Talking New Energy

The episode delivers a genuine cluster of operational insights - particularly on negative correlation between PV and BESS as a lender argument, the expiration of pay-as-produced PPAs as effective hedges, and co-location economics - but the guest frequently restates strategic beliefs without adding incremental substance, and some stretches pad rather than progress the argument.

“the market for pays produced PPAs probably has an expiration date”

“solar's worst hours are battery's best. You have low capture of negative prices which is good for Bess and Not as good for pv. High imbalance cost would hurt PV but it drives MFR or AFR prices for Bess”

The framing of merchant BESS as a risk mitigant for lenders rather than a risk, and the idea of indirectly contracting BESS through a shaped PPA rather than a tolling agreement, are relatively fresh structural arguments; however much of the episode recycles familiar capture-rate-erosion and energy-transition macro narratives.

“for them Bess is actually a risk mitigant. So long as they have access to both cash flows”

“if we use BESS to reshape the PV profile and sell that as a shave PPA towards an off taker, then indirectly we have contracted part of the BESS not to a uh, toller but a PPA offtaker”

Johan Hastrom is a genuine practitioner at a functioning Nordic IPP with real named customers, 500 MW operating assets, and six years of direct PPA origination and BESS commercialisation experience; not a global marquee name but clearly has done the thing at meaningful scale.

“We have something like 500 megawatts of operating, uh, assets, a pipeline of 3 gigawatts”

“We have PPAs with H& M, Autoliv, Akonobel, Swedbank”

The episode includes several concrete data points - 10% capex savings from co-location, 70 - 80% solar capture rates in the Nordics, near-100% collapse in Nordic wind turbine orders, 400 - 600 TWh Nordic demand growth - but is largely silent on financial returns, project-level BESS sizing, and pricing, leaving several important claims at a directional rather than evidential level.

“we're probably saving 10% capex by sharing grid connection, transformers, delivery station and land lease”

“capture rates in the Nordics for solar is maybe around 70, 80%”

The host demonstrates genuine domain knowledge, pushes back with a pointed contrarian framing on co-location vs. standalone and probes hydro as a source of competition rather than just an enabler; questions are substantive and occasionally uncomfortable, though follow-up pressure is sometimes released too quickly when the guest pivots to strategy generalities.

“is there a risk here that we're really just throwing good money off the bad?”

“But is it necessarily good for your assets as a source of competition?”