Power grids: opportunities in the energy transition?

power grid opportunities in the energy transition

This article summarizes our conclusions into power grids and power electronics, across all of Thunder Said Energy’s research. Where are the best power grid opportunities in the energy transition?

Power grids move electricity from the point of generation to the point of use, while aiming to maximize power quality, minimize costs and minimize losses. Broadly defined, global power grids and power electronics investment must step up 5x in the energy transition, from $750bn pa to over $3.5trn pa. This theme gets woefully overlooked. This also means it offers up some of the best opportunities in the energy transition.


(1) Electrification is going to be a major theme in the energy transition, a mega-trend of the 21st century, as the efficiency and controllability of electrified technology is usually 3-5x higher than comparable heat engines. It is analogous to the shift from analogue to digital. 40% of the world’s useful energy is consumed as electricity today, rising to 60% by 2050 (note here — our best overview of the upside in grids) propelling the efficiency of the primary global energy system from 45% today to 60% by 2050 (note here). Power demands of a typical home will also double from 10kW to 20kW in the energy transition (data here). Electricity demands of industrial facilities are aggregated here.

(2) Electricity basics are often misunderstood? If we have one salty observation about power markets, it is that many commentators seem to love making sweeping statements without understanding much at all. It is the energy market equivalent of wandering in off the street to an operating theater, and without any medical training at all, simply picking up a scalpel. This is a little bit sad. But it also means there will be opportunities for decision makers that do understand electricity and power systems. As a place to start, our primer on power, voltage, current, AC, DC, inertia and power quality is here.

(3) Power generation costs 5-15c/kWh. But variations within each category are much wider than between categories (note here). So generation will not be a winner takes all market, where one “energy source to rule them all” pushes out all the others. This view comes from stress testing IRR models of wind, offshore wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, gas CCGTs, gas peakers, coal, biomass, diesel gensets and geothermal. And from 400-years of energy history. The average sizes of power generation facilities are here, and typical ramp rates are here.

(4) Transmission is becoming the key bottleneck on renewables and electrification in the energy transition. Each TWH pa of global electricity demand is supported by 275km of power transmission and 4,000km of distribution (data here). Connecting a new project to the grid usually costs $100-300/kW over 10-70km tie-in distances (data here). But bottlenecks are growing. The approval times to connect a new power plant to the grid have already increased 2.5x since the mid-2000s, averaging 3-years, especially for wind and solar, which take 30% and 10% longer than average (data here). Avoiding these bottlenecks requires power grids to expand. Spending on power grids alone will rise from $300bn pa to over $1.2trn pa, which is actually larger than the spending on all primary energy production today (data here).

(5) Power transmission also beats batteries as a way of maximizing renewable penetration in future grids. Rather than overcoming intermittency — solar output across Europe is 60-90% inter-correlated, wind output is 50-90% inter-correlated — by moving power across time, you can solve the same challenge by moving them over a wider space. A key advantage is that a large and extensive power grid smooths all forms of renewables volatility, from a typical facility’s 100 x sub-10-second power drops per day to the +/- 6% annual variations in solar insolation reaching a particular point of the globe. By contrast, different batteries tend to be optimized for a specific time-duration, while at long durations, the economics become practically unworkable. A new transmission line usually costs 2-3c/kWh per 1,000km (model here). Additional benefits for expanded power grids accrue in power quality, reliability and resiliency against extreme weather. These benefits will be spelled out further below…

(6) Upside for transmission utilities and suppliers? Our overview of how power transmission works is here. Operating data for high voltage transmission cables are here. Leading US transmission and distribution utilities are screened here. Leading companies in HVDCs are here. Offshore cable lay vessels are screened here. We have also screened Prysmian patents here. But the opportunity space is also much broader, which becomes visible by delving into how power grids work…

(7) Cabling materials. As a general rule, overhead power lines are made of aluminium, due to its light weight and high strength. Conversely, HVDC cables and household wiring are made of copper, which is more conductive. HVDCs are also encased in specialized plastics. New power transmission lines add 3-5MTpa of demand to aluminium markets, or 5-7% upside (note here). But we are more worried about bottlenecks in copper (where total global demand trebles) and silver.

