when you look across the energy and transportation value chains alone. And that are not the only sectors being disrupted in the next 10 years.
Problem is those that need to hear this will ignore it, but they can't say they weren't warned, but they will still go running to the governments expecting to have their losses covered.
@@turningpoint4238 How much wealth is created by all the world's industries powered by fossil fuels? I'll give you a hint. Add up every single countries GDP, and throw another 2 or 3 trillion on there for things not recorded. That will give you answer.
@@thecatguy4301 Did you not listen to what they were saying? The wealth is illusionary. There will be far more wealth produced and not just for a select few with renewables.
@@turningpoint4238 You didn't get my point. And how is more weath going to be created just because it's "renewable", and how is that wealth going to be distributed more, just because it's "renewable". Reading most of these comments I'm just astonished. It's like listening to a bunch of children talking about Santa Claus or something.
Thank you 😊 keep up the good work 🌎 👏 I set up nonproft energy company 2007 good to see the big global TOXIC con end. Anthropogenic extinction emergency. Thank you keep up the good work your doing good Buzz Knapp-Fisher 🌏 😊 💓
By the way, they never mention that the same better LCOE Discipline, if applied to the new disruptive technologies, ALSO undermines the rosy capacity-based calculations of wind and solar. Wind and Solar are ESPECIALLY mis-priced if used/usable capacity is applied, so industry-wide energy investment justification has been skewed for a long time. The RethinkX point made IS essentially correct, and battery-farm-grids will be the real disruption that finally leads to a realization that global overcapacity should mean that the price of energy should fall dramatically. So much for the long term inflation argument.
I am about to read this. EVs with huge batteries 100kwh for the long trip but do avg daily drive of 7kwh. Massive daily capacity and topped up daily ezi pezi. And self parking onto a wall power point, a 'nuzzle' onto the plug. Part of the grid 25/7, except for the daily drive. So 20million EVs or community batteries and some EVs. In Australia. Every building, 20million, a roof top solar system and is connected to the ends of the grid, and power points for EVs. Unbelievably fossil fuels are subsidised.
I asked two real experts today who I respect, independent ones, and they sneered at it as not worth their time. They see Sebo as an attention getter with failed predictions.
If Tony & JoJo are right about this "generally-accepted" grossly erroneous forecasting, there's a lot of energy execs, portfolio managers & analysts who are going to be left smelling like sour gas!
Individuals, financial institutions, banks, pension funds, universities and insurance companies are divesting from fossil fuels. ESG investing is growing. Wind and solar energy are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels.
I am about to read this. EVs with huge batteries 100kwh for the long trip but do avg daily drive of 7kwh. Massive daily capacity and topped up daily ezi pezi. And self parking onto a wall power point, a 'nuzzle' onto the plug. Part of the grid 25/7, except for the daily drive. So 20million EVs or community batteries and some EVs. In Australia. Every building, 20million, a roof top solar system and is connected to the ends of the grid, and power points for EVs. Unbelievably fossil fuels are subsidised.
Could an existing conventional coal or gas power plant add grid scale power storage on site (battery, kinetic storage, liquified air, pumped hydro, etc.), then use price balancing to store power during off peak demand and leverage peaker delivery at best prices? Currently they must accept fluctuating wholesale prices or spin down their turbines during lower demand windows. Producing power continuously at optimal efficiency, but only selling it at peak prices might rework the capacity utilization and LCOE metrics for a legacy plant. If their storage capacity was large enough, they could even buy back power from renewables whenever excess renewable power production produced ultra low or even negative wholesale power prices. I take your point that even if the power station was free, fuel costs cannot compete with renewables + battery. However, legacy plants are sunk costs and partially amortized, so near free. Add storage to optimize capacity utilization and at end of life for the power plant, the asset holder still owns the storage capacity which can continue to operate by arbitraging wholesale electricity prices. Legacy power utilities could shoe-horn themselves into the future grid as part of the solution.
Is it Sizewell or Hinkley pt. in the UK where the French are building another reactor with Chinese money all backed by contracts from the British government that will lock end-users or taxpayers into paying premium price for energy for the next 40 years.
The main takeaway here is that businesses should plan for fluctuating power prices. The hours that aren't covered by SWB will be horrendously expensive, however, if you have a facility currently using fuels, that can also run on electricity, you could do so most of the time, keeping the fuel systems in reserve. Similarly, older coal plants that are having their coal burners replaced with gas. Lower maintenance costs, though with a higher fuel cost, is an advantage when you're providing backup to SWB. Finally, you can make hydrogen electrolyzers that have low capital costs, but low efficiency. This is acceptable when you want to soak up excess electricity.
Nits: a link to your new paper in the description would be helpful, Tony's mic was noisy against his jacket (re-tape?), talking about electricity auctions and how it accelerates the lack of demand for expensive energy could bolster the thesis.
This looks prescient now in 2022 with the both War and Covid forcing supply/demand issues to deviate from the status quo, exacerbating the death spiral for conventional energy.
The trouble with hydro? Suitable sites. Disruption to people/ wildlife. Lead time (long return on investment) Construction pollution (concrete!) Assumption of LCOE (as detailed in the report) Possible disruption by climate issues (water source, etc) Apart from these, it may work.
