Live data from Hacker News

US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

utilitydive.com

111–120 of 200 posts

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#111
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the wind turbines froze up: https://www.newsweek.com/texas-wind-turbines-frozen-power-wh...

And it comes down to, utilities didn't spring for the cold weather package on their turbines. Effectively deciding that during extreme cold snaps they would rely on natural gas power plants. Which were also brought down by the cold snap.

Interestingly, because they didn't spring for the cold weather package for the natural gas stuff either.

Natural gas can have moisture in it, and that can cause valves and regulators to freeze, hydrate slush or ice to form in pipelines, etc.

[https://asgmt.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf-docs/2011/1/T06.pdf]

They just flat out were unprepared.

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#112
post #2

At the beginning of the article is says: "But it does not explain how adequate land to reach a 90% clean electricity penetration can be acquired or how reliability will be protected beyond that 90% penetration, stakeholders acknowledged." I'm confused that they can put a time frame on a problem they have no idea how to solve yet.

> I'm confused that they can put a time frame on a problem they have no idea how to solve yet. You are writing on a developer forum, they work in Agile and ruotinely provide estimates or work to deadlines when business does not even know the requirements of their system, let alone how to build most of it.

If a developer tells you they can deliver by x, and they also don't know how to do it, what is the level of confidence you have that will occur?

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#113

This is the same DOE that is tapping strategic petroleum reserves to manipulate gas prices, right? This is PR to support the “inflation reduction act”.

The alternative is being at the behest of foreign oil price manipulation. Moving away from oil seems like a pretty good way to prevent dipping into strategic reserves to me.

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#114
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A clean power grid means cheaper power. That's a pretty wild assertion, given current events. Care to back it up with some evidence from a neutral source?

Not who you are asking, but here is some recent research using probabilistic cost forecasts: https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(22)00410-X

I am not asking for forecasts of what could theoretically happen in the future: I want to see an analysis of existing installations.

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A clean power grid means cheaper power. That's a pretty wild assertion, given current events. Care to back it up with some evidence from a neutral source?

A big flaw with most current models is that their learning curves for tech are either completely ignored, or are way too small to match empirical reality. Here's a popular news article about research using empirical modeling of the learning curves, which says that the models are overestimating the cost: https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/10/the-decreasing-cost-... And here's a podcast episode about it that goes int…

Again, as with the sibling comment, I would like to see empirical data on the cost viability of existing solar and wind installations. Most of the links posted so far seem to present projections about the future, which seems to imply that wind and solar tend to be higher cost today.

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#116
post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying that the geography and socioeconomics of an established (over 10's of thousands of years) country in an already well developed and urbanized continent with high population density is different than one that is sparsely populated and only recently started to be developed by any modern definition? Weird. Maybe in another thousand years, it'll seem more similar.

This is a bizarre response: even in larger US cities, Americans produce more emissions (and waste) per capita than their European counterparts. Density plays a large role, but consumer behaviors play a larger one. And American consumes prefer diets with more meat, cars that burn fuel less efficiently, and products that are designed to be disposed more frequently. Edit: we also prefer larger houses, built more cheaply…

And why do those consumers prefer that diet?

Could it be because of a history of large amounts of open plains with cheap, accessible water and grass, and easy transportation of that meat (rails)? It's quite nutritious too (in a combination with other foods).

In Europe, farmland is at an extreme premium in most places given the higher population density and often unfriendly climate and geography.

Even more obvious a comparison is India, where veganism is obligatory for a large part of the population because the population density vs farmland would otherwise cause large portions of the population to starve.

Could they be using those cars because there is generally more space in US cities (with a few exceptions that have been around longer, like NYC, Boston, Baltimore, etc.) so there is less need to restrict them in size, AND most of the United States has incredibly low population density, AND a lot of nice places to visit, so folks are more likely to go sizable distances - for friends, family, vacations, etc?

And since the US has been developing rapidly, as compared to already developed, infrastructure is constantly struggling to keep up, so there is a lot of value in a general purpose vehicle that doesn't require existing infrastructure as much.

