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

Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 278 posts

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#221

Post by honestoHeminway »

chongli wrote: post #136
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scary bit for LNG is a BLEVE (Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion). Even non-flammable liquids undergoing a BLEVE can be incredibly destructive, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgdfgxLApL4 So it's nothing to do with vapor cloud detonation, that's pretty much irrelevant compared to the destruction of the rapid phase transition from liquid to gas.

I think a tanker ship is pretty safe from a BLEVE. Those explosions usually result from a tank being heated continuously by a very hot fire underneath it. I'm not sure where you would find one of those at sea unless the tanker wrecked on top of an erupting volcano.

As safe as nuclear power!

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#222

Post by dwighttk »

chongli wrote: post #136
SAI_Peregrinus wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The scary bit for LNG is a BLEVE (Boiling liquid expanding vapor explosion). Even non-flammable liquids undergoing a BLEVE can be incredibly destructive, for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgdfgxLApL4 So it's nothing to do with vapor cloud detonation, that's pretty much irrelevant compared to the destruction of the rapid phase transition from liquid to gas.

I think a tanker ship is pretty safe from a BLEVE. Those explosions usually result from a tank being heated continuously by a very hot fire underneath it. I'm not sure where you would find one of those at sea unless the tanker wrecked on top of an erupting volcano.

How many tankers would you need to noticeably change the explosion power of an average sized volcano eruption?

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#223

Post by harryh »

IsaacL wrote: post #211
rayiner wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say the government decided to let Wal-Mart park delivery trucks on your property for free ( i.e. decline to enforce your property right in favor of a business). Economically, it'd be indistinguishable from a subsidy. Shareholders don't care whether the government policy increases Wal-Mart's revenue or decreases its expenses. The same is true for power generation.

But with the level of compensation people think energy producers should pay to offset their "negative externalities" -- if governments forced them to pay it, the price of energy would rise by a huge amount, disrupting the economy, and making the previous calculation of the externalities meaningless. Even the renewables would then need more subsidies, to pay for increased manufacturing costs and the fuel for the truck…

When the true costs of coal are not being paid by those that use coal based electricity the economy is already being disrupted. More coal than would be economically efficient gets consumed because coal based electricity is artificially cheap. Implementing pigovian taxes repairs the existing disruption.

Do not fall prey to status quo bias!

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#224

Post by dwighttk »

SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #133

The last lines of the article elicited a bit of cynicism: "That’s because the market is so oversupplied that it’s even difficult for the wind guys to make money at these electricity rates. And besides, it’s hard to acquire land by the water at reasonable prices." “It’s pretty slim pickings right now,” Ferguson said. “God is not manufacturing more coastal property". In 70 years it will be nice and cheap at this rate,…

>In 70 years it will be nice and cheap at this rate

what?

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#225

Post by GhostVII »

honestoHeminway wrote: post #221
chongli wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a tanker ship is pretty safe from a BLEVE. Those explosions usually result from a tank being heated continuously by a very hot fire underneath it. I'm not sure where you would find one of those at sea unless the tanker wrecked on top of an erupting volcano.

As safe as nuclear power!

Nuclear is incredibly safe

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#226

Post by petre »

jabl wrote: post #193
petre wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Syngas can be easily converted to DME (dimethyl ether), which is a cleaner diesel replacement. It's stored just like LNG, in pressurized containers at 0.5 MPa - typical roadbike tyre pressure.

> Syngas can be easily converted to DME (dimethyl ether), which is a cleaner diesel replacement. It's stored just like LNG, in pressurized containers at 0.5 MPa - typical roadbike tyre pressure. Presumably you meant LPG. LNG is another thing entirely..

Yes, I meant LPG. Sorry.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#227

Post by mason240 »

tpallarino wrote: post #195
leephillips wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a complex question. In trying to answer it, one should keep in mind that the tax incentives for fossil fuel production dwarf the $15 billion per year or so that supports renewable energy. In addition, fossil fuels impose an estimated $200 billion/yr in social costs (external costs), in the form of pollution, etc. And it would be hard to estimate how much of our defense spending should be attributed to the need t…

Don't forget the Iraq war. Edit: Nvmd, you didn't

What about it?

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#228

Post by mason240 »

blurbleblurble wrote: post #65
sremani wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

per kwh, they are miniscule compared to solar or wind. The scale difference between ONG and Solar-Wind is huge

A large part of the U.S. military budget is implicated in fossil fuel security.

That is completely false.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#229

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

dwighttk wrote: post #224
SOLAR_FIELDS wrote: post #133

The last lines of the article elicited a bit of cynicism: "That’s because the market is so oversupplied that it’s even difficult for the wind guys to make money at these electricity rates. And besides, it’s hard to acquire land by the water at reasonable prices." “It’s pretty slim pickings right now,” Ferguson said. “God is not manufacturing more coastal property". In 70 years it will be nice and cheap at this rate,…

>In 70 years it will be nice and cheap at this rate what?

The implication is that the rise in sea level will make those formerly coastal areas effectively worthless.

Re: Texas Is Too Windy and Sunny for Old Energy Companies to Make Money

#230

Post by mason240 »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #41
supremesaboteur wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The link from that article explicitly states that it will not shut down the wind farm : http://www.dailyadvance.com/News/2017/01/25/Jones-Bill-won-t...

I used the word "undermine" for a reason. They're not prohibiting wind generation. They're making it more expensive.

By removing subsidies. You are making a great argument for why subsidies should never have been put in place.
Post reply on HN