5 Comments

An other risk that seems to materialize is when they implode because of tempest they release a fulload of fiberglass in imploding. Class action could be monstruous if it happens to often

Expand full comment

Just build nuclear plants ffs

Expand full comment

Correct :-)

Expand full comment

'As inflation and wage costs have risen in recent years, major operators of offshore wind like Oersted have cancelled projects or are considering scaling them down too keep them economically viable'

Some items didn't make the paragraph unfortunately:

- The economics of the whole renewable sector are foggy since it's a political project soaked in subsidies like fries soak in grease. Or sometimes olive oil. Which hands the end product a more middle class, yes perhaps even intellectual, flavor. Which, i would dare say, nicely reflects how fossil and renewables are experienced by, let's say, people with a degree.

Who typically also experience gov subsidies for the solar panels on their roofs, the rainwater-collectors for their loos, for their EVs and for their ebikes. (Which are truly disgusting machines intended to rob the western middle class male of his last, already generously declining, reservoir of testosterone. In foreign countries they even were helmets - it were British expats who i saw wearing the first cycling helmets here in the NL).

- Siemens Energy stock crashed 30% last year as its love baby Siemens Wind turned out to be a bit of a problem child. And not just because of inflation and labor costs. There were - and are - technical problems which more or less resulted from wishfull thinking and less than expected productivity growth rates (of their machines).

Siemens Energy stock rebounded when it began to cut in its wind division while its grid and gas division is very profitable. Which is what you expect now that gov's are pumping Bs into the grid and natural gas plants that have to back up renewables. But the economics of the back up plants keep deteriorating as they have less opportunity to turn a profit while upkeep remains the same or worsens - not operating over longer times does not conserve working parts longer, it actually has them deteriorate faster.

Of course, smart people would have began expanding the grid like grid operators advised them to do two decades ago.

- All around the western world wind projects are on hold or cancelled. Orsted, Siemens c.s. have called on gov's to allow them to raise prices for consumers if they were to continue uneconomical sites. A New England off shore farm had projected $ increases many decimals above the original 'let's save the world one subsidized project at a time' price.

- Since wind and solar are always located far away from the major population centers transport costs are massively amplified. Not only the grid often needs to be extended it also needs to be expanded to handle bursts of elec and then handle...nothing.

- If those who believe our world is boiling were serious people they would have argued for nuclear decades ago. But nuclear is political as well - and scary...

Expand full comment

I do not know the relevant factors, but speculate they include:

(1) The cost of ‘wiring up’ windmills to the National Grid

(2) Whether we can develop batteries to store a large amount ready to be released when supply is low and demand higher

(3) The cost of alternative generation and wiring it in e.g. Solar panels, Nuclear

It may be that Gas power generation is needed for some years.

Government must assess the above and allocate resources, encouraging private capital.

Expand full comment