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

Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 397 posts

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#311

Post by pencilguin »

ciphol wrote: post #305
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear was simply too expensive for the other side to bother debating with the environmental opposition. Unless the government subsidizes it (construction costs), private companies aren’t going to go near it. Other renewables are simply so much more profitable these days.

Nuclear was perfectly affordable until laws were passed to make it unaffordable (specifically: if nuclear power happened to be cheaper than other energy sources for any reason, then it was considered to be not spending enough on safety, so it was required to spend money on marginal safety measures until it cost the same as other forms of energy).

Nuclear was, in fact, never cost-effective. No civil power nuke has ever been operated, anywhere in the world, without utter dependence on massive public subsidy.

Nukes get less competitive every day. Lately, already paid-for nukes are about on par with fresh-built solar or wind,big you neglect the disaster liability subsidy. But wind and solar costs are still falling.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#312

Post by pencilguin »

google234123 wrote: post #181
kagakuninja wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conveniently ignoring the extreme cost of nuclear power. The power companies simply do not want to invest billions and then wait 7+ years, assuming there are no project delays or cost overruns (which there always are). Renewables and natural gas are much cheaper.

The extreme cost of nuclear power are partially the fault of scaremongers stopping all production of them in the west. China has 100s being built or planned and obviously they can't cost 10s of billions each. Thanks for blackouts when it's cloudy and not windy.

China routinely announces plans for things that it does not, in the end, build.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#313

Post by pydry »

pfdietz wrote: post #245
pydry wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hydrogen leaks like crazy and corrodes storage cannisters. It isnt especially practical.

The world produces and uses 700 cubic kilometers (at STP) of hydrogen annually. Hydrogen has been used on a mass scale industrially since the 1800s. The US has over 1000 miles of hydrogen pipelines. There are obviously off the shelf components for dealing with hydrogen. This is not some hand wringing unsolved problem.

It can be used there are just better, cheaper options. Same for compressed air, molten salt, tidal power or a litany of other working tech that doesnt hit the right price/performance point.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#314

Post by pencilguin »

kkfx wrote: post #45
onepointsixC wrote: post #17

Hydro isn't unfashionable. We just don't have reasonable places to keep daming, so there's little really to talk about. Nuclear is unfashionable, because there's huge growth potential among wealthy industrial countries, but because it's not "liked" there's very little actual growth.

hydro and nuclear need the very same turbine tech, and actually turbine are the most hi-tech part of the game, reactors demand delicate construction and testing, but behind that are not much complex. Oh, sure, IF you have a vast set of mountains and much water, let's say Norway, developing hydro is obvious . Just a bit more populated countries, let's say Swiss do want both simply because one offer good power for most…

Hydro power turbines and nukes' steam turbines are similar only in the name, and that just because both turn.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#315

Post by pencilguin »

fomine3 wrote: post #310
pencilguin wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are not building much storage because it would be stupid to spend on storage that we have not spare renewable generating capacity to charge up. After we have plenty, then we will need storage, and will build it then.

For Japan, many pumped storages have been built to store energy generated by nuclear plant mainly at night. Now few nuclear plants running but many PVs are deployed, so it stores energy at noon. It's reversed but anyway it's useful!

Storage is always useful. At issue is where money is better spent, right now.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#316

Post by fomine3 »

pencilguin wrote: post #315
fomine3 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Japan, many pumped storages have been built to store energy generated by nuclear plant mainly at night. Now few nuclear plants running but many PVs are deployed, so it stores energy at noon. It's reversed but anyway it's useful!

Storage is always useful. At issue is where money is better spent, right now.

For nuclear era, it was easier to pay cost for storage because same operator built both nuclear plant and pumped storage. Even if operator isn't same, there are only few nuclear operator in the grid so easier to talk. For PV (or say electricity deregulation) era, it will be a bit difficult since PVs are deployed by small operators or individuals. Great market mechanism or govt regulation is needed.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#317

Post by loehnsberg »

The potential for hydro-electricity is mostly exploited, and it does not offer a solution for the long-term storage of electricity for large parts of the world. Not all countries are like Norway (or Brazil or Canada). There is still space left, but it‘s simply not enough.

Instead, many systems with two reservoirs are now being equipped with pumps, again this is ok for short-term storage from hours to days, but no solution to store the Northern sun for the winter. Better produce hydrogen with cheap solar in the sun belt and ship it elsewhere, or move heavy industry to places where green energy is abundant (Iceland, Qatar, …?).

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#318

Post by kleiba »

D13Fd wrote: post #197
b112 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously hydroelectricity is massively damaging to ecosystems False. A river is not a static thing. Nor a lake. Rivers, lakes, swamps, bodies of water change over thousands, and even hundreds of years. A lake today, is a river tomorrow, and vice versa. Terrain erodes, shifts, rivers dry up, or appear from nothing. Go back in time, in 10k increments, and see how a local area changes. To claim that a hydroelectric dam…

I strongly disagree. When humans alter the natural environment, it’s inherently destructive. Even if a new environment arises in its place, we have destroyed what was there before. That said, the environmental destruction is worth it when it comes to hydroelectric power.

I think the comment above argues that every change that happens in nature is a destruction of what was there before, and that that's an inherently natural process, whether humans are responsible or not.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#319

Post by nomel »

pencilguin wrote: post #262
philipkglass wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The facility you linked produces and stores chemical fuel, and can't even convert it back into electricity. The project includes using Mitsubishi M501JAC combined-cycle gas turbines to turn the hydrogen back into electricity: https://www.powermag.com/aces-deltas-giant-utah-salt-cavern-... https://power.mhi.com/products/gasturbines/lineup/m501j This turbine has a rated combined-cycle efficiency of 64%. Production of h…

Industrial-scale electrolysers will soon be well over 90% efficient.

Any terms I can search to understand these advances? I seemed to remember learning that boring old electrolysis was around 30% efficient!

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#320

Post by Gibbon1 »

fomine3 wrote: post #316
pencilguin wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Storage is always useful. At issue is where money is better spent, right now.

For nuclear era, it was easier to pay cost for storage because same operator built both nuclear plant and pumped storage. Even if operator isn't same, there are only few nuclear operator in the grid so easier to talk. For PV (or say electricity deregulation) era, it will be a bit difficult since PVs are deployed by small operators or individuals. Great market mechanism or govt regulation is needed.

California quietly added 3GW of batteries in the last three years to shift mid day solar to the evening. I think part of the quietly bit is locating them at mothballed natural gas peaking plants. Advantage the power infrastructure is there and no use change permits needed.
Post reply on HN