I think legacy hydro doesn't fit this analysis Solar and wind may overtake them but that will be in the near future The dams on the Columbia are 50 yrs old I believe the dam itself has over a 100 yr lifespan
Exactly and the owners of those existing hydro projects. Should be looking into adding updated more efficient motors, grid scale battery storage, wind turbines near the upper reservoirs, and floating solar as well. The existing lines can handle it and imagine how much more energy they could get out of them? 👍🏻
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the majority of electricity is sold through power purchase agreements (PPAs) that guarantee a volume of sales at a set price over decades. Doesn't the PPA protect the power plant from future price competition for the life of the agreement? Wouldn't the capacity factor be stabilized by the PPA?
That will just shift the loses to the buyers. Instead of buying the lowest cost electricity they are force to buy high because of PPA. They will then force this overpriced electricity to ratepayers who have no other choice.
@@kazedcat I agree. But the way I understand it, that means the existing power plants won't be stranded assets and we don't have a bubble and potential economic bomb.
@@gregoryoatmeal7068 No there is still potential for a market bomb. If consumers are paying to high they have the option to self generate electricity once solar and batteries are cheap enough. This will take longer to happen but it will happen within the life time of this conventional power plant. This will potentially take out not only generation but also distribution. A much bigger bomb.
@@kazedcat I can see that happening one day, but I think we're quite far from a scenario where it's economically viable to disconnect from the grid and the death spiral starts.
What is the added value of formulating the story in LCOE terms? The message I distill is: solar and wind generated electricity in combination with battery storage will get cheaper fast (think 50% cheaper by 2030). Other ways of generating can't keep up, there will be no demand for their very expensive electricity. ... investors and policy makers should stop pretending that electricity prices will stay stable, do not base your investments on lala-land pricing. If that is the message why do we need the story about LCOE? ... Are investors completely locked in to LCOE thinking?
Investors and policy makers look at LCOE as basis for their own analysis. This will result into investment in stranded asset which they will then force ratepayers to pay for their mistake.
@@kazedcat What amazes me is that investors base their decisions on one financial metric LCOE ... I'm a big fan of metrics, but you have to know about the underlying realities to interpret the numbers ... even USA investors should know this ... Your investors are apparently not interested in huge price drops ... amazing
@@kazedcat In most of Europe it would not be possible to burden consumers with the cost of stranded assets ... the distribution network and generation plants and energy sales businesses are run by separate companies (an example of privatization that actually worked) ... I'm I to understand that in the USA generators distribute and end-consumer-sell their own electricity? ... are EU markets better functioning than their USA counterparts?
@@vilkoos Investors are not experts in actuarial calculation you need advance statistics to even understand it. So they rely on precalculated data for their analyses. That is why LCOE becomes a thing it simplify the mathematics.
I work in the renewables sector, but I have a big problem with the implication you make at 2:05, by comparing renewables and conventional generation on a pure cost basis. The reality is, this cost comparison is not a useful tool since it does not take intermittency into account. Who cares how cheap renewables are if there is not consistent power. The grid cannot be just made up of intermittent sources, and four hours of storage is not sufficient. Weeks or months of storage would be needed to entirely go intermettent, not just four hours. So implying since they are cheaper they will win out is disingenuous. The comparison is simply not comparing like for like capabilities. Whether it's nuclear or fossil fuels, that constant generation will be needed in our foreseeable future, regardless of how cheap renewables become. The only x factor could be if we have such high excess of renewables that using hydrogen makes sense, but that is unlikely. I would recommend you read Gates' recent book for some more insight.
My takeaway is that wind and solar are cheaper and will be very competitive on the open market. As wind and solar are utilized at a higher rate that will increase the operating cost of coal and natural gas power facilities. Renewables will continue to put pressure on other sources causing issues for providing consistent power to meet peak demand. Stability is an issue but the economics of renewables may dominate over stability.
People like to talk about the cost of solar or wind as if the only thing that mattered was how many kWh overall you can pump into the grid. But for grids with already lots of renewables, you have to look at the cost of solar/wind plus all the extra stuff needed to let them generate those kWh 24/7. Solar + 8h batteries, wind+P2G+storage, etc
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I am confused on why nuclear would be so much more expensive in the future. Also are we still not growing our demand for energy and if we electrify our cars, we will need even more power. I get that solar and wind will off set these demands, but places like Toronto where wind and solar aren't amazing, we will need nuclear power. Their capacities should be increasing no? even with solar and wind and batteries in the mix. Elon even said we will need Nuclear in the meantime.
To build a new nuclear station you need today a big number of different permissions ... and the cost of the NPP is ~10-13000 $/KW. That´s why only large NPPs are built today (~1500-1600 MW) today. If you use SMRs (Small Modular Reactor ... many people say it´s the future), than you must fulfill on ~10 times more locations all the prescriptions they need (e.g. environmental, climate, security, NPA, waste storage ...). It means, that the generation of nuclear electricity will be even more expensive. It has simply financial reasons why the more expensive solution won´t win. But we can return to the problem, if at least ~20-30 SMRs (or 1-2 new built, larger reactors) work in Toronto ... or they are in planning ...
Knowing is the greatest obstacle to learning. In times of change knowing how things traditionally work is worse than ignorance, because if you don't 'know' you look to see what the facts are, if you already know then you do not look at what the new fact are. UK is still looking at nuclear, yet the financial logic they use makes no sense in the current landscape.
What does Lazard have to say about this? I've often held up the Lazard annual comparison to show that renewables carry the day but it's disconcerting that Lazard didn't figure out what Seba shows here.
