Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power • Hacker News Board

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#141

Post by aksss » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:04 PM UTC

Ma8ee wrote: post #131

boustrophedon wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other direct or indirect sources of deaths are there from nuclear power?

Mining and transport of uranium ore, processed fuel and nuclear waste. I don’t know how significant those are. My main concern with nuclear power is that they still haven’t managed to create any active long term storage of the nuclear waste. And before that, we don’t know the full actual cost of the energy.

I haven't kept up on it, but aren't travelling wave reactors supposed to use the spent rods from light water reactors?[0] Seems like an elegant use of nuclear waste.

There was an argument made last year [1] that the problem with nuclear power generation is that everything we have in production is 50+ yo technology. Modern reactors are far cleaner, far safer, but the political hurdles for regulatory approval and NIMBY hurdles are enormous barriers.

Incidentally, if we're considering mining and transport of base resources to be part of indirect deaths, let's not forget that our renewable infrastructure relies on very dirty mining and transportation processes for quartz, rare earth minerals... and coal!

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traveling_wave_reactor#Fuel

[1] https://www.netflix.com/title/80184771

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#142

Post by pfdietz » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

nimish wrote: post #80

wazoox wrote: post #8

And nuclear . Because Brits know that you can't rely 100% on renewables (30% is about the maximum for most countries; "wood pellet" isn't actually renewable, it's forest mining).

Solar and wind are getting so cheap that you could feasibly overbuild to deal with low production times. And no, 30% is nowhere near the max, especially with storage

Overbuild, and also use the excess to make hydrogen.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#143

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:05 PM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #106

Every time there's a thread on the topic, I like to share this fantastic realtime map of the carbon intensity of electricity production in various countries : https://www.electricitymap.org/map As I write this, the UK's intensity is 326 gCO₂eq/kWh, which is nothing to write home about. This is better than the worst European offender (coal-loving Poland : 652g) as well as Baltic countries, the Netherlands and Germany…

It looks like somebody needs to inform Australia that solar exists and they get a lot of sunlight.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#144

Post by AnthonyMouse » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:10 PM UTC

Retric wrote: post #125

renaudg wrote: post #106

Every time there's a thread on the topic, I like to share this fantastic realtime map of the carbon intensity of electricity production in various countries : https://www.electricitymap.org/map As I write this, the UK's intensity is 326 gCO₂eq/kWh, which is nothing to write home about. This is better than the worst European offender (coal-loving Poland : 652g) as well as Baltic countries, the Netherlands and Germany…

France imports and exports a lot of electricity, so the used electricity is far less clean than that suggests. Similarly, countries that import from France are cleaner than that suggests. This is an important consideration when looking at the cost of scaling nuclear power as it gets far more expensive the lower the utilization. You can get to around 40% across an electric grid such as Europe or an island, but scaling…

> This is an important consideration when looking at the cost of scaling nuclear power as it gets far more expensive the lower the utilization. You can get to around 40% across an electric grid such as Europe or an island, but scaling past that needs truly massive subsidies.

This is why diversified solutions are best. You get ~40% from nuclear and the same from solar and you're 80% carbon-free. Even using natural gas for the last 20% would put you well ahead of most countries as it is, and as storage or other alternatives improve you can move even that to solar+storage or whatever alternatives.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#145

Post by dmos62 » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:12 PM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #106

Every time there's a thread on the topic, I like to share this fantastic realtime map of the carbon intensity of electricity production in various countries : https://www.electricitymap.org/map As I write this, the UK's intensity is 326 gCO₂eq/kWh, which is nothing to write home about. This is better than the worst European offender (coal-loving Poland : 652g) as well as Baltic countries, the Netherlands and Germany…

The color value is misleading though, since it doesn't account for differences in energy consumption per unit of area. For example Belgium is very densely populated compared to France, so if for example both had the same gCO₂eq/kWh, Belgium would have higher CO₂ intensity per unit of area, but this map would color them the same.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#146

Post by Retric » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

glogla wrote: post #132

Retric wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France imports and exports a lot of electricity, so the used electricity is far less clean than that suggests. Similarly, countries that import from France are cleaner than that suggests. This is an important consideration when looking at the cost of scaling nuclear power as it gets far more expensive the lower the utilization. You can get to around 40% across an electric grid such as Europe or an island, but scaling…

The linked page tracks both - production and consumption. For example, at the moment, Germany produces at 415g/kWh but consumes at 382g/kWh, mostly thanks to 3 GW import from France and 2.7 GW import from Switzerland.