(8) Transformers and specialized switchgear are needed to step the voltage up or down to a precise and prescribed level at every inter-connection point in the grid. The US transmission network operates at a median voltage of 230kV, which keeps losses to around 7%. Energy transition could double the transformer market in capacity terms and increase it by 30x in unit count (note here, costs and companies screened here), surpassing $50bn pa by 2035. Downstream of these transformers, the power entering industrial and commercial facilities will often remain at several kV, which requires specialized switchgear to prevent arcing. We see the MV switchgear market trebling to over $100bn pa by 2035.

(9) AC and DC. Wind and solar inherently produce DC power, but most transmission lines are AC. Hence they must be coupled with inverters and converters. At the ultimate point of use, AC power also usually needs to be rectified back to DC and bucked/boosted to the right voltage for each machine or appliance. The same goes for EV charging and EV drive trains. DC-DC conversion, AC-DC rectification and DC-AC inversion are effectively consolidating around MOSFETs. And we think one of the most interesting incremental jolts for the energy transition is the 1-10pp higher efficiency and rising market share of SiC MOSFETs. Leading companies in SiC and MOSFETs are screened here.

(10) Inertia and frequency regulation. All of the AC power generators in the grid are running in lockstep, ‘synchronized’ at around 50 Hertz in Europe and 60 Hz in the US. But the frequency of all the power generators in the grid changes second by second. If there is a slight under-supply of power, then what prevents the grid from collapsing is that energy can be harvested from the rotational energy of massive turbines weighing up to 4,000 tons and spinning at 1,500 – 6,000 rpm, as they all slow down very slightly. This sorcery is called ‘inertia’. Wind and solar do not inherently have any inertia (no synchronized spinning). But there are ways of partially mimicking inertia or adding synthetic inertia to the grid through flywheels, supercapacitors, synchronous condensers, batteries, smart energy. Our grid models reflect growing demand for infrastructure in all of these categories.

(11) Reactive power compensation. Apparent power (in kVA) consists of two components: real power (in kW) and reactive power (in kVAR). Inductive loads consume reactive power as the creation of magnetic fields draws the current behind the voltage in an AC wave. This lowers power factor in the grid, amplifies the current that must flow per unit of real power, and thus amplifies I2R losses. Large spinning generators have historically provided reactive power to energize transmission lines and compensate for inductive loads. Again, wind and solar do not inherently provide reactive power compensation and have historically leaned on the rotating generators. Renewable heavy grids will need to add reactive power compensation, expanding this market by a factor of 30x. The best opportunities are in STATCOMs and SVCs (leading companies screened here), capacitor banks at industrial facilities and Volt-VAR optimization at the grid edge.

(12) Electric vehicle charging: find the shovel-makers? Each 1,000 EVs will likely require 40 Level 2 chargers (30-40kW) and 3 Level 3 fast-chargers (100-200kW), so our numbers ultimately have $100bn pa being spent on EV charging in 2025-50. But we wonder whether EV chargers will ultimately become over-built, and the best opportunities will be in supplying components and materials to these chargers, rather than owning the infrastructure itself. Our best single note on this topic is here. Economics of EV charging stations and conventional fuel retail stations make a nice comparison.

(13) Motor drivers are another huge efficiency opportunity. There are 50bn electric motors in the world, consuming half of all global electricity. But most motors are inefficient, rotating at fixed speeds determined by the frequency of the AC power grid, rotating faster than they need to, which matters as power consumption is a cube function of rotating speed. One of the best efficiency opportunities in the grid expands the role of variable frequency drives to optimize motors (note here). Economics are screened here and leading companies are covered here. All of our work into electric motor efficiency and reliability is linked here.

(14) Without reliable and high-quality power grids, frankly, things will break. This is a statement made in patents and technical papers, again and again, discussing how lagging power quality enhances maintenance and breakage costs of expensive equipment. Fundamentally, this is why we think that commercial and industrial power consumers will increasingly invest more in power electronics, and there are so many hidden power grid opportunities in the energy transition.

(15) Power electronics is the broad category of capital goods that encompasses effectively everything discussed on this page. And this summary has hardly even scratched the surface. We think pure power electronics spending trebles from $300bn pa to $1trn pa by 2035 (model here). It is the same group of companies coming up again and again in this space (best note here). For example, we have attempted to break down Eaton’s revenues across 10,000 SKUs in 200 different categories here. We do think that the complexity in power grids and power electronics creates opportunity for decision makers that can grasp it.



