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

Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

the-independent.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 512 posts

Re: Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

#291

Post by hardlianotion »

buzer wrote: post #260
gpm wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah but: 1. Sweden is just about the worst case, there's very few countries/people that far north. 2. There's this genius invention called "wires". HVDC has transmission losses on the order of 3.5% per 1,000km. You don't have to colocate the solar.

You don't need to colocate the solar, but you need to make sure you can get that power when you actually need it. During crisis nations are going to restrict exporting electricity and prioritizing their own residents. Electricity that is generated in Germany is not going to warm up Nordic countries if Germany doesn't let it. Wires are also susceptible to sabotage, especially undersea ones (which are the current major…

The issue is more the other way at the moment. Norwegian prices can get high as they are exposed to German demand over the interconnector.

Re: Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

#292

Post by [deleted] »

lxgr wrote: post #189
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the fatality rate per GWh of civilian nuclear power in the US vs. other forms of power generation?

Are you rhetorically or actually asking? I'd guess significantly lower than coal and gas, and in the ballpark of (but still higher than) solar and wind combined (in the expected value, i.e. probability of a Chernobyl-like disaster times the death toll of that).

[deleted]

Re: Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

#293

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Spooky23 wrote: post #264
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They take too long to build and cost too much. The global average to build one is ~7 years. People have been saying they take too long to build as an excuse for not building them for what, two decades or more? It seems to be taking longer to not build them than to build them. > By the time a new plant is ready, alternate sources (likely solar + battery and long-distance HVDC) will have eaten its lunch. Neither of t…

The issue with them in addition to time is a huge capital expense that needs to be amortized. Nobody wants to hold 30-80 year debt on giant capital projects that could be rendered obsolete. For commercialization, solar makes more sense as there is a much better return on capital. If I were king, I’d do socialized power and have the government capitalize and own the nuclear plants, and bid out the operations to privat…

> Nobody wants to hold 30-80 year debt on giant capital projects that could be rendered obsolete.

There isn't really an "obsolete" after it comes online because things get built when expected revenue exceeds construction costs + operating costs, but once built (or close enough to completion) they continue to operate as long as revenue exceeds only operating costs because by then the construction cost is in the past. When the construction cost is large, the amount the price of electricity would have to decline to fall below operating costs is equally large. And investing in something where you expected a positive ROI and you ended up with a slightly negative ROI clearly isn't what you'd have preferred, but it isn't nearly as bad as the -100% ROI you'd get from shutting down the plant instead of selling it for slightly less than what you put in. There's a reason the US is not only continuing to operate 20th century nuclear plants but even looking to reactivate some of the ones that have already been decommissioned.

Moreover, solar has the same problem. You invest in a solar farm because you're expecting to profitably sell power at current prices, but if e.g. the AI thing turns out to be a bubble then there will be oversupply and current prices won't stick. Solar also has the added "everybody is doing it" risk. If you and everybody else add solar then the price at times when solar output is highest is going to be lowest and vice versa, i.e. if too many people invest in the same type of generation then your output gets inversely correlated with the market price, which is bad for ROI.

Re: Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

#294

Post by jdlshore »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #293
Spooky23 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue with them in addition to time is a huge capital expense that needs to be amortized. Nobody wants to hold 30-80 year debt on giant capital projects that could be rendered obsolete. For commercialization, solar makes more sense as there is a much better return on capital. If I were king, I’d do socialized power and have the government capitalize and own the nuclear plants, and bid out the operations to privat…

> Nobody wants to hold 30-80 year debt on giant capital projects that could be rendered obsolete. There isn't really an "obsolete" after it comes online because things get built when expected revenue exceeds construction costs + operating costs, but once built (or close enough to completion) they continue to operate as long as revenue exceeds only operating costs because by then the construction cost is in the past.…

I think you’re misunderstanding the economics at a fairly basic level. The cost to build is funded through debt that’s paid off over time. The construction costs aren’t in the past; they’re in the present, and in the future, in the form of debt payments.

Think of it this way: if you buy a house, the “operating cost” is fairly small: upkeep and painting, mostly. Does that mean you can buy a house, move out of your apartment, and quit your job, because your cost of living has just dropped a few thousand a month?

No, of course not. Upkeep isn’t the real cost of buying a house. The real cost is the monthly mortgage payment. Unless you were already independently wealthy, you have to keep your job. Sorry.

