Earlier quoted context omitted.
Base load is a feature, not a bug. Companies planning new industrial facilities need long-term guarantees of reliable 24×7 power with predictable rates. Otherwise they'll build elsewhere. Dispatchable power doesn't help them.
Base load power cannot provide predictable rates because it provides a fixed amount of power that the market then bids on. If there's too much demand rates go up arbitrarily high. If there's too little rates go to zero. Dispatchable power is the only sort of power that provides 24x7 power with predictable rates. If there's more demand, you produce more power (at the same cost). If there's less, you produce less so yo…
For the first time in the U.S., renewables generate more power than natural gas
121–130 of 183 posts
Re: For the first time in the U.S., renewables generate more power than natural gas
#122Extending the life of existing power infra is low-hanging fruit for more power short term, but the economics of renewables are just unstoppable. Article states 93% of new generation capacity was renewable which is good, but I can sense that nimbyism is growing towards wind and solar. Not to mention the animus towards China who has wisely cornered manufacturing of these. The US has shot itself in the foot because of i…
Re: For the first time in the U.S., renewables generate more power than natural gas
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Easy. US puts panels, turbines and batteries everywhere connected in big grid. Grid is big enough that something is always generating, and batteries smooth out the curve. Power is priced dynamically. Cheap solar at noon? Do big work. High demand in evening? Discharge battery. Power is always available, but cost goes up and down. Daily, god willing.
In theory that works as long as you're willing to let the price reflect actual supply and demand even when the difference is very large, e.g. it has been cloudy and still for a couple weeks so the batteries are low and then you get a hot summer day or cold winter night with a lot of demand. No problem, we'll just set the price to "high enough to get people to stop cooling/heating their buildings" and the market will…
There is something interesting happening in the retail space, though, called a “virtual power plant.” Worth googling if you’re curious.
Re: For the first time in the U.S., renewables generate more power than natural gas
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory that works as long as you're willing to let the price reflect actual supply and demand even when the difference is very large, e.g. it has been cloudy and still for a couple weeks so the batteries are low and then you get a hot summer day or cold winter night with a lot of demand. No problem, we'll just set the price to "high enough to get people to stop cooling/heating their buildings" and the market will…
The demand can be more elastic than you envision. If power is expensive on a given day, electric cars can wait to charge, or even discharge if they aren't going to be used. People can wait to run laundry dryers. The market will incentivize actors to smooth out before those kinds of restrictions are necessary. People might not like changing their habits to follow the energy, but they'll probably be pretty happy when t…
That buys you days, not weeks.
The smoothing out things also have kind of an ugly failure mode. People set their cars to sell power into the grid if the price is X% above normal, but that prevents it from getting to be 2X% above normal on the first day, and then fewer people choose not to run their dryers. The batteries get exhausted sooner because their own existence prevented the price from going up very much at first, but that's the profit-maximizing strategy because nobody knows exactly how long the shortfall is going to be and the shorter ones are more common. Then the batteries get depleted quickly and when the shortfall lasts for more than a couple of days, you're not only low on battery storage, you now have more people whose cars have a charge gauge pointing to E and they need to get to work in the morning.
> The market will incentivize actors to smooth out before those kinds of restrictions are necessary.
It isn't a regulatory restriction. It's, where are you setting your thermostat if electricity hits $5/kWh today?
> At least in my corner of the Midwest, either the sun is shining or the wind is blowing, and often both.
The problem is that it's occasionally neither and that doesn't have to happen very often to cause a lot of trouble.
Re: For the first time in the U.S., renewables generate more power than natural gas
#125Extending the life of existing power infra is low-hanging fruit for more power short term, but the economics of renewables are just unstoppable. Article states 93% of new generation capacity was renewable which is good, but I can sense that nimbyism is growing towards wind and solar. Not to mention the animus towards China who has wisely cornered manufacturing of these. The US has shot itself in the foot because of i…
The WTO found that China cornered the market with illegal dumping. Of course the investigations and punishments are too little too late.
Re: For the first time in the U.S., renewables generate more power than natural gas
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what a horrendous insecurity nuclear power plants are. A direct missile attack on one could be catastrophic The same holds for hydro. Even worse, there would be no time for evacuation. Yet nobody is considering banning dams.
Not in the same ballpark. Chernobyl nearly poisoned the entire continent’s water supply. Nuclear waste is far far worse than excess water.
The precise mechanism was: radioactive particles fall to ground, or are washed to ground by rain, which concentrates them on vegetation with a lot of surface especially leafy vegetables, grass. Leafy vegetables are eaten directly by humans. Grass is eaten by cows, which again concentrates the radionuclides in milk. Humans drink milk, eat cheese concentrated from milk.
