Live data from Hacker News

Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

bbc.com

291–300 of 364 posts

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

#291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of potential energy is extracted? My (old, probably out of date) understanding is that (at least in Canada) nuclear facilities limit themselves to extracting some tiny quantity of the potential energy in order to avoid producing material that could be made into nuclear weapons.

Normal nuclear reactors only extract single-digit percentages of the energy. You want to use breeder reactors to actually burn all the nuclear fuel. The "waste" still contains almost all of its energy. Breeder reactors are of course unpopular politically, because they create raw material for nuclear bombs as part of their normal operation.

They are unpopular for other reasons.

The first is that they are more expensive than burner reactors. With uranium ore being cheap and plentiful, and with the energy cost of enrichment so low now (gas centrifuges using 50x less energy than gaseous diffusion), there's no economic case for reprocessing, let along breeding.

The other problem is that fast breeders are inherently dangerous, with the possibility of fast supercriticality lurking in a serious accident. Edward Teller famously pointed this out publicly in 1967:

"For the fast breeder to work in its steady-state breeding condition you probably need something like half a ton of plutonium. In order that it should work economically in a sufficiently big power-producing unit, it probably needs quite a bit more than one ton of plutonium. I do not like the hazard involved. I suggested that nuclear reactors are a blessing because they are clean. They are clean as long as they function as planned, but if they malfunction in a massive manner, which can happen in principle, they can release enough fission products to kill a tremendous number of people. […] ...But, if you put together two tons of plutonium in a breeder, one tenth of one percent of this material could become critical. […] I have listened to hundreds of analyses of what course a nuclear accident can take. Although I believe it is possible to analyze the immediate consequences of an accident, I do not believe it is possible to analyze and foresee the secondary consequences. In an accident involving a plutonium reactor, a couple of tons of plutonium can melt. I don't think anybody can foresee where one or two or five percent of this plutonium will find itself and how it will get mixed with some other material. A small fraction of the original charge can become a great hazard."

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

#292
post #288
post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are always a lot of interesting research projects brought up about what to do with the nuclear waste in the future. But never anything cost effective actually in production yet, and it's not like they haven't hade some decades to get them going. If we can cite as our solution, I suggest that we go with fusion reactors directly. The main barriers for building new nuclear plants are that they aren't cost effectiv…

There is a straightforward, economical, and practical approach to dealing with spent fuel: sealing it in dry storage casks.

This is cheap, good for at least some centuries, and forecloses no future options for its disposition. Why do anything else now?

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

#293
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check Hinkley Point C. When done it will reliably produce more than 3GWh every hour of every day. More than 28 TWh every year. Your 269 renewable projects, occupying thousands of times more land space and requiring hundred of times more resources to build, will only produce 3 to 4 times as much at best, while still requiring an equivalent spare capacity (in storage, using unavailable technology, or in gas, coal, ...…

> Renewables are a sham. A waste of money, land and resources. Seriously, I'm quite sure of it now. From Wikipedia on HPC: > EDF has negotiated a guaranteed fixed price – a "strike price"– for electricity from Hinkley Point C of £92.50/MWh (in 2012 prices),[26][81] which will be adjusted (linked to inflation) during the construction period and over the subsequent 35 years tariff period. The strike price could fall to…

France just signed for a new large wind farm (300 mills), guaranteeing 120-140€/MWh for 20 years. What's subsidized, already?

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

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is unfortunately not the case. Lots of wood is imported from the third world, potentially the Amazon. Even if it was grown in the country it is consumed in, it would eventually suffer the same issues that industrial farming does. The soil becomes depleted and requires fossil-fuel based fertilizer. Burning the Amazon is now progress, apparently. Something like fusion, or cleaner nuclear, is our only hope. I worry…

> cleaner nuclear If we (USA) hadn't stopped building nuclear in the 80s, and had merely continued building it at the same pace, our grid would be (approximately) carbon-free today. Not twenty years from now, not fifty years from now, today. But no, we collectively decided that no amount of engineering could possibly make nuclear acceptably safe, and we made the grown-up responsible decision to pump our atmosphere fu…

The reason we stopped building nuclear power palnts is that growth in energy demand suddenly slowed or stopped, nuclear power plants turned out to be more expensive than promoted, and because of a 1978 law called PURPA that opened up the grid to non-utility generators.

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

#295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we have carbon neutral batteries yet? Last I saw the production chain for lithium-ion was not carbon neutral over the expected lifetime of the product but rather increased carbon emissions. I’m having a hard time finding numbers to compare with wood pellets or coal, though, so I’m curious if you know.

How could a battery be carbon-neutral? What does that even mean? A batter doesn't produce energy, how could it be carbon-neutral by itself?

In a grid context the battery produces energy, specifically in that it allows other renewable producers to produce more.

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal nuclear reactors only extract single-digit percentages of the energy. You want to use breeder reactors to actually burn all the nuclear fuel. The "waste" still contains almost all of its energy. Breeder reactors are of course unpopular politically, because they create raw material for nuclear bombs as part of their normal operation.

They are unpopular for other reasons. The first is that they are more expensive than burner reactors. With uranium ore being cheap and plentiful, and with the energy cost of enrichment so low now (gas centrifuges using 50x less energy than gaseous diffusion), there's no economic case for reprocessing, let along breeding. The other problem is that fast breeders are inherently dangerous, with the possibility of fast su…

Interesting. I didn't know that they were even more expensive than normal nuclear plants. Do you have sources, so that I don't have to cite you comment the next time I talk about breeder reactors?

