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

Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

climate.lifeitself.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 138 posts

Re: Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

#51

Post by marcosdumay »

lucb1e wrote: post #16
algo_trader wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amazingly, yes! Turbines have gone from 1-2MW to 10-16MW Capacity factors have gone from 20% to 50%-60% Annual additions gave gone from sub-GW to 70GW last year And with turbine spacing of 1km you can actually do stuff with the land in between. On the other hand, transmission projects still take 10-20 years, and new transmission projects are often over booked by 300%-400% before they are even started.

> Turbines have gone from 1-2MW to 10-16MW Okay, but GP's point was that these bigger turbines need to be spaced further apart instead, so we can place fewer of them. That we could build bigger turbines was not in question I think. Do you happen to know whether the MW per km² increased more than the 30% expected amount that GP cited? And regarding doing things between the turbines, I wasn't "awake" yet in 2006 so I d…

> Okay, but GP's point was that these bigger turbines need to be spaced further apart instead, so we can place fewer of them.

What will be a problem if our energy consumption increases by an order of magnitude or two, and we take all of it from the wind. Currently, the entire question is about financial ROI.

> but were they ever placed so close together that you couldn't have farmland in between turbines?

Not since the modern turbines were invented. The first ones were placed in somewhat compact lines, with enough spacing between the turbine lines that you could raise a few lines of any crop. (The lines can't be too close anyway, as that would reduce the turbine efficiency and harm financial ROI.)

Re: Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

#52

Post by addicted »

lucb1e wrote: post #20
ycomb-uit-co-uk wrote: post #6

Have a look at http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/ (I was David's Editor for "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air". There's been quite a bit of interest in updating the book, but there are obvious difficulties. If have suggestions, let me know. Niall Mansfield sewtha-2.0@uit.co.uk )

I wonder if this is correct. Setting the nuclear slider to max single-handedly reduces emissions by 30%, decreases energy costs rather than increases, does not require land use change, improves air quality, and also reduces electricity demand by using the waste heat for district heating. Now add: (1.) electrification of freight transport, (2.) tackling the (relatively) quick wins in industry electrification, and (3.)…

This is strange considering nuclear continues to be the most expensive new form of fuel and has only been getting more expensive with every passing decade.

There is new research in nuclear which if successful would bring costs down but it’s hard to see how maxing out on nuclear reduces average costs.

Edit: I see now. The original data is at least over 5 years old, at which point it’s possible that wind/solar may still have been more expensive than nuclear.

Editx2: The original book on which the original site is based was published in 2008/2009.

It’s not clear how much of the data on this new site has been updated.

Re: Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

#53

Post by credit_guy »

mcot2 wrote: post #36

It sounds like this should have a date attached to it as the numbers are quite outdated for todays world. This did have some good data for back when it was written of course. * An efficient EV will do less than 12kWh/100km these days. * Utility scale solar pv cost declines have been dramatic. It is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy. * Developments in deep water off-shore wind have led to much larger turbi…

> Utility scale solar PV [...] is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy.

I've been hearing this claim for a few years now, and I took it at face value, until a few days ago. I was having a discussion with a friend and told him that PV's share of electricity generation must by quite high, and then I checked the EIA website [1], and it turns out only 2.3% of the electricity comes from PV, while about 40% come from gas and 20% from coal.

Something does not add up. If PV is so cheap, why don't we see more electricity being produced by PV?

[1] https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

Re: Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

#54

Post by baybal2 »

credit_guy wrote: post #53
mcot2 wrote: post #36

It sounds like this should have a date attached to it as the numbers are quite outdated for todays world. This did have some good data for back when it was written of course. * An efficient EV will do less than 12kWh/100km these days. * Utility scale solar pv cost declines have been dramatic. It is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy. * Developments in deep water off-shore wind have led to much larger turbi…

> Utility scale solar PV [...] is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy. I've been hearing this claim for a few years now, and I took it at face value, until a few days ago. I was having a discussion with a friend and told him that PV's share of electricity generation must by quite high, and then I checked the EIA website [1], and it turns out only 2.3% of the electricity comes from PV, while about 40% come f…

> Something does not add up. If PV is so cheap, why don't we see more electricity being produced by PV?

> Utility scale solar PV [...] is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy

For China... The West has very few semiconductor grade silicon smelters, and no industrial scale ones for PV ingots.

I think all of PV cell makers in the West just dice Chinese boules

Re: Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

#55

Post by sdenton4 »

lucb1e wrote: post #20
ycomb-uit-co-uk wrote: post #6

Have a look at http://2050-calculator-tool.decc.gov.uk/ (I was David's Editor for "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air". There's been quite a bit of interest in updating the book, but there are obvious difficulties. If have suggestions, let me know. Niall Mansfield sewtha-2.0@uit.co.uk )

I wonder if this is correct. Setting the nuclear slider to max single-handedly reduces emissions by 30%, decreases energy costs rather than increases, does not require land use change, improves air quality, and also reduces electricity demand by using the waste heat for district heating. Now add: (1.) electrification of freight transport, (2.) tackling the (relatively) quick wins in industry electrification, and (3.)…

See also, peak uranium : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium

2017 known supply is enough for 130 years at current usage (supplying about 10% of global energy). Each doubling of production halves the peak timeline. Basically no one expects discovery to outpace usage.