I understand that coal will have a lower capacity factor since coal costs money. But with hydro, the water doesn't cost any money, why not produce electricity then, why is hydro's capacity factor lower?
So I understand the part about cheap solar lowering the power factor of conventional power plants. As you drive them out of business through, aren't you left with a less reliable grid? Worldwide battery production won't be enough for Nation or worldwide storage for decades, how is solar helpful here?
The authors are blinded by wind, solar, and 4hr batteries. Issues. 1. People, communities, cities, states, and nations require reliable, stable power on a continuous basis and fail to consider when the sun is not shinning, wind is not blowing, and the 4hr battery is spent. 2. Fails to considers the lessons learnt in Australia, UK, and Europe in terms of power distribution, network inertia, daytime pricing going negative due to too much solar, cost of creating a future artificial island by Denmark, and UK power supplies from continental Europe. 3. Does not consider more reliable sources of power such as hydro electrical including run of river systems or small scale dams or geothermal. 4. Does not include future technologies such as wave power generation technologies. In conclusion, the authors are putting specific technology ahead of people and the environment. People, companies, communities, cities, states, countries need to examine their current and future needs (including moving to EV and HVAC) while at the same time minimizing the impact on the environment.
I think Tony should talk to Bill Gates. Read Gates new book and you will find a number of assumptions about evolution of Technology and costs that is very different from RethinkX reports.
Tax payers should not subsidise fossil fuel industries. That's just the thing. I think tax payers will. In the UK, new nuclear power stations are under construction to meet the base load of demand. The nuclear power stations have been guaranteed a minimum price per MWh. Although nuclear is quite a clean fossil fuel really.
@@andrewlee6576: Fossil fuels are not "illegitimate" when the majority of the transportation sector relies on them. And does so without a legitimate replacement. Nothing any government does in the next decade is going to magically solve their so-called "climate crisis". Nuclear would have quelled everyones whining years ago but then governments wouldn't have a fabricated catastrophe to keep the money rolling in.
@@andrewlee6576: Correct, there is no point in having this conversation because you lack the understanding of current technology. You seem to fail at understanding how governments and the economy work as well. Electric cars are limited on what they can due to their batteries. EV trucks aren't even proven yet nor do they exist in any capacity that is relevant. Do you seriously think trains, aircraft and ships are ready to run on batteries??? Like I mentioned previously, the transportation industry is dependent on petroleum. Yet, you want more bullshit taxes on fuel which will cause inflation across the board...
!["The Great Transformation" - TAQA 20th Anniversary Celebration / Dhahran, Saudi Arabia [16 Oct 2023]](/img/n.gif)
I just shared this with over a dozen people and told them to listen to it with breakfast. What a great mind opener.
I work in energy and utilities sector and still my mind is blown...mind blown. LCOE is so sacrosanct to us and you have taken the rug under it.. Never bothered to look into the under lying assumption of the LCOE .. 2020s would be transformational.. can't wait
Read the report end to end.. Very good analysis and clarity of deductions
what Report exactkly???@@GaneshNayak
The topper is near the end (around 18-minute mark): Don’t let your state’s utility commission sign off on new fossil plants! They will be the Mother of All Stranded Assets, with YOU left to pay bloated utility bills. Great presentation, gentlemen.
Love me some Seba! I’ve been following for years, he’s the best!
Ontario. What nuclear proponents don’t disclose is that they are granted a capacity factor of 100%. If industry supply exceeds demand nuclear does not cut back but the others do. So on a windy & sunny day wind and solar are not guaranteed to be able to sell 100% of their capacity.
Great video from one of the greatest minds in the world. Been watching this guy for a long time and he knows what's up and how the world is changing.
Well Done, this is amazing...
Thank-you Tony; How receptive are Government's to your reports/analysis?
Nowhere near receptive enough by the looks of it!
The Netherlands is looking into nuclear right now so the answer is not very receptive.
The Czech republic government wants to build 2 to 4 new nuclear reactors to lock in high prices and guaranteed profits for private companies for the next decades.
Tony
Thank you again for another insightful amazing presentation. It was so nice to listen to somebody who has a great track record.
Fascinating! As usual this is probably the result of a mix of incompetency, malice, laziness and greed.
Thanks for pointing this out and hopefully this reaches the people that need to hear it!
Nice to see reality!! Extremely well done. You guys are so right on!! Don’t let the fossil fuel industry fleece the American people!!
18:00 this would be a really great law for ensuring a smooth transition to renewables actually. Utilities cannot be allowed to punish ratepayers for decision that they (the utility or PUC) made!
I’d like to see an EIA response to this...
I see parallels in this analysis and the levelised cost of ownership between EV and ICE vehicle, especially autonomous EV and ICE vehicles.
Mmm
i am using a electric cycle here in India for the past 1 year.
my 1600cc petrol car costs me rs 10 / km (0.15 usd). my electric cycle costs me 100x cheaper than that.
it has a portable lithium battery which i charge in my apartment. this is it. can always book a uber if needed.
I am out of car market. no more petrol taxes.
Artificially high LCOE / utilized capacity projections allows energy companies to claim high compensation from tax payers when lawmakers decide to set an end date to gas, coal, and nuclear generation.
Thank you Tony, you are amazing at data and forecast analysis.
Any financial institution or government supporting fossil fuels is lying to their stakeholders.
