Comments by "Archangel17" (@MDP1702) on "Bloomberg Originals"
channel.
-
33
-
26
-
12
-
7
-
6
-
4
-
@foxfire5235
Rail is most definitely not cheaper than shipping. Yes it is around 2-3 times faster, but most trade between (for example) EU and china is not time sensitive, if it is, often it will be shipped by air. In most cases the reduced cost is more than worth the extra time.
Hell, shipping companies even often operate at reduced speed, just to save some on fuel and costs. If time was of great importance they wouldn't do this.
The difference in scale is just too big.
The 'hidden' cost of a navy is irrevelevant, countries would still have navies anyway, whether trade goes on land or by sea.
the train is 14.85km long!
And which train might this be? Since the longest operational trains are around 4km long, never has a train even breached 10km length for so far I know. A train is limited in length by many different factors: traction, couplings, curves, gradients, braking, ... And this is just the technical reasons. From a logistic perspective it isn't really interesting to have really long trains, overall they don't provide much added benefit and can even have a negative outcome.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bademoxy I don't know Ontario's green plan, so without more information I can't comment on it, but costing 8 times more than nuclear is ridiculous, either you are using way too cheap numbers for nuclear or Ontario must have started the transition really hard several years ago when renewables were still much more expensive.
After looking into it, it indeed looks like Ontario was just really early. By 2015 they had 9% renewable, by 2018 10%, 7% being wind. Now lets look at how the prices evolved, in 2009 (when Ontario launched the GEA) wind LCOE was around 135$/MWh, for solar 359$/MWh. In 2015 it was 55$/MWh and 64$/MWh respectively and in 2018 42$/MWh and 43$/MWh (large installations and for solar prices might be higher in Ontario). Considering this Ontario just installed "a lot" of renewables at a time when its prices was still very high. And the installed capacity isn't becoming cheaper overtime, only newly installed capacity. So all the renewables installed before 2015 will remain costly for their +-25 year lifespan, at best being drowned out by more cheaper generation in the coming years.
As for nuclear, which prices did you use? Those from the old powerplants or actual new figures?
1
-
@jcmazrizona No, the infrastructure isn't far far away, the only thing really missing is storage, which by 2030 is expected to be cheap enough for renewable+storage to be competitive with most other generation methods. As for nuclear, that has over time only increased in cost, current new nuclear plants in the west are rated at something like 60-70$/MWh when construction finishes, while renewables are rated at around 40$/MWh (large scale) and still falling, though much slower now than in the past years, probably going to truly flatten out at around 10-25$/MWh by 2040.
Now, overal system costs for renewables are still more expensive once you get to more than +-25-30% renewable, but that is between 25-100% more, definitely doable to get down enough by 2030-2035
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1