All of our research — PDF research reports, data-files, economic models and company screens — into power grid opportunities in the energy transition is summarized below, in chronological order of publication.


Purchasing power: what are generation assets worth?

Fair value of generation assets which hinge on their remaining life, utilization, flexibility, power prices, rising grid volatility and CO2 credentials.

There has never been more controversy over the fair values of power generation assets, which hinge on their remaining life, utilization, flexibility, power prices, rising grid volatility and CO2 credentials. This 16-page guide covers the fair values of generation assets, hidden opportunities and potential pitfalls.

Prysmian E3X: reconductoring technology?

Patent assessment of Prysmian E3X technology.

Prysmian E3X technology is a ceramic coating that can be added onto new and pre-existing power transmission cables, improving their thermal emissivity, so they heat up 30% less, have 25% lower resistive losses, and/or can carry 25% increased currents. This data-file locates the patents underpinning E3X technology, identifies the materials used, and finds a strong moat around the technology.


In 2018, Prysmian acquired General Cable in a $3bn deal, apparently outbidding China’s Hengtong, plus Nexans and NKT, who were also interested. Prysmian thus gained access to General Cable’s E3X technology, which has exciting potential for reconductoring transmission lines.

E3X is a thin yet durable ceramic coating, with 0.9x emissivity factor and 0.2x solar absorptivity factor, that can be applied to the outside of power transmission cables, thereby helping the conductors to dissipate heat. This matters as hot cables are more resistive and also tend to sag causing electrical hazards.

For comparison, note that bare aluminium cables have a notoriously poor heat emissivity factor, around 0.16x, which is one of the key reasons they heat up and hit sag limits.

Hence compared to other cables operating under the same conditions, E3X cables have 30% lower temperatures, which can improve conductivity and lower operating losses by 25%; or it can allow for 25% increased ampacity within the same sag/loss limits. Data in our chart below come from testing of E3X at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Test results of Prysmian E3X cable coating.

At least 20 North American utilities have now trialed or deployed Prysmian E3X technology to improve the carrying capacity of their network. It is also included as standard for one of the leading manufacturers of advanced conductors. Hence this technology looks interesting.

How does Prysmian E3X technology work and is it locked up with patents? Our answers to this question are based on locating the underlying patents and reviewing them. Our findings are in this data-file.

The patents behind E3X score very well on our patent assessment framework, for reasons in the data-file. And we can also guess at the composition of E3X ceramic coatings, which interestingly, will pull on demand for silicon carbide?

Full details are available in this data-file, while for clients with TSE’s written subscription, we have added some conclusions into our research note into advanced conductors.

Transaction prices for power generation assets?

Transaction prices average $1,000/kW for power generation assets that have traded hands over time

Transaction prices for power generation assets are tabulated in this data-file, capturing 65 deals for gas plants, wind, solar, hydro and nuclear, globally and over time. Median prices are c$1,000/kW, but range from <$400/kW in the lower decile to >$2,500 in the upper decile.


Transaction prices for power generation assets vary widely in different contexts. This data-file helps to understand prices paid, and how they are changing over time.

Transaction prices for gas generation assets have been lowest among the different categories, averaging $500/kW over the past decade, which is actually below the costs of constructing new CCGTs at c$950/kW.

Low prices attribute to overcapacity and higher gas prices, especially in Europe and in 2014-2015. However the value of gas plants has been increasing over time, and recent deal prices have surpassed $1,000/kW.

Transaction prices for wind assets and solar assets have been highly variable, ranging from $400/kW to $4,000/kW. It all hinges on the strike price and duration of power purchase agreements.

For example, a pair of solar assets in Japan transacted at $4,000/kW in July-2017, backstopped by 25-28c/kWh PPAs lasting for another 19-years. Conversely, renewable assets transacting at $400-600/kW tended to sell their power on a merchant basis.

Transaction prices for low-carbon baseload generation, such as hydro plants and nuclear plants were highest, averaging $1,500-2,000/kW, however fewer assets in these categories change hands.

In some cases, nuclear deal prices have been distorted to the downside by the assumption of decommissioning liabilities. And we think the value of these assets may be higher than measured in the data-file.

Transaction prices for power generation assets are tabulated in this data-file, capturing over 65 transactions, sorted by region, acquirer, seller, deal price (in $M), generation capacity (MW), transaction price ($/kW), plus notes contextualizing each transaction.

