Looking at the multiple data sources at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source, there is several patterns that should be fairly clear. Gas and oil is very cheap to build, and the market price they can get out per generated MWh is higher.
> Look, I think nuclear is fine. But as a numerate and earnest environmentalist, I don't see where the case for it lies
Lets put this is in numerical estimated numbers.
An investor builds a wind farm. On average they produce a MWh that costed $35. For the period which the energy was produced they managed to sell it for $85 netting them a profit of $50.
An other investor builds a natural gas power plant. On average they produce a MWh that costed $45. Since they can choose when to produce it they managed to get an average price of $150, netting them a profit of $105.
As a balance sheet, $35 is a cheaper price than $45 when producing 1 MWh. $50 is however much less than $105, making the more expensive energy source the more profitable choice of investment.
Cost is just half the picture in any commercial venture. The daily energy price for 1 MWh varies heavily based on demand and supply. $50 per MWh one day could be $500 a few days later when supply is low and demands is high.
I would also describe myself as numerate and earnest environmentalist, and my view is similar to your but with a clear distinction. Right now we must stop burning fossil fuels. If it cost $45 to produce and they can earn $150, investors who only care about money will continue to invest in fossil fuels. That must stop. The climate will have won a partial victory when the investment into fossil fueled power plants are a proven poor investment, and then we can move on to the transport sector.
Looking at the multiple data sources at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source, there is several patterns that should be fairly clear. Gas and oil is very cheap to build, and the market price they can get out per generated MWh is higher.
> Look, I think nuclear is fine. But as a numerate and earnest environmentalist, I don't see where the case for it lies
Lets put this is in numerical estimated numbers.
An investor builds a wind farm. On average they produce a MWh that costed $35. For the period which the energy was produced they managed to sell it for $85 netting them a profit of $50.
An other investor builds a natural gas power plant. On average they produce a MWh that costed $45. Since they can choose when to produce it they managed to get an average price of $150, netting them a profit of $105.
As a balance sheet, $35 is a cheaper price than $45 when producing 1 MWh. $50 is however much less than $105, making the more expensive energy source the more profitable choice of investment.
Cost is just half the picture in any commercial venture. The daily energy price for 1 MWh varies heavily based on demand and supply. $50 per MWh one day could be $500 a few days later when supply is low and demands is high.
I would also describe myself as numerate and earnest environmentalist, and my view is similar to your but with a clear distinction. Right now we must stop burning fossil fuels. If it cost $45 to produce and they can earn $150, investors who only care about money will continue to invest in fossil fuels. That must stop. The climate will have won a partial victory when the investment into fossil fueled power plants are a proven poor investment, and then we can move on to the transport sector.