In our ESG and Climate report tomorrow we are focusing on the wind industry and specifically the problems that Siemens Gamesa is facing with execution, costs, and logistics. The estimates for China and the rest of the world in the chart below assume a significant step-up in the rate of installation, and in 2022 we are seeing an industry that is struggling with that. Siemens Gamesa is having problems with its new platform, which had been intended to deliver projects more cheaply from an installed cost basis and an operating costs basis and is perhaps an illustration of what can happen when you are trying to move too quickly – partly because your customers are demanding it. Operational problems at Siemens Gamesa have been compounded by logistic challenges and raw material price and availability, such that current expectations are for the company to break even at an EBITDA level in 2022. This is another great example of the policy and investor disconnects that we see in several aspects of energy transition – we are encouraging investment in front line capacity, but not in the materials and feedstocks needed to feed the front line – metals, natural gas, crops. See our recent body of ESG and Climate work for more on this. These subjects are at the heart of many of the private engagements that we have with several clients in this space.
Continuing with our inflation theme this week, we show our renewables metals price index in the Exhibit below, which continues to climb and is now 50% higher than it was 2 years ago, with cobalt and lithium leading the charge at around 100% higher. These are critical components for EV and renewable power manufacture, and with 2022 forecasts for all suggesting much stronger growth, we do not see the materials supply/demand balances improving, suggesting that pricing will go higher. Energy shortages today, will only add more upward pressure to build more renewable capacity quickly and add even greater inflation risk to both components and the materials used to make them. We are concerned that, on the list below, only lithium is seeing significant capital thrown at increasing availability, suggesting that while lithium may peak in pricing, other metals could keep marching up. See our recent Daily, ESG Report, and upcoming Sunday Thematic for more.
While we would generally avoid quoting work from a company that we might consider a peripheral competitor, we are happy to do so when it backs up one of our central themes – in this case, inflation in renewable power costs. The quote is taken from the Wood Mackenzie report flagged article linked here and discusses a view on how challenges that renewable power installers have faced in 2021 will extend into 2022. The quote talks about shortages of renewable power equipment, and the obvious consequence will be higher prices for that equipment, especially as raw material prices for components remain high and possibly move higher. In our ESG and Climate report today, we talk about the need for some commonsense oversight such that impractical ESG investing targets do not limit the ability of producers of critical fuels and materials to operate.
The charts below both support our view that we will see continued inflation in renewable energy costs, rather than the deflation that is baked into all of the forward models. It is easy to forget that some of the early solar installations are coming to the end of their useful lives and are retiring – these are gaps that new solar will need to fill. Wind power has the same issue, as many of the original wind farms need equipment replaced and the introduction of recyclable wind turbine blades has been in recent manufacturers' announcements. When we see analysis of who is going to use which tranche of new renewable power for which new hydrogen project we see major gaps in the power demand analysis, in part related to power demand growth at the domestic consumer – because the more rapid introduction of EVs – and in part because or retirement of facilities and the need to replace them.
In our ESG and climate piece yesterday we discussed rising costs of climate-related actions, with a focus on some of the likely inflation in renewable power costs. The optimists are looking at the Exhibit below, and what were falling module costs through 2020, and concluding that solar installations can grow and that costs can still fall. While the module shipment growth in 2020 was impressive at 33%, some of the forecasts of what will be needed call for a much more dramatic rate of module growth than we saw in 2020.
If we look at the battery storage projects highlighted in today's daily report and in the Exhibit below and then read some of the raw material inflationary concerns around batteries, we conclude that batteries will likely not end up dominating the power storage market. Both hydrogen and hydraulic-based storage are likely to be competitive if the battery costs do not come down. Note that storage batteries can afford to compromise on technology as they do not need leading-edge density – weight is not an issue for something that is not going to move. Even so, with battery demand expected to grow rapidly for EVs, it is not hard to see a scenario where other means of fixed location energy storage are more attractive.
One of the themes that we have focused on in our ESG and Climate work is the lack of realism in the Biden climate plan as it relates to power generation and the same with the plan in California. The more limited reliability factor in renewable power (because of its dependence on cooperation from the weather), means that you have to build a lot more new power capacity than you are replacing and you need to build a storage system for the power – batteries, hydrogen or hydraulic. This gets very expensive and will be more so if the push drives inflation in raw materials – which is already a factor YTD in 2021. Natural gas turbines are a cleaner and reliable source of power and cleaner still if combined with CCS. Politicians in the US are taking a considerable risk by promoting plans that could leave the power grid more vulnerable to some of the issues that we have already seen over the last 12 months (California and Texas). Of course, as the plans call for natural gas phase-outs in 10-12 years, none of those making the decisions today will be in the office to face the consequences!
We talked a little about recycled polymer pricing in our ESG and Climate report yesterday. Recycled polymer pricing is rising relative to virgin polymer pricing (see chart below) and is likely to continue to rise unless hydrocarbon prices push virgin resins materially higher. Demand for recycled polymer is growing quickly and more quickly than supply, and we expect this to be reflected in an increased premium, barring more raw material inflation. Recycling is a fixed cost business – each step has a well-understood cost and companies are innovating to try and lower the cost of each step, but as so many different stakeholders are in the chain, it is a complex problem. One of the reasons why see the LyondellBasell/Suez venture works in The Netherlands is because Suez controls the waste in a region where recycling compliance at the household level is high. Despite this, it has taken a couple of years to get to the volumes needed to make the venture adequately profitable – mostly ensuring enough pure recycled polyethylene and polypropylene makes it to the facility. If polymer buyers are willing to cover the full cost of recycling in terms of the prices they are willing to pay, more material will become available – if LyondellBasell/Suez can demonstrate that they can make money when all the stars are aligned, it will likely encourage them to work with other municipalities in other parts of Europe (first) to see if they can replicate what they are doing now. In our view, all of the other advertised recycling programs are very small, very focused on niche applications, and don’t move the needle.