Note, this database was last updated in August-2024, and contains 10 data-points for 2024, which are not shown in the title chart above.

Global power price volatility tracker?

Volatility of power prices from 2013 to 2023. 2021 was the peak year but volatility has still trebled from $20/MWH in 2013 to $65/MWH in 2023.

The volatility of power grids has trebled over the past decade from 2013-2023. This data-file tracks the percentile-by-percentile distributions of power prices, each year, in six major grid regions (Texas, California, US MidWest, Australia, the UK and Spain), as a way of tracking increases in global power price volatility.


The growing volatility of power grids is a major theme in our research, triggered by the rise of solar and wind, and the phase-back of baseload coal. This creates opportunities across peaker plants, midstream gas, energy trading and marketing, grid-scale batteries, some biofuels and biogas.

But how much is global power price volatility actually rising? You can drown in data, trying to answer this question!

Hence the goal of this tracker file is to tabulate the percentile-by-percentile distributions of power grids, across 8,760 hourly data-points each year, across >10-years, going back to at least 2013, in different developed world regions, and based on data from ERCOT, CAISO, MISO, Elexon, AEMO and OMIE. We selected these regions, as they have steadily been increasing their share of wind and solar.

Volatility has increased, in every single market in the data-file (based on correlation coefficients on each tab), and when aggregating all of the data together, where in turn, standard deviations of hourly power prices have trebled from $20/MWH in 2013 to over $60/MWH in 2023.

If we compare the pricing distributions in some individual years, then three observations stand out from the chart below.

Distribution of power prices from 2015 to 2023. The cheapest hours have become cheaper (or even negative) and the most expensive hours have become even more expensive. This has caused the rise in volatility.

(i) Average power prices are higher, rising from $40/MWH in 2013 to $65/MWH in 2023

(ii) Prices in the upper 20% of all hours have risen most, doubling from $60/MWH in 2013 to $130/MWH in 2023, and explaining 60% of the total increase in annual average power prices.

Yet (iii) Prices in the lower 20% of all hours have fallen, from $25/MWH in 2013 to $20/MWH in 2023, reflecting times when grids are over-saturated with renewables.

The most striking data in the file are in ERCOT, where median settlement prices have fallen from $25/MWH in 2013 to $22/MWH in 2023, yet mean average power prices have risen from $31/MWH to $48/MWH over the same timeframe, which is entirely driven by pricing in the upper 20% of the distribution rising from $55/MWH in 2013 to $165/MWH in 2023, while the lower 20% tail has collapsed from $25/MWH in 2013 to below $20/MWH in 2023.

Distribution of power prices in 2013 vs 2023 in ERCOT. The cheapest hours have become cheaper (or even negative) and the most expensive hours have become even more expensive. This has caused the rise in volatility.

The full distributions of power prices, across each percentile of hours each year, across each year from 2013-2023, and across each market – Texas, California, MISO, SW Australia, UK and Spain – can be reviewed in the data-file, for decision-makers who wish to delve deeper into the charts and how global power price volatility is rising.

Reserve margins: by ISO and over time?

Reserve margins across major ISOs in the US power grid average 29% in 2024, are seen declining to 21% in the next decade by NERC, but could decline further, falling below their recommended floors of at least 15%. Possible reasons include demand surprising to the upside, or controversies in the capacity contributions of renewables. This data-file tabulates reserve margin forecasts, by ISO region, and over time.


Reserve margins are calculated by dividing (a) total power generation resources (in MW) that are seen to be available during times of peak grid demand by (b) total anticipated peak grid demand (in MW). Then subtract 1 to yield a percentage figure.

NERC guidelines recommend keeping reserve margins well above 15%, in order to limit Loss of Load Expectations (LOLE) to 1 event per 10-years, as part of resilient power grids.

Aggregated across major US ISOs, reserve margins currently average 29% in 2024, are projected by NERC to decline to 21% in the next decade, but could decline further if power demand surprises to the upside, or resource additions are delayed or disappoint.

This data-file aggregates NERC’s reserve margin forecasts over time, for major ISOs in the US, such as MISO, PJM, ERCOT, CAISO, NYISO, ISO NE, SPP and SERC FLA. Underlying charts are available on a separate tab for each region. We have aggregaed all the regions together in the charts above.

