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

Wind is outpacing coal as a power source in Texas for the first time

edition.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: Wind is outpacing coal as a power source in Texas for the first time

#141

Post by mirimir »

CydeWeys wrote: post #111
mirimir wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. That was my guess. I mean, I didn't think that aluminum production was big there. I wonder what the energy efficiency of petroleum refining is. From the US DOE,[0] I get: TBtu 3542 primary energy 2082 applied energy 1460 energy lost So ~59%. That's a lot of energy to blow off. 0) https://www.energy.gov/eere/amo/dynamic-manufacturing-energy...

This illustrates something that is curiously lacking from most ICE vs BEV energy efficiency calculations, namely: More electricity is spent just refining the gasoline used by an ICE than is used in total by a BEV to go the same distance.

Damn, I wasn't thinking this through clearly. And it's damn complicated.

The relevant comparison is arguably greenhouse gas emissions per km. For ICE, you clearly must include emissions during refining. But that could be ~zero, if all the process energy were wind, solar or nuclear electricity. Or it could be an additional 70%, if all the process energy were petroleum. So the range is 1.0-1.7 times nominal fuel emissions.

For BEV, total emissions could be ~zero, if all the electricity were wind, solar or nuclear. But if the electricity were generated from fossil fuels, you'd have nominal fuel emissions plus both refining process energy and generation loss.

Electricity from natural gas could be the clear winner, because you get additional energy from two H2 for C converted to CO2. Unless leakage were too great. And there's ~no conversion loss in the vehicle. So that's maybe 0.4-0.7 relative to gasoline/diesel fuel emissions.

Electricity from coal and petroleum would clearly be worse. For coal, because there's ~no H2, and because generation efficiency is lower than for natural gas. And for petroleum, because you have the 0%-70% process energy, less H2 per C, and somewhat lower generation efficiency. But there's ~no conversion loss in the vehicle for either. So overall that's maybe 0.8-1.4 relative to gasoline/diesel fuel emissions.

Bottom line, relative to nominal ICE fuel emissions:

    ICE  ~1 to ~1.7
    BEV  ~0 to ~1.4
But hey, those are totally thumbnail estimates.

Re: Wind is outpacing coal as a power source in Texas for the first time

#142

Post by dang »

duckMuppet wrote: post #140
dtornabene wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is....false. The "big driver of it" is state and federal subsidy, period. And as far as the zoning goes, that is a much much grayer picture than painted by this comment. For example, in the county I live, you couldn't sell liquor on one side of a highway, a highway which runs dead center through the county and town, because of religious influence on the approval and application of zoning laws. And blue laws are…

[flagged]

Personal/regional attacks are not allowed on Hacker News. Please don't post like that here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Also, please don't use HN for ideological battle. It's boring and predictable, and invites worse.

Re: Wind is outpacing coal as a power source in Texas for the first time

#143

Post by nate_meurer »

briandear wrote: post #98
radicalbyte wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why inland wind is basically banned in the UK. I totally understand the argument and if it wasn't for the fact that the climate disaster will end us I would agree. However what 2+ degrees of warming will do will dwarf anything that the turbines will do. There are also arguments about birds dying and the such. Only that's a BS argument considering that glass buildings kill 10x as many birds and are ubiquitous.

So why not do nuclear?

Really? Hinkley Point C, that's why not. In the U.S., Vogtle. These are the only nuclear power plants under construction in the UK and US. They each cost over 20 billion dollars, are heavily subsidized, and are badly behind schedule and over budget. If and when they are ever completed, the energy they produce will be more expensive than unsubsidized wind and solar in their respective regions.

Re: Wind is outpacing coal as a power source in Texas for the first time

#144

Post by grumpydba »

hyperbovine wrote: post #131
grumpydba wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah so let's destroy pristine nature landscapes with ugly turbines (which kill a lot of birds and cost an arm to decommission). I've seen wild landscapes in Brittany completely ruined by still wind turbines. It's a disgrace. I'd rather go nuclear in select ugly places. What is beautiful is good. He who creates ugliness is evil.

There is no wilderness in Brittany that I am aware of. Very little anywhere in Europe actually. My point being, man have altered the landscape in that part of the world on a continual basis for thousands of years. Heck, people have been building windmills , the very object you object to, on this land for that long. It seems a bit rich to suddenly stand on principle and proclaim No! This should be banned! What is ther…

Indeed you are not aware as you have not been there. It's in a border of an old forest. It's known that it kills bird. The visual pollution is really important and those who value technology and convenience over beauty have already done disastrous things to my country. It needs to stop.

Re: Wind is outpacing coal as a power source in Texas for the first time

#145

Post by erikpukinskis »

benj111 wrote: post #86
erikpukinskis wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ICE auto industry is well aware that it’s game over for all but maybe one or two of them who can survive the transition to electric+autonomy. It behooves the others to try to minimize expenses and ride the company into the ground. Basically, revenue is going to zero so they want to maximize profits in what’s left of this little corner of the curve. Lowering emissions standards, even for 5 years, let’s them squeez…

Who are the ICE industry? The car companies? Why would only 1 or 2 survive?

1) The strategy I outlined requires them to maintain an internal culture of ignorance about electrification. Which makes it impossible to design a great electric car.

2) The supply chain is non-trivial to negotiate, particularly batteries, which will give their long time competitors an opportunity to eat them.

3) Autonomy is hard and it’s not clear there will be cheap good software that’s available to license

4) Car dealers don’t want to cannibalize their ICE inventory by marketing electrics. ICE makers are legally tied to the dealers.

All of these are solvable, but I don’t expect more than 1 or 2 will be able to solve all 4.

There will be a lot of consolidation.

Re: Wind is outpacing coal as a power source in Texas for the first time

#146

Post by hyperbovine »

grumpydba wrote: post #144
hyperbovine wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no wilderness in Brittany that I am aware of. Very little anywhere in Europe actually. My point being, man have altered the landscape in that part of the world on a continual basis for thousands of years. Heck, people have been building windmills , the very object you object to, on this land for that long. It seems a bit rich to suddenly stand on principle and proclaim No! This should be banned! What is ther…

Indeed you are not aware as you have not been there. It's in a border of an old forest. It's known that it kills bird. The visual pollution is really important and those who value technology and convenience over beauty have already done disastrous things to my country. It needs to stop.

I have been. You are referring I suppose to Brocélien. It is an old forest but not in any way wild. (Sa histoire: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forêt_de_Paimpont#Histoire). By "wild" I mean "untouched by man". Those places are worth saving, but there are not very many remaining, and certainly almost none in continental Europe. We should respect our forests and other open spaces, but some windmills is much less of a problem than the alternative.

Re: Wind is outpacing coal as a power source in Texas for the first time

#147

Post by postpawl »

dtornabene wrote: post #137
huffmsa wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A big driver of this is the relatively non-existent zoning laws in most of Texas. It's broadly the case (and accepted and defended by people with lots of guns) that you should be free to do just about anything you want on land you own. Want to build windmills, run cattle, and operate a strip club in your backyard? Go for it. So you get all these ranchers who realized "shoot, cows only need space up to about 6 feet. I…

this is....false. The "big driver of it" is state and federal subsidy, period. And as far as the zoning goes, that is a much much grayer picture than painted by this comment. For example, in the county I live, you couldn't sell liquor on one side of a highway, a highway which runs dead center through the county and town, because of religious influence on the approval and application of zoning laws. And blue laws are…

I think state and federal subsidy is a big part of it too. Texas invested a lot of money in power transmission infrastructure to get that wind energy to major cities: https://www.texastribune.org/2013/10/14/7-billion-crez-proje...
Post reply on HN