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

In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 809 posts

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#381

Post by bee_rider »

pranavj wrote: post #113

The most underreported part of this story is the battery piece at the end. Batteries are beginning to displace natural gas in evening peak hours - that's the exact window where solar critics have long argued renewables fall short. If this trend accelerates (and battery prices are dropping faster than most models predicted), the "intermittency problem" starts looking more like a solvable engineering challenge than a f…

Intermittence really has always had the flavor of an engineering problem instead of a physics problem (it is about putting the energy when/where humans want it, rather than having enough of it). IMO load shifting seems like a cleverer and more engineer-y solution. Imagine a giant smart system where all of our appliances talk to each-other and can optimize the timings of their workloads. It’s a magnificent society-wide scheduling problem! The papers we could write!

Throwing batteries at it is a kind of blunt and uninteresting solution (I guess the market will prefer that one!).

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#382

Post by WarmWash »

mekdoonggi wrote: post #174
WarmWash wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every country on Earth benefits from the chips that come from Taiwan, and not just the governments, the people using pretty much anything that does computation. That includes China.

Yes I am aware. Which means that if China takes over political control of Taiwan and says, "We will still sell chips just like normal to everyone except the US". Would the rest of the world decide to go to war with China for the political freedom of Taiwan?

Taiwan will burn (explosive demolition) the fabs before China gets them. This is baked into their defense plan and made known to China.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#383

Post by embedding-shape »

direwolf20 wrote: post #367
SamPatt wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything has a tradeoff. That's a foundational truth of economics. Environmental protection is a luxury good in economic terms. The Environmental Kuznets Curve is compelling to me. It's extremely difficult to assess the ROI on long term investments, particularly when your country has unstable rule of law or conflict. I'm pro-solar, it's amazing technology that empowers individuals and communities. I just don't agre…

How do you compensate your neighbors for the loss of garden view caused by your house?

Is that something you usually have to pay your neighbors where you live? If you put up some ugly thing in your garden you have to pay your neighbors?

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#384

Post by mrweasel »

Moldoteck wrote: post #339
mrweasel wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well, OK--but at what cost? It costs less? The Danish organisation for green energy interest (biased I known) has calculations that shows a 5 billion DKK saving per year for the Danish consumers. So about €0.02 per kWh. I also think you're wrong about prices. I think most will pay more, if they get clean energy. Not a lot more, but if it's only a few cents, I think many/most will pay that, perhaps not happily, but…

there's a meme with a few cents more in germany, can search on the google "eis kugel energiewende" DK has one of the highest household prices in EU per eurostat https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php... Imo CO2 tax should be gone to alleviate this, especially when China and US dont have it. This just causes offshoring. If you want electrification, you need cheap electricity. If you want more ren…

But the energy from windmills doesn't have a CO2 tax (it did at some point) and it frequently provides most, if not all, of the Danish energy (electricity) consumption. There's ONE coal fired power plant left in the country and it's scheduled to close in 2028. I get that we then have gas and garbage incinerators for heating, but we are getting electrification and lower prices.

I frankly don't care what the US and China is doing, because they're doing the wrong thing. You're arguing that because you neighbour is throwing trash in the street you want to be able to do the same. I'd much rather make environmental demands of the products being sold to be from else where, and have them live by the same rules, allowing everyone to benefit.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#385

Post by dgb23 »

altern8 wrote: post #142
pranavj wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EU electricity prices are high, but attributing this to renewables is backwards. Wholesale electricity prices drop when wind and solar are producing - that's been documented extensively. The high prices are largely due to: (1) gas setting marginal prices during peak hours, (2) grid infrastructure that hasn't kept pace, and (3) taxes/levies that fund the transition. As battery storage grows and reduces gas dependency…

I'm not attributing to renewables, but green initiatives. For instance, the rising prices of carbon permits under the EU emissions trading scheme. So, my point is that countries that don't ignore the economy just to be green--like the U.S. and specially China--seem to have vastly cheaper electricity and gasoline, which I would guess makes them more competitive/lowers prices. Over here we have no NG and no oil, and on…

China is has started to trend their fossil fuel consumption downwards since last year and have a similar per capita consumption as Europe.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#386

Post by NetMageSCW »

WheatMillington wrote: post #332
munk-a wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that on-roof-solar helps (as it becomes widespread) mitigate the growing need for additional grid capacity. Canada is a big country and, outside the major cities, upgrading grid capacity is quite expensive per capita. It's a win-win in Canada, investing in self-sufficiency while reducing the maintenance burden of infrastructure.

