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

Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 364 posts

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

#341

Post by mrpopo »

renaudg wrote: post #317
mrpopo wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point, I meant "realistic" as the only technologically plausible scenario. Is it realistic from a human point of view, I don't know. I see what you mean, but even if a magical carbon capture solution was invented, it would take several decades for it to be implemented on a sufficient scale - given that the current emissions don't increase even faster!! I can't consider it as part of any "likely" scenario. Also,…

That's not the only technologically plausible scenario, we can use nuclear now. It's also way more realistic from a human point of view to have populations accept this rather than a drastic and sudden lifestyle change.

"using nuclear now" is part of the scenario. Any technology that has brought more efficient, less co2-intensive energy thus far has been used to increase the energy usage at a limited impact, instead of decreasing the impact. Only a policy focused on reducing (or at the very least, stopping the increase) energy usage can have positive final results.

À significant part of the population accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months. Suddenly remote work and visio conferences are acceptable alternatives to driving 2tons of metal through 30km of asphalt 2x a day. Change is possible.

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

#342

Post by manfredo »

Ma8ee wrote: post #330
manfredo wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about Onkalo, but the US's proposed disposal site is in a solid rock mountain in a desert. And yes, commenters in this post are saying that the casks will leak and the uranium will float up to the surface: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23477854 Re: "underground isn't dry" (HN is rate limiting this thread) Yes, it is. These story facilities are built in bedrock. You seem to be under the impression…

There’s groundwater at Onkala [0]. So you are suggesting that there is a site in the US that will be used for burying Nuclear waste that is dry and will be guaranteed to be dry for the next 10000 years? Why don’t you name it? I’m sure more people than I want to know. [0] http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/research_and_developm...

Nowhere in your source does it predict that this trace amount of water will compromise the storage. This study doesn't even contain results, only describing the process used to measure potential water infiltration.

And for the second time, Yucca mountain is a cave dug out of bedrock. In a desert. It's abandonment was done by politicians, not by scientists raising concern over safety. We're not using it because there's so little nuclear waste to store.

The concern over waste storage is laughable in comparison to environmental damage done by fossil fuels, solar power, and hydroelectricity. We're concerned about uranium buried deep underground, miles away from any population center. Despite the fact that uranium is a naturally occurring resource that we dug from out of the ground in the first place.

Think of it this way: right now there are veins of uranium unknown to us. We're taking this uranium and putting it in a known location. In between we use it as a carbon free power source.

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

#343

Post by 8bitsrule »

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…

"Wind/solar are intermittent and there's no way around that (battery storage isn't nearly mature enough)"

One way 'around that' is to use gravity storage -- of which dozens of examples already exist around the world. China has at least 21 pumped-hydro facilities (19GW capacity [0], working on 30GW more [1]) and Britain's been using one for 'tea-time' demands for decades.

'Waiting for batteries' is decisively not a useful argument. They're very far from the most economical and environmentally-friendly storage.

[0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/chinas-amb...

[1] https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201901/09/WS5c353bb7a3106860...

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

#344

Post by hatboat »

mrpopo wrote: post #341
renaudg wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the only technologically plausible scenario, we can use nuclear now. It's also way more realistic from a human point of view to have populations accept this rather than a drastic and sudden lifestyle change.

"using nuclear now" is part of the scenario. Any technology that has brought more efficient, less co2-intensive energy thus far has been used to increase the energy usage at a limited impact, instead of decreasing the impact. Only a policy focused on reducing (or at the very least, stopping the increase) energy usage can have positive final results. À significant part of the population accepted a drastic and sudden l…

I think your second paragraph is misplaced. It's my belief that people "accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months" precisely because it was advertised as a temporary measure.

We're already seeing large numbers of people reject the "stay at home" narrative , simply because they want to, rather than it being driven by improving conditions.

Using this as evidence to suggest that people will adjust to a "new normal" is arguing against your point.

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

#345

Post by mrpopo »

hatboat wrote: post #344
mrpopo wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"using nuclear now" is part of the scenario. Any technology that has brought more efficient, less co2-intensive energy thus far has been used to increase the energy usage at a limited impact, instead of decreasing the impact. Only a policy focused on reducing (or at the very least, stopping the increase) energy usage can have positive final results. À significant part of the population accepted a drastic and sudden l…

I think your second paragraph is misplaced. It's my belief that people "accepted a drastic and sudden lifestyle change over the last few months" precisely because it was advertised as a temporary measure. We're already seeing large numbers of people reject the "stay at home" narrative , simply because they want to, rather than it being driven by improving conditions. Using this as evidence to suggest that people will…

I see what you mean, and I don't think it's gonna be easy either, I don't have false hopes.

Technically though, being locked down is more restrictive than forcing people to move in small electric cars or e-bikes. Just like remote work has jumped up in the lead few months, if proper measures are taken and enforced, demand for bike /rail infrastructures will increase immediately.

People can adapt. How many will resist to change, is the question.

