Streetwise Professor

August 27, 2019

“HE’S FULL OF SHIT”: You Read It Here First

Filed under: Climate Change,Economics,Tesla — cpirrong @ 5:50 pm

Three guesses as to who “he” is. First two don’t count.

Vanity Fair has a long article, with a title starting with the quote in the title of this post, showing that Elon Musk’s solar roof in particular, and its solar business in general, is a fraud. The article also shows that Elon engineered Tesla’s purchase of Solar City to prevent it from going belly up, and thereby torpedoing Elon’s reputation as a genius.

Which is exactly what I said on the very day the deal was announced three years ago.

I’ve been calling BS on Elon since May, 2013. Nice to see people are finally catching up.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

August 3, 2019

Renewables Are Expensive Because You Can’t Stick ‘Em Where the Sun Don’t Shine (or the Wind Don’t Blow)

Filed under: Climate Change,Economics,Energy,Politics,Regulation — cpirrong @ 4:45 pm

I’m sure you’ve read articles claiming that the cost of renewables electricity generation is approaching that (or even lower than) the cost of traditional thermal generation. I am deeply skeptical of these claims even when evaluated on their own terms (which focus on generation costs alone), but find them particularly misleading because they ignore other costs attributable to the facts that renewables are intermittent and diffuse, and that the siting of renewables generation is sharply constrained because they are energy limited resources; the distribution of energy is dictated by nature; and typically is not closely related to the distribution of load.

In other words, renewables are costly because you can’t stick them where the sun don’t shine (or the wind don’t blow).

Case in point: Australia. As even Bloomberg (a tiresome renewables fanzine) reports:

Australia’s financing of cleaner power is slowing because the country’s aging grid isn’t being upgraded quick enough to accept new, intermittent generation and transport it efficiently to demand centers.

Although Bloomberg attempts to blame an old, creaky transmission system, this is misleading in the extreme. It would be far cheaper to upgrade Australia’s transmission system to accommodate thermal generation than it will be to build transmission to increase the fraction of generation coming from renewables.

This is true for at least a couple of reasons.

First, the energy-limited nature of renewables means that you have to site them where the energy is available–sunny or windy places. This imposes a constraint on the location of generation resources that is not relevant for thermal generation. With traditional fossil-fueled generation, you have more flexibility in trading off transmission costs with generation costs (including the cost of brining fuel to plants) than is the case with wind. This flexibility means that all else (notably the spatial distribution of load) equal, transmission costs are lower with thermal generation than renewable power.

Second, the intermittent and inherently more volatile nature of renewables generation increases the variance in the spatial distribution of generation. This variability in the spatial distribution of generation necessarily requires more transmission capacity per unit of load. This, in turn implies a lower average rate of utilization of transmission resources.

The basic idea here can be illustrated relatively simply. Consider a system with two generation resources. One is highly volatile (e.g., a renewable resource). The other is controllable. There is one load location. The transmission capacity from the volatile location to load must be high enough to carry the power when output is high (because the energy input is high due to the vicissitudes of sun or wind). The transmission capacity from the location with controllable generation must also be high enough to transmit enough power to fill the gap left when the renewable output is low.

Note that when renewable output is high, controllable output will be low and the transmission lines from the latter will operate at low capacity. When renewable output is low, the lines serving it will be operating at low capacity.

It’s possible to expand the example to include multiple variable, energy limited, but imperfectly correlated renewables resources, but the outcome is the same. You need more transmission capacity to deal with the spatial volatility in generation, and given load, higher capacity translates into lower average capacity utilization.

Thus, the problem that Australia is confronting isn’t a function of an old grid: it arises from the fact that increased reliance on renewables requires investment in new transmission capacity even in a system where transmission is optimized relative to (thermal) generation and load.

The need to maintain relatively underutilized transmission capacity to deal with the inherent volatility of renewables generation is mirrored by the need to maintain underutilized thermal generation capacity:

While new clean energy projects struggle to gain access to a congested grid, aging coal and gas-fired generators are being kept running for longer to maintain system stability. AGL Energy Ltd. said Friday it would delay the planned closure of its Liddell and Torrens A plants, both around 50 years old, to help the national energy market cope with peak summer demand, which has seen blackouts in parts of southeastern Australia in recent years.

Who knew?

