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

191–200 of 205 posts

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

#191

Post by sgt »

Propelloni wrote: post #151
thrance wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strategically speaking, Europe lacks the natural resources to build renewable, wind turbines and solar panels have to be imported, most of them from Asia. Nuclear is still a bit cheaper per Watt and less carbon intensive, as it involves less infrastructure, logistics and batteries overall. It's also somewhat more reliable, as it doesn't depend on sun or wind (the former of which France often lacks). Also, I am hopefu…

> Nuclear is still a bit cheaper per Watt LCOE [1] of nuclear power in Europe and the USA is roughly thrice that of solar or wind [2]. In China it is about even. If you do not trust the Deutsche Bank report, the World Nuclear Association comes to roughly the same conclusion but assumes a lower discount, thus making nuclear power more attractive. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity [2]…

Is this based on cost per Watt without the expenses related to keeping the grid perfectly synchronized or not?

A significant and stable base load is important and it has shown that wind/solar makes it substantially more expensive to keep the grid stabilized, which is of course a no brainer if you don't want a blackout.

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

#192

Post by Propelloni »

sgt wrote: post #191
Propelloni wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nuclear is still a bit cheaper per Watt LCOE [1] of nuclear power in Europe and the USA is roughly thrice that of solar or wind [2]. In China it is about even. If you do not trust the Deutsche Bank report, the World Nuclear Association comes to roughly the same conclusion but assumes a lower discount, thus making nuclear power more attractive. [3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity [2]…

Is this based on cost per Watt without the expenses related to keeping the grid perfectly synchronized or not? A significant and stable base load is important and it has shown that wind/solar makes it substantially more expensive to keep the grid stabilized, which is of course a no brainer if you don't want a blackout.

> Is this based on cost per Watt without the expenses related to keeping the grid perfectly synchronized or not?

It's the LCOE, you can read what it encompasses in the link I provided.

> A significant and stable base load is important and it has shown that wind/solar makes it substantially more expensive to keep the grid stabilized, which is of course a no brainer if you don't want a blackout.

I assume you mean the utility frequency [1] when you say "base load", because you said "synchronized" and "stabilized". The frequency indeed has to be stable with a rather small margin of tolerance. Today that's mostly a job for gas turbines, though. One can hope that we find ways to store all the surplus regenerative power soon, so that we can retire those, too. Nuclear power plants, in any case, are too slow for that purpose.

Just in case you really meant load, load has no requirement to be stable. The power demands at any time can be met by dispatchable power plants, but utilities like to plan long-term, so they use some averaged load over time to determine a "base load" and buy accordingly on the electricity market. That's prudent business practice, but there is no technical reason to run low-variability power plants because of that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_frequency

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

#193

Post by sgt »

Propelloni wrote: post #192
sgt wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this based on cost per Watt without the expenses related to keeping the grid perfectly synchronized or not? A significant and stable base load is important and it has shown that wind/solar makes it substantially more expensive to keep the grid stabilized, which is of course a no brainer if you don't want a blackout.

> Is this based on cost per Watt without the expenses related to keeping the grid perfectly synchronized or not? It's the LCOE, you can read what it encompasses in the link I provided. > A significant and stable base load is important and it has shown that wind/solar makes it substantially more expensive to keep the grid stabilized, which is of course a no brainer if you don't want a blackout. I assume you mean the u…

Thanks for clearing up the terminology. Good point regarding gas turbines.

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

#194

Post by preisschild »

natmaka wrote: post #176
preisschild wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, France could invest a lot more into nuclear-heat usage directly (e.g. for district heating or providing process heat to factories) without needing to convert it into Electricity first.

France did invest into a new nuclear powerplant, and the result isn't enticing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

That happens when you only build a SINGLE reactor unit after decades of building nothing. Keep improving the design (EPR2) and keep building and the costs and build times will come down.

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

#195

Post by natmaka »

pyrale wrote: post #190
natmaka wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction: without them France would have burnt more fossil fuels. Moreover ~60% of France's final energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels => France must electrify (replace fossil fuel by electricity) => produce more gridpower => deploy new gridpower-producing equipment and such heavy industry thingies cannot be built overnight. Upon an economic viewpoint electrifying is f…

It feels like you've got your answer and are looking for a way to find the fit problem. > Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. > Moreover ~60% of France's final energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels Yeah, that's my point. France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rathe…

>> Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction

> The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety.

Source?

> France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rather than trying to replace one clean production by another.

I disagree:

Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-fossil-renewa...

A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment.

Producing more electricity enables us to contain its price, boosting electrification.

Starting right now to build in order to replace 40-years old nuclear plants (on average) seems adequate to me. New nuclear (Flamanville-3 EPR) isn't adequate (6x times overcostly, at least 12 years late).

> France has a healthy margin before needing to rush production,

Electrification has to ramp up, therefore if everything goes as planned it will soon be over. Waiting is dangerous.

> with electricity usage going down for two decades

Production nearly-flat from 2004 until COVID: https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption

> a significant share of its power being exported currently.

The challenge (getting rid of fossil fuels and the necessary powergrid, see ENTSO-e) is at continental-scale.

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

#196

Post by natmaka »

preisschild wrote: post #194
natmaka wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France did invest into a new nuclear powerplant, and the result isn't enticing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plan...

That happens when you only build a SINGLE reactor unit after decades of building nothing. Keep improving the design (EPR2) and keep building and the costs and build times will come down.

