FMG - Fortescue Ltd

[dat111]

Yeah, if you are ignoring the fact that they will also be using solar and hydro.

But even your number of 22,500 doesn’t seem to crazy, as you said the USA installs 3000 per year, over 10 years that’s 30,000.

OK the cost of building a wind Turbine averges ~$1.3-$2.2M/MW... so if we need 450,000 MW it would cost...
$558 Billion Dollars - $990 Billion Dollars US...

How much do wind turbines cost?

www.windustry.org

For comparison the largest solar park in the world is the Bhadla Solar Park which cost $1.3B US and generates 2,245 MW... So the cost to generate 450000 MW... would be $260 Billion Dollars USD if the plant was built under the same constraints in India... I don't think that Australia costs are the same as India costs...

Bhadla Solar Park - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Value Collector]

OK the cost of building a wind Turbine averges ~$1.3-$2.2M/MW... so if we need 450,000 MW it would cost...
$558 Billion Dollars - $990 Billion Dollars US...

How much do wind turbines cost?

www.windustry.org

For comparison the largest solar park in the world is the Bhadla Solar Park which cost $1.3B US and generates 2,245 MW... So the cost to generate 450000 MW... would be $260 Billion Dollars USD if the plant was built under the same constraints in India... I don't think that Australia costs are the same as India costs...

Bhadla Solar Park - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What is your point? Are you worried the world doesn’t have that kind of capital to deploy over 10years?

Wind turbines are already being installed all over the world including in Australia and making a profit by selling the electricity into the market, so their upfront cost is obviously a deterrent of the revenue they generate over their lives covers that cost plus a decent profit margin.

If FMG are able to set up hydrogen electrolisers and are able to convert the electricity to hydrogen, Ammonia or other higher value liquid fuels, then it might even increase the revenue they get for the electricity generated and their turbines, solar panels, hydro etc could be even more profitable than ones that just sell electricity into the grid.

Don’t let big numbers discourage you, there is a lot of money sloshing around the world looking for a long term home, and if you have a way to deploy billions of dollars into assets that generate say 10%-12% return, you will do very well, and loads of institutions will be happy to buy your bonds if you promise them 6% for a senior position, especially if it’s “Green”.

 

[Value Collector]

What is your point? Are you worried the world doesn’t have that kind of capital to deploy over 10years?

Wind turbines are already being installed all over the world including in Australia and making a profit by selling the electricity into the market, so their upfront cost is obviously a deterrent of the revenue they generate over their lives covers that cost plus a decent profit margin.

If FMG are able to set up hydrogen electrolisers and are able to convert the electricity to hydrogen, Ammonia or other higher value liquid fuels, then it might even increase the revenue they get for the electricity generated and their turbines, solar panels, hydro etc could be even more profitable than ones that just sell electricity into the grid.

Don’t let big numbers discourage you, there is a lot of money sloshing around the world looking for a long term home, and if you have a way to deploy billions of dollars into assets that generate say 10%-12% return, you will do very well, and loads of institutions will be happy to buy your bonds if you promise them 6% for a senior position, especially if it’s “Green”.

Oops, I meant to say their upfront cost is NOT a deterrent.

 

[wayneL]

Oops, I meant to say their upfront cost is NOT a deterrent.

Yes but however the upfront and ongoing environmental cost should be.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes but however the upfront and ongoing environmental cost should be.

Obviously you compare it to the alternatives and make a decision, there is no doubt that solar, wind and hydro are better in most cases than coal, oil and gas especially when you factor in the modern version of wind and solar are being made more and more recyclable.

 

[dat111]

Here is some interesting math. 14420 Mtoe (Million tonnes of oil equivalents) was reported as being used in the world...
1 Mtoe = 11.63 TW...
1 TW = 1,000,000 MW. So 1.677X 10^11 MW is how many MW the world uses... About 11% of the world energy production is renewable... So 1.49X10^11 MW of additional renewable energy is needed. If it costs $260 billion for 450 MW... Then $86,237,432 Billion ($86,237 trillion) would be needed to go all renewable energy... The gross world product is $75.59 Trillion dollars... If all of the gross world product would be used to convert to renewable energy, it will take 1140.85 years....

The human race better learn how to adopt to a greener earth with more water and more plant life if CO2 is that detrimental...