So, at best, nuclear is a stop gap and part of a different long term solution. Which could be fine! But the extremely low LCOE and fast build time for modern renewables suggests that nuclear is simply losing the race for relevance.

Re: Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

#56

Post by akamaka »

credit_guy wrote: post #53
mcot2 wrote: post #36

It sounds like this should have a date attached to it as the numbers are quite outdated for todays world. This did have some good data for back when it was written of course. * An efficient EV will do less than 12kWh/100km these days. * Utility scale solar pv cost declines have been dramatic. It is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy. * Developments in deep water off-shore wind have led to much larger turbi…

> Utility scale solar PV [...] is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy. I've been hearing this claim for a few years now, and I took it at face value, until a few days ago. I was having a discussion with a friend and told him that PV's share of electricity generation must by quite high, and then I checked the EIA website [1], and it turns out only 2.3% of the electricity comes from PV, while about 40% come f…

Have a look at what new capacity was installed last year:

https://ihsmarkit.com/research-analysis/over-80-of-2020-glob...

Re: Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

#57

Post by ghouse »

credit_guy wrote: post #53
mcot2 wrote: post #36

It sounds like this should have a date attached to it as the numbers are quite outdated for todays world. This did have some good data for back when it was written of course. * An efficient EV will do less than 12kWh/100km these days. * Utility scale solar pv cost declines have been dramatic. It is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy. * Developments in deep water off-shore wind have led to much larger turbi…

> Utility scale solar PV [...] is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy. I've been hearing this claim for a few years now, and I took it at face value, until a few days ago. I was having a discussion with a friend and told him that PV's share of electricity generation must by quite high, and then I checked the EIA website [1], and it turns out only 2.3% of the electricity comes from PV, while about 40% come f…

Only recently did PV becomes the least-cost source of new electric generation.[0] And new utility-scale projects take 2-7 years to develop. For example, TX is anticipated to add 10 GW of new solar generation in 2022.[1] As I write this (while the sun is up, noon in TX), the current demand in TX is 38 GW.[2]

Source: Have been developing solar power plants since 2008.

[0] The tipping point for solar is different in different regions based on many factors, but primarily the amount of annual sunlight and the cost of fuel on the margin, and regulatory policy.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/texas-track-add...

[2] http://www.ercot.com/

Re: Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

#58

Post by kaashif »

kergonath wrote: post #42
jetbooster wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they were suggesting getting rid of the the car parks, but rather putting solar over the top of them. Which would also reduce the amount of petrol used to AC the car when you get back in it too (though this effect is probably negligible)

I don’t think they did, either. Nevertheless, cars are a huge waste of ressources and energy and there is no realistic path to net zero in the next half century without a significant reduction in consumption. Electric cars or not.

Saying there is no realistic path to net zero without a reduction in consumption is somewhat funny to me. I don't think it is realistic at all to think that people will accept a reduction in living standards, which is what a reduction in consumption would result in.

I think switching consumption to forms that don't cause climate change is more realistic. Failing that, mass carbon capture is still more realistic than getting people to consume less, as far as I can tell.

Has anyone, anywhere ever had political success saying that everyone's living standards must decrease?

Re: Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

#59

Post by Obi_Juan_Kenobi »

credit_guy wrote: post #53
mcot2 wrote: post #36

It sounds like this should have a date attached to it as the numbers are quite outdated for todays world. This did have some good data for back when it was written of course. * An efficient EV will do less than 12kWh/100km these days. * Utility scale solar pv cost declines have been dramatic. It is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy. * Developments in deep water off-shore wind have led to much larger turbi…

> Utility scale solar PV [...] is now the cheapest form of new energy to deploy. I've been hearing this claim for a few years now, and I took it at face value, until a few days ago. I was having a discussion with a friend and told him that PV's share of electricity generation must by quite high, and then I checked the EIA website [1], and it turns out only 2.3% of the electricity comes from PV, while about 40% come f…

It takes many decades for old generation to phase out, so even with a significant fraction of new capacity being solar, the total proportion will remain low.

https://cleantechnica.com/files/2020/09/Cumulative-Total-US-...

Solar capacity is increasing dramatically, but it does have limits.

Namely, solar + storage bids are only competitive in some markets. PV generation is often the cheapest source, but without storage it is not practical for many applications.

Re: Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition)

#60

Post by 7952 »

wiz21c wrote: post #4
algo_trader wrote: post #2

Alas, this is probably pointless. Some technologies (PV, batteries, wind) have improved by an order of magnitude - and swamp out all other considerations. EDIT: to be clear, i loved the original book, and have re-read it several times over the years.

FTBook: > Wind turbines are getting bigger all the time. Do bigger wind turbines change this chapter’s answer? > Chapter B explains. Bigger wind turbines deliver financial economies of scale, but they don’t greatly increase the total power per unit land area, because bigger windmills have to be spaced further apart. A wind farm that’s twice as tall will deliver roughly 30% more power. So, did wind turbine production…

But the constraint on growth may not be land (or sea) availability. So why worry? Optimise the thing that is holding you back.
Post reply on HN