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

Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

canarymedia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 368 posts

Re: Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

#141

Post by notTooFarGone »

marcusverus wrote: post #48
huytersd wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? If you’re not burning gas, there’s no issue.

The issue is that renewables require extensive, expensive redundancies which are misleadingly excluded from the ubiquitous “renewables are cheaper” studies.

First give me a world that runs on 90% renewables all the time. The last 10% is really not something that will have weight. Actually I consider complaining about that bad faith. Too many countries run on pretty much majority fossils, reducing that has the largest impact and setting an example will help there. A world where we run on 90% renewables is a good one.

Re: Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

#142

Post by hef19898 »

troupo wrote: post #128
adev_ wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would people that minus a post stating facts backed by sources deign to explain why ? I am aware that reality can be harsh to accept sometimes. And that a world where renewable are our only source of energy is more seducing to our collective imagination. But unfortunately, it is still the reality. And we have to deal with it, even if it is pretty unpleasant.

In a different discussion a few days ago someone told me I was lying when I pointed out that Germany is burning 20GW of coal to compensate for their 140GW of renewables working at only 15% capacity.

I wouldn't say lying, but misrepresenting decribes that claim rather well.

Re: Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

#143

Post by icy_deadposts »

adev_ wrote: post #80
adev_ wrote: post #75

Meaningwhile, today 17/11/2023 the same Portugal is back to the normal and emitting 170g CO2/kwh [1][2] - This is 6.8x the emissions of Sweden (25g) running on Nuclear and Hydro - This is 4.1x the emissions of France (41g) running on Nuclear, Hydro and Gas - This is 2.8x the emissions of Switzerland (59g) running on Nuclear and Hydro But still much better than "Green" Germany that reaches 647g CO2/kwh.... with 22GW o…

Would people that minus a post stating facts backed by sources deign to explain why ? I am aware that reality can be harsh to accept sometimes. And that a world where renewable are our only source of energy is more seducing to our collective imagination. But unfortunately, it is still the reality. And we have to deal with it, even if it is pretty unpleasant.

Here's a harsh reality: "zero co2" nuclear emits massive amounts of CO2 during mining, during enrichment, creation of fuels, the massive motorcades that transport the fuels to their final power plant destination where they finally produce power without emitting CO2. So maybe its better for local air quality, but really the emissions are quite high.

The actual metric that reflects the total embodied energy, which is a much better proxy for CO2 intensivity, is Levelized Cost of Energy, and nuclear is typically one of the worst.

Not only does the high cost of nuclear reflect all the embedded energy, that high cost is taking money away that could be used for other energy saving and therefore CO2 reducing activities, like better insulation, upgrading equipment, smart grid, etc.

Also, lets look at the posts that are "minused" without explanation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38300495

Re: Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

#144

Post by hef19898 »

adev_ wrote: post #139
troupo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a different discussion a few days ago someone told me I was lying when I pointed out that Germany is burning 20GW of coal to compensate for their 140GW of renewables working at only 15% capacity.

I am half surprised. People are often shocked when they discover the real number about the Carbon intensity of the German electricity production. There is years of green washing to digest before accepting the truth.

I am not at all surprised, why would I? Looking atvtha numbwers for installed capacity by source so Germany is on a good way (despite all the head wind regarding wind mills, grid extensions and so in and so forth), even if we could, and absolutely should, move faster.

It is nowhere near the desaster people like to make it seem so.

Also, isn't this thread about Portugal?

Re: Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

#145

Post by KingOfCoders »

adev_ wrote: post #139
troupo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a different discussion a few days ago someone told me I was lying when I pointed out that Germany is burning 20GW of coal to compensate for their 140GW of renewables working at only 15% capacity.

I am half surprised. People are often shocked when they discover the real number about the Carbon intensity of the German electricity production. There is years of green washing to digest before accepting the truth.

And electricity usage is only a minor part of CO2 production.

Primary energy usage in Germany is split 25% is electricity, 25% is traffic and 50% is heating and cooling.

As proven by the article the whole discussion is a huge red herring.

