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, solar, hydro, nuclear, gas, 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.


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 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 -200ºC. 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 100μm 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.

Moving targets: molecules, electrons or bits ?!

New AI data-centers are facing bottlenecked power grids. Hence this 15-page note compares the costs of constructing new power lines, gas pipelines or fiber optic links for GW-scale computing. The latter is best. Latency is a non-issue. Thus AI reshapes the future of US shale, midstream and fiber optics?

Advanced Conductors: current affairs?

Comparison of old transmission line conductors and advanced conductor geometries.

Can today’s 7M circuit kilometers of transmission lines be upgraded to relieve power grid bottlenecks, thus avoiding the 10-year ordeal of permitting a new line? Raising voltage may have hidden challenges. But Advanced Conductors stand out in this 16-page report. And the theme could double carbon fiber demand?

Gas power: does low utilization entail spare capacity?

The US has >400GW of large gas-fired power plants running at 40% average annual utilization. Could they help power new loads, e.g., 60GW of AI data-centers by 2030? This 5-page note shows why low utilization does not entail spare capacity, and in turn, estimates true gas power spare capacity available for loads such as data-centers.


How much gas power spare capacity exists within the US power grid, and could this help to power the rise of AI or the rise of EVs, without having to construct new power generation?

To answer this question, we have aggregated EIA power market data across 1,850 active US gas-fired power generation facilities.

This 5-page note summarizes our key conclusions on the first page, followed by three pages of follow-up charts.

The note covers the generation capacity growth we are forecasting for AI and other new loads; the average utilization rates of gas generation by plant size (in MW) and by state; why low annual utilization cannot simply be translated into spare capacity; and our estimates for how much true spare capacity really exists within the US’s current fleet of gas turbines.

As a general rule of thumb, a typical US gas power generation facility runs at 40% annual utilization, which translates into 60% peak monthly utilization, 80% peak daily utilization and 100% peak hourly utilization.

This research note is available for TSE written subscription clients, while the underlying data behind our assessment of gas power spare capacity are linked below for TSE full subscription clients.

Power distribution: the economics?

Cash flow for our financial model of a power distribution project over 30 years.

Power distribution costs to residential, commercial and industrial consumers are estimated at 3.5 c/kWh in this model, to generate a 10% levered return, in a 5km x 10MW distribution line, at 17kV, rated up to 400A, with a $150/kW-km capex cost, a 5% line loss and 40% annualized utilization. All of these inputs can be stress-tested in the data-file.


Power grids move electricity from generation sources, through the high-voltage transmission network (120-500kV), stepping down via transformers to the medium voltage grid (35-120kV) and then finally through smaller distribution lines (4-35kV), before ultimately reaching residential, commercial and industrial customers.

This data-file aims to model the costs of power distribution, across projects that average 4-35kV voltages, 10MW (strictly MVA) of average capacities, and distances from 1-30km. Our base case estimate is for 3.5 c/kWh for distributing electricity to consumers.

Power distribution costs are highly sensitive to capex costs and utilization rates, as shown in the chart below. 40% annualized utilization is a good rule-of-thumb for a distribution line that is at full capacity at the 1-2% peak load hours throughout the year. But capex is more complex.

Cost of power distribution as a function of average utilization for different capex levels. Higher utilization guarantees lower overall distribution cost.

One challenge is that no two projects are identical, which is borne out by reviewing different power cable configurations plus hundreds of planned projects in the capital improvement programmes of regional system operators. For example, MISO makes details available for all MISO transmission projects.

What is challenging is finding meaningful data-points, which represent the cost of adding new MVA-km to the distribution network. Most planning regions do not report the smaller expenditures separately (e.g., those costing <$1M, or <250k). Many projects also replace old equipment or improve reliability (e.g., transformers, circuit breakers, switchgear) but do not add any length to the network.

Nevertheless we have aimed to gather useful data-points in the projects tab (chart below). The range is very broad, from $10 to $5,000 /kW-km. As good average rules of thumb, large-scale overhead transmission lines cost $1.5/kW-km, rising to $30/kW-km for rural overhead distribution lines, $100/kW-km for urban distribution lines and $200/kW-km for underground distribution lines.

Capex cost of grid connections versus line capacity for projects in our database.

These costs matter for connecting new loads to the grid, such as electric vehicle charging points or other electricity-consuming facilities captured in our broader economic models. Please download the data-file to stress test the costs of electricity distribution.

Power transmission: the economics?

This data-file captures the costs of AC power transmission, requiring a 1.5c/kWh spread to earn a 10% levered IRR on a new 100km and 1,000MW transmission line, with capex costs of $1.5/kW-km. These numbers are supported by backup tabs, tabulating the costs of recent projects and a granular breakdown for the capex costs across 15 lines.


The capex costs of AC power transmission lines depend on both the capacity and length of the line, hence neither metric alone is particularly stable, when we tabulate the cost of past projects (chart below). Lengths range from 50-1,000km and power ratings range from 300-3,000MW. A better metric is the cost per kW of capacity and per km of distance, which we abbreviate as $/kW-km, averaging $1.5/kW-km.

The capex costs of AC power transmission lines can also be built up from first principles, as a breakdown of this $1.5/kW-km cost, across fifteen separate categories. The largest cost lines are installation (c25%), the metal structures (c20%), their foundations (c10%), the conductors (c10%), land preparation (c10%), substations (7%) and smaller contributors. Our source for these estimates are excellent granular disclosures from PJM.

As general rules of thumb, a higher voltage line requires larger and more expensive towers (first chart below), while a higher current line requires larger and more expensive conductors (second chart below). Nevertheless, all else equal, higher voltage and higher current lines will increase the power rating of a cable, and lower its total costs.

However our base case is relatively generous and can easily come in at $2-3/kW-km. Please download the data-file for sensitivies around land acquisition, permitting, site preparation, line length, line power, circuits per line, et al. While trenched lines are more resilient, they can also be 5-20x more expensive, according to some studies.

The key challenge, however, is not cost, but timing, as the average project in our screen takes 8-years to plan/permit, then 3-years to construct. It may take a long time to resolve power grid bottlenecks.

Other cost lines are taken from the disclosures of regulated utilities, conductor costs, and other data-files we have constructed into high-voltage transmission lines. We have also separately modeled the costs of HVDCs, for longer-distance transmission. For more details, please see our overview of power transmission.

Copyright: Thunder Said Energy, 2019-2024.