G&R Truth on Renewables

[@atlantium65]

Really like the research you guys are putting out. I read the quarterly commentaries multiple times -- they are so dense with valuable information! Keep it up.

[@C_R_O_M________]

They are up there at the top when it comes to analyzing commodities.

[@DonJuanDM]

I only listen to a handful of people before making my own investment decision. G&R is one of them, they are so in depth of what they know and their advices are packed with 'real world practicality'. In another words, they always present the real world scenarios joining the most dots which is the most important decision factor to me. After reading their reports during the first lockdown, I built my positions in oil & gas when they were in negative delivery territory. They are damn right on how it plays out.

[@C_R_O_M________]

G&R have "skin in the game" to be as truthful as possible. These guys live on investment decisions and if they are wrong in an alarming frequency their reputation suffers. That's why they are extra careful when they publish anything (unlike media outlets).

[@kamilkafara4573]

I know I've read it many times, including in your reports, but still nice to hear it. Thank you.

[@mikehardwicke23]

Very good research and well presented.

[@kvaka009]

Demand will drop not because people will want less stuff (energy), but because they will be forced by nature to respect its boundaries. Degrowth won't be a choice. It will be a necessity brought on by collapse. You know that pause on the roller coaster at the top of the climb right before the first drop?! We're there my friends.

[@matthalves2990]

According to my calculation one coal fired plant with 1.000 MW capacity (64% load factor, running for 8.000 hour a year) produces 5.120 million kWh per year. All the 1.122 wind turbines installed in Balvaria (Germany) produced 5.734 million kWh in 2019. So, you need around 1.000 wind turbines to replace one coal fired plant. That's a lot of energy you need in the first place to produce and install these 1.000 wind turbines. And we haven't included the batteries needed to compensate for the volatility of wind energy. I wanted to calculate it myself to see if the 40 units energy-in for a 100 units energy-out of an off-shore wind farm, mentioned in the video, is plausible. If you need 1.000 wind turbines + the battery storage to replace one coal fired plant. I think it is plausible which explains why the electricity costs in Germany (focus on renewables) is doulbe that of France (focus on nuclear).

[@C_R_O_M________]

Kudos for taking the time to do the calculations. In terms of the batteries to store the excess energy, I wouldn't count on the feasibility or practicality of such a task. Imagine that an EV needs about 200.000kms to break even in comparison to a conventional ICE car of about the same size, in terms of emissions produced (for EVs the production period is the massive emitting phase with its battery production being the most emissions-intensive phase) and assuming that the EV is only charged by renewables (for which I doubt that anyone has factored in the emissions that themselves have contributed with THEIR production phase - when calculating overall EV emissions). Unfortunately by 200.000 kms the battery needs ...replacement and the counter resets anew! Now to implement massive batteries fro grid stabilisation with battery production being so emission-intensive would mean that they'll need huge amounts of emissions to produce them and then you'll have the battery recycling problem with their extremely energy-intensive and pricy procedure. This whole ordeal seems to be more like a problem-creating scheme than a problem-solving one.

[@tomshackell]

@@C_R_O_M________ Indeed and it gets worse, that's not even looking at the scale of the issue. All the batteries deployed in every electric vehicle in the world in 2021 amounted to 286.2 GWh. The world's energy consumption is 303 GWh per minute. Meaning all the EV batteries in the world could power the world for less than a minute. If you crunch the historical data, even if all the renewable energy in Europe were connected on one giant grid (it really isn't) and you have 50,000 GWh of storage (175x all the EV batteries in the world, more than 5x all the pumped hydro in the world) you still need to overbuild your renewables by a more than a factor of 2 to not see blackouts with a 100% renewables plan. Overbuilding by a factor of 2 means to produce 100GW of reliable power you build turbines with an *average* output of 200GW, that'd be roughly 800GW nameplate capacity based on the 25% average capacity factor for wind power in Europe. That's because renewable energy production can sometimes drop by 50% below average for over a month, even if you connected up a large area like all of Europe. The numbers here are staggering, and to my mind this is simply never going to happen.