Greed, selfishness or corruption ?
All of the above three.
@@Sekir80 nah, delusion and stupidity are the main culprits behind stagnating paradigmes. People are personally invested into yesteryears thinking, and keeo themselves and their peers in a group-think bubble. It happens everywhere. Kuhn said that people believing in a paradigme to not change paradigme, they die out. Either by old age, or profesionally because new players put them out of a job.
I absolutely love your incredible accurate forecasts and analyses, which are always on point and accurate. My wife and I have enjoyed solar PV for 9+ years on our all electric home and PW2 batteries over past 3 years. We have been net positive over the entire 9 years, 350% last year, which also included charging both our Teslas.
Congrats, very clear, paced, and still deeply technical presentation !
Thanks for all of your hard work and vision.
The power companies know this is coming. Our local utility is spinning their existing gas, coal, and nuclear generation assets off into their own company.
Thank you for this video. I hope more people will watch it.
Hi Tony, As usual, this is another insightful presentation with convincing data and conclusions. Thank you for the hard work and look forward to seeing you again soon in the Bay Area!
Great analysis! Keep the quality content coming Tony 👍🏽
Excellent work. Thank you for making it available
This was eye-opening, thank you for sharing your work.
Solar-Powered Manufactured Home Retirement Communities! 50+ megawatt solar farms built high enough to pull manufactured homes under. Make money from the sun and the shade.
Just 2% of the 100 million US senior citizens = 40+ gigawatts. Over 800 communities with 50 megawatt solar + storage will improve efficiencies and technology while creating thousands of jobs.
Someone show this video to Warren Buffett. He literally just invested in Chevron smh
Send it to Warren and flood his inbox.
Share this video to financial institutions, government agencies and non profits.
He's part of the problem
@@porchzombie He is an old man influenced by the past. He needs to be educated about the future and the impact of climate change.
@@porchzombie No, he's not part of the problem. If the comment is true, Buffet just made a very bad investment for his fellow investors and you can benefit from his loss should it materialize. If you act on this news you can benefit where he might not. How is that bad for you, IF your invested properly??
@@sailingsolar Although it does give those of us who understand what's coming an opportunity to make money, it's still bad overall because it helps continue to socially legitimize fossil fuel generation and because it helps give them greater access to cheap capital, which encourages them to waste more resources on building new gas and coal plants.
Jeez Tony - what an eye opener. How acronyms can con governments could be a sub title. I had no idea about this so thank you!! It should be sent to every MP in the UK, nay, every member of every government in the world.
Excellent analysis.
I never like videos, but i'll make an exception for Tony Seba. Here's to number 252!
Why are you on youtube if you don’t like videos lol
@@willpowell4392 i don't PUSH THE LIKE or DISLIKE button! Ever ....
Your new format is very effective. Subbed. Liked. Outstanding.
Excellent discussions and factual analysis. Regards.
thank you very much for publishing this on the 10th year/day of the Fukushima-tragedy! It could be so easy - and for sure win-win for nature incl. us!
this should be shared far and wide !
Amazing vlog. Policymakers and investors should take this seriously. Very few understand the dynamics of technology evolution and adoption than Tony Seba does. Great work. Thanks !
Excellent work as always!!
I cannot instant download the report off your website. Regardless, your work needs to be seen by everyone at COP 26. Keep up the great work!
So now I'm subbed, the bell is on and I got this notice. How did that happen, not by my hand? I'm not complaining? However it did happen, this is very interesting information.
Take that Uber analogy in this video. Before Uber showed up and took off in NYC Taxi medallions were selling for very close or just north of 1 Million dollars because it was a protected market. In just a very FEW short years Taxi Medallion's value evaporated (crashed). An immigrant I read about had sadly went all in and bought one at the top of the market's pricing. It's value collapsed shortly after and he committed suicide. He never saw Uber coming. Very Sad but it happened. Don't let this happen to you in your life.
Being informed IS BEING forewarned.
Uber will be disrupted just the same by robotaxi's.
More than 20 years ago during an internship at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory the analysts I worked for were trying to explain this to me. A decade later I got an inkling of how crucial capacity factor was when assessing the sustainability of biomass electricity. Throughout this entire period I heard belly-aching about EIA's obtuse methods. But never have I heard such a clear argument for change. Gentleman, you need a Congressional sponsor to write a request to GAO to investigate how such a death spiral could bring on a massive recession. THAT will bring action.
Thank you, this is an amazing insight!
Excelente Tony. I will use your ideas and replicate to my mining customers in LatAm. Thank you to share your wisdom with us. Arnold
Fascinating research! One cannot help but laugh hysterically at the IEA’s continued attempts to make linear projections from exponential curves.
Hopefully with research like RethinkX, policy makers will finally be able to understand disruption, at least in the case of solar, wind and batteries.
It's worse than linear. It doesn't even follow the line, it goes in the wrong direction.
Nuclear power generation cost for construction of new power plants is currently $2000-$6000 per KW of power generation capacity - minus long term sustainment, nuclear fuel and liability costs. Stationary batteries cost about $1200 KW of power generation. These batteries can buy power at near zero during peak solar/wind output and sell power at peak demand. They require almost no sustainment and fuel and have almost no liability, not to mention cells can be recycled later.
Just made a new Playlist "Recommended videos" to show on my chanel. Congratulations, You are the first in the list.
