Here's an archive link. It seems like clickbait. The "dirty little secret" seems to be not bidding on projects where they'll lose money? This is something they had to learn from "big oil?" ......
It seems like clickbait. The "dirty little secret" seems to be not bidding on projects where they'll lose money? This is something they had to learn from "big oil?"
In September, a UK auction for offshore licenses closed without any bids after developers warned that the government’s ceiling prices were too low, given the rising costs of materials and finance. Two months later, Orsted A/S took a $4 billion impairment as it canceled two projects off the coast of New Jersey, citing the same factors. Within weeks, Siemens Energy AG had to seek a €15 billion support package, half of it from the German government, after losses from its wind unit hurt its ability to win new contracts.
...
The UK in November lifted the price ceiling on offshore auctions by 66%. A month later, Orsted announced it would go ahead with its Hornsea 3 project, taking advantage of the new rules. The 2.9 gigawatt offshore farm will be the world’s largest when completed in 2027, and was widely predicted to have been on the verge of cancellation.
Siemens Energy aside, that's pretty normal price negotiations. Buyers want low prices and sellers want higher prices, particularly when their costs are higher.
I guess Green energy has always come with "altruistic" undertones, so the idea of being in it *gasp* for the money seems like learning some dirty trick that can only be learned from mimicking...
I guess Green energy has always come with "altruistic" undertones, so the idea of being in it *gasp* for the money seems like learning some dirty trick that can only be learned from mimicking other evil corporations and not the natural end state of anything in capitalist environments.
Instead of encouraging governments to end fossil fuels subsidies and over fund renewables, it's better to shame the whole idea of green energy for acting like any other company.
I'm going on a bit of a tangent here, but hydroelectric dams were and often are said to be sources of "green" energy, but the reality is that hydro dams dramatically change the environment around...
I'm going on a bit of a tangent here, but hydroelectric dams were and often are said to be sources of "green" energy, but the reality is that hydro dams dramatically change the environment around them, impact fisheries up and down the river they're on, and are probably more environmentally damaging than we imagined. Water turbines (the in-situ ones you drop in a river) are a lot better, have a much lighter footprint and lower ecological impact, but of course their production is at a much smaller scale as well.
There's also an argument to be had that a dam isn't sustainable in cases where smaller dams run out of water or can no longer operate at sufficient output due to reduction in water levels. I would expect that maintenance costs of dams also increase as they age and a dam of course can suffer from structural issues causing it to be shut down. Wind turbines and water turbines are designed to be fully serviceable and that cost can be fully calculated and amortized over a given lifecycle of the parts. Environmentally, and I suspect from a cost-per-MW perspective, there aren't a lot of arguments to be made for traditional hydro dams. That said, China and SE Asia still finds it feasible because they simply need as much capacity as they can get.
Here's an archive link.
It seems like clickbait. The "dirty little secret" seems to be not bidding on projects where they'll lose money? This is something they had to learn from "big oil?"
...
Siemens Energy aside, that's pretty normal price negotiations. Buyers want low prices and sellers want higher prices, particularly when their costs are higher.
I guess Green energy has always come with "altruistic" undertones, so the idea of being in it *gasp* for the money seems like learning some dirty trick that can only be learned from mimicking other evil corporations and not the natural end state of anything in capitalist environments.
Instead of encouraging governments to end fossil fuels subsidies and over fund renewables, it's better to shame the whole idea of green energy for acting like any other company.
This makes me wonder how much of green energy being cheaper is sustainable (no pun? irony? intended). Hopefully still all of it.
I'm going on a bit of a tangent here, but hydroelectric dams were and often are said to be sources of "green" energy, but the reality is that hydro dams dramatically change the environment around them, impact fisheries up and down the river they're on, and are probably more environmentally damaging than we imagined. Water turbines (the in-situ ones you drop in a river) are a lot better, have a much lighter footprint and lower ecological impact, but of course their production is at a much smaller scale as well.
There's also an argument to be had that a dam isn't sustainable in cases where smaller dams run out of water or can no longer operate at sufficient output due to reduction in water levels. I would expect that maintenance costs of dams also increase as they age and a dam of course can suffer from structural issues causing it to be shut down. Wind turbines and water turbines are designed to be fully serviceable and that cost can be fully calculated and amortized over a given lifecycle of the parts. Environmentally, and I suspect from a cost-per-MW perspective, there aren't a lot of arguments to be made for traditional hydro dams. That said, China and SE Asia still finds it feasible because they simply need as much capacity as they can get.
When you factor in the externalities, it’s fossil fuels that aren’t sustainable. We just do a bad job of properly pricing them.
Even without externalities, they’re more expensive in most cases now.
It’s pretty tough to compete with an energy source that requires no fuel.