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

It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 125 posts

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#101

Post by keanzu »

nerpderp82 wrote: post #85
keanzu wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Doesn't scale. Not enough sites. Terrible energy density, massive land use. To store the energy contained in 1 gallon of gasoline requires over 55,000 gallons to be pumped up 726 feet (CCST 2012). [1] Itaipu Dam has 14,000 MW installed power, 1,350 square kilometres (520 sq mi) were flooded. [2] [1] http://energyskeptic.com/2015/hydropower-has-a-very-low-ener... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam

Pumped hydro is 70-80% efficient at storing energy. [1] Converting to sensible units gives mass = 55e3 * 3.79kg/gallon ~ 208450kg height = 221 meters mass * height * 9.8m/s^2 ~ 452043210 joules (watt-seconds) or 125KwH, 70% of that is 87KwH. What does gasoline have to do with energy storage on the grid? Furthermore, a gallon of gas has 33KwH [2]. What does the Itaipu Dam's installed power have to do with stored energ…

> What does the Itaipu Dam's installed power have to do with stored energy?

Nothing. Was there something to suggest otherwise? I listed two weak points for hydro: Terrible energy density, massive land use.

My first reference supported the first point and my second reference addressed the second point. Land use: 1,350 square kilometres were flooded. The installed power was to give context of how big the plant is.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#102

Post by ZeroGravitas »

tefferon wrote: post #48
ryan_j_naughton wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Energy storage will enable us to use only clean renewables. While the costs for energy storage aren't falling nearly as fast, they are still decreasing. I anticipate that rate to accelerate

Why does everyone turn from Nuclear though? It seems like the most viable option in my opinion. I'd rather have a network of nuke power where energy reliability is weather-independent than forests of wind and farms of solar. I feel like its a much greener approach overall. What's the manufacturing breakeven in carbon costs for a windmill or a solar panel?

The genuine answer to your question is that their news sources haven't been demonising renewables and green government initiatives for the last 20 years (in order to prop up their fossil fuel sponsors) so they don't automatically think "communist, hoax, inefficient, boondoggle, political correctness gone mad, end of civilization as we know it, bloody hippies, etc." when renewables gets brought up. Instead they think "cheap, efficient, distributed tech that keeps getting cheaper and that I can use for energy independence on multiple scales" so it's not that they have any great distaste for nuclear, they've just not been trained to hate and fear renewables.

They don't for example, wonder if no one has thought to calculate the carbon impact of renewables, because they assume the scientists and other authority figures they trust who recommend it would have taken that into account. And if they did wonder, it's a short Google away, and their usual info sources would provide facts, not scaremongering propaganda.

That's why you'll rarely see a defence of nuclear that doesn't quickly degenerate into attacking Californian hippies, or government interference, or the collapse of Germany into a solar powered Islamic no-go-zone, or flat out denial that climate change is even a problem anyway" that they've read about in their highly reliable news sources. Generally they're more anti-renewable than pro-nuclear.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#103

Post by kortilla »

keanzu wrote: post #73
ip26 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other things, when it gets really cheap you can start over-provisioning. Cloud cover sometimes cuts the solar irradiance in half? No problem, just build twice as much solar capacity (and maybe add a HVDC transmission line to the next state over for the high production times) Wide deployment & interconnection will also erase some of the local variability of, e.g. a cloud passing over.

Land use of solar prevents it ever getting really cheap. According to the UK solar power portal [1]: "If solar covered one percent of the UK it would meet the country’s entire power demand". > just build twice as much solar capacity This would increase the land use from 1% to 2%. That's a huge amount of the country to give over to power production. [1] https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/if_solar_covered_one...

Does the UK not experience night time?