If you add the actual costs of damage that is caused by certain technologies, it become even more off. What about the costs of storage and "dealing" with nuclear waste? What about the cost of demolishing nuclear power plants? There are estimations that getting rid can cost up to 40.000.000.000 € in case of some european plants. What about the cost of fixing environmental damage from coal - I haven't even mentioned the CO2-thing...
The contract to decommission Three Mile Island specifies "within *60 years* "! (I assume that will both overrun and be over budget as well....... I won't be around to find out)
Actually the cost of handling nuclear waste and decommissioning of plants are paid for in advance. Plants in the US and Europe are required to set aside money for that from their income.
Also nuclear energy could be 10-100x cheaper with modern technologies, still including waste management. The only problem is political, mostly the huge political influence of Big Oil.
@@andrasbiro3007 Set aside = Paid for by consumers. Exactly what they say to avoid.
@@andrasbiro3007 Reality is quite different. The money set aside is much lower than the real decommissioning/waste handling cost. France is, not surprising, the worst example of this, with very low amount of money set aside, but it’s too low everywhere. What you already see happening is companies spinning out their dead assets so they can shake their responsibilities and shove these costs to the government and hence society as a whole.
The problem with nuclear isn’t politics, it’s reality; it’s just too expensive. If it wasn’t we’d already have those magically cheap reactors nuclear proponents keep rambling on about.
I’ve come to realise that nuclear power is for the insecure, the fearful at this point. Scared of the prospect of a society powered by solar/wind/batteries. Ironically their irrational fear of intermittency is so great that they gravitate to the worst possible option, nuclear, from a cost, environmental and risk perspective.
Fascinating and tragic, as it only postpones the inevitable.
@@stevebannell2948
Who else should be paying for it? The government?
Tony Seba is worth listening to! Thanks for showing us what's coming head-on to all of us...
Some additions:
If you have a local SWB atructure ... you still must operate this environment (local electricity network, ... distance ~20-30-40 km).
In countries, like e.g. Germany is the wind produced in the north . the solar energy in the south part of the country (it means, that energy must be transfered ~800-1000 km). The solution is the "supergrid". It transfers ~5-10 GW (three lines are planned) in a HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current environment), ... the cables are in the earth, ... that causes ~30% additional costs). It´s not cheap.
This means, that the SWB system does´nt have zero network costs ... and only the "difference" plays in "GOD-parity".
Thanks, its so important this!!
👏 brilliant analysis 👏
I like the style of this video (too).
March 2022, an Australian national TV Prime Time promoted nuclear energy, and referred to the Small modular reactors, SMR,like BWRX300 from GE Hitachi and Rolls Royce.
The against was one under prepared lady.
I immediately thought of the extreme costs in a no fossil fueled world.
5fold increase in the ENTIRE existing grid.
5fold decades and decades and $TRILLIONS of work.
Transmission lines and poles and wires and power plants.
Then the military defence costs against the West's enemies, all with their own nuclear industries.
The renewable technology suddenly looked extremely economical.
I now think that the 'money' will be in the EXISTING grid.
Fantastic insights provided!
I’ve just filled my roof with solar panels. I started with two in 2014 and now I upgraded from 32 to 53 panels to reach net-zero, including our Tesla.
Our house has very thick insulation and a heat pump for ventilated air, heating the radiators. Very efficient!
Another interesting thing: The EU carbon price has risen to the point that even a high capacity factor can't bring coal-fired power plants back to profitability. In fact, the situation has been turned around: the more electricity they sell, the more money they lose!
In Germany, the last remaining nuclear units are scheduled to shut down permanently by end of 2022. These nuclear plants have generated about 15% of germany's electricity in 2020. Operators of coal-fired power plants have been waiting for this, hoping to make some fat profits. If the carbon price doesn't crash (the system is market-based with no minimum price) they are in for a nasty surprise.
So the government is unfairly taxing one source of energy to make it appear abnormally high, while subsidizing another to make it appear abnormally low......got it.
This Video deserves 20m views, not 20k
I turn 60 next week. Life is largely unchanged since 2011 when I turned 50. I will not be able to say the same thing when I turn 70 in 2021. In 2021, autonomous EV will be the norm. Shopping, working and learning remotely will be the norm for many. This year, we made the choice to purchase groceries online from Walmart with free home delivery. No more trips to the grocery store, eliminating the risk of car jacking, purse snatching, kidnapping, gang warfare crossfire, dented car doors, traffic accident, speeding ticket. The infrastructure is emerging for people to suburban homestead. The average family unit will be able to get by with one vehicle. Huge demand destruction coming. Don't invest in companies that make grocery shopping carts.
Which war zone do you live in? I suggest you move to somewhere you can leave home without risk of violence against yourself
You are full of shit because no country is anywhere near ready to have fully autonomous vehicles on the roads.
@@herrschaftg35 Your right, I meant 2031. I am 60 now. will be 70 in 2031.
@@rikvdk8962 I was thinking the same thing. Our Walmart is not like that.
Tony & co please communicate this directly with large investment funds like Berkshire Hathaway, Ark Invest and others. Help them to rethink energy. Thanks for your work.
I've been an engineer in the electric energy industry for 30 years. This is great information. Why is the capacity factor of hydro declining? What capacity factors are used for Solar, Wind, Batteries?
solar is between ten and twenty percent, wind is between twenty and fifty percent and batteries would be between ninety and one hundred percent.
