Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

zeupater

silverwhistle said:

I'm not sure it would be the developers who would be against the risk so much as the lenders. If they require a premium on the loans for not having those guarantees that could make the developments unviable?

Smaller onshore PV and wind developments might be easier to finance and in any case onshore wind has a higher CfD price than offshore!

Hi

Possibly, however it really depends on how the development is seen .... is it to generate energy & make a profit from the risks associated with investment (as per the way capitalism works!) , or simply to mine what is effectively a guaranteed margin by socialising the risk? ... 

What's almost always missed is the that the massive economic changes that used to be well over the horizon are now just about in plain view ... just think about the huge effect of energy sources changing and becoming more decentralised along with the really big one - automation based on AI being simplified to a purely mimic & copy 'learn by example' solution ...

The primary issue that governments (of all colours) address when considering the upcoming changes is the effect on taxation when the entire economy (both local & global) changes ... if the taxation attributed to hydrocarbon based energy (including carbon taxes!) disappears over a very short timescale and the basis of income tax (based on the fair exchange of labour for monetary gain) is rapidly replaced by robots that build robots to replace almost all human manual & administrational economic activity, then how does the economy work? .... as value is effectively based on the accumulated quantity of labour to produce a product, what happens to costs when there's little or no labour involved in the creation of that product? .... 

Maybe then it becomes apparent why the industry would prefer to lock in an investment return over reasonably long timescales at what is effectively a low, but guaranteed, margin rather than accessing current huge potentials, but being open to as yet unknown negative pressures caused by changes in economic valuation of products & services as well as the way the entire taxation system will need to evolve ....

Scary, but that's the long-term outcome .... and don't forget, in a quickly changing scenario, the definition of 'long-term' becomes fluid ... we're talking low number decades (if that!), not centuries or millennia, so pull up your socks, hold on tight, and be prepared to enjoy the ride ... (or not, as the case may be!) ...

HTH - Z (Discalimer - no tin-foil hats were used in producing this post!) ...

Martyn1981

One of those 'good news / bad news' articles. FF peaks are now being predicted for this decade, but we're still not acting fast enough. But I may have some good news.*

‘Beginning of the end’ of fossil fuel era approaching, says IEA

The world’s demand for oil, gas and coal will begin to decline this decade in “the beginning of the end” of the fossil fuel era, according to the global energy watchdog.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has projected for the first time that fossil fuel consumption will peak before 2030 and fall into permanent decline as climate policies take effect.

However, the forecast downturn is still “nowhere near steep enough” to put the world on a path to limiting temperature rises to 1.5C above pre-industrialised levels, which is considered crucial to avoiding a climate catastrophe.

Birol said the sooner-than-expected peak for fossil fuels was primarily driven by “the spectacular growth” of clean energy including solar panels and electric vehicles.

*So, many on here will know of Tony Seba and Rethink X, and their far more accurate predictions for the energy and transport disruptions. So the mention here of the projections from the IEA, reminded me of a Rethink X video episode looking at disruption. That episode pointed out just how poor the IEA, and the US EIA have been at predicting RE rollouts and disruption.

The vid also mentions how the figures carefully compiled for the IPCC report in 2014 predicted a best case level of wind, PV and geothermal providing 5% of all World energy in 2100. But we are on track to hit that figure in 2030.

In 2014 The US EIA predicted a total US fleet of 215 BEV's with a range of 200miles+, by 2020. But Tesla alone sold 19k BEV's just in 2015.

I recall getting excited that annual worldwide PV deployments reached ~100GWp in 2016/2017. But 240GWp was deployed last year, and this year the figure may be ~350GWp (estimates of 340-400GWp).

So keep those fingers crossed, that we can grow annual deployments fast enough to make up some of the shortfall ...... unless it's the UK and underfunded offshore wind auctions!