And why are there more cheaply built houses? Because unlike in Europe, there aren't any old houses where most of the economic and population growth is occurring. Unlike Europe, most of the US has still never had European style development, and it shows. There hasn't been time.

And due to large shifts in the US economy as it figures out how to adapt, grow, and change (with no existing historical industrial/residential base to contend with either), it has to build it now. And if you constantly have to keep building new housing in places because of growth, and you don't know where people will actually want to stay (because no history), why spend more than you have to do so? You might end up abandoning it in 10 years because someone found somewhere better.

The whole 'a hundred years is a long time in America, and 100 miles is a long way in Europe' (or 100km - you pick).

I've spent a lot of time in Europe and the US.

The socio-economics and historical time to develop are wildly different, and those socio-economics and time are a large part of why you see what you see.

In Europe, there are very few places that someone doesn't already have a stake in the ground - and they will use that to force you to pay them to get out of your way, or comply with some expensive standard too.

In the US, that is starting to occur, but hasn't happened yet except in the Urban areas. Most of the US is still completely, totally empty.

It isn't because American's are somehow more gluttonous or evil. They're using the tools they have to fit the problems they have given the constraints they have. Same as everyone else.

The continental (contiguous) United States has a population density of 36 people per sq km.

Western Europe has a population density of 181 per sq km. or 5 times the US.

India, for instance, is 464 per sq km, or 12 times the US.

North America was colonized by European Migrants and started European style development only 3-500 years ago.

Most major (and minor) cities in Europe formed thousands of years ago, and anything less than a 100 years old is often 'new'.

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#117
post #21

Appreciate the graph in the article , this time the numbers actually are calculated by engineers from DoE , not by Journalists... Even if the plan is there , without an “economy of war” and the implication of basically every single American it’s nearly impossible to reach those types of deployment. Money is not the answer to everything , as pointed we are also going to reach “civilization” types of limits with land a…

Did we read the same article? The land usage for wind and solar is about that of golf courses and coal. Getting permits to use the land is the main obstacle. As for resource constraints, the limiting factor is the speed on which a lithium mines can come online. The bulk of the that being environment reviews and lawsuits. Americans are just going to have to come to terms with building or mining stuff causes localized…

Lithium isn't even in the top twenty of mined metal. It would also be relatively cheap to recycle at scale.

Problems are political, i.e monied interests not environmental, technological, or even financial.

Should also be optimistic about non lithium solid state batteries!

>https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/10/all-tonnes-metals-ore...

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#118
post #21

Appreciate the graph in the article , this time the numbers actually are calculated by engineers from DoE , not by Journalists... Even if the plan is there , without an “economy of war” and the implication of basically every single American it’s nearly impossible to reach those types of deployment. Money is not the answer to everything , as pointed we are also going to reach “civilization” types of limits with land a…

Did we read the same article? The land usage for wind and solar is about that of golf courses and coal. Getting permits to use the land is the main obstacle. As for resource constraints, the limiting factor is the speed on which a lithium mines can come online. The bulk of the that being environment reviews and lawsuits. Americans are just going to have to come to terms with building or mining stuff causes localized…

Honestly as a golfer, a windmill in the middle of the fairway would make for an interesting hole

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#119

"Nuclear is likely to be 9% to 12% of generation in 2035" - this is absurd. We should have much more aggressive targets for nuclear. Because it is the cleanest, safest and most reliable source of 0-emission power. France gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear now.

Nixon originally wanted a thousand plants to be operational by the year 2000.

Re: US can reach 100% clean power by 2035, DOE finds

#120

We can have 100% clean energy by 2035 if we assume the US is China and the state can build whatever it wants despite any local objections. And assume we increase battery supply by 40x (even though lithium price is going up dramatically now). And assume that clean power is actually 100% clean. It's good to have a vision for clean energy though that is shared with the country that we start working towards. I can see th…

A 40x increase in battery production by 2035 seems like a pretty reasonable goal, tbh.
Post reply on HN