The map shows both production and consumption, but it only tracks carbon by production nationwide.

PS: It’s not uncommon to see a country export and import electricity at the same time. In that context using nationwide numbers is clearly missing important details.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#147

Post by tomr_stargazer » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:24 PM UTC

heipei wrote: post #122

renaudg wrote: post #106

Every time there's a thread on the topic, I like to share this fantastic realtime map of the carbon intensity of electricity production in various countries : https://www.electricitymap.org/map As I write this, the UK's intensity is 326 gCO₂eq/kWh, which is nothing to write home about. This is better than the worst European offender (coal-loving Poland : 652g) as well as Baltic countries, the Netherlands and Germany…

I don't know how any German in their right mind can continue supporting coal (especially lignite) even if you were to ignore all the fancy carbon emission calculations. Lignite is won using strip-mining here, and by here I mean in the most populous state of Germany between the major Ruhr area and Düsseldorf/Cologne, all major population centers. From where I live, I have to drive straight through these mines whenever…

This image was shocking. Thank you for sharing. I feel like Treebeard, from the Lord of the Rings, coming across Saruman’s destruction of Isengard.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#148

Post by aksss » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:30 PM UTC

torpfactory wrote: post #135

aksss wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't make an argument that it's carbon neutral -- They don't just burn deadfall, and you can't grow trees faster than you can burn them. Prior to coal, the developed world burned massive amounts of wood, which contributed to massive deforestation. This is literally a step backwards, and not in any good way. When civilization burned wood for energy >500 years ago, sure, because demand was so low. But by the 1700-…

That Michael Moore film is pretty terrible and doesn't contain the best available and most recent science. I wouldn't consider it a reliable source.

I explained in another comment that Michael Moore isn't the first, nor most reputable, to make these points. He's the first to expose the casual consumer to the problem set.

"pretty terrible" and "best available and most recent science" are squirrelly evaluations. To be specific, you're alluding to the idea that the most recent technology improves the efficiency of solar panels and may extend their lifespan, but these marginal improvements in efficiency and lifespan aren't enough to cast aside the incredible costs in strip mining (ecosystem destruction and fossil fuel energy use), manufacturing (energy use), transportation (energy use), installation(energy use and further processed materials), and operations/maintenance (energy use, e-waste). I mean, that's a quantifiable cost to balance against quantifiable (and intermittent) output and the numbers don't bode well for renewables scaling up/out and truly denting fossil fuel consumption.

The core problem is worldwide energy demand is climbing higher and faster than renewables will ever be able to address. For the fractional role they play, the payout of renewables is undercut by the fact that fossil fuels are used to produce and emplace renewable infrastructure, renewable infrastructure (at a facility level) has an enormous environmental footprint (read: habitat destruction), and has to be replaced in a few decades at best. They are producing energy maybe 50% of that time, and despite the improvements in storage tech (which has its own environmental issues), you still need to back up the renewables facilities with.. fossil fuels.

All this is to say that we need to be looking at other sources (e.g. safe nuclear) to displace fossil fuel.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#149

Post by tpmx » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:39 PM UTC

Well, duh, it's June. Get back to us when they do the same "feat" in wintertime.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#150

Post by jotm » Tue, Jun 09, 2020, 9:43 PM UTC

DFHippie wrote: post #63

vkou wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. 'Waste wood pellet' power plants are a con job. 2. There is not nearly enough wood waste from construction sites/etc to operate them. 3. They have to be supplemented with wood cut down from forests. 4. There aren't nearly enough forests in the UK to operate these plants sustainably. 5. So, the wood they burn comes from cutting down Canadian forests, trucking them down logging roads, loading them onto barges, and s…

> By the time you're done with all that, the carbon footprint of your wood pellet plant is greater than that of a coal plant. I would like to see a citation for this. It seems highly improbable.

Seeing as coal is just as energy intensive to mine and transport, yeah... But I guess his point was that wood burning should be stopped along with coal, because it's nearly as bad.