Live data from Hacker News

Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

allianceforscience.cornell.edu

201–210 of 306 posts

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is "excess" energy given away for free, mining cryptos, by definition, would not be profitable. Instead, solar and wind generators can simply decrease production (in milliseconds) when not needed.

Plenty of crypto mining places using old hydroelectric dams around the world. It also means the maintenance of said hydroelectric dams are paid for. Even oil companies are looking at ways to harness the energy from burning gases on oil rigs for crypto mining. In a way, crypto is turning the world greener by not wasting energy. https://bitcoin.ca/canada-just-got-a-huge-new-bitcoin-mining... https://www.cbc.ca/news/can…

> old hydroelectric dams around the world

My local power company owns several small, old dams, and uses them to supply peak power. That's valuable enough to maintain them.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#202
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plenty of crypto mining places using old hydroelectric dams around the world. It also means the maintenance of said hydroelectric dams are paid for. Even oil companies are looking at ways to harness the energy from burning gases on oil rigs for crypto mining. In a way, crypto is turning the world greener by not wasting energy. https://bitcoin.ca/canada-just-got-a-huge-new-bitcoin-mining... https://www.cbc.ca/news/can…

Fine, except that that is completely false. Crypto mining mainly runs on carbon-emitting generation, much of it stolen where that is easiest, and actively speeds arrival of climate catastrophe.

It is a bold thing to claim that crypto mining is run on stolen power. Stolen from whom, may I ask?

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#203
post #154
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are problems of baseload power that neither solar nor wind reliably solve though. Barring the introduction of a complex system of storage to the electrical grid you don’t just need a certain amount of total power generation you need the distribution of production to match the distribution of consumption. We can generate much of this with solar and wind if we are comfortable with having far less power at night f…

> a complex system of storage ... which will be built when it makes sense to build it. Right now, building out storage makes no sense. Money that could be spent on storage is now rightly spent on generating capacity that can still displace carbon polluters. When there is too little carbon pollution left to displace, then will be time to build storage. By that time the storage will be radically cheaper to buy, because…

Also, storage will look wildly different in differen parts of the world.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#204
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Deploying 5GW of solar and storage, or 3-4GW of wind, is far easier, faster, and cheaper than trying to build a new reactor Besides the intermittency of renewables everyone else has already mentioned, a nuclear reactor has a life of 50 years, which is extendable with maintenance. There are literally reactors built in the 1950s still operating today. Solar and wind installations have to be fully rebuilt every 15-20…

This is abuse disadvantage for nuclear, not an advantage. Current high costs are locked in for a very long time. Whereas with solar and storage, after 15 years (for the storage) or 30 years (solar) you can take advantage of technology advancement. And of technology has not advanced much, you can simply maintain or repair the existing infrastructure, just like nuclear or other large capital expenditures.

This is *a huge disadvantage...

My typing on mobile is getting pretty bad...

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'd need about 50 TWh of batteries. We can build that faster than we can build a single nuclear plant. And what do nukes do during peak periods of they are supplying base power?

> We'd need about 50 TWh of batteries. We can build that faster than we can build a single nuclear plant. That's a huge [citation needed]. Global battery production is currently around 0.5 TWh per year[1]. Even if we continue to scale battery production, 50TWh is decades worth of our manufacturing capacity. Also, don't forget that the latest and greatest battery packs last ~10 years. Just the upkeep on your grid scal…

We're doubling battery factory capacity every 12-18 months.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#206
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pumped storage combined with solar and wind isnt orders of magnitude more than nuclear power. It's still cheaper. Fengning is less than half the cost of a nuclear plant and delivers twice as much power. It's a very effective battery. Pumped (or indeed, any kind of) storage just isnt very economic when youve got oodles of cheap, dispatchable gas. Nuclear power almost always exists to help prop up military nuclear requ…

> Fengning is less than half the cost of a nuclear plant and delivers twice as much power. But the issue is not power but storage capacity. Fengning has 40 GWh of storage capacity, that is less than day of production of basic 2 GW nuclear power plant. For countries in central Europe (or even northern Europe, like Finland), solar production during winter is generally negligible so from renewables you are left with win…

Periods of high wind tend to coincide with periods of low solar and vice versa. That negligible solar tends to coincide with the very highest wind production. Offshore also tends to anticorrelate with onshore wind. Diversity of wind and solar production already takes a huge chunk out of variability.

Variable/surge/nearly free pricing would take another huge chunk of storage requirements as easily time shifted demand is matched to production (car charging, aluminum smelters, heat pumps, etc).

With 2.5 days of pumped storage you're probably covered for about 4 years out of 5. Those 10 day wind lulls happen 1 year out of 10 in summer and 1 in 25 in winter.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#207
post #189
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fantasy is storage: I have a small p.v. with lithium storage just as a protection against blackouts (AC coupled solar inverter to keep it on in case of no national grid frequency presence), in around a year battery capacity is already dropped to 99% and I do not allow more than 10% discharge since it's small, just enough for VMC + fridges/freezer + lights and computers, no main heating/cooling, cooking, washing m…

Why is it a fantasy? Millions of people in the us already have tesla power walls, there are hundreds at least of other solutions, and these things are sold out for a year or more. It works great, and people are using it. Your concern is that it won't last somehow? Your claims look like fear uncertainty and doubt. As others have posted, battery storage is already cheaper than gas peaker plants.