Yet the renewables industry/lobby continues to flog the dogma that they will inevitably be more efficient:

Despite the challenges facing the industry, it’s not all doom and gloom. A number of coal-fired plants will be retired over the next decade and they will only be replaced by the cheapest cost of energy, which is renewables, Clean Energy Finance Corp. Chief Executive Ian Learmonth said in an interview.
“I’m hoping once some of these issues around the grid and regulations are settled that we’ll see another significant uptick in the renewable energy pipeline,” he said.

What costs is Mr. Learmonth including in his assertion that renewables are the “cheapest” source of energy? His statement that settling “issues around the grid” will lead to increased renewables investment suggests that he is ignoring crucial costs, because settling these issues doesn’t come for free.

It’s not as if the transmission issue is unique to Australia. It is present in every locale that has force-fed renewables. Germany is a prominent example. Wind energy is abundant in the North Sea, but believe it or not, there aren’t a lot of electricity consumers there (despite my ardent wish that Merkel and her ilk get into the sea). Major sources of load are in central and southern Germany, so bringing North Sea wind power to load requires massive transmission investments, which inevitably are not just costly, but politically difficult (Der NIMBY, anyone?). These difficulties inflate the cost.

Renewables boosterism operates in an atmosphere of serious unreality because it consistently glosses over–or ignores altogether–the costs arising from intermittency, diffusiveness, the energy-limited nature of wind and solar, and the caprices of nature that cause a mismatch between where the energy exists and where it is needed. When these facts are considered, sticking renewables where the sun don’t shine makes perfect sense.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

June 3, 2019

Renewables VPPAs: An Interesting Pricing Problem For Aspiring Scholars

Filed under: Climate Change,Commodities,Derivatives,Economics,Energy — cpirrong @ 7:13 pm

Virtual Power Purchasing Agreements (VPPAs) have been around for a while, and play a particularly important role in securing financing for renewable energy projects, as this article from Reuters regarding VPPAs in Europe indicates. They are essentially long term swaps whereby one party (e.g., a wind or solar operation) receives a fixed price for power, and pays a floating price, usually based (in the US) on the spot price in an RTO/ISO market (e.g., PJM, or MISO).

These contracts present interesting pricing issues because of the unique nature of electricity as a commodity, and the unique nature of renewable generation in particular. Electricity is not an asset per se, and electricity price risk is not hedgeable, even theoretically, through a dynamic trading strategy in the way that the price risk in a stock option is. This means that electricity markets are “incomplete,” and that Black-Scholes-Merton-like formulas that derive prices that do not depend on risk premia do not exist for power derivatives.

The risk premia embedded in power prices can be large, though they have been falling over the years. I wrote extensively about this subject for about 10 years (late-90s to late-00s), including this article. That paper provides a way of extracting risk premia from the prices of traded claims (e.g., monthly power forward contracts). One virtue of that approach is that the primary state variable in the model is not price, but load (which is translated into price via the supply curve). Thus, the relevant price of risk is the price of load risk, which can be used in the valuation of load-dependent claims. Such claims could be full requirements deals, for example.

One challenge to the approach is that the realistic horizon of the market price of risk function estimate is that of the visible forward curve, which is typically far less than the maturity of long term electricity deals. The prices in such contracts effectively reflect a market price of risk negotiated between the two parties, in the absence of corresponding forward curve data.

Renewables VPPAs face an even bigger challenge: the variability of the output of a renewables asset. There is not only price risk (or market load risk) associated with a given region: there is the output risk of the facility, which may be material given the vicissitudes of wind and sun. Thus, the dimensionality of the pricing problem is higher, which is a problem given that the methods I employed in my 2008 paper (co-authored by Martin Jermakyan) are subject to “the curse of dimensionality.”

Furthermore, given the joint dependency on market price (or load) and project output, these are correlation-dependent claims. That is, what is the dependence between market price and wind output? This could be a particularly big issue given that high wind output is often associated with negative prices. Guaranteeing a fixed price therefore involves something of a wrong way risk.

The long tenor of VPPAs makes these issues even more devilish, given that pricing involves forecasting the relevant dynamics and parameters (including those associated with dependence among the state variables) over long horizons–horizons over which entry can occur and technology can change, making historical data of little relevance in estimation. Indeed, there is an element of endogeneity: the prices in VPPAs can affect the economics of entry, which can affect future price behavior, which is (theoretically, anyways) an input into the “right” VPPA fixed price.