[@gibbogle9486]

A lot of energy is needed to produce 1000 wind turbines, but a lot is also needed to construct a coal-fired plant. Both costs need to be considered to make the comparison. Coal is a terrible option for CO2 and pollution reasons alone, regardless of $ cost. I agree with Gorozen that nuclear is the way to go.

[@JC-ed9yi]

Thank you! Your insights are very valuable.

[@goehringrozencwajg6675]

You are so welcome

[@gibbogle9486]

This is interesting and useful, but I have a problem. In talking about energy in vs energy out, installation energy costs are mixed with running energy costs. For solar, the main energy cost is in the construction and installation - e.g. the energy cost of mining the copper. There is no running cost associated with the copper. In the case of fossil fuels, the fuel delivery costs (mining, drilling, transportation) are running costs, i.e. they are continuous. I recognise that an effective running cost could be determined for the solar panel construction, installation and disposal if a lifetime of the panels is assumed. Maybe G &R have done this (although it wasn't mentioned), but the energy cost of the copper and some other components would need to be treated separately. I spoke too soon. Later Adam talks about the calculations incorporating lifetimes. Still, copper is in a separate category, since (I think) most of the copper is used in connecting the panels to each other and to the grid, and will not need to be replaced.

[@TheStaniG]

Just saw this posted to r/WallStreetUranium. Gotta say, I like the presentation and angle you guys take to approach this topic. Subbed.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Great video and you haven't even tackled/factored in the issue of RECYCLING and MAINTENANCE of wind turbines, solar panels and energy storage technology/batteries.

[@SharadDubeyKeepMoving]

Great research and summary. You basically talk about Energy Efficiency and Energy Pay Back Ratio. What are those numbers for Nuclear Plant.

[@fabiomerlin8820]

Very nice to hear more facts.

[@ThoriumEnergyAlliance]

Wow - someone in finance willing to tell the truth about renewable garbage and fraudulent climate goals - backing #Nuclear is just the cherry on top - THANK YOU

[@gibbogle9486]

The goals are not fraudulent, but the projections for achieving them are.

[@davidonly]

Turbine main bearings need replacing c 10 years in and this is a logistical nightmare in onshore, let alone in offshore wind.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Interesting! That was a detail I wasn't aware of. I imagine that offshore bearings wear off faster too...

[@krumdarakev8095]

What is the carbon payback period of a nuclear power station, compared to electricity produced from Natural Gas? I read it is around 7 years. In other words, the amount of CO2 spent during construction of the power station will equal the amount of CO2 released by a Gas powered station in 7 years ( providing that both Nuclear and Gas power stations has the same capacity in MW/GW).

[@MS-it2qn]

carboon payback period is a meaningless measure

[@C_R_O_M________]

Do they factor in the production emissions of a gas-powered plant too when they throw that 7 year figure?

[@gibbogle9486]

That sounds plausible. Considering that a nuclear plant might have a life of 60 years it sounds like a good deal.

[@zhaozhejiang5899]

really great insights into renewables, however what is the specific reference with relation to the IEA and BP's net zero reports where they state it reduce developed countries energy consumption by 20% and developing countries energy consumption by 15%?

[@joebrehm6010]

Can you kindly cite your sources re claims on the efficiency of input/output of the various sources of generation?

[@thewarrenbuffettspreadsheet]

The politicians in my country should see this video

[@cgolupus]

Are you sure about the ten years to recoup the energy invested in wind power? Visited a new wind farm in Holland recently, WIndpark Frysland, almost 400 MW. They said that the energy invested in material and transport is equal to 3-6 months for the lifespan of 25 years. Much less than ten years. Btw, great video and as interesting as your other material.