@@imyouralibi6208 I'm a year late, but doesn't the capacity factor for solar also dramatically increase once you add batteries to it? Like the LCOE for solar right now is based on an industry average capacity factor of 11% or so (according to wikipedia), so is it fair to say that the LCOE for solar is also gonna become much lower thanks to battery storage?
Another example of Rethink X being ahead of other analyst. I hope this message gets to the right decision makers so we don’t waste even more more on non renewable energy sources.
I estimate the bubble is over $5 trillion when you look across the energy and transportation value chains alone. And that are not the only sectors being disrupted in the next 10 years.
Problem is those that need to hear this will ignore it, but they can't say they weren't warned, but they will still go running to the governments expecting to have their losses covered.
Who do you think is subsidising these massive centralized solar/wind systems?
@@thecatguy4301 compared to the subsidies and all the money that is lost to fossil fuels what renewables get is dam all.
@@turningpoint4238 How much wealth is created by all the world's industries powered by fossil fuels?
I'll give you a hint. Add up every single countries GDP, and throw another 2 or 3 trillion on there for things not recorded. That will give you answer.
@@thecatguy4301 Did you not listen to what they were saying? The wealth is illusionary. There will be far more wealth produced and not just for a select few with renewables.
@@turningpoint4238 You didn't get my point. And how is more weath going to be created just because it's "renewable", and how is that wealth going to be distributed more, just because it's "renewable".
Reading most of these comments I'm just astonished. It's like listening to a bunch of children talking about Santa Claus or something.
Wow. This is a bomb-shell. To not act with asset reallocation away from LCEO is capital destruction. I know where i am gone put my money.
Thank you 😊 keep up the good work 🌎 👏 I set up nonproft energy company 2007 good to see the big global TOXIC con end. Anthropogenic extinction emergency. Thank you keep up the good work your doing good Buzz Knapp-Fisher 🌏 😊 💓
I know many people that are really concerned about Chinas recent coal push - how will this effect the Chinese coal burning?
By the way, they never mention that the same better LCOE Discipline, if applied to the new disruptive technologies, ALSO undermines the rosy capacity-based calculations of wind and solar. Wind and Solar are ESPECIALLY mis-priced if used/usable capacity is applied, so industry-wide energy investment justification has been skewed for a long time. The RethinkX point made IS essentially correct, and battery-farm-grids will be the real disruption that finally leads to a realization that global overcapacity should mean that the price of energy should fall dramatically. So much for the long term inflation argument.
I am about to read this.
EVs with huge batteries 100kwh for the long trip but do avg daily drive of 7kwh.
Massive daily capacity and topped up daily ezi pezi.
And self parking onto a wall power point, a 'nuzzle' onto the plug. Part of the grid 25/7, except for the daily drive.
So 20million EVs or community batteries and some EVs. In Australia.
Every building, 20million, a roof top solar system and is connected to the ends of the grid, and power points for EVs.
Unbelievably fossil fuels are subsidised.
Will there ever be process heat parity?
Hi Tony, important stuff, thanks. What is the LCOI for wind and solar? Would be good to see a comparison.
I think Bloomberg New Energy Finance has resources for that, but I'm not certain.
Would love to hear an analyst or the EIA comment on this.
I asked two real experts today who I respect, independent ones, and they sneered at it as not worth their time. They see Sebo as an attention getter with failed predictions.
If Tony & JoJo are right about this "generally-accepted" grossly erroneous forecasting, there's a lot of energy execs, portfolio managers & analysts who are going to be left smelling like sour gas!
Captive rate payers will pick up the tabs as these guys float away in their golden parachutes
@@AshS85 I’m afraid this is correct
Solar power may eventually become a subscription because the fuel is free.
Individuals, financial institutions, banks, pension funds, universities and insurance companies are divesting from fossil fuels. ESG investing is growing. Wind and solar energy are safer, cleaner and cheaper than fossil fuels.
I am about to read this.
EVs with huge batteries 100kwh for the long trip but do avg daily drive of 7kwh.
Massive daily capacity and topped up daily ezi pezi.
And self parking onto a wall power point, a 'nuzzle' onto the plug. Part of the grid 25/7, except for the daily drive.
So 20million EVs or community batteries and some EVs. In Australia.
Every building, 20million, a roof top solar system and is connected to the ends of the grid, and power points for EVs.
Unbelievably fossil fuels are subsidised.
Could an existing conventional coal or gas power plant add grid scale power storage on site (battery, kinetic storage, liquified air, pumped hydro, etc.), then use price balancing to store power during off peak demand and leverage peaker delivery at best prices? Currently they must accept fluctuating wholesale prices or spin down their turbines during lower demand windows. Producing power continuously at optimal efficiency, but only selling it at peak prices might rework the capacity utilization and LCOE metrics for a legacy plant. If their storage capacity was large enough, they could even buy back power from renewables whenever excess renewable power production produced ultra low or even negative wholesale power prices.
I take your point that even if the power station was free, fuel costs cannot compete with renewables + battery. However, legacy plants are sunk costs and partially amortized, so near free. Add storage to optimize capacity utilization and at end of life for the power plant, the asset holder still owns the storage capacity which can continue to operate by arbitraging wholesale electricity prices. Legacy power utilities could shoe-horn themselves into the future grid as part of the solution.