> only build a SINGLE reactor unit after decades of building nothing

Nope.

The most recent nuclear reactor (Civaux-2) was delivered in France in 1999.

The project aiming at building an EPR in France (Flamanville) started in 2004, and it was a work-in-progress on the field in 2007. Where are those "decades"?

Moreover an EPR was sold to Finland before, and work started in 2005.

Then a pair was sold to China.

Then another pair to the U.-K.

All 6 are very late and have huge overcosts.

If those 6 are in your opinion a "SINGLE reactor" let's swap my single dollar for your six bucks.

Not to count attempts to stem other projects (even in France, at Penly) by offering it to India, Slovenia, USA through UniStar Nuclear, Czech Republic, United Arab Emirates... The prospect weren't thrilled by patent problems at then ongoing projects.

There was a tangible will. As usual this isn't sufficient to succeed.

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

#197

Post by pyrale »

natmaka wrote: post #195
pyrale wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like you've got your answer and are looking for a way to find the fit problem. > Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. > Moreover ~60% of France's final energy is obtained by burning fossil fuels Yeah, that's my point. France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rathe…

>> Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction > The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. Source? > France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rather than trying to replace one clean production by another. I disagree: Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity: https://ourworldind…

> Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity

Why the hell would you show me the same graph I showed you earlier, but with only 3 years of history? That graph, over time, shows that fossil hovers around 10%, has been for decades now. Renewables is not decreasing fossil use here.

> A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment.

As France is a market economy, the issue isn't resources, money is.

> Starting right now to build in order to replace 40-years old nuclear plants

Here is the issue: you don't give a fuck about CO2, all you care about is for renewables to replace nuclear, another clean energy source. All of your discourse is warped and dishonest because you want to pretend that you care about catbon emissions when, in fact, you don't.

If you cared about carbon emissions you would focus on means to lower carbon emissions: electrifiying.

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

#198

Post by natmaka »

pyrale wrote: post #197
natmaka wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Renewables did compensate nuclear's underproduction > The underproduction episode in 2022 was mostly handled thanks to imports and consumer sobriety. Source? > France would be better served by electrifying its non-electric energy usages rather than trying to replace one clean production by another. I disagree: Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity: https://ourworldind…

> Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity Why the hell would you show me the same graph I showed you earlier, but with only 3 years of history? That graph, over time, shows that fossil hovers around 10%, has been for decades now. Renewables is not decreasing fossil use here. > A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing e…

> Why the hell would you show me the same graph

I quoted it 4 days ago (see above). I propose my interpretation of it, for the objective reader to make his mind. Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels.

>> A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment.

> As France is a market economy, the issue isn't resources, money is.

If in your opinion each and every resource (expertise, material...) used to deploy electricity-producing plants is 100% adequate for electrifying let's say we live in distinct universes.

> Here is the issue: you don't give a fuck

No arguments, therefore you rant about what (in your opinion) I think. This is moot.

> If you cared about carbon emissions you would focus on means to lower carbon emissions: electrifiying.

I already explained, above, why deploying electricity-producing plants is just as important and urgent. You didn't even try to counter-argument.

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

#199

Post by pyrale »

natmaka wrote: post #198
pyrale wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Renewables-produced electricity reduces fossil the amount -fuel-produced electricity Why the hell would you show me the same graph I showed you earlier, but with only 3 years of history? That graph, over time, shows that fossil hovers around 10%, has been for decades now. Renewables is not decreasing fossil use here. > A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing e…

> Why the hell would you show me the same graph I quoted it 4 days ago (see above). I propose my interpretation of it, for the objective reader to make his mind. Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels. >> A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. > As France is a marke…

> Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels.

Once again the declining share is nuclear. Fossils are stable as the data you quote shows.

> If in your opinion each and every resource (expertise, material...) used to deploy electricity-producing plants is 100% adequate for electrifying

My point is that this is irrelevant since the bottleneck is money. We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project.

> You didn't even try to counter-argument.

Why would I try when we're at the point where you don't even acknowledge raw data?

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

#200

Post by natmaka »

pyrale wrote: post #199
natmaka wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why the hell would you show me the same graph I quoted it 4 days ago (see above). I propose my interpretation of it, for the objective reader to make his mind. Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels. >> A large part of resources needed by electrification isn't needed to build electricity-producing equipment. > As France is a marke…

> Renewables' share is up, therefore they replace fossil fuels because without renewables France should burn more fossil fuels. Once again the declining share is nuclear. Fossils are stable as the data you quote shows. > If in your opinion each and every resource (expertise, material...) used to deploy electricity-producing plants is 100% adequate for electrifying My point is that this is irrelevant since the bottlen…

> the declining share is nuclear

OMG, is it a joke? Consumption is stable, OK? Nuclear produced less, OK? Therefore renewables compensated for nuclear declining production, OK? Therefore burning more fossil fuels was not necessary, OK? Therefore renewables replaced them, OK?

> the bottleneck is money

My point is solid even given this perspective: the way public money is used is of paramount importance: government recently ordered new nuclear reactors, and also subsidizes renewables in order to compensate past huge subsides to nuclear. More money here, less money there.

> We don't live in a command economy where material resources and workers are assigned by the state on a given project.

Read above.

> you don't even acknowledge raw data

Raw data, as explained, shows that renewables enabled France to avoid burning more fossil fuel. This is a fact, like it or not.

Post reply on HN