Brighter | Episode 5 - Why understanding disruption matters

In Episode 5 of our ‘Brighter’ series, RethinkX Director of Research Adam Dorr describes why understanding technology disruptions is so important and how "the world's most authoritative sources" of energy projections have gotten things so wrong, and why it matters for the future of the environment and climate change.

zeupater

Hi

Looks like the IEA are looking to create a narrative that the policies that they promote are the driver for change then .....

As you rightly point out & many of us agree, it's simply the market conditions predicted by the likes of Tony Seba based on study of the uptake of previous disruptive technologies (motor car, TVs, , PCs, mobile phones etc ...) and the foresight of cutting edge private companies to take the appropriate risk to invest in change that drive change, not the policies of think tanks, agencies and governments.

Effectively, if it wasn't for the high profile success of Tesla in capturing a large slice of the 'high end' automotive sector and effectively setting (/forcing !) the battery manufacturing supply chain to rapidly invest in capacity (remember Panasonic's resistance to expansion ?) then we'd certainly not have the EV share of the automotive market we currently see ... China learned how to build cars from a combination of protective policies & western automotive 'greed' then saw the opportunity for EVs driving rapid economic growth whilst addressing horrendous pollution in their major urban areas, whilst legacy manufacturers simply continued to do what legacy automotive have always done, that being resting on the laurels of the past, with emphasis being on design change being heavily skewed towards 'fashion' to drive replacement sales as opposed to true technical developments ... that's why they're pushing for more time, they know they've really screwed up in a big way & have little chance to rectify the situation & survive in their current form ... what did Darwin say about adapting & survival? - whatever it was then there's some pretty large enterprises soon to follow the dinosaurs! ...

What the IEA needs to do is recognise that the change they see and gleefully report on is 'despite of them' not 'because of them' and a growing proportion of people who have the ability to actually think logically for themselves  are tending to see through artificially driven narratives and seek out what really lies behind them, which usually boils down to some kind of self interested parties being involved, normally for financial reasons at that! ... 

   

HTH - Z

(Must stop growing tomatoes, they're affecting the economy! ... Shhh  ... head down & awaiting a greenhouse tax to be announced - they're coming for me & my undeclared produce ...  oh no, sorry Percy, it's not my faultttt ....!)

Martyn1981

Yep, Tony is very impressive how he's able to look at disruptions and see past the linear mind thinking that I (and most people) am limited too.

Recent news, which I heard today, is that the benchmark price for Lithium Ion battery cells, as reported by Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, dipped under $100/kWh in August. In his 2014 book, Tony Seba predicted the price would fall under $100/kWh by the end of 2023.

Coastalwatch

Martyn1981 said:

Yep, Tony is very impressive how he's able to look at disruptions and see past the linear mind thinking that I (and most people) am limited too.

Recent news, which I heard today, is that the benchmark price for Lithium Ion battery cells, as reported by Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, dipped under $100/kWh in August. In his 2014 book, Tony Seba predicted the price would fall under $100/kWh by the end of 2023.

Cheers Mart enjoyed the video. Struggling though to understand Tesla's(and others) prices for Storage Batts if the cells cost a mere $100/kWh. Is it just demand that is keeping the costs so seemingly bouyant or a combination of that and the cost of hardware associated with them!

Martyn1981

Coastalwatch said:

Martyn1981 said:

Yep, Tony is very impressive how he's able to look at disruptions and see past the linear mind thinking that I (and most people) am limited too.

Recent news, which I heard today, is that the benchmark price for Lithium Ion battery cells, as reported by Benchmark Mineral Intelligence, dipped under $100/kWh in August. In his 2014 book, Tony Seba predicted the price would fall under $100/kWh by the end of 2023.

Cheers Mart enjoyed the video. Struggling though to understand Tesla's(and others) prices for Storage Batts if the cells cost a mere $100/kWh. Is it just demand that is keeping the costs so seemingly bouyant or a combination of that and the cost of hardware associated with them!