All in all, a very interesting and challenging pricing problem, that like the simpler problems Martin and I tackled some years ago, require the use of advanced pricing techniques, numerical methods, and econometrics even to conceptualize, let alone solve. Sounds like an interesting problem–or problems–for aspiring scholars in energy pricing.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

May 19, 2019

G’Day, Greenies: I Frolic In Your Salty Tears

Filed under: Climate Change,Commodities,Economics,Energy,Politics — cpirrong @ 2:18 pm

I promised I would write a post on the Australian power market when a suitable article came along, and that time has come.

Check out the logic. Australia closes its coal plants (highly efficient, reliable, and with a cheap source of fuel given Australia is a dominant coal producer), and replaces them with wind. Wind, being highly erratic, requires (given the closure of the coal plants) gas-fueled plants to offset the variability of wind output, and as a result gas is on the margin most hours in Australia. And Australian power prices are sky-high because . . . LNG exports reduce gas supplies in Australia, keeping the price of gas high.

Riiiggghhhttt.

You cannot make up this stuff.

No. It’s not the first two links in the process that are blamed–the ones that those who are whinging deliberately chose. Instead, it’s the last link, which was an inevitable result of the first two choices.

This is blame shifting on crack.

I should also note that those gas resources that supply exports would not have been developed absent the export market. They would not have been developed to supply the domestic market alone. So LNG exports are a scapegoat for a problem created by conscious decisions by the green left (i.e., the watermelons) to jam renewables down people’s throats.

It is particularly ironic that this article came out shortly before the Australian election, the results of which have caused a complete mental breakdown on the left. The Liberal Party (which is to the right, relatively speaking, Down Under) staged a surprising upset of the Labor Party, resulting in an unhinging comparable to that in the UK after Brexit or the US after Trump. I can’t tell you the number of tweets I read where people–adults, allegedly–confessed to crying uncontrollably.

I frolic in their salty tears.

The irony comes from the fact that the Labor Party is hard core in its support for yet more attempts to decarbonize Australia’s economy. Perhaps they should consider the possibility that a major reason for their rejection at the polls is the anger of many Australians at the consequences of previous climate-driven policies (including sky high electricity prices), and their wanting no more of such nonsense.

The shock on the left at the outcome shows that three years after Brexit and two-and-a-half years after Trump the leftist elites have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing. It is no doubt another example of their perpetual bullshit loop in action. Leftist-friendly views dominate the media. Anyone expressing contrary views is attacked, which leads to self-censorship and preference falsification. So leftist opinions and sentiment dominate public discourse, convincing leftists that everybody agrees with them, except for a lunatic fringe. But in the privacy of the polling booth, people can express their true views, and perhaps do so with a relish, as this is an opportunity to stick it to those who shout them down. The result is shock and dismay on the left.

But they are as ever incapable of learning, instead just writing off their conquerors as cranks and extremists. As annoying as they are, I hope they don’t change. Because as long as they don’t change, they will continue to lose.

Ironically, the left’s climate change obsession is one of the things that doomed them:

Australian conservative Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s surprise come-from-behind win in national elections was fueled by a campaign that focused on fears that economic and climate policies pledged by center-left opponents would end the world’s longest growth streak.

. . . .

Climate change re-emerged as an election issue following a summer of wildfires, drought, floods and extreme temperatures. Voter support for policies aimed at addressing climate change was at the highest level since 2007. But, as in the U.S., divisions grew more stark as the issue gathered steam.
Labor pledged to reduce emissions by 45% from 2005 levels by 2030, after Australia under the conservatives became the first developed nation to abolish a price on carbon in 2014. The party also promised a push on renewable energy and electric vehicles, offering detailed and transparent policies that opened its agenda to months of concerted attack from Mr. Morrison.

Given the track record (e.g., the high electricity prices that motivated this post), this was a target rich environment for Mr. Morrison and the Liberals. And it is evident that they put much steel on the target.

Also ironic is that the Labor Party was defeated in part by the impact of its climate policies on what was once upon a time the bedrock of labor movements and parties around the world: coal miners, and those dependent on coal production. This demonstrates yet again that left parties have basically abandoned their historical constituencies, and are now dominated by effete metropolitans who are not only completely unfamiliar with muscular labor, but actually despise the muscular laborer.