Wonderful Analysis
Is it Sizewell or Hinkley pt. in the UK where the French are building another reactor with Chinese money all backed by contracts from the British government that will lock end-users or taxpayers into paying premium price for energy for the next 40 years.
Such an important message. Too bad few will listen.
The main takeaway here is that businesses should plan for fluctuating power prices. The hours that aren't covered by SWB will be horrendously expensive, however, if you have a facility currently using fuels, that can also run on electricity, you could do so most of the time, keeping the fuel systems in reserve. Similarly, older coal plants that are having their coal burners replaced with gas. Lower maintenance costs, though with a higher fuel cost, is an advantage when you're providing backup to SWB. Finally, you can make hydrogen electrolyzers that have low capital costs, but low efficiency. This is acceptable when you want to soak up excess electricity.
Nuclear power might deal with this by co-locating with electrolysis plants. Then they can turn off the electrolysis to act as peaker powerplants.
Also, Uber lol. It's just a taxi but with a fancy app. Uber has never been sustainably profitable.
Nits: a link to your new paper in the description would be helpful, Tony's mic was noisy against his jacket (re-tape?), talking about electricity auctions and how it accelerates the lack of demand for expensive energy could bolster the thesis.
This looks prescient now in 2022 with the both War and Covid forcing supply/demand issues to deviate from the status quo, exacerbating the death spiral for conventional energy.
I think hydro-powder has many other merits beyond just energy. It does not pollute, conserves water, prevents flood, and provides recreation.
The trouble with hydro?
Suitable sites.
Disruption to people/ wildlife.
Lead time (long return on investment)
Construction pollution (concrete!)
Assumption of LCOE (as detailed in the report)
Possible disruption by climate issues (water source, etc)
Apart from these, it may work.
I think legacy hydro doesn't fit this analysis
Solar and wind may overtake them but that will be in the near future
The dams on the Columbia are 50 yrs old
I believe the dam itself has over a 100 yr lifespan
Exactly and the owners of those existing hydro projects. Should be looking into adding updated more efficient motors, grid scale battery storage, wind turbines near the upper reservoirs, and floating solar as well. The existing lines can handle it and imagine how much more energy they could get out of them? 👍🏻
The truth will set you free
I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that the majority of electricity is sold through power purchase agreements (PPAs) that guarantee a volume of sales at a set price over decades. Doesn't the PPA protect the power plant from future price competition for the life of the agreement? Wouldn't the capacity factor be stabilized by the PPA?
That will just shift the loses to the buyers. Instead of buying the lowest cost electricity they are force to buy high because of PPA. They will then force this overpriced electricity to ratepayers who have no other choice.
@@kazedcat I agree. But the way I understand it, that means the existing power plants won't be stranded assets and we don't have a bubble and potential economic bomb.
@@gregoryoatmeal7068 No there is still potential for a market bomb. If consumers are paying to high they have the option to self generate electricity once solar and batteries are cheap enough. This will take longer to happen but it will happen within the life time of this conventional power plant. This will potentially take out not only generation but also distribution. A much bigger bomb.
@@kazedcat I can see that happening one day, but I think we're quite far from a scenario where it's economically viable to disconnect from the grid and the death spiral starts.
Because existing hydro has no fuel cost, wouldn't hydro be able to operate at high capacity for applications like air to fuel and hydrogen generation?
When this bubble bursts, 2008 will look tiny.
What is the added value of formulating the story in LCOE terms?
The message I distill is: solar and wind generated electricity in combination with battery storage will get cheaper fast (think 50% cheaper by 2030). Other ways of generating can't keep up, there will be no demand for their very expensive electricity. ... investors and policy makers should stop pretending that electricity prices will stay stable, do not base your investments on lala-land pricing.
If that is the message why do we need the story about LCOE? ... Are investors completely locked in to LCOE thinking?
Investors and policy makers look at LCOE as basis for their own analysis. This will result into investment in stranded asset which they will then force ratepayers to pay for their mistake.
@@kazedcat What amazes me is that investors base their decisions on one financial metric LCOE ... I'm a big fan of metrics, but you have to know about the underlying realities to interpret the numbers ... even USA investors should know this ... Your investors are apparently not interested in huge price drops ... amazing
@@kazedcat In most of Europe it would not be possible to burden consumers with the cost of stranded assets ... the distribution network and generation plants and energy sales businesses are run by separate companies (an example of privatization that actually worked) ... I'm I to understand that in the USA generators distribute and end-consumer-sell their own electricity? ... are EU markets better functioning than their USA counterparts?
@@vilkoos Investors are not experts in actuarial calculation you need advance statistics to even understand it. So they rely on precalculated data for their analyses. That is why LCOE becomes a thing it simplify the mathematics.
Thank you
I work in the renewables sector, but I have a big problem with the implication you make at 2:05, by comparing renewables and conventional generation on a pure cost basis. The reality is, this cost comparison is not a useful tool since it does not take intermittency into account. Who cares how cheap renewables are if there is not consistent power. The grid cannot be just made up of intermittent sources, and four hours of storage is not sufficient. Weeks or months of storage would be needed to entirely go intermettent, not just four hours. So implying since they are cheaper they will win out is disingenuous. The comparison is simply not comparing like for like capabilities. Whether it's nuclear or fossil fuels, that constant generation will be needed in our foreseeable future, regardless of how cheap renewables become. The only x factor could be if we have such high excess of renewables that using hydrogen makes sense, but that is unlikely. I would recommend you read Gates' recent book for some more insight.