Amdahl's law applies [0], if I reduce CO2 from electricity production by 50%, my overall reduction is only 12.5%

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amdahl%27s_law

Re: Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

#146

Post by atoav »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #117
adev_ wrote: post #75

Meaningwhile, today 17/11/2023 the same Portugal is back to the normal and emitting 170g CO2/kwh [1][2] - This is 6.8x the emissions of Sweden (25g) running on Nuclear and Hydro - This is 4.1x the emissions of France (41g) running on Nuclear, Hydro and Gas - This is 2.8x the emissions of Switzerland (59g) running on Nuclear and Hydro But still much better than "Green" Germany that reaches 647g CO2/kwh.... with 22GW o…

`Nuclear "just works"` No it doesn't. Nuclear power plants are nowhere near insured to risk and nuclear waste is not paid for. So nuclear operators are freeloading on society for decades making billions of profits [0]. To make nuclear "work", one would need to adjust insurance and establish a trust to pay for nuclear waste facility operation for the next hundres of years. But then, no one would operate them nuclear p…

The nuclear waste thing is my pet peeve. Maybe this works in sparsely populated countries where you just dump it in a remote area, but in Europe producing a ton of nuclear waste means you have a ton of radiating toxic waste that you have to guarantee to store safely in a densely populated landmass for the next 10.000 years. There isn't many options to do that and all of them ain't even cheap today.

Unless you want to socialize the costs while you privatize the gains the cost for those 10.000 (in some cases 100.000) years has to be paid for in advance — unless we are just closing your our and expect future generations will happily do that.

Now I don't say there isn't a scenario (irreversible climate change?) where doing precisely that could make sense — what I say is that no fan of nuclear power managed to explain that part to me in a way that convinced me yet. I want more than a "trust me bro" or handwaving optimism.

Re: Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

#147

Post by epups »

adev_ wrote: post #129
adrianN wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You build something like 3x peak demand and produce hydrogen or ammonia while you have a surplus so that you can burn it while the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow or use it as feedstock for your industrial processes. Industrial scale hydrogen electrolyzers exist, we just need to build more of them once we have a steady electricity surplus that allows us to run them economically.

And that is what you qualify "easy" ? Replacing 30% of a country grid capacity by an unproven technology never tested at scale. Associated with an hydrogen storage capacity (which we already struggle to do in labs and in the rocket industry) large enough to substain weeks of productions never also not tested at scale is easy ? All of that should also be cost efficient right ? And if I follow your initial post, it sho…

Every single energy thread in HN ends like this. Renewable fanatics get backed into a corner when they realize that it is impossible to run a grid on solar and wind alone. Then they start talking about things that currently cannot account for even 0.001% of our global energy storage needs, like hydrogen or batteries.

Re: Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

#148

Post by VaxWithSex »

troupo wrote: post #133
ajross wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is emphatically not an instant-on hot backup. Plants take time to spool up, and very importantly time to cool down. Fukushima happened because you can't just turn a reactor off, it produces energy that has to go somewhere while the intermediate fission products decay over hours-to-days.

> Nuclear is emphatically not an instant-on hot backup. Plants take time to spool up, and very importantly time to cool down All modern nuclear plants work in load following mode with ability to change ant the rate of 3-5% of their rated capacity per minute. Graph and text on page 8: https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12... > Fukushima happened because you can't just turn a reactor off, Fukushi…

Nobody seems to get that these operational parameters were set and approved and told to be save and then they were still exceeded, lol.

Re: Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

#149

Post by someplaceguy »

amatecha wrote: post #99
dukeofdoom wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He built his own electric logging truck: https://www.tiktok.com/@freightfamous/video/7292048160296406... If you think BC's mountainous forests can be logged using rail lines ... I don't know what to tell you. The rest is you projecting "exceptional claims" about green technology, that amount to wishful thinking.

Not viewing the tiktok links so I don't know the full context, but 98% of BC's power is from "clean, renewable sources" apparently: https://choose.bchydro.com/why-choose-bc/clean-renewable-ene... BTW, eventually "green" energy _has_ to work, because sooner or later, fossil fuels are going to run out. I mean, the sooner we figure this out in an effective way, the better. It's literally pointless to argue against the i…

> fossil fuels are going to run out

Depends on what you mean by "run out".

In reality, it will never actually run out. It will just keep progressively increasing in cost, with progressively less profitable uses for it, which will progressively be replaced by other technologies (including renewables but also others like sustainable aviation fuel).

Re: Portugal just ran on 100% renewables for six days in a row

#150

Post by cjblomqvist »

lispisok wrote: post #108
simonhorlick wrote: post #26

Note that since about 2021 renewables have overtaken fossil-based sources of energy on price. New installations of utility scale wind and solar PV are now cheaper than their alternatives. Not to mention protection from price fluctuations in the cost of fuels needed to power fossil fuel plants.

Does take in account oil taxes and renewable subsidies?

Perhaps. But let's not forget oil subsidies and renewable taxes...
Post reply on HN