Excuse me while I engage in a little long distance schadenfreude, and scroll through Twitter to witness yet another meltdown by the Bourbon left.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

May 4, 2019

Germany and Sweden Want to Reduce CO2 Emissions in the Worst Way–and Are Succeeding!

Filed under: Climate Change,Economics,Energy,Politics,Regulation — cpirrong @ 5:46 pm

I’ve written often about the economic nightmare that are renewables, specifically wind and solar power. They are terribly inefficient because they are intermittent, and they are diffuse. The intermittency requires maintaining substantial backup capacity. Their diffuse nature means that they are incredibly land intensive. I should also add that renewable energy sources are not miraculously located where loads are. Indeed, they are often located far, far away from load, and therefore necessitate substantial investment in transmission.

How inefficient? This recent University of Chicago study documents that the difference in cost between renewable and conventional generation dwarfs any possible benefit from CO2 reduction. To reprise the old joke: governments that subsidize renewables want to reduce CO2 emissions in the worst way, and they have.

Heretofore the Germans have been the world’s leader in renewable idiocy, with their Energiewende debacle, which has raised power costs to among the world’s highest, and not led to decreases in CO2 emissions (due mainly to the intermittency problem mentioned above). Well played! So how are the Germans going to deal with this? Perhaps by making electricity MORE expensive, by adding a CO2 tax on top of the CO2 cap and trade scheme.

I would say that will be hard to top Germany’s leading position in the ranks of renewables retards, but the Swedes are giving it a gallant try. So get this. The Swedes are replacing cheap zero carbon power (from four nuclear plants) located near load centers like Stockholm with expensive zero carbon power produced my windmills in the frozen back of buggery in the far north of Sweden. One big problem, they are woefully short of transmission capacity from back of buggery to the places where Swedes actually live and work.

This will make power more expensive, and is already constraining economic activity in Sweden. Moreover, it is raising the risk of blackouts.

So the Swedes may be replacing reliable carbon free electricity with electricity free electricity. That will be fun in the winters, eh?

Realistic people who believe that it is necessary to reduce carbon emissions understand that nuclear power is the efficient way to do so, and will become even more efficient with the development of new reactor technologies. It would be far more economical to invest in improvements in nukes than vast wind and solar projects.

But the Swedes appear to still be in the thrall of post-Three Mile Island hysteria (note that the decision to close the plants was made in 1980, a year after TMI) just as the Germans responded to post-Fukushima hysteria by deciding to close all their nukes.

That is, the energy policies of supposedly sophisticated societies are being driven by bugbears and bogeymen–a morbid obsession with CO2, and a view of nuclear power shaped by a nearly 40 year old Jane Fonda movie. This is leading them to force people to rely energy sources that are monstrously inefficient, making said people poorer. (Not to mention that a monomaniacal focus on CO2 leads them to overlook the total environmental impact of wind and solar, which is not a pretty picture.)

The Swedes are also leaders in a modern-day Children’s Crusade (that worked out great the first time, right?) to impose their climate bogeymen on the rest of the world. A rather unfortunate Swedish teenager is going around lecturing the world on the need for drastic action on CO2 now. This is an emotionally manipulative use of children as a substitute for actual argument and analysis and facts. Cynically, it exploits the reluctance of people to criticize children (even though they know nothing, or next to it), especially ones (in the words of the immortal Hank Hill) that ain’t right.

And behold what policies the Swedes want to visit on the rest of us. What they do in Sweden is their business, but they should keep their noses out of everyone else’s.

Makes me more glad than ever that my ancestors bugged out for Minnesota 140 odd years ago. But recent research suggests that they are to blame for Sweden’s current idiocies! I’ve long hypothesized that more independent souls are far more likely to emigrate, leaving the conformists behind. And recent research focusing on Scandinavia provides support for this hypothesis:

The researchers suggest the migration flows, which were small relative to the native population of America but equivalent to about 25 per cent of the total population of Scandinavia, changed the character of Norwegian and Swedish society by removing the most ambitious and independently-minded people.