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

#346

Post by Ma8ee »

manfredo wrote: post #342
Ma8ee wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s groundwater at Onkala [0]. So you are suggesting that there is a site in the US that will be used for burying Nuclear waste that is dry and will be guaranteed to be dry for the next 10000 years? Why don’t you name it? I’m sure more people than I want to know. [0] http://www.posiva.fi/en/final_disposal/research_and_developm...

Nowhere in your source does it predict that this trace amount of water will compromise the storage. This study doesn't even contain results, only describing the process used to measure potential water infiltration. And for the second time, Yucca mountain is a cave dug out of bedrock. In a desert. It's abandonment was done by politicians, not by scientists raising concern over safety. We're not using it because there'…

No, because that was a study of the water flow, which contradicted your idea about it being dry. There are countless other studies where they look at how for example how radioactivity affects corrosion etc.

It doesn't matter why Yucca was abandonned. It isn't active. If it is technical or political reason behind it. It doesn't matter because you still don't have anywhere to store the waste. If it is political or technical problem doesn't matter, because it is still not solved.

And about that desert, maybe you have heard about this thing climate change that sometimes they mention in the news? That might actually mean that in even a hundred years there isn't any desert there any more.

Arsenic occurs naturally in many places. Would you mind me burrying a few gallons of it in your backyard? You'll know where it is, so you don't have to worry about it.

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

#347

Post by macspoofing »

Hypx wrote: post #333
macspoofing wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 in…

Hydrogen can be stored underground in the form of salt caverns or domes. According to this: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201910.0187/v1 The storage capacity is 84.8 PWh-H2 in Europe across all known formations. This is a very large number and likely far exceeds demand. It's safe to say we will not struggle with hydrogen storage if or when we need it.

>Hydrogen can be stored underground in the form of salt caverns or domes.

And is it? On a grid-scale? And if not, why not? Is it because there are major technical hurdles that need to be overcome, and it's a completely unproven approach?

This is what happens with these renewable discussions. Proponents will just throw out theories as facts and non-existent technologies as ready for prime time and gloss over intrinsic technical hurdles ... meanwhile in the real world, even though there is desperation to move from fossil fuels, somehow those ideas aren't implemented. Why is Germany building NEW natural gas pipelines, instead of building hydrogen storage? The Syrian conflict is partially exacerbated by geopolitical jockeying between Russia and Turkey and others for the right to build future pipelines into Europe. What do they all know that we don't know?

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

#348

Post by macspoofing »

pfdietz wrote: post #335
Hypx wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydrogen can be stored underground in the form of salt caverns or domes. According to this: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201910.0187/v1 The storage capacity is 84.8 PWh-H2 in Europe across all known formations. This is a very large number and likely far exceeds demand. It's safe to say we will not struggle with hydrogen storage if or when we need it.

In particular, the optimum solution for a steady supply of renewable power for Germany (from https://model.energy ) for their current average grid power demand would involve about 0.1% of this as hydrogen storage. And that's just salt caverns. Hydrogen can also be stored in aquifers and spent oil fields.

So why is Germany building NEW pipelines from Russia to import their natural gas? It sounds like there's no point in investing in natural gas when you could spend those same billions just building hydrogen storage. What are they missing?

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

#349

Post by macspoofing »

pfdietz wrote: post #334
macspoofing wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 in…

> Yes, it does. Which part of "there is no alternative to natural gas for base-load" are you purposely ignoring? I'm not ignoring it. I'm telling you it's false. I've pointed out to you how one can design a 100% renewable grid without natural gas. You believe something that's just not so. It's not possible to have an intelligent conversation with you when you're the moral equivalent of a Flat Earther. As pointed out…

>I've pointed out to you how one can design a 100% renewable grid without natural gas. You believe something that's just not so.

Can you please provide an example of the energy mix of a 100% renewable grid? I don't even know what it looks like in theory.

> You believe something that's just not so.

Because there isn't one and not without trying. Germany is a perfect example. A very rich, progressive country with a massive budget surplus .. and yet they aren't doing it. In fact, they are building NEW natural gas pipelines from the authoritarian nations and a geopolitical rival. How does that happen? How do you make sense of it in your head?

>It's not possible to have an intelligent conversation with you when you're the moral equivalent of a Flat Earther.

Are you sure you're not the Flat Earther? You just claim things that are in direct contradiction to what is happening in the real world. There is NO country right now, that either implemented or is on the path to 100% renewable-based grid that isn't based on hydro, geothermal or nuclear. None. That is a fact of reality. This means that every country that is at 100% or near 100% non-fossil-fuel energy generation did it with either hydro, geothermal, or nuclear. Those are all facts. I see that and I read your arguments, and it looks like gaslighting to me.

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

#350

Post by macspoofing »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #298
macspoofing wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Yep. I know nothing about Iowa, but I can bet Iowan wind farms were constructed by a natural gas company (or at least natural gas company was a big investor). Natural gas companies LOVE wind power because it means more demand and more customers for natural gas.
Post reply on HN