Because:

- we do not need energy for private homes ONLY, we also need for industry, hospitals, schools, ... "buildings" that demand MUCH more energy than a home, similarly we do not need only private cars but also trucks, tractors, ... that demand MUCH more power not only in kW terms but also in load capacity and weight: a truck on lithium can be done in vehicle terms, but it's load capacity is less than a half and it's range is even worse;

- it degrade too quickly, without the blackout risk I would never ever put money on such expensive and little lasting batteries. P.v. can repay itself, battery can't and now due to high demand instead of lower they price they became also far more expensive.

Beside that even for my own small personal home and it's microgrid... Without the state/national grid I can't really run fully on battery/p.v. because when a significant load goes down, like my dishwasher have finished heating water (~2kW) and a small load goes down at the same time (let's say just a fridge compressor) my inverter cut the power due to high DC ripple or simply too high AC frequency. To avoid that I need a far bigger system (like 4 time the needed capacity in kWp) able to absorb the "overproduction" quickly enough or special tools (I do not know if they are even on the market) that climb and lower their loads softly to let inverters rump up or down as needed.

Oh, I'm talking about "state of art" Victron and Fronius inverters not some unknown brand from Alibaba... So far I've read claims that new (not available here, so far) Enphase microinvertes can be quick enough to reducing much such issues, while also cut the peak production, witch means that for x kWp you need x+1/4 panels kWp power since microinverters can sustain panel DC current but can't offer much more than a fraction of if on AC side.

It's not FUD, it's practically experimented state of things: with grid connected I lower around 50% my overall power consumption (more than 60% now and in summer, than less than 30% in winter, due to heat pumps to heat the home, especially at night and in early morning) from grid, without I can just survive blackout: some classic small UPSes for home rack and personal desktops, due to the aforementioned power cut due to microgrid stability issue, the rest on the battery inverter; when the Sun shine enough almost anything can run (at least, one/two high power appliances at a time eventually) and for the rest the battery and a small emergency generator to recharge do the rest, tested. It's environmental friendly? NO. It's cheap? Also no. I've done that just as a protection against skyrocketing prices and blackouts when I start thinking they'll came soon, and so far I was right, for prices at least, I've even need a slightly bigger plant for economical reasons, but that's all.

Did you imaging just a small restaurant with ~8-10kW mean power when open, with 15-20kW peaks? How much battery and p.v. it need? And for what? Can we even produce enough batteries for such small usages on scale? I can't answer myself but I've already seen comments from far more informed subjects like some CEOs of automotive sector who say absolutely no...

If you have other data I'm curious.

About EVs since you've cited Tesla: for my personal use-case an EV is still more expensive than an ICE ones, but might became on par or even cheaper when diesel will be, because I'm pretty sure it will, around 4€/liter (so far here is around 2€/l) BUT that's just because I do not need the car every day WFH, so I can charge it when the Sun shine, at least most of the time. Potentially with future (so far there are only some experiments) vehicle-to-loads I can use the EV as a secondary battery for the house, perhaps not fully charging it every day so to use it as energy dump to stabilize the microgrid lowering the TCO another small bit: how many people are in a similar situation or at least potentially they can? 10% of total population? What they can do those who happen to live a bit northern than here where p.v. is used but a bit of a joke combining average meteo + naturally low Sun exposure? How many have flowing water or constant enough wind to run on local domestic renewables? 5%?

I do not know if the TCO of a turbo-gas PP is higher than a p.v.+lithium ones, but I know a GPP can run 24/7 if there is gas for decades, a p.v.+lithium can't, at maximum it last 8 years or so for the storage part. And so far I do not know if we can even produce enough mega-batteries for such plants on scale. I do not even know if without turbogas we can keep a grid on, due to frequency perturbations and time needed to compensate. Windmills are relatively quick to adjust, hydro almost the same, p.v. definitively not. And only hydro is constant enough, p.v. can be just in few spot, wind in almost no place.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#208
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fine, except that that is completely false. Crypto mining mainly runs on carbon-emitting generation, much of it stolen where that is easiest, and actively speeds arrival of climate catastrophe.

It is a bold thing to claim that crypto mining is run on stolen power. Stolen from whom, may I ask?

The Sun, the largest nuclear reaction in the solar system!

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#209
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will be right one day, and I'll cheer with you. But that day isn't coming terribly soon - the enormous energy storage needed to have the necessary degree of reliability out of intermittent sources, at the level of countries, is far beyond our current practical means. What do we do in the meantime?

Storage cost is falling faster than renewables cost ever did. So in the meantime, build out renewables so that you have something other than fossil fuels to charge your storage from. Then build storage. By then it will be radically cheaper than it is now.

This, to me, sounds like a pipe dream. We can become carbon neutral with the tech we have _right now_ whereas I fail to imagine how these necessarily exponential improvements in storage capacity will happen.

The _one_ thing that gives me hope for storage is maaaaybe synthetic fuels. But currently it's unproved.

Re: Finland’s Green Party endorses nuclear power

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a bold thing to claim that crypto mining is run on stolen power. Stolen from whom, may I ask?

The Sun, the largest nuclear reaction in the solar system!

This power plant is run by a very sloppy operator who wastes ~99.99% of energy. The management team should be fired and sued for such gross negligence.
Post reply on HN