So Scandinavia’s loss was America’s gain. And if their energy policies are any indication, they are still paying the price today.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

April 10, 2019

Trump’s Energy Infrastructure Executive Order: A Constructive Use of Federal Power, Consonant With the Purpose of the Constitution

Filed under: Climate Change,Economics,Energy,Politics,Regulation — cpirrong @ 7:31 pm

Trump just departed from Ellington Joint Reserve Base here in Houston, ending a quick trip to Texas which included a rally in Houston. The focus of Trump’s visit was the US energy sector (In Texas? Go figure!). As part of that, he announced and signed an executive order limiting the power of states to block or obstruct the construction of interstate oil and gas pipelines.

Overall, I’m not a fan of executive orders, as they tend to be used to override or circumvent normal Constitutional procedures and purposes. There is a strong argument, however, that this order is an exception.

The very genesis of the Constitution traces to commercial disputes between states under the Articles of Confederation. Contention between Virginia and Maryland over navigation of the Potomac and the Chesapeake resulted in the calling of the Annapolis Convention (formally The Meeting of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government) in 1786. Although the Convention itself was something of a damp squid, it did result in the calling of the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, which wrote the Constitution that continues to be the law of the land to this day, 232 years later.

Of course, one part of that document is the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) which grants to the Federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states. This was not an accident, comrades. Preventing protectionism by the states against each other was one of the main reasons for creating a more powerful central government.

State governments always have the temptation and incentive to favor their own constituents at the expense of people in other states. Letting that impulse operate freely would result in a Balkanized country with myriad wasteful restrictions, taxes, tolls, and regulations that would sap wealth. (Consider pre-Revolutionary France, with its oppressive system of local tolls on the movement of goods.) Anticipating that, the Founders expressly sought to limit the protectionist powers of states.

In Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) the Marshall court forcefully exerted the Commerce Clause. Things have likely gone too far since: for example, the Commerce Clause’s delegation of authority over navigable waters to the US government has been pushed to the extreme by using it to impose Federal environmental regulation on an intermittent wet spot on your back 40.

But what Trump is ordering is clearly within the four corners of the Clause as originally conceived. Oil and gas are produced in some states, and consumed in others. Interstate movement is necessary to connect producers and consumers. Further, for myriad motives many states have attempted to obstruct that movement. That is not, and has not been since the formation of the Republic, their prerogative.

The case can be made that the Commerce Clause has proved a Trojan Horse that has facilitated an expansion of Federal power beyond that what the Founders envisioned. But what Trump is ordering is squarely within the intent of the Clause, as drafted and intended.

The dramatic growth in US energy production is being hampered by infrastructure constraints. For many, that is a feature, not a bug: the hostility towards fossil fuel energy in particular by many in the US, especially on the left, makes such infrastructure a schwerpunkt for environmentalists. Knock out the transit links between producers and consumers, and energy will be neither produced nor consumed. They often find it easier to focus their efforts on state and local governments because (a) they are often more biddable, and (b) since you only need to prevail in one or two to delay or derail altogether a pipeline moving across many, the odds of success are higher. (If there are N jurisdictions crossed by a pipeline, and the probability of getting a jurisdiction to block it is P, the probability that it will go through is (1-P)^N, which decreases with N.)

Yes, local communities do have concerns. The question is what is the appropriate remedy for them. A properly applied Takings Clause (with payment of true value for taken property) is one: it prevents subsidization through expropriation. Insofar as environmental issues are concerned, the question is whether ex ante restrictions (i.e., imposing high standards to permit construction) are better than ex post penalties for damage imposed (which provide an incentive for infrastructure operators to take precautions against damage).

Since infrastructure operators are well-capitalized, and unlikely to be judgment proof, and since there are armies of class action attorneys waiting in the wings salivating at the opportunity to sue for damages, ex post penalties are likely to be more efficient than ex ante restrictions, especially ex ante restrictions imposed by state and local governments who internalize the benefits they obtain for their constituents, but who do not internalize the costs that they impose on producers upstream or consumers downstream.

