Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air (Revised, Community Edition) • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by 7952 » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

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…

But why is it important to optimise MW per km2? Seems like premature optimization of something that is not the bottleneck.

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

#62

Post by wcoenen » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

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It sounds like this should have a date attached to it as the numbers are quite outdated for todays world.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…

Wind was cheaper. The levellized cost of electricity from solar has only recently dropped below that of wind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

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

#63

Post by mattlondon » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:09 PM UTC

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…

It didn't seem to mention hybrids much either. It mentioned a polo bluemotion as the lowest co2 emitting vehicle at 99g/km, but even my 10+ year old hybrid clunker (Toyota auris) officially gets 82g/km - modern hybrids must be way better by now, and they are super common now rather than just Toyota's selling point.

A recent report I read on the BBC suggests that public bus transportation is 90g/km/passenger so my ancient old hybrid is better than taking the bus it seems?

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

#64

Post by korantu » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:12 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #55

lucb1e wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ti…

Fuel is very small part in cost of nuclear generation; As fuel price start increasing, more sources become viable, including sea water. There is practically unlimited supply once it happens, and this is before accounting for reprocessing. (and reprocessing happens in France, for example)

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

#65

Post by epistasis » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:15 PM UTC

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…

There are several reasons:

1) lifetimes of utility assets are measured in decades, not years

2) the utility industry is not used to needing to pay attention to new technology and new information, and has a huge bias against renewables that goes back to the hard energy /soft energy split of the 1970s and 1980s

3) Utility planning models (IRPs, often for five years out) often use outdated info that is 3-5 years old when planning deployments for the next five years. So even if utilities used up to date info, it would take 5 years for them to shift strategy.

4) many utilities are not incentivized to install least cost generation, and their incentives and profit rates are different for things like installing transmission, distribution, etc

5) regulators of utilities are often even further behind the times than utility executives or completely captured (see for example Arizona)

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

#66

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:18 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:19 PM UTC

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 )

[deleted]

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

#68

Post by bluGill » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:25 PM UTC

mattlondon wrote: post #63

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…

It didn't seem to mention hybrids much either. It mentioned a polo bluemotion as the lowest co2 emitting vehicle at 99g/km, but even my 10+ year old hybrid clunker (Toyota auris) officially gets 82g/km - modern hybrids must be way better by now, and they are super common now rather than just Toyota's selling point. A recent report I read on the BBC suggests that public bus transportation is 90g/km/passenger so my anc…

Depends on how many people are on the bus. Many buses have terrible load averages, good buses can do a lot better.

IMO most bus operators do a terrible job at serving people and so it is no surprise that people don't ride.

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

#69

Post by sdenton4 » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:41 PM UTC

korantu wrote: post #64

sdenton4 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ti…

Fuel is very small part in cost of nuclear generation; As fuel price start increasing, more sources become viable, including sea water. There is practically unlimited supply once it happens, and this is before accounting for reprocessing. (and reprocessing happens in France, for example)

Right, but the fuel cost goes up over time as extraction gets harder (eventually requiring entire new types of facilities, which themselves take a decade to build), even as wind and solar continue their exponentially decreasing LCOE cost curve.

The exponentially decreasing cost curve is the part that I think people haven't actually internalized. The arguments on the pro-nuclear side are pretty much the same as they were ten years ago. (right down to 'we'll have thorium in ten years!') But things are very different now: It's like arguing for large scale investment in punch-card sorting machines circe 1960. Yes, the punch-card sorting machines can be used to manage all your bank data, but the digital processing are getting exponentially better with time and have been actually better for a couple years. But the proponents of punch card sorting machines haven't internalized the message yet.

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

#70

Post by epistasis » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:44 PM UTC

bjelkeman-again wrote: post #3

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.

David MacKay’s work was for me very important. It showed how one should do a systems analysis for a country to understand how one can achieve the change required. I was astonished when I talked to several of the leading people responsible for energy policy in several political parties in my country, to find they really had no clue about what they where doing on a systems level. I think that updating this book is not…

> I think that updating this book is not pointless, but more importantly doing the same for more countries is really important.

While MacKay's work is excellent for a general lay audience to understand general scales of the issue, there are now far more advanced models for this that do things like replay historical weather and demand, down to 15 minute scales, to more least cost systems for zero carbon grids.

They are also so advanced as to take into current grid structure and generation resources, and the cheapest way to transition to zero carbon from our current resources.

Christopher Clack's models are probably the most advanced. The latest iteration has the very surprising finding that deploying lots of grid-edge solar and storage right now will save us a ton of money because it will use current transmission and distribution assets more effectively and reduce the need for future investment in these assets (T&D is the majority of our electricity bills, not generation!)