Not all radionuclides produced in nuclear fission have the same health impact on population in case of a nuclear disaster. To have a significant health hazard a radionuclide needs to have 3 properties: volatility, half-life, bioaccumulativity.
Volatility - some radioactive elements (heavy metals) are not moved far away by air, some radioactive elements like radioactive noble gases dilute very fast.
Stuff with a short half-life will transform into stable elements before migrating far. Stuff with with very long half-life will not produce much radiation during human lifetime.
Bioaccumulativity, radioactive stuff needs to stay in body to do damage. If it's eaten and then pooped out next day it usually doesn't cause much damage.
Most dangerous for general public in case of nuclear disasters are:
Iodine-131 (half-life 8 days): Iodine is stored in thyroid gland and stays in for long time in body. Especially children need a lot of iodine per kilogram of body weight. In regions where there is not enough of iodine in food (lacking seafood, table salt without added iodine), human body will try to get every bit of iodine from environment and hold it in body as long as possible.
Cesium-137 (half-time 30.04 years) : Alkali metal that forms salts. Has tendency to accumulate in soft tissues.
Strontium-90 (half-time 28.91 years) : Chemically similar to calcium. Has tendency to be incorporated into bones, teeth and stay in body for very long time.
https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q10097/
Big part of radiation dose to the population could be prevented if the Soviet state didn't tried to cover up the Chernobyl and would prevent people from eating local food and milk, because most of the damage is done by eating iodine-131 in the first weeks after accident. Timely administration of potassium iodide tables would also help.
Chernobyl liquidators were affected with much broader range of radionuclides (radioactive stuff that did not migrate far) and with much high concentrations (radioactive stuff was not diluted much).
Direct deaths: 2 killed by debris (including 1 missing) and 28 killed by acute radiation sickness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
There many estimates about impact of Chernobyl disaster. I think the most comprehensive study is from Chernobyl Forum.
"On the death toll of the accident, the report states that 28 emergency workers died from acute radiation syndrome and 15 patients died from thyroid cancer. It roughly estimates that cancers deaths caused by the Chernobyl accident might eventually reach a total of up to 4,000 among the 600,000 cleanup workers or "liquidators" who received the greatest exposures."
Re: For the first time in the U.S., renewables generate more power than natural gas
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what a horrendous insecurity nuclear power plants are. A direct missile attack on one could be catastrophic The same holds for hydro. Even worse, there would be no time for evacuation. Yet nobody is considering banning dams.
Not in the same ballpark. Chernobyl nearly poisoned the entire continent’s water supply. Nuclear waste is far far worse than excess water.
Do not underestimate excess water.
Re: For the first time in the U.S., renewables generate more power than natural gas
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory that works as long as you're willing to let the price reflect actual supply and demand even when the difference is very large, e.g. it has been cloudy and still for a couple weeks so the batteries are low and then you get a hot summer day or cold winter night with a lot of demand. No problem, we'll just set the price to "high enough to get people to stop cooling/heating their buildings" and the market will…
It’s not something that’s likely to happen at the retail level, but at the industrial level. Battery farms buying power when the price is low or negative (due to too much wind/solar) and selling when the price is higher (early evening). Aluminum smelters curtailing. Etc. There is something interesting happening in the retail space, though, called a “virtual power plant.” Worth googling if you’re curious.
Batteries work great to let you generate power at noon and use it at dusk. They're not so great at letting you generate power on days with a surplus and then use it later in the year when there is a multi-week or seasonal shortfall.
Re: For the first time in the U.S., renewables generate more power than natural gas
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
A missile hitting a coal power plant will also be pretty bad, and there's not a giant shield around it.
> A missile hitting a coal power plant will also be pretty bad, and there's not a giant shield around it. Probably not even the same order of magnitude. A blown-up nuclear reactor would be WAY worse in short- and long-term effects (and cleanup costs) than a blown-up coal power plant producing comparable MW. (See: Fukushima and Chernobyl.)
In both the amount of released radionuclides and health effects of the accidents, Chernobyl accident was much, much bigger than Fukushima.
Re: For the first time in the U.S., renewables generate more power than natural gas
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in the same ballpark. Chernobyl nearly poisoned the entire continent’s water supply. Nuclear waste is far far worse than excess water.
Cumulative total number of deaths from Chernobyl, definitively the worst nuclear disaster in history, ranges from 4000 to 16000 (estimates, via Wikipedia). A dam bursting upstream of a few small towns will kill many more[0]. Do not underestimate excess water. [0] See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47770592
A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.