 

[divs4ever]

did you know plants breathe in CO2 during daylight , maybe all we need to do is stop cutting down so many trees for useless things ( like car parks , and newspaper , and paper bags )

 

[Value Collector]

Here is some interesting math. 14420 Mtoe (Million tonnes of oil equivalents) was reported as being used in the world...
1 Mtoe = 11.63 TW...
1 TW = 1,000,000 MW. So 1.677X 10^11 MW is how many MW the world uses... About 11% of the world energy production is renewable... So 1.49X10^11 MW of additional renewable energy is needed. If it costs $260 billion for 450 MW... Then $86,237,432 Billion ($86,237 trillion) would be needed to go all renewable energy... The gross world product is $75.59 Trillion dollars... If all of the gross world product would be used to convert to renewable energy, it will take 1140.85 years....

The human race better learn how to adopt to a greener earth with more water and more plant life if CO2 is that detrimental...

If you looked back 120 years, and tried to tell people that we are going to get rid of horses and replace them with cars, and to do it we were going to have to build massive oil production, oil refining and refueling infrastructure all around the globe, some people would have done similar math to you and said it was impossible.

But we did build that infrastructure and at the same time we also spent even more building the electric grids around the world, not to mention the roads and highways system too that didn’t exist 120 years ago.

 

[Value Collector]

did you know plants breathe in CO2 during daylight , maybe all we need to do is stop cutting down so many trees for useless things ( like car parks , and newspaper , and paper bags )

Trees take in CO2 and use it build them selves, plants and animals are literally made of Carbon when that plant or animal dies it releases CO2 back into the atmosphere as it breaks down.

The problem with Burning fossil fuels is that they are made out of plants and animals that died millions of years ago, whos CO2 had been locked away for millions of years, so by burning them at the rate we are we are adding much more CO2 into the atmosphere than the world as it is now evolved to live with.

Sure planting a few more trees and letting them grow will soak up some CO2, but it can’t soak up millions of years of stored CO2 in the next 50 years.

 

[Dona Ferentes]

If you looked back 120 years, and tried to tell people that we are going to get rid of horses and replace them with cars, and to do it we were going to have to build massive oil production, oil refining and refueling infrastructure all around the globe, some people would have done similar math to you and said it was impossible.

But we did build that infrastructure and at the same time we also spent even more building the electric grids around the world, not to mention the roads and highways system too that didn’t exist 120 years ago.

It is a very interesting time; the mobilisation of capital for energy transition is only just getting organised.

 

[Value Collector]

It is a very interesting time; the mobilisation of capital for energy transition is only just getting organised.

Yep, and not to mention that once the transition is going and the market totally accepts that this is the direction we are heading, the replacement capital from the fossil fuel sector will start flowing to green energy too.

Eg, it takes billions of dollars of spending every year to keep the fossil fuels flowing, eg drilling new oil and gas wells as the old one deplete, starting new coal mines and the old ones empty, replacing sections of oil refineries or building new ones, replacing oil tanks, and oil gathering lines etc etc.

As this old infrastructure depletes and wears out, the money that would normally be spent replacing it each year can flow to new types of infrastructure.

 

[divs4ever]

Trees take in CO2 and use it build them selves, plants and animals are literally made of CO2, when that plant or animal does it releases CO2 back into the atmosphere as it breaks down.

The problem with Burning fossil fuels is that they are made out of plants and animals that died millions of years ago, whos CO2 had been locked away for millions of years, so by burning them at the rate we are we are adding much more CO2 into the atmosphere than the world as it is now evolved to live with.

Sure planting a few more trees and letting them grow will soak up some CO2, but it can’t soak up millions of years of stored CO2 in the next 50 years.

well we could start be cutting fewer trees/shrubs down in the first place ( and yes that will mean less coal in a million years time , but we might have better energy generation by then )

imagine less newspapers and paper straws just a tiny step , but it is a step forward

 

[divs4ever]

Yep, and not to mention that once the transition is going and the market totally accepts that this is the direction we are heading, the replacement capital from the fossil fuel sector will start flowing to green energy too.

Eg, it takes billions of dollars of spending every year to keep the fossil fuels flowing, eg drilling new oil and gas wells as the old one deplete, starting new coal mines and the old ones empty, replacing sections of oil refineries or building new ones, replacing oil tanks, and oil gathering lines etc etc.

As this old infrastructure depletes and wears out, the money that would normally be spent replacing it each year can flow to new types of infrastructure.

the money MIGHT , but history suggests it won't be

 

[Value Collector]

the money MIGHT , but history suggests it won't be

Well what I am saying is that once the transition is under way and companies are no longer looking to invest in new fossil fuels (just like no new coal plants are getting built in australia now) The bond holders and bankers etc will still want to be investing money some where, and they will be looking to the new infrastructure investments to soak up that cash.

 

[Value Collector]

well we could start be cutting fewer trees/shrubs down in the first place ( and yes that will mean less coal in a million years time , but we might have better energy generation by then )

imagine less newspapers and paper straws just a tiny step , but it is a step forward

Cutting less tree down is obviously good, but as I said it won’t soak up the Billions of tonnes of Carbon we are adding to the atmosphere every year by burning coal and oil.