And this is not to say that the Federal government is inevitably predisposed to efficient outcomes. Look no further than the previous administration, which largely embraced the environmentalist hostility to domestic energy development, and which as a consequence used its powers to thwart some important infrastructure developments (e.g., Keystone, which would have proven especially valuable in light of the loss of heavy crude production in Venezuela and to a lesser degree Mexico). So Federal power can be exercised for good or ill when it comes to energy infrastructure. Trump’s order is an example of it being exercised for the good of energy consumers and producers.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

March 11, 2019

Another Data Point on the Renewables Fairy Tale

Filed under: Climate Change,Economics,Energy,Politics,Regulation — cpirrong @ 7:39 pm

A coda to yesterday’s post. The EIA announced that in 2018 60 percent of new US electricity generating capacity was fueled by natural gas. This outstripped wind by a factor of almost 3, and solar by a factor of almost 5.

But those ratios understate matters, given that capacity factors for natural gas are about double those for renewables. Thus, in terms of actual real generation, natural gas added about four times as much effective capacity in 2018 as renewables. Not to mention that combined cycle plants are available pretty much on demand, rain or shine, day or night. Unlike the wind and the sun.

This despite the continued subsidization of renewables.

So tell me again how renewables will permit the fossil fuel-free electrification of the economy. I like fairy tales.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Meet the New CEO of Tesla: Emily Litella

Filed under: Climate Change,Energy,Tesla — cpirrong @ 7:17 pm

So, remember that stuff about closing all sales outlets, selling exclusively on-line, and cutting prices? Tesla’s new CEO has an announcement:

So what’s “very different”? Here’s what the company says officially:

Over the past two weeks we have been closely evaluating every single Tesla retail location, and we have decided to keep significantly more stores open than previously announced as we continue to evaluate them over the course of several months.

So what you are saying then is prior to making the announcement that you were closing all retail locations you HADN’T evaluated every single location. Got it!

The company also reversed field on the price cuts.

To quote Casey Stengel: Can anybody play this game?

I mean really. A major, and arguably unprecedented in the industry, change in selling strategy and a major change in pricing policy are things that are not to be entered into lightly. Presumably they were the result of serious and sober consideration by serious and sober people. Right?

Serious and sober. Elon. Heh. Sometimes I crack myself up.

The initial decision was insanity. And the reversal validates that judgment. But too late to overcome the obvious implication of the initial decision: that the company is in dire straits. Further, the utterly botched process of pushing the panic button and then trying to un-push it answers Casey’s question quite definitively: No!

That is, the initial decision betrayed desperation. The decision plus the reversal betray the utter incompetence of the company’s management, and hence its incapacity to deal with its daunting challenges. And given that Tesla is a micromanaged company, that incompetence has a name: Elon.

I called Emily Litella the new CEO of Tesla in jest. But come to think of it, she could almost certainly do a better job. As could Rosanne Rosannadanna as head of investor relations and corporate affairs.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

March 10, 2019

Died of a Theory: Green Edition

Filed under: Climate Change,Economics,Energy,Politics — cpirrong @ 6:19 pm

Natural gas has a lot going for it, especially as a fuel for electricity generation and home heating. It is low-carbon, as compared to coal and petroleum. It is also clean burning, producing less particulates than competitor fuels. It does not require extensive (and polluting) refining, like oil. It is increasingly abundant, and hence becoming cheaper, due to technological innovations like fracking. Liquefaction makes intercontinental trade feasible, breaking the previous barrier between production and consumption regions, and allowing more people to realize the benefits of gas. What’s not to like?

Short answer, according to environmentalists: it is a fossil fuel, and therefore it must die.

It is bad enough that there are concerted efforts underway to replace it with renewables for the generation of electricity. There is also a push to eliminate it as a home heating fuel, and replacing it with . . . electricity, generated by yet more renewables. That is, simultaneously to replace NG in electricity generation with renewables, and to increase the demand for electricity . . . to be produced with even more renewables. (Not to mention the desire to eliminate the internal combustion engine, and rely on electric automobiles and trucks.) All without any apparent thought to whether renewables actually scale (putting aside that they are already more costly than conventional fuels at their current scale).

The defects of wind and solar as power sources, especially for reliable baseload power, are manifest. They are diffuse and intermittent. Not a good combination where demand is geographically concentrated, and highly regular. Someday battery storage might mitigate this problem, but that day is a long, long way away Throw in the complexity of the electricity grid, i.e., the need for supply to match demand exactly at all times, and intermittency becomes eve more of a nightmare.