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

#297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is expensive - but it's cheap compared to the costs of climate change and environmental destruction. The minuscule amount of waste it generates and the tiny land-use requirements per kWh - it's almost magical. >we'll have to wait a while for people like you to clue in how an optimized renewable-only grid I'm willing to be clued-in. This isn't an ideological fight for me. I have nothing against solar and wind.…

> I'm willing to be clued-in. This isn't an ideological fight for me. I have nothing against solar and wind. I want what you want. Ideally, if you could point me to an example of 100% or near 100% renewable smart grid that is running primarily on wind and solar - the discussion would be over. You are giving the "nothing can ever happen for the first time" argument. Grids right now use fossil fuels. This does not mean…

>This does not mean that a fossil-fuel-free grid is impossible, or that IF fossil fuels were excluded

We know fossil-fuel-free grids are very possible. Hydro/Geothermal (if you can get it) and Nuclear can enable it. Today.

What is clear is that wind and solar cannot create a fossil-fuel-free grid because both wind and solar need base-load backup - which today is natural gas in most places. Everything else like molten-salt, kinetic, Li-ion batteries are either unproven or will never work (such as Li-ion batteries being used for long-term grid-scale backup). And proponents will usually equivocate and just assume we can invent our way out of this.

>You are giving the "nothing can ever happen for the first time" argument

No. But did you ask yourself: Why isn't it happening? Why is it taking Germany decades to get that 'first time'? Maybe it just doesn't work but so many people are so emotionally invested, they don't want to hear it. So much so, that they actually think that burning wooden pellets is an energy source of the future because that's one way to provide carbon-neutral base-load for solar.

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

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, some states are almost entirely wind-powered now. It can work with the right geography. I'm in Iowa, and some days our entire demand is met by this. But it costs - about $1B per Gigawatt. Estimates are an average of about 1/3 total potential (windy days per year). Still, nuclear is the clear winner in the long run. You can make as much as you want, and put it where its needed. Wind is entirely opportunisti…

>almost entirely wind-powered now. It Wind provides base-load? Since when? Behind every big wind deployment is a natural-gas company awash with profits. Seriously, natural gas companies are probably the biggest lobby groups for, and proponents of, wind and solar these days. Just look a little deeper into any major wind deployment and you'll see a natural gas company staring back at you. Why?

Last year, wind in Iowa surpassed coal. And yes gas is the big supplier here, because of all the grain drying mostly.

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

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Solar is a nonfactor in energy. It counts for absolutely nothing. You appear to be confusing the past with the future. And, really, a reference from 2016? Four years is FOREVER in the energy business now. PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in the last decade, you know.

> And, really, a reference from 2016? And what reference did you provide? Other than your supposed ability to predict the future? > Four years is FOREVER in the energy business now. It isn't. Also, considering solar subsidies have collapsed throughout the world, especially since 2016, it's far more likely solar has lost ground. Going from insignificant to worthless. But that's probably why you haven't posted any sour…

> Also, considering solar subsidies have collapsed throughout the world, especially since 2016, it's far more likely solar has lost ground.

One need only look at the data to see you are mistaken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_by_country

Global installed PV capacity has more than doubled since 2016, and now accounts for 3% of total electricity consumption.

> It isn't

It obviously is. PV costs fell by a factor of 5 in a decade; that's about a factor of 2 in four years. You would have us believe that dropping the cost of PV by a factor of ~2 would make no difference. But this is clearly not true. We are seeing record low PV bids from all over the world. The most recent eye opener was from Abu Dhabi, where are 22 km^2 project was bid to deliver unsubsidized energy at $0.0135/kWh. This is many times cheaper than the power from the new nuclear plants being constructed in the Gulf region, and is perhaps the cheapest source of electrical energy on the planet.

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/06/08/1-35-cents-kwh-record-a...

> 5 times nothing is still nothing. You know.

You seem to be another person who doesn't understand how exponential growth works. Solar is 3% of world electric consumption now; we are just 5 doubling times away from dominance. That's 20 years at the current rate of doubling. With demonstrated experience curves that will drive the cost of PV energy below $0.01/kWh in much of the world.

Ultimately, to legitimately gaslight you, your cognitive failure is to assume that things can't change quickly, and that your prejudices from a few years ago remain valid, even as the facts that underpinned them have vanished.

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

#300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm willing to be clued-in. This isn't an ideological fight for me. I have nothing against solar and wind. I want what you want. Ideally, if you could point me to an example of 100% or near 100% renewable smart grid that is running primarily on wind and solar - the discussion would be over. You are giving the "nothing can ever happen for the first time" argument. Grids right now use fossil fuels. This does not mean…

>This does not mean that a fossil-fuel-free grid is impossible, or that IF fossil fuels were excluded We know fossil-fuel-free grids are very possible. Hydro/Geothermal (if you can get it) and Nuclear can enable it. Today. What is clear is that wind and solar cannot create a fossil-fuel-free grid because both wind and solar need base-load backup - which today is natural gas in most places. Everything else like molten…

> What is clear is that wind and solar cannot create a fossil-fuel-free grid because both wind and solar need base-load backup

That does not prevent wind and solar from providing an all renewable grid. And as I explained, for plausible near term costs figures, dealing with intermittency via proper system design makes the all-renewable grid cheaper than one including nuclear.

That the backup "today, is natural gas" is not relevant to that question.

Use of Li-ion batteries for long term storage is a strawman brought up by persons who are attempting to throw shade on renewables. But that would be idiot system design. Long term storage would be much better done with hydrogen (trading lower efficiency for lower capital cost).

> But did you ask yourself: Why isn't it happening?

Because the effective CO2 tax isn't high enough yet, particularly to cause the shutdown of existing fossil fuel plants for which capital costs are sunk. I could well ask "why isn't nuclear displacing natural gas?"

You seem to be arguing that wind/solar have to displace fossil fuels without any Pigouvian taxes (or the equivalent) on the latter. By this standard, nuclear also won't displace fossil fuels.

Post reply on HN