I do not usually buy individual company stocks, but I’m tempted with these.
Impressive performance for an electric utility
Get Free Report
is one of the largest power producers and retail energy providers in the U.S. and owns 41 gigawatts of nuclear, coal, natural gas, and solar power generation. The stock is also the best performer in the S&P 500 in 2024, beating out other AI-related names including NVIDIACorp. which was the best performer in 2023.n-in-2024)
it is interesting utilites have performed so well, with dividends too. They’ll feed AI so win win Q: is it baked in or more to come?
Generally, as interest rates come down, utilities perform better.
And here’s a reason why building new nuclear is a waste of time and money:
I know that you are afraid of nuclear, but really? I did not read past the first paragraph of propaganda, but how can you justify the title as anything more than click-bait? It seems to be something that P. T. Barnum, Pravda, or the NYT might embrace.
The title seems like a huge win for the country. It implies that we’ve added the equivalent of 20 nuke plants to our power grid. If that’s the case, why are AI companies paying nuclear plants to resume operations and/or crank up capacity? Is the propaganda article saying that we currently need more than 20 new nuke plants?
The article admits that wind and solar are not ready to replace hydrocarbon fuels now and “monstrous action” is needed for them to be ready. On the other hand, nuclear power plants are known to be able to replace them now. Luckily, your radical views are not held by major companies and utilities and more nuclear is in our future.
Of course, wind and sun droughts can last longer than the longest-duration batteries currently available, meaning they are not a panacea. A fully clean grid will also require a vast upgrade in US transmission lines – for example, to shift renewable energy swiftly across the country to where it is needed. The permitting reform to allow this is a bitterly contested issue, with many environmental groups opposed to looser regulations they say will only empower fossil fuel concerns.
But batteries should be able to play an increasingly strong supporting role to the energy transition, with the International Energy Agency last week calling them “a key source of dispatchable capacity globally”. The IEA forecasts that batteries will provide about 40% of all short-term electricity flexibility needs worldwide by 2050.
“There are a lot of changes happening but monstrous action is still needed if we are going to make this energy transition,” said Moura.
Pay attention. I wrote “building new nuclear is a waste of time and money”. Restarting or cranking up existing plants is very likely cheaper and faster.
My views are not that radical – I’m not opposed to nuclear, as long as it’s NIMBY (I want it far enough and down-wind from major population centers). But new nuclear is much more expensive ($billions) and takes forever (20+ years) to build, at least historically. Even small-scale is more expensive than solar per kW. Solar with battery storage is faster, cheaper, easier and is growing at a good pace, as mentioned in the article.
As the article states, the current state of the art of Solar and battery technology is not sufficient to provide a stable power source for the long-term power shortages that are foreseeable. You are quoting a price for a partial solution and comparing it to a complete solution that can provide power 24/7 with statistically insignificant periods of outages. The article speculates that a nationwide grid might be able to produce stable power, but did not provide any references. No such grid exists at this time and the article states it will be a “monstrous task” to build one.
There is Bipartisan support in Congress for changes to the nuclear regulatory commission to speed up the process of approval of nuclear power plants. That will go along way to reducing their cost.
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/explainer/nuclear-energy-permit-license-reform/
Jan 22, 2024
While I support the idea of less government interference, the number of terrorists that border czar Harris has allowed into the country makes me want more oversight on infrastructure, utility, and military construction. Come to think of it, I should probably lobby for more oversight on farming and other food production/distribution facilities.
OTOH, it probably makes more sense to not let them into the country in the first place, and run the ones out that are already here illegally. We can also undo some of the recent legislation that him/her/they/them has/have used to increase immigration of non-skilled workers. Our pet and protected species populations would be safer.
I agree that we need to harden our infrastructure against terrorist attacks, but the regulations imposed by the NRC have nothing to do with this. They’re just nitpicky adherence to regulations with little or no engineering or science basis.
I think a major danger is an October 7 style attack from the thousands of military age men admitted by Harris Biden. For a fictional but realistic description, See the book, The Attack by Kurt Schlichter
https://www.amazon.com/Attack-Kurt-Schlichter-ebook/dp/B0CR1N7R8T
by [Kurt Schlichter]
Solar and wind produce much less power per land area than nuclear and hydrocarbon power stations. They require huge plants and electrical transmission lines. These are getting pushback from the “little people” like farmers and Indian tribes
Great. I don’t think anybody builds them faster than 5 years. Much better than the 20 it takes in US. How much money will it save? They probably don’t start building until all the permits are in place. Actual construction probably only takes a few years. So they’ll save on approval cost and carrying cost of the land, which I’d guess is less than a quarter of total cost.
The cost of building solar+battery has also been decreasing, so it’s not obvious if new nuclear construction can again become competitive in terms of $/Watt, even if this proposal is adopted.
I think this problem is regional, meaning a country like Germany could be entirely covered by clouds for a few days. I don’t think this is an issue for California due to its geography. CA avoided power shortages during this past summer’s heatwave due to a huge increase in battery storage capacity.
Not all “watts” are the same. You keep comparing the cost of an intermittent partial solution to a solution that provides stable power with the availability required for utilities. Even if you throw in battery, as discussed by your article, current battery technology does not have the capacity to overcome foreseeable outages of solar and wind.
Your speculation is all well and good, but it does not build a reliable system. Companies who have billions of dollars on the line are not going with solar and batteries, but are going with nuclear power.
I think they’re the only ones that need a constant supply. They’re probably planning to spend the next few decades training AI models 24/7 while competing for the best one.
So what’s best utilities ETF that would hedge green and non green utilities?
Nuclear reactors provide that power repeatedly. Batteries provide it once. Those “20 nuclear reactors worth of batteries” will supply 20 gigawatts of power for a miniscule fraction of the time 20 reactors will supply that same 20 gigawatts of power.
Batteries help balance demand over time. They do not help meet total demand. There is simply no rational way to equate the two.
If it’s building 20 GW of battery storage capacity or building 20 GW of nuclear reactor capacity, the batteries are clearly the waste of time and money.
Depends on how much time and money each costs, and the demand, doesn’t it?
Which is why Germany re-opened coal plants and extended the operating lives of nuc plants … because it was much quicker and cheaper.
When those batteries supply 20GW for a couple hours, and the power plant supplies 20GWs for 50 years, the batteries barely count as a rounding error no matter how relatively cheaper they may be.
How many hours a day would you like for power to your house or job to be shut off?