Renewable Energy Pros and Cons

Is there a question?

quote:

---

I tend to avoid stocks that push their renewable angle because I see it as more of a political gesture than a practical solution.

---

thank you for sharing

Even with historically low gas prices, solar PPAs are at parity or better in many parts of the country.

That said, given the intermittency of solar and wind, they won’t be able to achieve complete replacement of fossil generation until grid transmission capacity is much improved and battery costs come down.

What that means is that solar and wind are great complements to, but not great replacements for, existing fossil generation such as CCGTs, even in a low gas environment.

As with all things that become highly political in the United States of America in the year 2020, the most vocal advocates for and against renewable energy both tend to be wrong. The answer here is in the middle.

It serves a purpose, but that purpose in most areas should be limited to a smallish penetration of a diversified generation portfolio. In short: don’t write it off for purely political reasons, but also don’t buy the full extent of the hype you hear about it.

I could have phrased that better. I’m referring to people like the OP who assume RE is impractical. As with most things, the conversation could benefit from some nuance. We won’t have an all RE grid any time soon, but we will have increasing penetrations of it and in many cases that will be driven by economic vs political considerations.

To own PLUG but doubt the practicality of wind and solar is astonishing to me ... not being a dick, but RE is much closer to the mainstream than fuel cells, particularly at utility scale.

quote:

---

I don't mind making money on green tech if there is money to be made. I just don't have faith in the practicality of a lot of it.

---

I'm with you but the decision makers don't care about praticality. It's the virute of alternative energy by the politicians, and the "need" for fiscal and monetary support for GDP growth and low unemployment (according to the intelligistas in the federal government).

Big oil companies have huge investments in alternative energy.

Oil is necessary. Even our clothes are made from petroleum derivatives.

quote:

---

Standard Lithium looks to be a big winner on efficiency and the environment.

---

This. They can benefit from higher lithium prices, but at the same time can still profit greatly at lower prices due to lower extraction costs and insanely shorter turn around time if all of it proves out on large scale basis as it has on a small scale. Now the situation they have at Lanxess is unique in the fact that Lanxess's lithium concentrations in their brine is much higher than any others domestically and they have everything already in place including a railroad for distribution. Could see Lanxess expanding into EV battery market as they produce many of the components already for the physical structure of the batteries. Albermarle is also looking into this as the world's number one lithium supplier currently. Their direct lithium brine extraction failed miserably and were in the process of building a pipeline to send their tailbrine to Lanxess. That was nixed but I'm not sure which side did it. My understanding is that it was Lanxess when they did more extensive testing of their lithium concentrations and found them to be significantly higher than historical samples had suggested. That doesn't mean they can't work something out later if needed. EV's are coming whether they are more efficient or not. I think we'll see lower cost batteries with higher capacity/battery life that will narrow the advantage of gasoline engines. Not to mention the current lithium extraction techniques are highly environmentally unfriendly and take significant amounts of fossil fuels to obtain and process. Where as what STLHF is doing at Lanxess actually has a positive impact as they are removing the lithium and reinjection clean water. From a Lanxess standpoint they are big on environmental issues as it affects their cost from EPA standpoint and they are based in Germany so the whole European climate shite carries over to all their facilities. I've been told that when the extraction is over the water will be "drinkable". If true, that's huge in several ways. It could mean that STLHF will be even more profitable from the extraction of sulfur, magnesium, sodium and other minerals in the brine. Or Lanxess may be planning to remove that prior to lithium extraction. Tetra, which is a stones throw away, was a sodium extraction plant and I'm not sure what else. They have closed shop here and Lanxess has rights to their brine leases. If it is the STLHF process that will also be used, that lowers the cost of lithium extraction further by producing marketable by products (albeit with lower profit margins) at the same time. That's conjecture at this point.

This type of brine extraction could still be used elsewhere to lower costs even for traditional evaporation ponds that are filled with high concentration brine. They take about 18 months to build, evaporate and extract. You could bypass the evaporation process and the labor intensive physical extraction possibly.

STLHF also has rights to geothermal units in the Salton Sea area of California. Those units are money losers currently, but if they can use STLHF's tech to extract the lithium from their brine, they may be cost neutral or even slightly profitable which would go a long way in Cali's energy issues. There lithium concentrations are much lower, but it could be a win/win situation for both parties. I believe they also have rights to some dead sea leases for future projects.

It's amazing what the free market can come up with when gov't stays out with their "free money". And don't think the big energy companies aren't watching if they're smart.

My biggest issue with solar isn't the batteries, it's the panels. Over all these years, the shite ain't much better than it's ever been and a bad hail storm will take a giant shite on your investment. Anybody with any insight on solar companies that are developing next generation panels that are cheaper and more durable?

quote:

---

I do follow this stuff as I find the potential and the problems interesting. Innovation and invention are a great bet in this casino we play in.

---

I think will see oil and gas/renewables grow together. If they can get battery costs down, the kinetic energy produced while a vehicle/engine is in motion can be harnessed to charge the battery which creates more efficient energy production from a gallon of gas. I think the simplest initial solution is to make use of the heat/energy produced as a byproduct of the combustion process/wheel rotation/wind/etc. Hybrids are the way to go. The key is making products that are cheaper due to efficiency and not more costly making it cost effective to buy these over gas powered vehicles. If the purchase price can be equal or quickly more economically advantages through lowered fuel costs, use will take off.

we’ve tried wind turbines. Unless you spend big big dollars they almost immediately break down in the slightest harsh environment. There’s a guy near us that has a $20K wind setup and it is sweet. Still, though you need a battery bank and it requires constant maintenance

we have three 6’ panels on the roof facing south and they’ve been up there in the sun/rain/wind/salt spray for 10 years, no maintenance. I use industrial lead acid batteries that are cumbersome, expensive and a pain in the arse to deal with. But, that’s the only thing that’s reliable due to the need for deep cycle storage. You show me a lighter, more durable and more efficient storage system and it would change everything

shite I’d go solar on my house if/when that happens.
that will be the breakthrough that changes everything