Pretzel Logic

[TSmith34, Inc.]

But if the world got smart and went huge on wind, solar, etc., Iran, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela could drown in their oil.  There are so many options.  But we continue to willfully make the worst, most destructive, illogical choices.

And Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. have recognized this for a few decades now and have been furiously diversifying their investments.

Cross posting this from the investing thread, where I have mentioned this company before:
https://investors.hasi.com/news/press-releases/detail/321/hasi-announces-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2025-results-with-new-investments-up-87-yy-to-a-record-4-3b-adjusted-roe-up-70-bps-to-13-4-and-adjusted-eps-up-10-to-2-70

Obviously these fools don't understand that their investments don't have any ROI. And sure, their ROE went from 12.7% to 13.4% to a projected ~17%, but that's probably because they are secretly investing in clean coal.

[rocky_warrior]

And Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc. have recognized this for a few decades now and have been furiously diversifying their investments.

Norway is an interesting story.  Mineral rich, but have always used hydro.  That may need to change soon:
https://cleantechnica.com/2026/04/03/norway-faces-energy-shortage-as-lack-of-winter-snow-depletes-reservoirs/

[Shaka Shart]

Norway is an interesting story.  Mineral rich, but have always used hydro.  That may need to change soon:
https://cleantechnica.com/2026/04/03/norway-faces-energy-shortage-as-lack-of-winter-snow-depletes-reservoirs/

Norway converting their boats to hydrogen already

[rocky_warrior]

Norway converting their boats to hydrogen already

No doubt, they're far ahead of most of the world, while also realizing they can exploit that same world.  That's leadership.

[Shaka Shart]

No doubt, they're far ahead of most of the world, while also realizing they can exploit that same world.  That's leadership.

The Phillip Morris of socialism

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

The Saudi's are investing in solar.  Aren't they building a city in the desert running all on solar?
I read that all the Arabian peninsula countries are investing in tourism to diversify their economies.

[WarriorFan]

Talk about CapEx! Nuclear is by FAR the highest.  You might do some more research.

Lol.  Filtered cigarettes are perfectly safe!

I won't deny that "modern" coal plants are much better (but still worse than natural gas, and not zero emission like solar and wind).  But most of our coal plants aren't new, and the CapEx of new ones is higher than solar and wind.

Nuclear has highest Capex however by far the lowest operating cost and longest life.  New technology is developing which reduces project timelines by installing smaller reactors with repeatable designs. 

PE is buying wind turbines to greenwash their other investments.  Nothing about the actual financial ROI, just making sure they have 3-4 pages of the annual report that keep the treehuggers away.  I have direct personal experience with this.

But it all comes back to handling base load.  Wind cannot do it because there's not always wind.  Solar cannot do it because of night.  Batteries are still too expensive to compensate at scale.  (that will change).  Even when the battery technology improves, solar is relevant only for a portion of the world, and that portion is not the most populous nor industrialized. 

Industry wants stable power at the lowest cost per kwh.  Right now, AI companies are buying $.19 to $.27/kwh solutions (diesel, reciprocating gas, gas turbines) as fast as they can because they need surety of supply of power.  Compare that to a profitable Nuclear or coal base cost of $0.03 to $.07/kwh and it's insane.  Take into account the opportunity cost of not doing it and it becomes reasonable.

Right now solar is the next best option, with straight solar possible below $0.1/kwh and with batteries in the sub $0.15 range.  Companies like that, BUT it's still MUCH higher CAPEX than a reciprocating solution, takes HUGE space, and is much slower to deploy. 

The only reason any of these really come into discussion is because there's not enough coal/nuclear base power.

In many years around this industry, I've never encountered a wind project for any purpose other than greenwashing.  Solar - there are some excellent practical solutions, but they were driven by greenwashing first... not economics. 

[rocky_warrior]

greenwashing

There is a valid discussion to be had about baseload, but your overuse of the word greenwashing, lumping offshore wind together with onshore, inaccurate nuclear information, and push for coal tell me you don't really want to have an honest discussion.

[Skatastrophy]

The Phillip Morris of socialism

I need to know what the Zyn/Snus of energy is so I can invest. What are the kids into

[MUBurrow]

In many years around this industry, I've never encountered a wind project for any purpose other than greenwashing.  Solar - there are some excellent practical solutions, but they were driven by greenwashing first... not economics. 

your overuse of the word greenwashing

Consumers have preferences for something other than the cheapest option all the time.  When was the last time anyone had an RC Cola? 

Its so dumb that when that same concept applies to energy, and for laughably more logical reasons, those preferences suddenly become a conspiratorial bastardization of the market.

[JWags85]

Consumers have preferences for something other than the cheapest option all the time.  When was the last time anyone had an RC Cola? 

Its so dumb that when that same concept applies to energy, and for laughably more logical reasons, those preferences suddenly become a conspiratorial bastardization of the market.

If this was in regards to green/renewable energy in general, I'd agree with you.  But if its specifically about wind power, then he potentially has a point and it can be about silly optics. 

I only say this cause I have a customer who ran an obsessive restructuring to become green.  The end aim was totally fine, but the timeline, methods, and way they did it was what was obsessive.  Anyways, one of the consultancies that pitched them on this was super pro-wind power and spoke glowingly about the environmental benefits of wind compared to not only fossil fuels, but other renewables, and how wind was the most "pure" and "harmless" form of energy.  Yes, pure and harmless were both used multiple times.