For example the average family home burns about 10 tonnes worth of carbon a year, but It is very unlikely that their trees in their back yard will be putting on 10 tonnes of weight in new wood growth a year.

Their trees would be lucky to put enough weight on to offset the carbon used to run their lawn mower and whipper snipper.

Trees only soak up so much, and once a Forrest is established the growing trees barely soak up enough carbon to offset the carbon released by the dead and rotting trees.

There is no way around it except to slow down and eventually stop burning the stored carbon in fossil fuels.

———————
But yes there is already lots of groups and carbon neutralising companies planting more trees.

 

[divs4ever]

Well what I am saying is that once the transition is under way and companies are no longer looking to invest in new fossil fuels (just like no new coal plants are getting built in australia now) The bond holders and bankers etc will still want to be investing money some where, and they will be looking to the new infrastructure investments to soak up that cash.

well there is an agenda to discourage investment in fossil fuels ( to parallel the ESG trend )

currently corporate bond offerings don't have a high enough reward factor to attract me , but maybe that will change ( since they have made it harder to buy bank hybrids )

a possible outcome is only minnows ( like me ) and vultures will invest in fossil fuel projects ( and exploration ) ,

good luck if you invest in the ESG stuff they seem to have thrown corporate governance under the bus

 

[Value Collector]

well there is an agenda to discourage investment in fossil fuels ( to parallel the ESG trend )

currently corporate bond offerings don't have a high enough reward factor to attract me , but maybe that will change ( since they have made it harder to buy bank hybrids )

a possible outcome is only minnows ( like me ) and vultures will invest in fossil fuel projects ( and exploration ) ,

good luck if you invest in the ESG stuff they seem to have thrown corporate governance under the bus

I invest in both fossil fuels and renewable energy, because I understand that we are moving towards green energy, but in the mean time we will still need oil and gas, and that gas will play a big part in transitioning off coal.

So the way I see it playing out is that energy coal will be the first energy source to see major declines, followed years later by oil, however natural gas especially sea Bourne LNG will actually grow for a while to fill some of the gap coal leaves, before stabilising and then eventually declining in the 2040’s

eventually probably some time in the late 2030’s new gas field development will slow and eventually stop, and natural gas supply will shrink as the existing fields deplete into the 2040’s

Over this time all the dollars that would have had to flow into fossils will flow into renewables, for example at some stage Woodside will have to make the choice between investing a few billion into a new gas fields with a 25 year life, or investing those billions into some renewable infrastructure that by that time will probably be tried and tested and they know it is profitable.

 

[divs4ever]

I invest in both fossil fuels and renewable energy, because I understand that we are moving towards green energy, but in the mean time we will still need oil and gas, and that gas will play a big part in transitioning off coal.

So the way I see it playing out is that energy coal will be the first energy source to see major declines, followed years later by oil, however natural gas especially sea Bourne LNG will actually grow for a while to fill some of the gap coal leaves, before stabilising and then eventually declining in the 2040’s

eventually probably some time in the late 2030’s new gas field development will slow and eventually stop, and natural gas supply will shrink as the existing fields deplete into the 2040’s

Over this time all the dollars that would have had to flow into fossils will flow into renewables, for example at some stage Woodside will have to make the choice between investing a few billion into a new gas fields with a 25 year life, or investing those billions into some renewable infrastructure that by that time will probably be tried and tested and they know it is profitable.

and how long will those renewable energy generators last , i have two solar arrays ( out of three ) that says about 5 years until extra major expenditure ( i wonder about the carbon footprint to replace those parts ) and the wind turbines have their wear issues as well , meanwhile California has found out hydro can have issues ( and foreseeable ones if you believe in climate change )

 

[UMike]

Can we stop this Green scam propaganda (esp on this thread) and get back to the reality of FMG exporting, highly in demand, Iron Ore that will not cease no matter how much the alarmists dream it will.

 

[Value Collector]

and how long will those renewable energy generators last , i have two solar arrays ( out of three ) that says about 5 years until extra major expenditure ( i wonder about the carbon footprint to replace those parts ) and the wind turbines have their wear issues as well , meanwhile California has found out hydro can have issues ( and foreseeable ones if you believe in climate change )

Solar and wind is 20-30 years
Hydro can be over 100 years.

Of course you have to spend a little to maintain them over that time, but you also have to maintain oil and gas rigs, and coal mining equipment and of course the actual power stations and refineries.

If your solar system lasted only 5 years, and was covered by a warranty I think you were sold some dodge equipment.