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

A pretty visualisation of the European power grid (2022)

121gigawatts.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 205 posts

Re: A pretty visualisation of the European power grid (2022)

#71

Post by nakedneuron »

w-m wrote: post #35
throw0101a wrote: post #13

Meta: for those unfamiliar, 1.21 GW is a reference to the 1985 movie Back to the Future . Clip of the scene in question: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDuZqYeNiOA * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future If you haven't seen it, the entire trilogy is worth checking out: very fun and quite family friendly.

If you are a regular HN reader who is (or was until this post) unfamiliar with Back to the Future, I'd love to know three more random facts about your life. In my world view, you are part of a fascinatingly small group of people.

+2

Re: A pretty visualisation of the European power grid (2022)

#73

Post by fulafel »

dismalaf wrote: post #56
Gud wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely false. Current flow is metered using current transformers. full disclosure: I install high voltage switchgear for a living.

Seeing current flow through switches isn't the same as seeing specifically where your power is coming from. Like, if power from several different sources flows into a single substation before it goes to your home, you know exactly which source created the electricity you're using? And if I purchase power from a 100% renewable company, is it always only electricity from their generators, never ever mixed in with power…

Electricity transmission is a bit like water pressure and distribution. You're not going to get the same electrons (or water molecules) that you subscribed to from various producers in the distribution network put in, the flow causality and the physical embodiments of production are different though related things.

Re: A pretty visualisation of the European power grid (2022)

#74

Post by swatcoder »

w-m wrote: post #35
throw0101a wrote: post #13

Meta: for those unfamiliar, 1.21 GW is a reference to the 1985 movie Back to the Future . Clip of the scene in question: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDuZqYeNiOA * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_the_Future If you haven't seen it, the entire trilogy is worth checking out: very fun and quite family friendly.

If you are a regular HN reader who is (or was until this post) unfamiliar with Back to the Future, I'd love to know three more random facts about your life. In my world view, you are part of a fascinatingly small group of people.

Since the franchise hasn't been rebooted like so many others, it hasn't seem the $$$ marketing that would introduce it to new generations.

Like The Princess Bride or Labyrinth, BTTF currently remains a phenomenom of the 80's and 90's -- familiar to most from that time and deeply treasured by some, but not refreshed and sustained the way the Star Wars, Star Trek, Marvel/DC, etc brands have been.

Re: A pretty visualisation of the European power grid (2022)

#75

Post by moooo99 »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #69
fsh wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France has 12% of Europe's population, and its primary energy is 45% from fossil fuels and 40% from nuclear power. The effect on Europe as a whole is therefore pretty small.

You're not counting the energy outflows from France to neighboring countries. Also, France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear, not 40%.

> Also, France gets 70% of its energy from nuclear, not 40%.

No, it gets 70% of its electricity from nuclear.

Re: A pretty visualisation of the European power grid (2022)

#77

Post by kergonath »

barbazoo wrote: post #28
insane_dreamer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if it wasn't for France having primarily used nuclear power decades ago, Europe as a whole would be in a much much worse state when it comes to CO2 emissions. That makes it abundantly clear that nuclear needs to be a part of the mix when it comes to non-emission generating energy production.

Not sure if that still holds true nowadays with renewable energy and storage having got cheaper and cheaper.

New renewable installations are getting cheaper, but are still far from being numerous enough to overcome their terrible load factor and enable switching off some baseline production plants. And storage at a grid level is pretty much inexistant, except for a couple of pumped hydro plants.

There is a significant mismatch between reality and the kind of headlines we see in tech-focused media. These hype future products as if they were already widely available, which creates a false idea of the actual situation in the real world.

Re: A pretty visualisation of the European power grid (2022)

#78

Post by Symbiote »

kergonath wrote: post #77
barbazoo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if that still holds true nowadays with renewable energy and storage having got cheaper and cheaper.

New renewable installations are getting cheaper, but are still far from being numerous enough to overcome their terrible load factor and enable switching off some baseline production plants. And storage at a grid level is pretty much inexistant, except for a couple of pumped hydro plants. There is a significant mismatch between reality and the kind of headlines we see in tech-focused media. These hype future products…

Britain has switched off its coal plants.

At least some of that is surely because of renewable power, mostly wind.

Re: A pretty visualisation of the European power grid (2022)

#79

Post by kergonath »

pydry wrote: post #39
realusername wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The result speaks for themselves, Germany still hasn't reached France 90s levels of emissions.

Energiewende didnt start in 1973, it was first authorized in late 2010. France's nuclear program was also very, very expensive: https://www.i-sis.org.uk/The_True_Costs_of_French_Nuclear_Po...

You can say whatever you want when discussion the cost of nuclear in France because of the structure of its nuclear industry. Part of it comes from the government’s budget, so depending on your point of view it can be accounted for differently. Then, there are externalities (pollution, greenhouse gases, etc). And then there are strategic aspects and associated costs. The alternative in the 1970s was skyrocketing oil, which is much more costly at the planet’s level, and was on track to be much more costly at the country’s level as well. And in the meantime, consumers got reasonably cheap and clean electricity for decades.

Skimming your source, I would not trust it very much.

Re: A pretty visualisation of the European power grid (2022)

#80

Post by p_l »

Symbiote wrote: post #78
kergonath wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

New renewable installations are getting cheaper, but are still far from being numerous enough to overcome their terrible load factor and enable switching off some baseline production plants. And storage at a grid level is pretty much inexistant, except for a couple of pumped hydro plants. There is a significant mismatch between reality and the kind of headlines we see in tech-focused media. These hype future products…

Britain has switched off its coal plants. At least some of that is surely because of renewable power, mostly wind.

And because solar and wind power boost sales of gas turbine power plants that can spin fast enough to react for the wind and solar instability
Post reply on HN