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

It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#111

Post by 08-15 »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #70
08-15 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I guess Dr. Charles E. Till is not an expert or at least not publicly recognized? And while "the waste problem" is arguably unsolved thanks to government incompetence, currently the waste is being managed by the utilities. So far, no cost has been externalized. "Oh yeah, maybe now, but future generations!" Maybe future generations will elect a government that gets out of the way of engineers trying to solve the pr…

IFR isn't easy or solved. Seems like government is the only one funding Gen IV breeder reactor research, as well as Argonne National Lab and Dr. Till's work there, so I think government is doing their part. Until it's solved it isn't. When the facts change, I will change my mind.

Both Moltex Energy and Elysium Industries are developing fast waste burners, and both are privately funded. Neither operates in the USA, though, because that's where the government gets in the way. The US government defunded the IFR project completely back in 1994. (It was too close to building a demonstration plant.)

> I think government is doing their part

This incompetent government declared in 1987 that there is exactly one solution to "the waste problem", and that's Yucca Mountain, categorically ruling out any sane solution (i.e. recycling). Now even Mt. Yucca isn't funded anymore. What part is this government doing exactly?

> When the facts change, I will change my mind.

Bullshit. You will continue to claim that the cost of waste disposal, which is implied to be approximately infinite, was externalized, when in fact it's neither.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#113

Post by pjc50 »

credit_guy wrote: post #90
Gibbon1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't blame the industry for a dysfunctional government. The Utilizes got exactly what they wanted from the government in this case. Complete externalization of the problem for a nominal fee. The government also capped their liability so they could buy insurance. No insurance, no financing.

> Complete externalization of the problem for a nominal fee. If you call $750MM/year a nominal fee, your definition of nominal is maybe a bit non-standard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act#Nucle...

What's the total liability for the maximum area of land rendered unusable by a nuclear plant accident?

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#114

Post by pjc50 »

akvadrako wrote: post #109
keanzu wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mountains of red tape don't exist in the communist dictatorship of China yet they haven't broken ground on a new plant since 2016 [1]. There are fundamental economic problems with nuclear that prevent it from being the power solution we all hoped it would be. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-...

Then why does France have cheaper electricity than most of its neighbors?

Because they built a huge number of reactors with state subsidy and then stopped?

France is also having trouble with life extension due to cracked reactor vessels, and is unable to build new capacity cheaply - Flamanville is in project management trouble, like Hinkley Point C, and is projected to have higher energy costs than the existing reactors.

And nuclear power is ironically suffering its own climate change effects, it's dependent on cool water: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-electricity-heatwa...

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#115

Post by pjc50 »

keanzu wrote: post #73
ip26 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other things, when it gets really cheap you can start over-provisioning. Cloud cover sometimes cuts the solar irradiance in half? No problem, just build twice as much solar capacity (and maybe add a HVDC transmission line to the next state over for the high production times) Wide deployment & interconnection will also erase some of the local variability of, e.g. a cloud passing over.

Land use of solar prevents it ever getting really cheap. According to the UK solar power portal [1]: "If solar covered one percent of the UK it would meet the country’s entire power demand". > just build twice as much solar capacity This would increase the land use from 1% to 2%. That's a huge amount of the country to give over to power production. [1] https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/if_solar_covered_one...

It's a reasonable fraction of total roof area, I believe.

But the real problem with the UK and solar is not nighttime but seasonality. No, we need to keep going with the wind buildout and not drop the tidal energy programme.

We're getting there: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/21/zero-carbon...

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#116

Post by esotericn »

keanzu wrote: post #73
ip26 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other things, when it gets really cheap you can start over-provisioning. Cloud cover sometimes cuts the solar irradiance in half? No problem, just build twice as much solar capacity (and maybe add a HVDC transmission line to the next state over for the high production times) Wide deployment & interconnection will also erase some of the local variability of, e.g. a cloud passing over.

Land use of solar prevents it ever getting really cheap. According to the UK solar power portal [1]: "If solar covered one percent of the UK it would meet the country’s entire power demand". > just build twice as much solar capacity This would increase the land use from 1% to 2%. That's a huge amount of the country to give over to power production. [1] https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/if_solar_covered_one...

The UK has a lot of unused land on a percentage basis.

Granted, half of that will be in Scotland and ideally your solar would be further south, but even then, you're probably talking about switching less than 5% of the arable land to solar.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#117

Post by gdhbcc »

pjc50 wrote: post #113
credit_guy wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Complete externalization of the problem for a nominal fee. If you call $750MM/year a nominal fee, your definition of nominal is maybe a bit non-standard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act#Nucle...

What's the total liability for the maximum area of land rendered unusable by a nuclear plant accident?

Less than a Dam

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#118

Post by bluGill »

danans wrote: post #83
toomuchtodo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's about 6000 Tesla Megapacks [1] for the entire US, roughly 20 square miles of land use. "Using Megapack, Tesla can deploy an emissions-free 250 MW, 1 GWh power plant in less than three months on a three-acre footprint – four times faster than a traditional fossil fuel power plant of that size. Megapack can also be DC-connected directly to solar, creating seamless renewable energy plants." We need more Gigafactori…

You don't even need that many if you shift demand via distributed dispatchable loads, like electric hot water heaters and EVs. Also does your figure of 6000 Megapacks derive from total electricity consumption in the US, or just base load?

You need something to cover the idea that every few years we get a few weeks of minimal generation from wind and solar. Shifting load is a good idea, but it isn't enough. Eventually I have to add more heat to my house.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#119

Post by ianai »

NullPrefix wrote: post #30
ianai wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So make a big enough nuclear plant for those peaks.

Too expensive. Bigger capacity means bigger costs up front and runtime.

How much more expensive? How much more capacity?

I’d rather have way too much nuclear power than rely on any fossil fuels. If anything, energy demand seems posed to always increase.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#120

Post by toomuchtodo »

bluGill wrote: post #118
danans wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't even need that many if you shift demand via distributed dispatchable loads, like electric hot water heaters and EVs. Also does your figure of 6000 Megapacks derive from total electricity consumption in the US, or just base load?

You need something to cover the idea that every few years we get a few weeks of minimal generation from wind and solar. Shifting load is a good idea, but it isn't enough. Eventually I have to add more heat to my house.

Natural gas can always be a generator of absolute last resort, and is likely cheaper than keeping nuclear generators running for those rare occasions.
Post reply on HN