In each case, we have plotted expectations for peak demand, net demand after demand responses and anticipated resources, which in turn comprise existing firm resources plus Tier 1 capacity additions.

In the past, reserve margins have defied pessimistic projections. The main reason has been downwards reivisions in demand, and upwards revisions in renewables resources. What is changing is that demand is now surprising to the upside, linked to the rise of EVs and the rise of AI.

Another controversy in measure reserve margins is how to count the capacity from renewables. 100MW of gas generation is almost always available to provide 100MW. We think the forecasts from NERC and from underlying ISOs may be ascribing 50-60MW of availability per 100MW of renewables. But due to the intercorrelation of renewables, and especially as renewables get built out, this may turn out to be too high.

The underlying source of the data is from NERC’s annual long-term reliability assessments.

Gas peaker plants: the economics?

Economic returns for a gas peaker plant over 30 years.

Gas peaker plants run at low utilizations of 2-20%, during times of peak demand in power grids. A typical peaker costing $950/kW and running at 10% utilization has a levelized cost of electricity around 20c/kWh, to generate a 10% IRR with 0.5 kg/kWh of CO2 intensity. This data-file shows the economic sensitivities to volatility and utilization.


The economics of gas peaker plants are all about volatility. Hourly power prices are lognormally distributed, which means their natural logarithms are normally distributed, per other commodity prices, and upside volatility is higher than downside volatilty (chart below).

The distribution of electricity prices is lognormal. This means it has a long higher price tail that peaker plants take advantage of.

Hence a grid with 10c/kWh mean average power prices can easily host a peaker that achieves 20c/kWh average power prices 10% of the time, even assuming non-perfect alignment between generation profiles and peak pricing. This can be flexed in the model, and is informed by actual data in ERCOT, CAISO, the UK, and Australia.

Another source of income for gas peaker plants is from capacity payments, which will usually make up 0-20% of total revenues. Grid balancing authorities are required by NERC and FERC to maintain healthy reserve margins that ensure they have adequate capacity to limit major outages to just once per decade.

While we have a separate model of combined-cycle gas turbine economics, capturing plants with >50% utilization, this data-file focuses in upon the economics of gas peaker plants, by modelling out the impacts of capacity payments and upside pricing volatility.

A fascinating observation is that each 1 c/kWh increase in power grid volatility increases peaker plant cash flows by $6/kW/year. Each 1pp reduction in utilization rate lowers cash flow by $5/kW/year. Numbers can be stress-tested in the data-file.

Cash flow for a gas peaker plant depending on power price volatility and plant utilization.

Other inputs in the model are informed by our data into gas turbine parameters, gas turbine capex costs, gas prices by region, CO2 prices and tax rates. However, we think the data-file is a neat way to stress-test the levelized costs of gas peaker plants, as they are impacted primarily by utilization and electricity price volatility.

Gas power generation across five-minute intervals?

Gas power generation data are aggregated in this data-file, covering ten of the largest CCGTs and gas peaker plants in Australia, across five-minute intervals, in May-2024 and in May-2014. This makes for a fascinating case study into how gas turbines are used to stabilize power grids, backstop renewables, and how this has changed over time.


AEMO is Australia’s Energy Market Operator. It maintains a fantastic data portal, with multiple TB of available data, including the generation of every facility in the power grid, at five-minute intervals.

The biggest challenge for understanding gas power generation is the amount of data. A single month contains 9,000 x 5-minute intervals.

Hence we have selected ten of the largest gas generation facilities, and studied their output in both May-2014 and May-2024 as case studies. And even this limited exercise ended up yielding a 24MB data-file!

In May-2024 the average gas turbine ran at 26% utilization, which is lower than the base case in our gas generation economic model.

However the average turbine also ran 90% of its nameplate capacity across 10% of the hours, and peaked at 96% of its nameplate capacity when the regional grid was running short (chart below).

Maximum and average utilization rates for different Australian gas plants in May 2024. The average utilizations are very low but each plant reached over 90% utilization at least once during the month.

The daily pattern of gas generation in the Australian power grid shows a sharp drop in the middle of the day, to accommodate solar, while these plants then ramp sharply in the evening, in extremis ramping up to 90% of their total aggregate capacity. Can this really be replicated by batteries?

