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

#301

Post by stubish » Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 1:02 PM UTC

alecmg wrote: post #283

stubish wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article discusses the switch of a major plant in the UK to compressed wood pellets, sourced from the US. I would think that Germany (and most of Europe) would have a good climate for wood pellet production.

are they for real? Wood is so inefficient as fuel that shipping it over anything more than 500km (number taken out of my behind, but it is in the ballpark) takes more energy than is contained in it. The only reason to do so is to end up with high value in "biofuels" category. Just for show.

Not wood, compressed wood pellets. Energy density seems to be between 50-80% of coal. And remember that fuel is only part of the total cost, especially if the formulas include health costs, pollution or carbon emissions.

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

#302

Post by dntbnmpls » Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 1:18 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #299

dntbnmpls wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fac…

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

3% is nothing. You are proving my point but you are too blinded by agenda that you can't even see it. Wow, a whole 3%, quite the "disruption".

Also, you are conveniently ignoring non-electric energy use - cars, boats, planes, etc. Which would drop that % to less than 1% of total energy supply.

> You seem to be another person who doesn't understand how exponential growth works.

No I do. That's why you can't fool me with nonsense. Usually it's the people who don't know math or stats who are easily duped.

> Ultimately, to legitimately gaslight you, your cognitive failure is to assume that things can't change quickly

No. I showed you how things can change quickly. Natural gas. Now that is something that actually caused disruption. Feel free to look at the chart I provided.

> and that your prejudices from a few years ago remain valid, even as the facts that underpinned them have vanished.

You really think I'm prejudiced against solar? I'm prejudiced against lies and mindless zealotry. That must be why solar is a non-factor in energy ( electricity or as fuel or as anything ).

No sane person could say solar has been "disruptive". At least if they knew what the hell they were talking about. But obviously, with your 3%, you haven't a clue.

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

#303

Post by LockAndLol » Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 1:31 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…

Ironically, Germans seem to have bought into the antinuclear frenzy that was sold to them by The Greens. Fukushima was massively overblown by the media and critical thinking went out the window during that time.

Now Germany imports nuclear from France, has the biggest investment in green energy with little to show for it, and is clammering onto their belief that nuclear is the bogeyman.

It doesn't seem as if many Germans saw further than their nose and fear when they voted against nuclear (and still continue to do so)

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

#304

Post by LockAndLol » Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 1:32 PM UTC

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #158

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Australians know. The government, however, behaves as if beholden to the fossil fuel lobby. South Australia installed the largest lithium ion battery in the world[0], and the federal government rubbished it as not fit for purpose and to small too make any difference. Have you ever known the government of any country to play down the installation of the biggest X in the world, in their own country, rather than using i…

Well, the government might be making mistakes but so remind me, who voted them in again?

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

#305

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 1:33 PM UTC

wazoox wrote: post #293

toomuchtodo wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I can't speak to France and EDF's poor energy policies. I suppose when you're a government propping up a state owned utility, it's all numbers on a spreadsheet being moved around (except you're soaking your citizens/rate payers in the process). Wind and solar are exceptionally cheap in sane energy markets.

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

#306

Post by BLKNSLVR » Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 1:47 PM UTC

LockAndLol wrote: post #304

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Australians know. The government, however, behaves as if beholden to the fossil fuel lobby. South Australia installed the largest lithium ion battery in the world[0], and the federal government rubbished it as not fit for purpose and to small too make any difference. Have you ever known the government of any country to play down the installation of the biggest X in the world, in their own country, rather than using i…

Well, the government might be making mistakes but so remind me, who voted them in again?

Low blow friend, don't think I'm not reminded of this many times a day ;)

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

#307

Post by macspoofing » Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 1:48 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #300

macspoofing wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

>That does not prevent wind and solar from providing an all-renewable grid.

Yes, it does. Which part of "there is no alternative to natural gas for base-load" are you purposely ignoring?

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

It is if there is no path past natural gas. What if there is no other alternative?

What if there is no path past natural gas. What if natural gas is not an intermediate technology on the path to utopia, but it is the end-state. Germany certainly acts like that is true because Germany inked a multi-decade deal with Russia to build pipelines and import their gas for the next 5 decades.

>Use of Li-ion batteries for long term storage is a strawman brought up by persons who are attempting to throw shade on renewables.