The cost of energy for a nuclear plant is the cost of paying back the loans. As other forms of power generation get cheaper, those loans stay the same, making it harder and harder for nuclear to compete. As they get squeezed out of the energy market, they have to raise their per-watt prices in order to continuing to service the loans.

Think of it like this. You rent your house to your cousin, who pays you enough to cover the mortgage. But then your cousin finds a sweet deal couch-surfing in the tropics in the summer. He stops paying you for June, July, and August. You can’t get anybody else in your house during that time, so you say, “Sorry dude, you have to pay more for the rest of the year. I’ve got bills to pay.” That works great until your cousin gets tired of your high prices and moves out, and now you’re left with a mortgage to pay and no one renting it.

Re: Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

#295

Post by buzer »

hardlianotion wrote: post #291
buzer wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need to colocate the solar, but you need to make sure you can get that power when you actually need it. During crisis nations are going to restrict exporting electricity and prioritizing their own residents. Electricity that is generated in Germany is not going to warm up Nordic countries if Germany doesn't let it. Wires are also susceptible to sabotage, especially undersea ones (which are the current major…

The issue is more the other way at the moment. Norwegian prices can get high as they are exposed to German demand over the interconnector.

Sure, that is the current situation but if the Nordic countries started relying on solar from central Europe (especially Finland since it doesn't have the hydro capacity Norway & Sweden have) things could get ugly during crisis.

The GP essentially framed overprovisioned solar as solution to anyone who might rely on nuclear without taking in account realities in many countries.

Re: Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

#296

Post by rtpg »

cyjackx wrote: post #115
jdlshore wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The economics of new nuclear plants don't make sense. They take too long to build and cost too much. By the time a new plant is ready, alternate sources (likely solar + battery and long-distance HVDC) will have eaten its lunch.

How much of this is unnecessary regulatory burden, though? There probably is some margin of improvement over what the anti-nuclear lobbyists have imposed.

France is all-in on nuclear. Their reactors are still pretty expensive. Worth it, but expensive. Each reactor is a huge piece of infrastructure where small mistakes compound. No matter how little regulation you have reworking these giant buildings takes a lot of work, if only from the physics of it all.

If there's magic that makes em massively cheaper someone should tell France.

Re: Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

#297

Post by latentframe »

Cases are very interesting but most rely a lot on hydro and specific geography : the real shift is not exactly 100% renewables in small systems but maybe more whether large industrial economies can replicate this with maintaining grid stability and lower costs

Re: Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

#298

Post by nofriend »

tensor wrote: post #230
PunchyHamster wrote: post #224

I don't think countries with rolling blackout should count. Unless the point here is "if we accept rolling blackouts we too can go full solar"

Funny, the last time there was a blackout, I still had power due to my solar, while all the gas people sat in the dark and pouted.

That's exactly what's going on in africa, people are installing solar panels in order to avoid having their power be out half the time.

Re: Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

#299

Post by micw »

krupan wrote: post #270
sesm wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is not renewable though, those isotopes were created when some past generation star collapsed as supernova.

And wood, coal, and oil are renewable. It's funny that we have fixated on "renewable" when carbon in the atmosphere is the problem, isn't it?

No, coal and oil is not. Since we have micro organisms that can consume wood, coal and oil will never be produced again.

> During the Carboniferous period, massive amounts of plant matter accumulated to form coal because microorganisms and fungi had not yet evolved the ability to break down lignin, a tough, aromatic polymer in woody plants.

Re: Seven countries now generate nearly all their electricity from renewables (2024)

#300

Post by littlestymaar »

pfdietz wrote: post #236
littlestymaar wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not the regulations, it's the financing scheme: if it's not state backed with a long investment horizon, it's very expensive because private investors expect 10% yields in the middle of a ZIRP to cover from the possible political reversal. The Hinckley Point C EPR reactor would have produced electricity at a rate below £20/MWh instead of a planned £80/MWh if it was financed by government bonds.

It's not just political reversal risk; there's the risk of technological obsolescence. It's very much a stretch to assume a nuclear plant will remain operationally viable (in the sense of being competitive) for 40 years, never mind the 60 or 80 years sometimes mentioned, because the competition isn't standing still.

The only credible competition against a state funded nuclear plant is hypothetical next gen geothermal power though.

Nuclear won't save the planet, as few countries can develop a nuclear industry. But for countries that have one, it should be a no brainer if not for irrational nuclear bomb fears.

Post reply on HN