Further, the factors that drive electricity demand (temperature extremes) are often negatively correlated with renewables production. Supply negatively correlated with demand–Not a good thing! Using electricity for home heating will only exacerbate this problem: the wind often does not blow when it is extremely cold, which is when you might want to have the heat in your home working.

Renewables do not scale well–diminishing returns are inherent to renewables production. The footprint of wind and solar operations is huge, and increasing output by X percent requires more than X percent more land because developers locate facilities in the most favorable places first, and can only expand into progressively less windy/sunny locations. Moreover, pesky physical laws, like the First Law of Thermodynamics, lead to decreasing returns to scale. Downwind expansion is less efficient because existing upwind operations reduce the available energy in the wind. Renewables sprawl is not yet a thing, but if some people’s wishes come true, it will be.

Where the wind blows and sun shines does not match where power demand is. So substituting renewables for conventional or nuclear generation requires more transmission–which, perversely, environmentalists can be counted on to oppose.

It is not an accident, then, that the greater the reliance on renewables, the higher the cost of electricity. The diminishing returns inherent in renewables production mean that green dreams to reduce conventionally-fueled electricity supply while increasing electricity demand (not just in home heating, but in transportation) will make it even more expensive still (as these push us further up a likely very steep average cost curve).

Renewables have only penetrated to the extent that they have due to extensive subsidization. Which just means that the costs get shoved elsewhere.

It is perversely ironic that many of those who push the green agenda also claim to be deeply concerned about the poor–and yeah, I’m looking at you AOC, and the rest of the Green New Deal advocates. With friends like you, the poor don’t need enemies. They consume a far higher fraction of their income in the form of energy (both directly, and indirectly through goods like food) than the better-thans who claim to be their champions, and hence will suffer disproportionately from higher energy costs. And the poorer the person, the more they will suffer. This is not complicated.

When you get down to it, not only is the watermelon crowd completely unhinged from basic physical and economic reality, it is profoundly anti-human. Achieving their utopia requires that there be fewer humans, and that those humans whom they deign to let live be much poorer.

I wouldn’t mind so much if they did they put their beliefs that there are too many humans consuming too much stuff into action by offing themselves. Be a good example! Take one for the team! But no. They’d much rather volunteer you–or more accurately, the poorest among us–for death and poverty.

I’ve used the Jefferson Davis quote about his suggested epitaph for the Confederacy–“Died of a Theory”–on many occasions. It is sickly fitting in this context too, but worse in a way. Because it won’t be those pushing the theory who perish literally or politically (as was the case with States Rights fanatics 1860-1865). It will be those whom they claim to be helping.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

March 6, 2019

Fists of Fury Fly Over Tesla’s Price Cuts

Filed under: Climate Change,Economics,Energy,Tesla — cpirrong @ 8:29 pm

According to this Seeking Alpha post, Chinese buyers are furious at the Tesla price cuts. The WSJ concurs.

And with good reason. In my post yesterday, I wrote that Tesla cut prices by 6 percent–which was another of the company’s half-truths. Or maybe fifth-truths, because for the pricier models the price cuts are on the order of 30 percent. The Model 3 Performance version price cut is 8 percent in China, and the pricier the car, the bigger the percentage discount. So no wonder buyers are furious. They look like suckers because if they’d waited, they would have saved as much as $50K.

A 6 percent price cut by an ostensibly demand constrained growth company is bad enough. 8-30 percent price cuts is Armageddon time.

As I noted in yesterday’s post, this is a sign of a truly desperate company. Or maybe a completely delusional one. Because anyone in their right mind would know that price cuts–especially of this magnitude, and especially on what should be the most profitable vehicles–vaporize customer goodwill. Especially the goodwill of the type of customers who are vital to making the company profitable by buying the high margin vehicles.

You only do that if you are so desperate for cash today that you say f-the-future, it will have to take care of itself: if I don’t get cash today, I won’t have to worry about the future.

But they’re not done with incinerating their credibility faster than a flaming Model S that lost a wheel and hit a tree! The company also cut prices on its “Autopilot” function–and won’t refund those who pre-ordered and pre-paid. And oh, it just said that what it had previously said about self-driving capability was, what’s that old phrase?–no longer operative.

Suckas.

But hey. Why listen to me? Elon’s got some really, really cool stuff coming . Trust him! What could go wrong?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Next Page »

Powered by WordPress