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

121–125 of 125 posts

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

#121

Post by dredmorbius »

keanzu wrote: post #101
nerpderp82 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Again: the size is incidental to that specific dam. Pumped hydro facilities can be vastly smaller.

Ffestiniog Power Station in the UK is on the order of 1 hectare (1/100 km^2) in area (based on 170,000 m^3 storage and a 34m dam height). It's a modest and early pumped-hydro facility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffestiniog_Power_Station

Bath County Pumped Storage in the US has an upper reservoir of 107 and a lower of 226 hectares respectively, or 1 km^2 and 2 km^2, roughly. It is the largest in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta...

There is no reason for a purely pumped-hydro facility to be anywhere remotely near the size of Itaipu. Which is not in fact a pumped hydroelectric storage facility, but a hydroelectric generating station with no pumped-hydro storage capabilities or functions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam

A red herring.

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

#122

Post by ape4 »

credit_guy wrote: post #90
Gibbon1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't blame the industry for a dysfunctional government. The Utilizes got exactly what they wanted from the government in this case. Complete externalization of the problem for a nominal fee. The government also capped their liability so they could buy insurance. No insurance, no financing.

> Complete externalization of the problem for a nominal fee. If you call $750MM/year a nominal fee, your definition of nominal is maybe a bit non-standard? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act#Nucle...

This is my favourite comment of the day

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

#123

Post by keanzu »

dredmorbius wrote: post #121
keanzu wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Again: the size is incidental to that specific dam . Pumped hydro facilities can be vastly smaller. Ffestiniog Power Station in the UK is on the order of 1 hectare (1/100 km^2) in area (based on 170,000 m^3 storage and a 34m dam height). It's a modest and early pumped-hydro facility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffestiniog_Power_Station Bath County Pumped Storage in the US has an upper reservoir of 107 and a lower o…

You are reading words that aren't there. The top level comment this thread started with is:

>You couldn't be more Dam wrong.

I am talking about dams, not pumped storage.

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

#124

Post by dredmorbius »

keanzu wrote: post #123
dredmorbius wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again: the size is incidental to that specific dam . Pumped hydro facilities can be vastly smaller. Ffestiniog Power Station in the UK is on the order of 1 hectare (1/100 km^2) in area (based on 170,000 m^3 storage and a 34m dam height). It's a modest and early pumped-hydro facility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ffestiniog_Power_Station Bath County Pumped Storage in the US has an upper reservoir of 107 and a lower o…

You are reading words that aren't there. The top level comment this thread started with is: >You couldn't be more Dam wrong. I am talking about dams, not pumped storage.

And that comment responded to "Energy storage isn't really feasible".

And was followed up, by the same author, with another post specifically about pumped storage: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21479576

That we're still discussing this over 24 hours later may strike someone as amusing, but the jokes gone rather stale.

Cheers.

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

#125

Post by mepiethree »

derision wrote: post #39
mepiethree wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if solar can only run a third of the time, that's still a third of our electric carbon emissions taken out, which ain't nothing to shake a stick at. > what am I missing Battery storage is a thing and will become much more of a thing

Batteries are made from metals which have to be strip mined. It's really not any more environmentally friendly

Coal is strip mined too, and then burned. At least you don't burn batteries.
Post reply on HN