EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green • Hacker News Board

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#331

Post by iso1210 » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 1:27 PM UTC

Gwypaas wrote: post #48

user_7832 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious on why you're pessimistic on hydrogen. I agree that cars are likely not the best use of fuel cells (heavy vehicles are able to utilize H2's strengths much more), but in a future based on renewables hydrogen allows you to store energy in a very dense way. Lithium batteries are acceptably heavy/expensive at small scales, but how do you think will supply vary to meet demand in the medium-long term without a…

Call it a solution in search of a problem. The best fuel cells today reach about 50% round trip efficiency. That's even a high estimate. That by physics defines the price difference between where you buy low and sell high. Without even counting the hydrogen storage, fuel cell itself and everything needed to make it function. That number also defines the arbitrage marginal any other solution has against hydrogen. Be i…

You need a large amount of electricity for a short term event - say a festival or a building site. You wheel in a hydrogen generator, powered by hydrogen from renewable electrolysis, job done.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#332

Post by iso1210 » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 1:28 PM UTC

sfifs wrote: post #314

AQuantized wrote: post #63

Nuclear investments desperately need to be recognized as green so you don't have oxymoronic policies similar to Germany's current plan where you're decommissioning nuclear to become more "green" yet producing much more carbon dioxide.

Europe is small and densely populated. They can't afford to take the risk of having large swaths of land rendered un-inhabitable due to nuclear accidents. If there's one thing the last 60 odd years of nuclear experience has taught us, it is that Human organizations and societies cannot be trusted with maintaining high standards of safety in the long term that is required for fission power plants - even the Japanese w…

How many millions of square kilometres of Japan are uninhabitable due to nuclear energy?

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#333

Post by nemo44x » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 1:28 PM UTC

hammock wrote: post #165

nathan_phoenix wrote: post #12

For anyone wondering why gas, it's gas only in specific cases. > Investments in natural gas power plants would also be deemed green if they produce emissions below 270g of CO2 equivalent per kilowatt hour (kWh), replace a more polluting fossil fuel plant, receive a construction permit by Dec. 31 2030 and plan to switch to low-carbon gases by the end of 2035.

When did "green" get co-opted to mean low CO2 emissions? It wasn't that long ago we used to worry about whether fuel was renewable or not, and about particulate pollution, acid rain, habitat destruction and other environmental externalities in general, not just CO2. This global warming-driven definition of "green" ignores all of that.

“Green” is a marketing term designed not to promote any particular source of energy but rather to paint existing sources as “not green” which implies bad.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#334

Post by jokoon » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 1:30 PM UTC

I wish there were more jobs available in nuclear energy.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#335

Post by locallost » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 1:32 PM UTC

funklute wrote: post #318

locallost wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word "increase" has a clear meaning, and it means that there is more of something than there was before. The word opposite of increase is called "decrease", and Germany's CO2 emissions have decreased since they started switching off nuclear power plants. Calling a decrease an increase is something I would call playing semantics.

Language is full of ambiguities that are only resolved by context. Both a relative increase and an absolute increase are increases, so saying that it has a "clear meaning" is fairly pointless here. And you're still ignoring my original question, which I asked from genuine curiosity. I'm getting a strong feeling you prefer to focus on a straw man, because if you look at relative changes your position falls apart. Do p…

I hope you're enjoying the increase in air temperature from 30 degrees in the summer, to 2 degrees today. The temperature for today was projected to be -3 two weeks ago, so we have a relative increase there. Is that how you think relative vs absolute works?

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#336

Post by 7952 » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 1:37 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #313

gibolt wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar + Batteries/Storage are cheap to build today. No need to choose a worse technology in every way now, that only becomes less viable as time goes on.

Solar + a few hours of capacity are economical viable to run on a day and night cycle. Each day they charge up, and each day they discharge, with a market price that goes up and down in a similar pattern. This is possible for the southern part of EU, but more so in the southern parts of that (Egypt and below). Further north and solar get displaced by wind as the primary source of energy, and wind do not have a day cy…

Battery storage is profitable if you can sell for more than you buy. It just needs to be connected to the grid and not necessarily connected to a particular generator.