Yep, hard to correlate, at least for me. What I don't know (hopefully someone can provide a cost ratio) is the cost difference between cells and packs. Looking at the Tesla Megapack, that's 3.9MWh, so about $390k worth of cells. If I simply assume the packs would raise this to $500k, then perhaps another $500k (seems a bit high) for the container, racking, inverters, battery management etc etc, then that's a cost of around $1m, but they sell for $1.465m (currently), so a 50% profit margin?

The Powerwall II has about 15kWh of cells (13.5kWh useable), so around $1,500 (~£1,150) of cells, but sells in the UK for £5,100, or did for a couple of weeks, but now £6k.


Edit - Just to say, regarding disruptions, I saw Ron Baron being interviewed on CNBC about Tesla (day or so ago). He raised an interesting point about legacy (which ties in with what Z said earlier about them being behind the curve). He points out that whilst Tesla gains a sale and profit with every extra BEV they sell, legacy auto are actually trading sales (on average) - that's to say, for every BEV they sell, they sell one less ICEV. But they lose money on the BEV they sell, whilst they lose the profits on the ICEV they don't sell.

This is the hurdle that legacy always had to get past, but the slower they act, the more painful and drawn out their transition will be. For the old incumbent technology, disruptions hurt.

QrizB

Coastalwatch said:

Struggling though to understand Tesla's(and others) prices for Storage Batts if the cells cost a mere $100/kWh.

AliExpress LFP cells were getting close to $100 per kWh a couple of years ago, before prices went mad. I don't think they've come back down yet, bit I haven't checked for a month or two.
Edit to add: caveat emptor and all that, but here's 5kWh for US$640 or so ($130 per kWh):
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005005850794011.html

Still not as cheap as spring 2021.

These were $2040 in April 2021 ($150/kWh) but are now $2280 ($170/kWh).

Martyn1981

Not good news, but also no surprise, as we slow walk the shift away from FF's.

‘World heading for 2.5°C global warming’

If transformative action is not taken now, the Paris Agreement goal target will be missed, according to Wood Mackenzie.

The world is on a 2.5°C warming trajectory according to Wood Mackenzie’s Energy Transition Outlook report.

If transformative action is not taken now, the Paris Agreement goal to limit the average temperature increase to below 1.5°C will likely be missed, concluded the report.

Low carbon power supply and infrastructure needs to scale up at twice the pace built in the last decade – made more difficult by the current delays faced by renewables assets due to limited grid interconnections.

Grumpy_chap

zeupater said:

the basis of income tax (based on the fair exchange of labour for monetary gain) is rapidly replaced by robots that build robots to replace almost all human manual & administrational economic activity, then how does the economy work? .... as value is effectively based on the accumulated quantity of labour to produce a product, what happens to costs when there's little or no labour involved in the creation of that product? .... 

I would not be worried about that just now, and I doubt that investors are considering that as a serious impact either.

We have been promised or threatened, depending upon your point of view, that everyone will be made redundant by machines "within the next decade" and all we will have to do is enjoy endless leisure time since I was at primary school.  I am not convinced that this promise or threat is anywhere nearer now than it was then.  If it's ever going to happen, it had jolly well be along fairly pronto as I will feel pretty hard done by if everyone gets to stop work and enjoy endless leisure time just about the same time as I reach retirement, having worked through until that point 

Coastalwatch

I seem to remember this project being proposed a while back and it now seems they have the necessary results to confirm their aspirations. At least in the states there should be hundreds if not thousands of potential disused oil/gas wells from which to choose as starting points.

Sage demonstrates long-duration storage with underground reservoirs

US-based Sage Geosystems has presented field results showing that its Earthstore underground storage system can provide 18 hours or more of storage capacity, in addition to short-duration power. The solution is said to be cost-competitive with lithium-ion batteries and natural gas peaker plants.

https://www.pv-magazine.com/2023/09/14/sage-demonstrates-long-duration-storage-with-underground-reservoirs/