The Green Energy Bubble Has Finally Burst

Stop data brokers from exposing your information. Go to my sponsor aura.com/wallstreet to get a 14-day free trial and see if your personal information has been compromised

Maybe finally after all this falls apart, we realize that we should have gone nuclear

The windturbine developers took the risk of fluctuating prices and interest rates. If the prices fell they would have made a profit, but the nature of risk is it can go both ways. This is not good or bad, its just the nature of business.

In Brazil the electric grid is based on hydroelectric dams and boy, it was a lousy choice. In the last 20 years Brazil had TWO serious droughts and had to ration energy twice for more than 6 months each time and ALMOST had to ration a third time. And the first time government sponsored the building of natural gas plants because they were cheaper and faster to build and because of them we didn't MORE scares. But a new government was installed and they decided to forgo wind and solar farms and build hydroelectric dams in the Amazon, since supposedly there were no draughts there. Wrong !!! Not only the dams went over budget (planned: US$ 15 billion for 3 dams , over US$45 billion and only 2 work and transmission lines far from completion for another US$15 billion) but historical draught doesn't allow their working, there is NO water, currently they sit on dry land. Wind farms, on the other hand, built by private companies in the Northeast region, perenially short on electricity but with a reliable wind all year round, are a great success, made the region , up till then dependent on south/southeast states for its energy, self sufficient, met with enthusiasm by locals, who receive a small percentage of "royalties", and wellcome any expansions with open arms.They also had a very positive impact on locals who were among the poorest inhabitants in Brazil. In times of global warming do NOT count on precious water for energy, go for solar (especially if the country is tropical) , wind or efective natural gas. Dams destroy the environment much more effectively than natural gas, disrupt the people who used to live around, their way of life, the families parted by arbitrary settlement in places they are not used to ( generally big cities where they live in slums) and leave scars on the land and its climate, not to mention the huge costs. P

Their fundamental problem is they can't meet the demand during peak power demand time and can't store energy during their peak production time.

The way they lie: they provide nominal maximal capacity mixed together with things that actually work.

Surely comparing costs after the subsidies creates a completely distorted number. To figure out if something is truly economically viable we need to know the costs without subsidies.

For the last 200yrs, average interest rates were around 6%. Did people really think almost zero rates would last?

Nuclear energy: Allow me to introduce myself

The major factor you have left out of these calculations is the effect of adding electricity storage to the system. Storage would dramatically even out the supply when wind and solar are not producing power. I have batteries in my home solar system for this reason.

The big winners of the renewable energy bubble are battery farms. I live in South Australia where renewable energy producing all our energy needs is common. But to go all day without falling back onto fossil fuels we use a lot of battery backup. The people that own these batteries can get paid to take the power during the day, and then they charge like wounded bulls to get it back onto the grid at night.

Welcome to the time where we realize that infrastructure is expensive

The problem with Hydro-electric is that our need for power has increased to the point that it can't produce enough anymore.

Ironically hydropower dams are disastrous for local ecology. So while they may be better for the climate in the long term, they destroy ecosystems that evolved for millennia in the process. It's also deeply concerning to anyone who actually cares about the environment that these billions of solar panels are, at present, destined for landfills at their EOL. There's no such thing as a perfect solution and given the options I don't know which ones are actually best for the planet, to say nothing for the short term costs. Right now 100% of the electricity that comes to my house is produced by earthbound wind turbines.

The fossil fuel industry and those invested in it, will continue to work tirelessly to keep the status quo. Public hit pieces on why clean energy is not economically viable will continue without mentioning how the current mix isn't sustainable for future generations. We need to keep innovating, optimizing the construction and operating process, and subsidizing the transition.

the person putting the sponsorblock section -- thank you

You should be using solar and wind to meet temporary demands, using nuclear to fulfill the standard consistent power draw, and then have some natural gas on hand in case the renewables can't keep up for whatever reason. The big issue here is that we need far more nuclear to handle the base level power demands.

I don't know. The deep dive into the impact of changing interest rates on a project initiated before the infrastructure bill is bad for this one project. I'd be interested to see how projects bid in this current environment would fare given the new subsidies in place.

I have one word to say about all this - Nuclear!

Not counting subsidies in the cost wind/solar is like not counting sales tax on a new car. We have to pay for the subsidies just like we have to pay the sales tax.