Although battery storage may still be located close to generation. One benefit of this is that you get more benefit from your grid connection. Without batteries you can just export for a part of the day. With batteries you can export when it is sunny/windy, export when it is dark/not windy, and even import energy when wholesale prices are cheap. The expensive grid connection is better utilised.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#337

Post by Swenrekcah » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 1:37 PM UTC

pydry wrote: post #279

SonicTheSith wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, While Nuclear is not cheap, it will be cheaper than the effects from un-softened climate change. While Nuclear is difficult to maintain and if an accident happens it is bad, but the damage and affected area can be easily calculated. While Nuclear waste storage costs money and has to be secure for a long time, the chance that we as humans will be able to recycle the nuclear waste in 200-500 years is fair…

>While Nuclear is not cheap, it will be cheaper than the effects from un-softened climate change. Is it cheaper than demand shaping/wind/solar/grid-scale batteries though? That's the real question. As far as I can see that answer may be yes in one specific circumstance - when you already have a nuclear plant with another 5+ years of life left. i.e. when the insane capex is a sunk cost. In all other instances it only…

> Is it cheaper than demand shaping/wind/solar/grid-scale batteries though? That's the real question.

I believe that’s the wrong question to ask. We need nuclear to be cheaper and more attractive than coal and oil (and later natural gas).

If grid scale batteries ever become a viable thing and cheaper than nuclear then that’s just great and eventually the nuclear plants can be phased out in favour of those.

In the meantime however we need to get rid of coal and oil, because that’s where the overwhelmingly most emissions are.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#338

Post by unionpivo » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 1:37 PM UTC

fivea wrote: post #272

arcticbull wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only gets the label if it's greener than existing solutions. They're not letting perfect be the enemy of good.

> It only gets the label if it's greener than existing solutions. They're not letting perfect be the enemy of good. That sounds very idiotic to me. One of the biggest environmental threats is global warming, which is caused by reintroducing carbon into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. It makes no sense at all to label fossil fuel usage as green just because they manage to come up with an arbitrary line…

> They're not letting perfect be the enemy of good.

The best you can do sometimes, its just to be less bad. If you can replace coal or diesel powered power plant into modern gas powered plant, you will emit a lot less CO2 for equivalent power.

Solar and wind are not enough jet. We need something that can produce electricity 24 hours a day, or on demand. The "greenest" such tech are nuclear and gas.

I have high hopes of geothermal, maybe replacing a lot of gas, but we are not there jet.

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#339

Post by berdario » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 1:38 PM UTC

deadfish wrote: post #238

inglor_cz wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Batteries/Storage are cheap to build today" And yet the existing battery facilities that could keep a smallish region (or a single city) supplied for 15 minutes or more are exceedingly rare. Maybe they aren't as cheap as you claim. Australia is recently building a 1200 MW battery in New South Wales for 2.4 billion dollars - a cost comparable to a new nuclear reactor. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/f…

Looks like the cost of nuclear in Australia is not comparable. https://reneweconomy.com.au/too-slow-too-expensive-why-nucle... .

I don't think we can trust these numbers

https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/sites/default/files/re...

"The spread of projected and reported capital costs is unsurprisingly broad. In Australia the most recent public assessment is provided by the GenCost2018 report by CSIRO and AEMO.10 It assumes the capital costs for SMR technology is $16,000/kW in 2020 (and experiences no major price decline over time). We note this number is more than double other cost estimates worldwide. We have sought additional clarification on the basis for this costing. Initial advice is that the number is based on a GHD estimate for AEMO of costs for a future Gen IV reactor to be constructed in 2035 and not for the type of reactor which would most likely be deployed in Australia."

Anyhow, that 16k estimate is for power, not for energy... It's unclear over which timespans comparisons are being made (since a lot of it depends for how long power plants will be kept operational... A huge cost is the initial investment).

I've seen energy estimates as low as 30$ per MWh, for Nuclear energy plants built with interest rates of 3%

Re: EU drafts plan to label gas and nuclear investments as green

#340

Post by holoduke » Sun, Jan 02, 2022, 1:40 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #313

gibolt wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar + Batteries/Storage are cheap to build today. No need to choose a worse technology in every way now, that only becomes less viable as time goes on.

Solar + a few hours of capacity are economical viable to run on a day and night cycle. Each day they charge up, and each day they discharge, with a market price that goes up and down in a similar pattern. This is possible for the southern part of EU, but more so in the southern parts of that (Egypt and below). Further north and solar get displaced by wind as the primary source of energy, and wind do not have a day cy…

Not true. We have 10kw solar panels with 64x ,280ah LIFO batteries. Even in the winter we manage for 90% using only solar/battery power. We have a detached family house in the Netherlands using slightly above average. Our monthly bill is about 20 euros max. I build the entire setup myself for about 10k euros.