Solar does basically nothing to help with grid capacity.

If solar is cheaper than the alternatives, then installing solar means more money for growing the grid capacity as well.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#387

Post by amalcon »

sneak wrote: post #187
embedding-shape wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Definitely a great deal if you own a home, if I was a renter/condo owner I'd be annoyed that everyone is subsidizing your free solar however. What kind of selfish point of view is this? Don't you want people to use energy sources that are better for our entire world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes per year? Seems like a no brainer deal if you like "the outside" and you want it to still be there. I'm a…

There is nothing more unjust than forcing someone to buy something they do not want simply because you think it would be good for them. > Seems like a no brainer deal This is opinion, not fact. I happen to share your opinion, but enshrining opinions in law is almost always going to violate someone’s consent.

This is a failure of imagination. There are plenty of things that are more unjust than that.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#388

Post by ponector »

Night_Thastus wrote: post #175
munk-a wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that on-roof-solar helps (as it becomes widespread) mitigate the growing need for additional grid capacity. Canada is a big country and, outside the major cities, upgrading grid capacity is quite expensive per capita. It's a win-win in Canada, investing in self-sufficiency while reducing the maintenance burden of infrastructure.

It may slightly help with capacity, but it causes bigger problems financially. Even if a home uses next to no power, it still must be connected to the grid . The total number of such homes ends up meaning a lot of power lines, transformer stations, monitoring equipment, and people to do all the work. If you have all of that expense, and suddenly people have solar panels so pay $0 for an energy bill - do you see the p…

Where I from, every utility bill has two parts: fixed cost and metered cost. You pay for installed capacity and by the meter for actually consumed kWh, GJ, m3.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#389

Post by coryrc »

rfrey wrote: post #348
coryrc wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trucks are responsible for 99% of road damage and only pay 38% of the costs. https://truecostblog.com/2009/06/02/the-hidden-trucking-indu... Yes, the costs should be apportioned to those who are making them. If the bus causes the most road damage, then it should be charged. Then it'll make financial sense to invest in rail. Financial incentives are how capitalism works and the purpose of governments under capitalism…

Should cyclists be charged a special tax for bike lane construction and maintenance? What about sidewalks, should you need a pedestrian pass?

1. As soon as the roads are all paying best-possible-use property tax for the space they take up and it's completely paid by automobiles, in addition to all maintenance, we should try to proportionally assign dedicated bicycle infrastructure costs toward bicycle users, now and anticipated.

2. Everyone is a pedestrian.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#390

Post by JuniperMesos »

embedding-shape wrote: post #179
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Solar prices in the US are criminal, protecting oil and gas who bought all the politicians. >Canada here. 7.6kw on our roof for $0 out of pocket thanks to $5k grant and $8k interest free loan. This very well may be true, but taken at face value Canada seems to be paying you around $7k to install solar panels on your roof (that's 8k interest free loan is losing out to inflation + any interest it would have earned). D…

> Definitely a great deal if you own a home, if I was a renter/condo owner I'd be annoyed that everyone is subsidizing your free solar however. What kind of selfish point of view is this? Don't you want people to use energy sources that are better for our entire world, even if it costs you like $10 more in taxes per year? Seems like a no brainer deal if you like "the outside" and you want it to still be there. I'm a…

Maybe I'd prefer to spend the same public money on building nuclear power plants, or gigantic solar panel arrays in the desert, rather than subsidizing individual roof-owners being able to save money on their electricity bill and not mine.
Post reply on HN