Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 331 posts

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#321

Post by afterburner »

opo wrote: post #258
afterburner wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lower cost? Utterly laughable. Nuclear costs are notoriously high, always crazy multiples over budget, and then the operating and decommissioning costs are hidden with budget and accounting tricks. But you won't notice because it's a 50 to 80 year process.

>...Nuclear costs are notoriously high, No, according to the US Energy Information Administration the levelized cost of nuclear has been comparable or less than coal (without the massive negative externalities of coal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

False dichotomy, it's not nuclear vs coal (which is terrible anyways as you note)

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/201...

Also:

"not typically included in levelised cost of electricity assessments is the cost of decommissioning a reactor and disposing nuclear waste, says Roula Inglesi-Lotz an energy economist and associate professor at the University of Pretoria. This would further increase the price of nuclear energy. Even when these costs are not included in calculations, the cost of nuclear investment remains high."

https://africacheck.org/reports/is-nuclear-energy-really-the...

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#322

Post by afterburner »

shitgoose wrote: post #291
afterburner wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lower cost? Utterly laughable. Nuclear costs are notoriously high, always crazy multiples over budget, and then the operating and decommissioning costs are hidden with budget and accounting tricks. But you won't notice because it's a 50 to 80 year process.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9090#tabs_Sp... scroll to the bottom image. Nuclear is the lowest cost along with hydro. If you want to argue against nuclear, you have to find another argument (which shouldn't be too hard).

No it's ok, the argument is still nuclear is too expensive.

https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/201...

Note that nuclear isn't getting any better, while other sources are improving every year. Would you rather plonk down a massive capital payment for a very average nuclear plant for the next 50-80 years, or gradually add more and more efficient sources of energy over that same time period?

Also:

"not typically included in levelised cost of electricity assessments is the cost of decommissioning a reactor and disposing nuclear waste, says Roula Inglesi-Lotz an energy economist and associate professor at the University of Pretoria. This would further increase the price of nuclear energy. Even when these costs are not included in calculations, the cost of nuclear investment remains high."

https://africacheck.org/reports/is-nuclear-energy-really-the...

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#323

Post by opo »

afterburner wrote: post #321
opo wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...Nuclear costs are notoriously high, No, according to the US Energy Information Administration the levelized cost of nuclear has been comparable or less than coal (without the massive negative externalities of coal) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

False dichotomy, it's not nuclear vs coal (which is terrible anyways as you note) https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/201... Also: "not typically included in levelised cost of electricity assessments is the cost of decommissioning a reactor and disposing nuclear waste, says Roula Inglesi-Lotz an energy economist and associate professor at the University of Pretoria. This would further increase th…

If you want baseload power, you can choose between coal, nuclear and natural gas. Natural gas has estimates that range between 72 and 113, so depending on which you choose it might well be cheaper or more expensive than nuclear power. Natural gas has a number of advantages over coal, but unfortunately it is now thought to be almost as bad as coal in terms of effects on climate change - this is a very bad negative externality that isn't priced into the cost. Your original point was that "Nuclear costs are notoriously high" - instead they are projected to be roughly comparable to other forms of baseload power.

>..."not typically included in levelised cost of electricity assessments is the cost of decommissioning a reactor and disposing nuclear waste

Maybe in other countries, but not the US. Every nuclear power plant in the United States is required, by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as part of its licensing to set aside sufficient funds to decommission the plant when it reaches the end of its useful life.

>...(The USA is an exception, because the cost of decommissioning is included in the price of electricity, per the Nuclear Waste Policy Act),

Also there is a tax on electricity produced by nuclear power in the US to cover eventual long term waste disposal so it is priced into the cost - though ideally this high level waste will eventually be burned in a 4th gen reactor so the volume of waste will be a small fraction of what it would otherwise be.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#324

Post by jMyles »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #201
anigbrowl wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in a school bus, traveling the country I'd love if you could share a couple of lines on the economics of that, like what your setup and ongoing expenses are like, and what's the biggest headache it involves. If you prefer, my gmail address is the same as my username. Thanks.

Reminds me of Hank [1]: http://www.hankboughtabus.com . [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6261948

Hank's bus is much prettier than ours. :-)

In addition to his superior craftsmanship, we also treat our bus like an engineering and teaching platform; we leave a lot of things taken apart (or in a raw, visible form) to use as teaching tools.

It's a balance; though - we have an almost-2-year-old, so we have to have a certain order and steadiness to things so he can't (or doesn't want to) take them apart all the time.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#325

Post by CydeWeys »

rawrRAWR wrote: post #153
maxerickson wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And from a material standpoint they are still just lots and lots of steel. If it helps, I'm not a software engineer and have an unused degree in mechanical engineering.

Aren't they actually mostly concrete? At least here in Germany they are.

Are you sure? I just Googled a bunch of German wind turbines and I'm not seeing any poles made out of concrete. Do you have photos you can share?

Concrete doesn't seem like the right material for this job.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#326

Post by euyyn »

alblue wrote: post #71
llccbb wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who is working with global powerplant data I can say that the US is the global leader. It is not perfect, but it is miles ahead of 170 other countries.

Bollocks. The UK has a live feed of the makeup of the power plants that is updated on this website every 15 minutes. http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

And it has a link to the French version too.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#327

Post by shitgoose »

afterburner wrote: post #322
shitgoose wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9090#tabs_Sp... scroll to the bottom image. Nuclear is the lowest cost along with hydro. If you want to argue against nuclear, you have to find another argument (which shouldn't be too hard).

No it's ok, the argument is still nuclear is too expensive. https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/201... Note that nuclear isn't getting any better, while other sources are improving every year. Would you rather plonk down a massive capital payment for a very average nuclear plant for the next 50-80 years, or gradually add more and more efficient sources of energy over that same time period? Also:…

Thank you for the references.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#328

Post by germanier »

CydeWeys wrote: post #325
rawrRAWR wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't they actually mostly concrete? At least here in Germany they are.

Are you sure? I just Googled a bunch of German wind turbines and I'm not seeing any poles made out of concrete. Do you have photos you can share? Concrete doesn't seem like the right material for this job.

While steel seems to be the most common material to built the towers, taller ones seem to use a hybrid construction where the lower part is built of reinforced concrete and the upper one out of steel. The problem seems to be to transport large steel segments as German streets mostly don't fit anything with more than 4m diameter. Towers made out of only concrete seem to be pretty rare.

The brochure of one company: https://www.max-boegl.de/en/downloads-en/116-max-boegl-hybri...

(Disclaimer: I know nothing about this and just report back what I read on industry associations' and manufacturers' websites)

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#329

Post by anigbrowl »

jimmaswell wrote: post #208
anigbrowl wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's certainly a delicious cherry you picked. I'm pro nuclear myself, but ignoring people's legitimate worries about worst-case scenarios is not a great advocacy strategy.

It's hardly cherry picking. Look at this chart: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...

The externalities of nuclear disasters/errors don't halt at borders, diffuse though they are.

Re: The U.S. wind industry now employs more than 100K people

#330

Post by stevenwoo »

jMyles wrote: post #318
stevenwoo wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unrelated to wind turbines, but related to living on the road - do you have no permanent address? What were the most difficult adaptions to make from living in a static location to living a vehicle like that?

I need to write a FAQ for the bus. This will be one of the questions.

I look forward to it, a daydream for now but quite envious ( at least in theory!).
Post reply on HN