[@C_R_O_M________]

Netherlands is a flat country with many avenues to get to and, relatively, very easy installation (I doubt that these guys were telling you the truth too - just the production phase of those mammoth contraptions emits huge amounts of the gases they supposedly aleviate with their usage - people are incentivized to lie and even convince themselves that they're not) . Try calculating the same for a mountainous remote region or an offshore installation with massive cement bases at the bottom of the sea.

[@junogjuno195]

#EnergyDensityMatter !

[@gkschick6804]

Do you have a paper where these claims are documented and substantiated? Would add a ton of credibility to your thesis. Thanks!

[@michaelgreen3997]

the background music makes it very hard to understand what's being said. Please speak without music.

[@Bear1buff]

What do you see as solutions? Oil and Gas also have a rapidly decreasing EROI. This is a hidden tax on the economy, and I believe is the reason that despite near zero real interest rates, we have not experienced expected GDP growth.

[@krumdarakev8095]

They said they see nuclear energy being the solution. Of course it has its own problems such as proliferation. I can recommend a course on the Coursera website called Global Energy and Climate Policy, put together by SOAS University of London. It is very interesting and in-depth.

[@C_R_O_M________]

@@krumdarakev8095 As soon as you see "Climate policy" on the title, you know you are dealing with an emphatically partizan stance.

[@WimalSamarasinghe]

How is it that neither Leigh Goehring nor Adam Rozencwajg say anything about the biggest problem: Nuclear Waste Disposal?

[@C_R_O_M________]

Because there isn't one. All depleted fuels of the world can be contained in a football field (of a certain depth - not that deep).

[@axiomatik4312]

Nuclear waste needs to be recycled like the french do or how they did in the IFR, the integral fast reactor (closed by Democrats) Nuclear is not just one technology. There are many ways to do nuclear, what we have now is directly a result of US navy choices from the 50's because capitalism doesn't want to pay first mover costs. Govt have to step up and select develop best solution, the free market won't save us, it doesn't give a damn about us or the environment.

[@gibbogle9486]

That is a problem that has been exaggerated. Compared with the real damage that burning coal is causing, it is an insignificant problem.

[@paulrath7764]

What has allowed the present large build-out and political promotion of wind and solar across the West? Its massive amounts of printed central-bank money, at manipulated interest rates and the massive debt that entails. It would not have occurred without this stimulant. But cheap money being used to install inefficient "green" energy is going to mean massive energy-cost inflation in the future.

[@garry8390]

Not surprising to anyone who's been paying attention for the last two decades

[@bosund7417]

Great research, as always. I respect that you stick to the numbers and don’t want to speculate, but I suspect that the World Economic Forum has something up their sleeve that will ultimatley force their vision upon the world. Wether its UN troops invading countries over carbon emissions or forcing countries into ‘lockdowns’ over ‘pandemic safety’, or simply large population reductions as a result of high injection rates, the global powers-that-shouldn’t-be have the ability and the infrastructure in place to influence markets. The people at the top tend to get their way. “By 2030, you will own nothing and be happy” - WEF

[@davidjousset9411]

What is the core of your business? Are you investment fund?

[@Stockaholics]

Find the premise that is wrong and bet against it.

[@Eremite2109]

VlaTSav...

[@timjosling9298]

For the love of god lose the cheesy music background.

[@gibbogle9486]

It is a mystery to me why so many makers of videos insist on adding background music, which is often unpleasant and obscures the spoken words.

[@SharadDubeyKeepMoving]

I was looking at the GDP per capita, PPP (constant 2017 international $), did a frequency histogram, for year 2020, 48 countries had no data, 224 countries including missing ones for now have GDP per capita below 7876 USD Bin Frequency Cumulative % 1.0 224 50.00% 7876.7 78 67.41% 15752.5 57 80.13% 23628.2 29 86.61% 31503.9 15 89.96% 39379.6 13 92.86% 47255.4 11 95.31% 55131.1 10 97.54% 63006.8 5 98.66% 70882.5 2 99.11% 78758.3 0 99.11% 86634.0 1 99.33% 94509.7 2 99.78% 102385.4 0 99.78% More 1 100.00%