It's a strawman to you but there are people who really truly believe that Li-ion batteries can provide long-term grid-scale storage. And they will argue with you as vehemently as you argue for hydrogen. Every renewable proponent has its pet unproven technology as the saviour. It's a necessary part of the renewable religion

>Long term storage would be much better done with hydrogen (trading lower efficiency for lower capital cost).

Hydrogen is not a solution, or it's as much a solution as any other unproven pipe-dream. It is not used today because hydrogen for long-term grid-scale storage is an insanely challenging proposition both from generation to storage (Hydrogen needs to be stored under high pressures, thereby requiring reinforced/heavy containers). But every proponent of renewable religion will have their favourite Saint they can pray too. For some, it is Li-ion batteries. For you, it's hydrogen storage.

>Because the effective CO2 tax isn't high enough yet

That's your personal assessment? How about the fact that there is no proven natural-gas alternative to base-load? The laws of thermodynamics don't care about carbon taxes. Taxing carbon only works if there is an alternative to move to. You can tax airplane fuel as much as you want, but airplanes will continue to use fossil fuels because there is no alternative.

> to cause the shutdown of existing fossil fuel plants for which capital costs are sunk

We (NA and Europe) have no issues shutting down coal. But we sure as heck are not shutting down natural gas.

>I could well ask "why isn't nuclear displacing natural gas?"

I wish I knew. I really do. It's part of the irrationality of all of this. My guess is that nuclear suffered from 50 years of FUD from environmentalists (helped by Chernobyl and Three Mile Islan), over-regulation and cheap natural gas. So much of the entire green movement is irrational and religious. But to be clear, if it wasn't for CO2 emissions, natural gas would be a perfectly adequate power source.

I'm not concerned about Nuclear costs either, because even though Nuclear is expensive, it is not overly expensive. I think governments should subsidize nuclear. I would say the same about solar/wind if I believed they could actually make a difference.

I leave you with this: Imagine if we doubled-down on nuclear in the 70s to the same level as France did ... Think of the trillions of tons of CO2 emissions that wouldn't have been emitted. It would have bought us maybe an extra 50 years.

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

#308

Post by Ma8ee » Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 3:07 PM UTC

pfdietz wrote: post #292

Ma8ee wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, it’s not good for some centuries. Corrosion and other processes that aren’t fully understood how they are affected by radiation make it hard to make any leakproof containers that will last even one century. Also, above ground storage is vulnerable both to changing climate as well as changing political circumstances.

Finally, even if all of the above was overcome, it’s just a way to push the problem to future generations. I’d be quite upset if our generation would have to deal with a hundred thousand tons of radioactive waste in old corroding containers without getting anything for it.

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

#309

Post by theptip » Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 3:31 PM UTC

ascotan wrote: post #239

theptip wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trees are a renewable resource, if managed properly. Is there a particular concern about using forestry land to produce fuel?

I think having potentially foreign-owned interests coming into the US to buy up land for commercial logging in order to feed non-coal burning plants is not a net positive.

Why? On the face of it, the US has lots of land to spare, and if the trees are being harvested sustainably, then why does it matter where they are sold?

Sure, all else being equal I'd rather use solar than coal or wood, but if it's more economically viable in the short run to switch a coal plant to wood, thus getting to carbon-neutral, that seems like progress to me.

At some point solar will be cheap enough that the CapEx of replacing the coal/wood plant will be less than the OpEx of running the old plant, and it'll get torn down. (Indeed that crossover point has been hit in some markets, c.f. https://www.vivintsolar.com/blog/solar-energy-is-now-cheaper...)

I prefer not to make perfect the enemy of the good; I'll take some compromises if that's what it takes to get our CO2 emissions down.

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

#310

Post by manfredo » Wed, Jun 10, 2020, 3:40 PM UTC

clomond wrote: post #114

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…

Minor nitpicks here - battery storage is already reaching deployment ready maturity (its not as far away as you think), but the key attribute that needs solving is not 'baseload' power, but rather 'dispatchabilty'. Baseload power in the traditional sense (its always on) isn't always a great think either, what you really want is the ability to have it on, or off, or in between depending on the gap in demand that chang…

Battery storage gas great dispatchability. It's scale that it lacks. It's estimated that a country needs 3 days worth of energy storage for solar and wind to work. The US would require 7 years worth of Global battery production: https://cleantechnica.com/2019/04/14/global-lithium-ion-batt...