My takeaway is that wind and solar are cheaper and will be very competitive on the open market. As wind and solar are utilized at a higher rate that will increase the operating cost of coal and natural gas power facilities. Renewables will continue to put pressure on other sources causing issues for providing consistent power to meet peak demand. Stability is an issue but the economics of renewables may dominate over stability.
People like to talk about the cost of solar or wind as if the only thing that mattered was how many kWh overall you can pump into the grid. But for grids with already lots of renewables, you have to look at the cost of solar/wind plus all the extra stuff needed to let them generate those kWh 24/7. Solar + 8h batteries, wind+P2G+storage, etc
I agree with a lot of what you said, but I am confused on why nuclear would be so much more expensive in the future. Also are we still not growing our demand for energy and if we electrify our cars, we will need even more power. I get that solar and wind will off set these demands, but places like Toronto where wind and solar aren't amazing, we will need nuclear power. Their capacities should be increasing no? even with solar and wind and batteries in the mix. Elon even said we will need Nuclear in the meantime.
To build a new nuclear station you need today a big number of different permissions ... and the cost of the NPP is ~10-13000 $/KW. That´s why only large NPPs are built today (~1500-1600 MW) today. If you use SMRs (Small Modular Reactor ... many people say it´s the future), than you must fulfill on ~10 times more locations all the prescriptions they need (e.g. environmental, climate, security, NPA, waste storage ...). It means, that the generation of nuclear electricity will be even more expensive. It has simply financial reasons why the more expensive solution won´t win. But we can return to the problem, if at least ~20-30 SMRs (or 1-2 new built, larger reactors) work in Toronto ... or they are in planning ...
Why hydropower?
The cost in building, maintaining and paying off the debt of a dam is huge.
Knowing is the greatest obstacle to learning. In times of change knowing how things traditionally work is worse than ignorance, because if you don't 'know' you look to see what the facts are, if you already know then you do not look at what the new fact are. UK is still looking at nuclear, yet the financial logic they use makes no sense in the current landscape.
What does Lazard have to say about this? I've often held up the Lazard annual comparison to show that renewables carry the day but it's disconcerting that Lazard didn't figure out what Seba shows here.
I understand that coal will have a lower capacity factor since coal costs money. But with hydro, the water doesn't cost any money, why not produce electricity then, why is hydro's capacity factor lower?
Send this to Elon. And of course, call your representatives.
he knows...
So I understand the part about cheap solar lowering the power factor of conventional power plants. As you drive them out of business through, aren't you left with a less reliable grid? Worldwide battery production won't be enough for Nation or worldwide storage for decades, how is solar helpful here?
This video fails to account for a lot of data and some of their claims are completely wrong.
The authors are blinded by wind, solar, and 4hr batteries. Issues. 1. People, communities, cities, states, and nations require reliable, stable power on a continuous basis and fail to consider when the sun is not shinning, wind is not blowing, and the 4hr battery is spent. 2. Fails to considers the lessons learnt in Australia, UK, and Europe in terms of power distribution, network inertia, daytime pricing going negative due to too much solar, cost of creating a future artificial island by Denmark, and UK power supplies from continental Europe. 3. Does not consider more reliable sources of power such as hydro electrical including run of river systems or small scale dams or geothermal. 4. Does not include future technologies such as wave power generation technologies. In conclusion, the authors are putting specific technology ahead of people and the environment. People, companies, communities, cities, states, countries need to examine their current and future needs (including moving to EV and HVAC) while at the same time minimizing the impact on the environment.
This is not a fundamental error this is a purposeful neglect of cost projections.
I think Tony should talk to Bill Gates. Read Gates new book and you will find a number of assumptions about evolution of Technology and costs that is very different from RethinkX reports.
And to think Cumbria, Uk was going to open up a coal mine. The local leadership should be ashamed of their lack of knowledge.
Say it Tony!
Tax payers should not subsidise fossil fuel industries.
That's just the thing. I think tax payers will.
In the UK, new nuclear power stations are under construction to meet the base load of demand.
The nuclear power stations have been guaranteed a minimum price per MWh.
Although nuclear is quite a clean fossil fuel really.
Just like tax payers should not subsidize any energy, get ready for the dark ages...
@@herrschaftg35 Global warming is what legitimises subsidising green energy.
Fossil fuels are illegitimate knowing what we know now.
@@andrewlee6576: Fossil fuels are not "illegitimate" when the majority of the transportation sector relies on them. And does so without a legitimate replacement. Nothing any government does in the next decade is going to magically solve their so-called "climate crisis". Nuclear would have quelled everyones whining years ago but then governments wouldn't have a fabricated catastrophe to keep the money rolling in.
@@herrschaftg35 Well if you believe in the "climate hoax", then not much point really having a conversation. You know Electric Vehicles exist right?
@@andrewlee6576: Correct, there is no point in having this conversation because you lack the understanding of current technology. You seem to fail at understanding how governments and the economy work as well. Electric cars are limited on what they can due to their batteries. EV trucks aren't even proven yet nor do they exist in any capacity that is relevant. Do you seriously think trains, aircraft and ships are ready to run on batteries??? Like I mentioned previously, the transportation industry is dependent on petroleum. Yet, you want more bullshit taxes on fuel which will cause inflation across the board...