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

Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

utilitydive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 182 posts

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#131

Post by agumonkey »

beat wrote: post #122
agumonkey wrote: post #20

how "stupid" would it be to turn all building roofs as solar surfaces and wind tunnels ?

The main problem is cost effectiveness. If it costs twice as much per unit of power for a building-level installation vs utility-level, then it's a hard sell. Cheaper to just buy utility-grade power from the grid. It's also a question of retrofit vs new construction. Building it right into a new building is definitely going to be cheaper than adding it to an existing building. What I expect to see more of is solar pa…

And who doesn't like non burning car on a sunny day after parking.

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#132

Post by mikepurvis »

cesarb wrote: post #127
mikepurvis wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. Most of that cost is having a professional sort out the specifics of your particular installation, plus paying the dudes to scramble around on your roof and actually do the work (plus the associated liability). And even once it's all done, you take an efficiency hit because no one's roof will be at the ideal angle the way panels installed at ground level can be.

> And even once it's all done, you take an efficiency hit because no one's roof will be at the ideal angle the way panels installed at ground level can be. Also, a lot of ground level panels are on single-axis trackers, at least in my country, which boosts efficiency even more.

A farm is also likely to be better about maintenance, keeping the panels clear and free of debris.

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#133

Post by cm2187 »

m0zg wrote: post #58

This is nuts. I wonder what the effect of spending $1T on nuclear would be in comparison. I bet it's enough money to get to practical nuclear fusion in a decade, which would largely obviate the need in most other energy generation methods.

I am watching right now a conference [1] on youtube precisely on the comparison of hypothetical 100% wind vs 100% nuclear.

Basically it explains that wind has a typical average utilisation of about 20% vs 70% for full nuclear. A turbine lasts about 20-30y vs 60 for a nuclear reactor. In addition, wind is producing the electricity at the edge of the network, and you loose the diversification effect of having a network (the example he gave is that in France the total potential consumption of all usage of electricity is 4-5x the total installed supply, because not all machines are switched on at the same time, but if you produce your electricity locally you must size it to the potential local need). In addition you have to stock more between seasons for wind than nuclear. So even though the cost per kW built of wind is roughly half or a third of nuclear, the overall cost is 10-20x higher than nuclear.

[1] (in french) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4teA8ciuRU

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#134

Post by Forbo »

tokai wrote: post #129
m0zg wrote: post #58

This is nuts. I wonder what the effect of spending $1T on nuclear would be in comparison. I bet it's enough money to get to practical nuclear fusion in a decade, which would largely obviate the need in most other energy generation methods.

I cannot access this article [0]. But google image search pulled this chart out [1]. It seems to suggest that several trillion dollars have already been spend on fusion over the years. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/19368 [1] https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/...

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1038/19368

It looks more like several billion, not several trillion.

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#135

Post by manmal »

tokai wrote: post #129
m0zg wrote: post #58

This is nuts. I wonder what the effect of spending $1T on nuclear would be in comparison. I bet it's enough money to get to practical nuclear fusion in a decade, which would largely obviate the need in most other energy generation methods.

I cannot access this article [0]. But google image search pulled this chart out [1]. It seems to suggest that several trillion dollars have already been spend on fusion over the years. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/19368 [1] https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/...

I see „millions“ on the scale, so maybe you meant billions?

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#136

Post by VyperCard »

hobofan wrote: post #97
wjnc wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interest in Germany: ~0-1%, expected inflation: 1-2%, terminal value: X unknown (but not 0). Just adding these parameters would change the conclusion of your valuation model significantly. Secondly losses are not subsidies. Subsidies are what governments dole out, losses are for investors and companies.

I don't know the specifics, but there are subsidies in place through the EEG[0] to prevent such losses. In general energy also seems to be a low-risk business, where if the energy companies would ever loose money, they are either already covered by the government or can sue the government for losses due to changed regulations with a good chance of winning. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Renewable_Energy_So…

EEG Sites are phased out in favor of Direktvermartung though

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#137

Post by tokai »

manmal wrote: post #135
tokai wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot access this article [0]. But google image search pulled this chart out [1]. It seems to suggest that several trillion dollars have already been spend on fusion over the years. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/19368 [1] https://media.springernature.com/full/springer-static/image/...

I see „millions“ on the scale, so maybe you meant billions?

Ah yeah. Mixed billions with trillions. Thx

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#138

Post by woodandsteel »

nmfisher wrote: post #118
ocschwar wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely independent of storage. And that said, if you go offshore, you don't really need a lot of storage.

> And that said, if you go offshore, you don't really need a lot of storage. How does that work?

Because the wind is more steady, around the clock and over longer periods of time.

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#139

Post by cm2187 »

beat wrote: post #117
m0zg wrote: post #58

This is nuts. I wonder what the effect of spending $1T on nuclear would be in comparison. I bet it's enough money to get to practical nuclear fusion in a decade, which would largely obviate the need in most other energy generation methods.

Why is spending money on a sure thing, in the face of a global emergency with a ticking clock, "nuts", relative to wasting a decade and a trillion dollars on fantasy tech that may or may not work at all?

The problem is that it is more likely 50y than a decade, the time to build multiple generations of expensive experimental reactors and prototypes.

Re: Offshore wind will be a $1T industry by 2040, but it's needed now

#140

Post by bjourne »

jerven wrote: post #105
cbmuser wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 years is a common number that is used for windparks and solar cells. A lot of sources cite that number. And that with capacity factors ranging between 10% to maximal 50%. Modern nuclear power plants (VVER-1200) reach 60 years of lifetime and have a capacity factor of 90%.

20 year is the guarantee period for wind and solar. Considering wind and solar are turn key provisioned, it is a reasonable assumption. Also consider than these sites are then habitually repowered. Which in the last 20 years would give you double the power on a site or more. Depending on the tower choice up to a third of the cost of wind park is in raw metal costs. This does not lose value over all the years. Metal t…

Thanks for an informative comment. I assume that if a wind turbine has to be replaced every 20th year, then it stands to reason that the turbines in a nuclear reactor has to be replaced just as often? Especially since they are driven by steam and must be spinning very fast.
Post reply on HN