The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
One thing to be noted in Jerome's "wind killed by volatile gas prices" is that if a substantial share of windfall gains by wind turbines in a are channeled into more construction of wind turbines, then those new wind turbines will have even bigger windfall gains during upswing periods, financing more construction.
This would be a construction boom and bust with gas prices, but one could envision the windfall-financed turbines as paying a revenue share back to the windfall providing turbines, rather than financing forward, when the price drops below the long term finance cost of the windfall providing turbines.
So the financed turbines "save", eg, 50% of their windfall gains in more wind turbine capacity. If they have "seeded" an additional 10% capacity when the downswing hits, they are now selling from 110% of the capacity on the same fixed cost, so the effective fixed cost is 9% lower. If they have "seeded" an additional 20% capacity, they are now selling from 120% of the capacity on the same fixed cost, so the effective fixed cost is 17% lower.
Indeed, a region or major municipality that was in a position to publicly fund a "seed farm" on a revenue share rather than fixed annual obligation basis could have an even firmer footing, since the "seed farm" could be set to be bankruptcy proof with 100% net revenue share at or below the target capital cost level and 50% net revenue share to the public owner and 50% net revenue share to seeding new capacity on the increment above the target capital cost level. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
Given that it takes at least two years from the time you start committing serious money to a wind farm and until it goes online, this means that you have to be able to predict gas prices 2-4 years into the future. If you can do that, you can make better money playing liar's poker in the futures market.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
The point of the futures market is that if you're in the wind business it shouldn't matter to you what the price of gas is since you can hedge it. In other words, at 2-4 years ahead you can lock in a price for gas if you need to.
Also, it doesn't matter what your view of gas prices is, since the only price you can lock is the futures price.
At least that's the theory, and I wouldn't be surprised if it didn't work in practice. I'd appreciate hearing from Jerome about how it actually works in practice. So, in what may be my last act of "advising", I'll advise you to cut the jargon. -- My old PhD advisor, to me, 26/2/11
But at financing, you need to have entered into your power purchase agreements, in order to lock in the revenue you need to justify the funding (if you are not in a FIT regime), so you - or rather the buyer - have made at that point whatever bet you wanted to make on power/gas prices. Wind power
It avoids the boom and bust in the building cycle by avoiding the boom part. That's not the part we want to avoid. And since a substantial share of the boom and bust falls to German capital goods industry.
To the extent that we can shelter windpower from under predatory state institutions with a feed-in tariff, that's a superior option, but if we cannot get windpower out from under predatory state institutions, better to structure things so that there is a boom while busts can be ridden out without bankruptcy.
In terms of the "seed farm" wind turbines, structured as described they survive through a bust and reproduce when experiencing windfall gains. And every windfall gain financed turbine only needs to cover minimal operating and maintenance costs.
Once the prorated "seed farm" capital costs over the output of the "seed farm" and "seeded farm" are below the capital costs plus lowest fuel cost of gas turbines, the whole complex becomes always-reproducing, and the boom and bust is about the rate of reproduction.
All assuming, of course, a relatively small open economy with cross transmission into a larger regional demand sink. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
A substantial difference with accelerated amortisation with windfall gains is that accelerated amortisation does not roll out more wind power capacity, and so does not have the same positive impact on Sweden's net exports.
I think you're tacitly assuming that the "seeded" farms have a lower required rate of return on equity than the "seeding" farms. After all, if the "seeded" farms make sense on a seeding basis with constant cost of equity, then they should also make sense on an accelerated amortisation basis, assuming that you have available, equally priced, equity from other sources. As long as wind is a small(ish) fraction of total real capital investment, the latter does not strike me as an unduly unreasonable assumption.
And since a substantial share of the boom and bust falls to German capital goods industry.
Yes, if you allow a boom-and-bust cycle, you'll keep production in Germany. But if you have stable onshore demand, you'll get onshore industry (the economics of transporting windmills relative to transporting the raw materials say that the manufacturing will relocate to the vicinity of the demand). That's why you want to avoid a boom-and-bust cycle in the first place.
Accelerating amortization of finance capital funded windpower under predatory state market arrangements can reduce exposure to the being bankrupted by a downswing ~ and downswings are to expected, since the ride down from Peak Oil will be a bumpy one ~ but cannot eliminate insolvency risk. By contrast, a pure equity holding with no fixed obligation has no insolvency risk if the operating costs themselves are below the price maker's capital cost. I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by ARGeezer - May 24 4 comments
by DoDo - May 25 1 comment
by DoDo - May 23 43 comments
by Nomad - May 10 14 comments
by JakeS - May 15 7 comments
by Metatone - May 14 85 comments
by ARGeezer - May 16 15 comments
by gmoke - May 17 2 comments
by DoDo - May 251 comment
by ARGeezer - May 244 comments
by DoDo - May 2343 comments
by gmoke - May 172 comments
by ARGeezer - May 1615 comments
by JakeS - May 157 comments
by Metatone - May 1485 comments
by DoDo - May 1211 comments
by Nomad - May 1014 comments
by Migeru - May 78 comments
by marco - May 782 comments
by Migeru - May 6100 comments
by Ted Welch - May 35 comments
by afew - May 341 comments
by ceebs - May 26 comments
by gmoke - Apr 301 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Apr 3067 comments
by joelado - Apr 2954 comments
by Metatone - Apr 2854 comments
by ATinNM - Apr 275 comments