Great video as always, Arjun. I’m curious what your thoughts are on domestic companies supplementing their depleting shale resources with legacy “conventional” assets.
I don’t think there is big growth there, but to the extent there was meat on the bone when the industry started chasing the shiny object of shale rock, can we now pivot back and arrest some corporate production declines with a more stable conventional production stream? Or alternatively, have those skillsets been atrophied in our remaining big companies beyond the point of rehabilitation?
Obviously, I believe there are some who still have the skills, but largely we are niche groups and not developing needle-moving resources for the very large companies that have survived the consolidation.
Thank you NTX as always. I think this could make sense for some companies, obviously not all. Investors won't like any moves toward "diversification" but with the sector still out of favor and valuations inexpensive, there are some good long-term moves to be made.
There's something about the so called LCOE for solar that I can't get past and maybe you understand it better than me and can explain it. Because solar is not dispatchable it requires duplicate backup generation. Always. So if I have the choice of just building a natgas station, or building solar plus natgas why would I do the latter? Because I can't build just the solar, even with a few hours of storage. The LCOE for solar should include the capital cost of the backup generation, but it doesn't so it seems like a fake number.
Also, the upfront capital costs and maintenance costs for peaker plants are significantly higher than for a natgas base load plant. Fuel efficiency for a peaker is also significantly less than for a base load plant. So the comparison Next Era is making comparing solar plus 4 hours storage to a peaker is not an apples to apples comparison. They should be comparing the cost of solar + peaker backup to the cost of a nat gas base load plant.
I agree completely. The test of that hypothesis is to ask oneself, especially a modernized “westerner” is there any cost in which you’d disconnect your home (or business) from the grid and rely solely on solar + 4hrs of batteries? What about 8 hours? What about 24 hours? The solar value is only realized when it isn’t required to be reliable and dispatchable. So someone coming up the energy wealth curve sees some solar as infinitely better than current zero energy. Or someone who is always connected to a reliable backup supply from a grid. In the instances they need backup, they’re literally taking the power from someone else and/or causing leaker plants to activate which drives rates up for everyone else. It is an inherently unfair practice and we’ve been gaslit to believe it is a “levelized cost”. I say RUBBISH!
Great video as always, Arjun. I’m curious what your thoughts are on domestic companies supplementing their depleting shale resources with legacy “conventional” assets.
I don’t think there is big growth there, but to the extent there was meat on the bone when the industry started chasing the shiny object of shale rock, can we now pivot back and arrest some corporate production declines with a more stable conventional production stream? Or alternatively, have those skillsets been atrophied in our remaining big companies beyond the point of rehabilitation?
Obviously, I believe there are some who still have the skills, but largely we are niche groups and not developing needle-moving resources for the very large companies that have survived the consolidation.
Thank you NTX as always. I think this could make sense for some companies, obviously not all. Investors won't like any moves toward "diversification" but with the sector still out of favor and valuations inexpensive, there are some good long-term moves to be made.
There's something about the so called LCOE for solar that I can't get past and maybe you understand it better than me and can explain it. Because solar is not dispatchable it requires duplicate backup generation. Always. So if I have the choice of just building a natgas station, or building solar plus natgas why would I do the latter? Because I can't build just the solar, even with a few hours of storage. The LCOE for solar should include the capital cost of the backup generation, but it doesn't so it seems like a fake number.
Also, the upfront capital costs and maintenance costs for peaker plants are significantly higher than for a natgas base load plant. Fuel efficiency for a peaker is also significantly less than for a base load plant. So the comparison Next Era is making comparing solar plus 4 hours storage to a peaker is not an apples to apples comparison. They should be comparing the cost of solar + peaker backup to the cost of a nat gas base load plant.
I agree completely. The test of that hypothesis is to ask oneself, especially a modernized “westerner” is there any cost in which you’d disconnect your home (or business) from the grid and rely solely on solar + 4hrs of batteries? What about 8 hours? What about 24 hours? The solar value is only realized when it isn’t required to be reliable and dispatchable. So someone coming up the energy wealth curve sees some solar as infinitely better than current zero energy. Or someone who is always connected to a reliable backup supply from a grid. In the instances they need backup, they’re literally taking the power from someone else and/or causing leaker plants to activate which drives rates up for everyone else. It is an inherently unfair practice and we’ve been gaslit to believe it is a “levelized cost”. I say RUBBISH!