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#104

Post by kortilla »

bjourne wrote: post #89
air7 wrote: post #28

I don't understand the hype around wind and solar. Or rather I don't see how these technologies can ever be anything more than a minor player in the energy market: These technologies are extremely sensitive to weather conditions which means that other, more stable sources must exist and have "stand by" production cap to produce all the energy these tech won't under bad conditions. If so, what's the point? (I mean in…

Do you know about the law of large numbers? Basically it says that in the long run "things even out." Suppose you flip a coin 100 times. It can happen that you only get one heads in those 100 flips, but would you worry about it? In my city the electric scooter companies have carpet bombed the city centre with their vehicles. When I'm downtown can I be certain that one is available to take me from place A to B? I can'…

So that rules out solar because... nighttime. So wind has to be the only reliable supply and you need to over build enough of it so a calm weather system in a region has no impact. The numbers stop looking good at that point.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#105

Post by lostlogin »

mikece wrote: post #2

"[Wind and solar are] even close to being competitive with the marginal costs of running the coal and nuclear plants we already have." Is that still true without incentives, green grants, rebates, and tax credits? Because without all of that and with mountains of red tape nuclear still produces energy at the lowest cost, and without emitting any CO2.

If you’re factoring in subsidies for wind and solar, those for nuclear and coal need to be considered too. Also, nuclear might be low CO2, but getting the fuel and disposing of it is part of the equation too.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#106

Post by ourlordcaffeine »

keanzu wrote: post #73
ip26 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Among other things, when it gets really cheap you can start over-provisioning. Cloud cover sometimes cuts the solar irradiance in half? No problem, just build twice as much solar capacity (and maybe add a HVDC transmission line to the next state over for the high production times) Wide deployment & interconnection will also erase some of the local variability of, e.g. a cloud passing over.

Land use of solar prevents it ever getting really cheap. According to the UK solar power portal [1]: "If solar covered one percent of the UK it would meet the country’s entire power demand". > just build twice as much solar capacity This would increase the land use from 1% to 2%. That's a huge amount of the country to give over to power production. [1] https://www.solarpowerportal.co.uk/news/if_solar_covered_one...

Overprovisioning in the case of the UK really applies to wind rather than solar.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#107

Post by akvadrako »

audunw wrote: post #21
hannasanarion wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it wouldn't, because nuclear isn't reactive enough to produce energy to match the extreme afternoon demand curves when solar capacity drops and demand jumps. To account for those rapid jumps in non-renewable demand, you need an energy source that can ramp up really fast on short notice, like hydrocarbon fire.

> like hydrocarbon fire. Or batteries and other storage methods. It looks like battery solutions could get cheap enough in the next 10-20 years to smooth things out and take care of storage for a few hours (see for instance http://news.mit.edu/2018/metal-mesh-membrane-rechargeable-ba... .. Donald Sadoway has some good talks on YouTube) But yeah, for days that happen to have less wind/solar, I think the best thing is…

No, the battery solution is currently about 10000x too expensive. Even building a 1 day battery for each geographical region would be thousands of trillions of dollars.

Only some unexpected breakthrough could make it feasible.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#108

Post by mantoto »

imtringued wrote: post #78
tefferon wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

is there any reason why we can't conceivably jettison nuclear waste out of orbit?

Because there is no need to. The radioactive material wasn't a problem before it was dug out of the soil. It's not a problem if it returns to where it came from. The problem is that most government try to find an idiotic central storage location instead of simply distributing the spent fuel over many locations.

Oh yeah sounds easy until someone digs it out again and puts it in a bomb.

Or it leaks and reaches our water...

No risk there never has been.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#109

Post by akvadrako »

keanzu wrote: post #75
mikece wrote: post #2

"[Wind and solar are] even close to being competitive with the marginal costs of running the coal and nuclear plants we already have." Is that still true without incentives, green grants, rebates, and tax credits? Because without all of that and with mountains of red tape nuclear still produces energy at the lowest cost, and without emitting any CO2.

Mountains of red tape don't exist in the communist dictatorship of China yet they haven't broken ground on a new plant since 2016 [1]. There are fundamental economic problems with nuclear that prevent it from being the power solution we all hoped it would be. [1] https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612564/chinas-losing-its-...

Then why does France have cheaper electricity than most of its neighbors?

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#110

Post by mantoto »

mikece wrote: post #2

"[Wind and solar are] even close to being competitive with the marginal costs of running the coal and nuclear plants we already have." Is that still true without incentives, green grants, rebates, and tax credits? Because without all of that and with mountains of red tape nuclear still produces energy at the lowest cost, and without emitting any CO2.

We still have areas in Germany where you have to test your deer meat.

Who is paying for that? Guess who is not paying for

Post reply on HN