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

#351

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 11:56 AM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #348

pfdietz wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The cost of CO2 is not yet high enough to make the CO2-free alternative less expensive. This is the same reason Germany's coal use didn't start rapidly declining until recently, when the European CO2 market was tweaked to raise the price of CO2 credits. It's not because the CO2-free alternatives aren't possible.

(It's also possible they're adding pipelines for security reasons, to avoid cutoff by intermediaries. I don't know if that's actually the case though.)

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

#352

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 12:09 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #349

pfdietz wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mas…

> 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.

It's not hard to imagine, if you allow yourself to think about it (which I suggest you do so you can cease embarrassing yourself here.)

For Germany, one can just look at simple model outputs, using real weather data. The site I often point to, https://model.energy/ allows you to find optimum solutions to the problem of producing a steady amount of power. This ignores seasonality of demand, but it good for addressing the "but nuclear" fanboys, since nuclear reactors produce near steady output. The assumed 2030 cost for H2 electrolysers there is already well above current costs; decline has been more rapid than expected.

If you go to that site and ask for solutions for Germany, you get a mix that includes wind, solar, batteries, and hydrogen (about 6 hours of battery storage, and about a week of hydrogen storage.)

This solution does NOT include thermal storage, which would be very large for many applications, as it is extremely cheap. In particular, underground storage of low grade heat would likely be used for district heating.

> 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

They aren't doing it because the CO2 cost needed to make it happen isn't in place yet. An argument very similar to yours was made about them getting off coal. "Look at Germany, still burning all that coal." Yet when the European CO2 market was tweaked to increase the cost of CO2 credits, coal use in Germany began to rapidly decline. It wasn't high because coal is essential and irreplaceable, it was high because the market signals made it high. Change those signals and other solutions are adopted.

You are confusing what is currently cheapest with what is physically possible or practical. These are not the same thing.

> Are you sure you're not the Flat Earther?

Yes, absolutely. You're the one engaging in shoddy and illogical arguments, the "it hasn't happened yet therefore it can't happen", the one ignoring the repeated refutations of your clear logical errors and misconceptions.

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

#353

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 12:11 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #347

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.

>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…

It's not happening yet because the cost of CO2 is not high enough yet to make it competitive. Having said that, Germany is putting a lot of money into hydrogen, and this is driving down the cost of electrolysers, the same way Germany drove down the cost of PV a decade ago.

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

#354

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 12:24 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…

> That's 20 years at the current rate of doubling.

Correction: more like 15 years.

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

#355

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 1:11 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #215

Brakenshire wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar is currently close to being the cheapest way of generating a unit of electricity that has ever been existed. Very strange definition of vanity. Anywhere near the equator the technology is going to totally replace all other generation within 20-30 years.

It could be free and still would be vanity because you still need that base-load, for evenings, night, and cloudy days. But solar isn't free. Panels are high-tech devices that require destructive mining for exotic minerals, in addition to massive land-use. Climate change isn't the only problem we have. There's also environmental collapse. >Anywhere near the equator the technology is going to totally replace all other…

> because you still need that base-load, for evenings, night, and cloudy days.

If you are claiming that one needs base load power plants, ones that operate at very high capacity factor, that's wrong. A combination of intermittent power plants, and dispatchable power plants (including possibly storage) to fill in the gaps, would work just fine. There is no need for a steady demand to be supplied by power plants individually producing steady output. Base load supply can be synthesized from non-base load components.

> 20 years away in perpetuity..just like cold fusion.

Solar is already being installed at the many GW scale. Equating that to cold fusion is the height of dishonesty.

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

#356

Post by theptip » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 3:39 PM UTC

ascotan wrote: post #340

theptip wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Commercial logging doesn't protect the environment and it's likely even worse than digging up coal and burning it. In the end some politician somewhere is running for re-election and I'm sure this is great press. However, it's not good for the environment: Here's a quick article on the uncounted CO2 cost of making wood pellets exactly for these plants: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2215913-logging-study-r... "…

Thanks for the links, I appreciate the detailed reply.

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

#357

Post by manfredo » Thu, Jun 11, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

Ma8ee wrote: post #346

manfredo wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tech…

> 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.

In concrete casks, buried 500 meters deep in bedrock, sure.

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

#358

Post by Hypx » Sat, Jun 13, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

macspoofing wrote: post #347

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.

>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…

It is happening since hydrogen is used in oil refining and other industries. Not at the scale needed, but there is definitely large quantities of hydrogen being stored this way.

Broadly speaking, it is not much different than storing natural gas.

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

#359

Post by pfdietz » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 2:15 AM UTC

renaudg wrote: post #314

skrause wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany they do protest coal power. 100% renewables is the goal.

All renewables except hydro (which Germany doesn't have the geography for) are intermittent. It's impossible to go 100% renewables unless there's a breakthrough in battery storage. By the time that happens, it will be too late for climate change. That's why phasing out nuclear without having any other solid low carbon plan was irresponsible.

It's a common canard to say that batteries are the only storage technology that could be used.

Long term storage is better handled with hydrogen. Using batteries and hydrogen at plausible (or even conservative) costs, one can get to a 100% renewable (PV + wind) grid more cheaply than one also using new nuclear power plants.

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

#360

Post by pfdietz » Mon, Jun 15, 2020, 2:17 AM UTC

dodobirdlord wrote: post #254

ShroudedNight wrote: post #231

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.

This is the case in most of the world, but I believe that in France spent fuel is reprocessed.

The French have admitted the reprocessing doesn't save them any money, in fact it's more expensive than not reprocessing. But the cost is still only a very small part of the cost of nuclear power.