Well the consultancy didn't actually implement any of the energy source transfers or conversions, so as they went into the market, they found that purely wind sourced energy would be significantly pricier than solar and some hydro.  But the executives were hellbent on wind, cause of how pure and harmless it was.  A fiscal quarter later they ended up switching to a renewable blend cause of cost, cause money talks 

I'm not anti-green energy and I'm fully aware there is tons and tons of BS claims and data to diminish the potential and/or benefits of renewable energy by those who have a vested stake in continued reliance on fossil fuels, or other political/ideological oppositions.  One of my biggest hopes for science and technology is that, in my son's lifetime, renewable energy gets to a place where it wins and becomes the dominant energy source because its better, more efficient, and cheaper, not because there is an ideological battle it won over fossil fuels.  But there is also an entire parallel multi MULTI-billion dollar industry of emotional and morality based consulting and pseudo science around being "green" that preys on companies and executives, that ends up being a net negative to renewable energy as a movement. 

And I say this as someone who has worked with 2-3 different green energy consulting firms, had to have his company be "net neutral" certified 2 different times for 2 different organizations by 2 different methodologies...while working in an industry that is FLAGRANTLY wasteful and unconcerned with pollution and the environment (hello Indian manufacturing!) while simultaneously also being very focused on purely superficial "green" optics over the last 5-10 years as a selling point.  I know multiple smaller/mid sized companies who went green for one reason or another, and dropped it as soon as they were no longer required by a large customer or organization not due to any moral or ideological reasons, but because they were sick of being ripped off and manipulated with BS by the intermediaries who were assisting or "certifying".

[Shaka Shart]

Nuclear has highest Capex however by far the lowest operating cost and longest life.  New technology is developing which reduces project timelines by installing smaller reactors with repeatable designs. 

PE is buying wind turbines to greenwash their other investments.  Nothing about the actual financial ROI, just making sure they have 3-4 pages of the annual report that keep the treehuggers away.  I have direct personal experience with this.

But it all comes back to handling base load.  Wind cannot do it because there's not always wind.  Solar cannot do it because of night.  Batteries are still too expensive to compensate at scale.  (that will change).  Even when the battery technology improves, solar is relevant only for a portion of the world, and that portion is not the most populous nor industrialized. 

Industry wants stable power at the lowest cost per kwh.  Right now, AI companies are buying $.19 to $.27/kwh solutions (diesel, reciprocating gas, gas turbines) as fast as they can because they need surety of supply of power.  Compare that to a profitable Nuclear or coal base cost of $0.03 to $.07/kwh and it's insane.  Take into account the opportunity cost of not doing it and it becomes reasonable.

Right now solar is the next best option, with straight solar possible below $0.1/kwh and with batteries in the sub $0.15 range.  Companies like that, BUT it's still MUCH higher CAPEX than a reciprocating solution, takes HUGE space, and is much slower to deploy. 

The only reason any of these really come into discussion is because there's not enough coal/nuclear base power.

In many years around this industry, I've never encountered a wind project for any purpose other than greenwashing.  Solar - there are some excellent practical solutions, but they were driven by greenwashing first... not economics. 

PE is buying wind turbines because nobody can get gas turbines and they are quick to build relative to everything else besides solar. And because they generate decent returns, 5-10% IRR for low risk investments.

Nuclear plants are what, 1% if that? Smaller Modular maybe improves that but those are not commercially deployed at scale yet.

Are you arguing that Brookfield, Blackrock, and all the other private equity firms are spending 10b for each all cash transaction to Greenwash? Do you sincerely believe that the brand image value play in greenwashing is worth hundreds of billions annually?

I would love to know how your direct personal experience with this 100% greenwashing only makes you so confident because as someone else who works in energy, I can assure you that you're not even close to being right.

Again, Be serious.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

The Scots obviously can't calculate ROI

[JWags85]

The Scots obviously can't calculate ROI

Not to be that shrieking meme, but do you have a legit source?  I saw something similar not long ago, but everything I see with that figure is from a social media meme picture or post.  The best similar data I ever find in actual articles is how at times wind power has provided more than 100% of Scotland's need, but also how this is brief periods because 1) wind power is inconsistent by both location and time of year and 2) energy needs are also fluid based on time of year so wind providing X gigawatts in one month may be more than needed but X gigawatts is significantly under need in other months.

Again, I'm not a renewables hater or opponent, just fully cognizant of how much attempted "GOTCHA" BS there is in the debate, whether to discredit or champion.  And I think the burden of proof/cultural mindset shift is still on renewables until they become undeniably cheaper/more efficient, as I mentioned in my previous post, so vague claims or slanted data just give the monster incumbent fossil fuel side more ammunition.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Not to be that shrieking meme, but do you have a legit source?  I saw something similar not long ago, but everything I see with that figure is from a social media meme picture or post.  The best similar data I ever find in actual articles is how at times wind power has provided more than 100% of Scotland's need, but also how this is brief periods because 1) wind power is inconsistent by both location and time of year and 2) energy needs are also fluid based on time of year so wind providing X gigawatts in one month may be more than needed but X gigawatts is significantly under need in other months.

I mean, duh? Of course the wind varies, as does demand. No where is the claim made that they are powered 100% by wind 100% of the time.

Everything I am seeing is that the specific problem in Great Britain is that they are paying the companies money to shut off the power they are generating because the grid can't handle it. So, grid upgrades are needed, as is enhanced energy storage capability.

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/scotland-wind-energy-renewable-power-electricity-wwf-scotland-a7183006.html

See also California, which at times struggles with what do with their excess solar output.