Daily average profile of the ten largest gas generation plants in Australia in May 2024. There is a definite trough during the day when solar is supplying power.

Gas power generation also varies widely, from baseload plants running at 90% utilization through to peaker plants that fire for just a few hours per month and thus run at just 1% utilization.

As an example of a baseload generator, the chart below shows the output from the 440MW Tallawarra-1 CCGT in May-2014, running at 90% utilization, at >50% efficiency, with output typically dipping from 1-5am, when daily demand troughs.

Generation profile of the Tallawarra-1 CCGT, a baseload gas generator, in May 2014. It ran at 90% utilization, at >50% efficiency, with output typically dipping from 1-5am, when daily demand troughed.

As an example of a peakload generator, the chart below shows the output from the 160MW Townsville CCGT, at Yabulu, in May-2024, firing up for 5-hours most days, from 4-9pm, sometimes longer. The total utilization rate for the month is 16%, but when the plant does run, then it is running above 90% of its nameplate capacity 93% of the time.

Generation profile of the Townsville CCGT at Yabulu, a gas peaker plant in May 2024. The total utilization rate for the month is 16%, but when the plant does run, then it is running above 90% of its nameplate capacity 93% of the time.

Another key reason that gas plants help to backstop renewables volatility is their rapid responsiveness. Smaller simple-cycle turbines can ramp from a cold start within 20-30 minutes, while larger CCGTs can ramp from a cold-start within 1-3 hours (chart below). For contrast, ramping coal plants from a cold start takes 4-8 hours, based on our case study into coal generation profiles.

The data-file illustrates gas power generation, across minute-by-minute, hour-by-hour volatility intervals, for ten facilities, in May-2014 and May-2024. Grids are relying increasingly on gas backups.

We are happy to help TSE clients set themselves up to pull data from the AEMO database, in order to run their own analyses. Please contact us if we can help you on this front.

Superconductors: distribution class?

Illustration of a cable made with high-temperature superconducting tape.

High-temperature superconductors (HTSs) carry 20,000x more current than copper, with almost no electrical resistance. They must be cooled to -200ยบC. So costs have been high at 35 past projects. Yet, this 16-page report explores whether HTS cables will now accelerate to defray power grid bottlenecks?

Superconductor screen: projects, materials, companies?

Yearly sales of superconductors by different companies and their exposure to superconductors. The market for superconducting cables is around $1bn per year.

This superconductor screen summarizes all of our work on superconductors, screening past projects, active companies, superconductor materials and the properties of commercial HTS tapes. Five listed companies in Europe, Japan and the US are particularly important for superconducting cable projects to relieve grid bottlenecks?


Superconductors are amazing materials that can carry 10,000 to 100,000x more current than copper wires and cables, per mm2 of conductor area. However, they are delicate ceramic crystals, which need to be deposited onto Hastelloy superalloys then inerted with an overlying layer of silver, and then plated in other protective materials such as copper. The resultant tapes tend to be 100ฮผm thick (of which just 1-2% is superconductor material itself), yet still have current densities that are 350x higher than pure copper wires (charts below, data in the file).

YBCO is the leading superconductor material to come up in our superconductor screen. YBCO is an example of a REBCO. Other materials include BSCCO, and first generation superconductors such as Nb3Sn and NbTi which have historically been used in scientific machinery from MRIs, to NMRs to particle accelerators and the ITER nuclear fusion project, albeit requiring helium cooling.

Transition temperatures of different superconductors versus the year they were discovered.

Despite needing to cool YBCO with liquid nitrogen, it has been deployed commercially. 10 past projects tabulated in the file have carried an average of 300MVA of power at 50 kV and 3,000A over a distance of 1.7km. These projects and their costs are also tabulated in the superconductor screen, in $/kVA, $/km and $/kVA-km (materially more costly than today’s transmission lines, but sometimes competitive with today’s distribution lines). For more details see the projects tab.

Amperages and costs of superconducting distribution projects.

20 companies make up the c$1bn pa superconducting cables industry. Leading companies in superconductors have been highly active in the past projects tabulated above. They include listed companies in Europe, the US and Japan. Privately owned companies such as MetOx are also scaling up in the superconductors space. Details are in the screen, summarizing each company, its size and estimated exposure to superconductors.

Copyright: Thunder Said Energy, 2019-2024.