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

Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 364 posts

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#171

Post by bgorman »

macspoofing wrote: post #161

Serious question, Britain's energy mix is ~80% Nuclear/Hydro and 20% Wind/Solar/Other ('other' must be either natural gas or bio fuels, garbage or wood) ... Why even bother with wind and solar? Why not just do nuclear and hydro and be done with it. I've noticed anytime there's an article that talks about some country reaching 100% renewable energy it is always due to Hydro (and maybe Nuclear). Wind and solar are neve…

Solar panel manufacturers and wind turbine manufacturers lobby governments to exist. It is a combination of a jobs program and virtue signaling for politicians.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#172

Post by therealdrag0 »

macspoofing wrote: post #161

Serious question, Britain's energy mix is ~80% Nuclear/Hydro and 20% Wind/Solar/Other ('other' must be either natural gas or bio fuels, garbage or wood) ... Why even bother with wind and solar? Why not just do nuclear and hydro and be done with it. I've noticed anytime there's an article that talks about some country reaching 100% renewable energy it is always due to Hydro (and maybe Nuclear). Wind and solar are neve…

Upfront cost of hydro is pretty environmentally controversial. It takes transforming a landscape/ecosystem. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Disadvantages)

Nuclear is also controversial, as is well known.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#173

Post by cardinalfang »

macspoofing wrote: post #161

Serious question, Britain's energy mix is ~80% Nuclear/Hydro and 20% Wind/Solar/Other ('other' must be either natural gas or bio fuels, garbage or wood) ... Why even bother with wind and solar? Why not just do nuclear and hydro and be done with it. I've noticed anytime there's an article that talks about some country reaching 100% renewable energy it is always due to Hydro (and maybe Nuclear). Wind and solar are neve…

Britain's energy mix for 2019 had more wind than nuclear+hydro

56 TWh nuclear, 6 hydro, 132 gas, 64 wind, 12 solar, 36 bio

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#175

Post by macspoofing »

patall wrote: post #164
macspoofing wrote: post #161

Serious question, Britain's energy mix is ~80% Nuclear/Hydro and 20% Wind/Solar/Other ('other' must be either natural gas or bio fuels, garbage or wood) ... Why even bother with wind and solar? Why not just do nuclear and hydro and be done with it. I've noticed anytime there's an article that talks about some country reaching 100% renewable energy it is always due to Hydro (and maybe Nuclear). Wind and solar are neve…

Because its cheaper? Britain is building one new nuclear power plant (Hinkley Point C) which is delayed by many years but has guranteed energy prices of 10 ct per kWh. That's about double what energy costs are usually in europe at this point.

Yes. We know coal and natural gas are cheap energy sources, but we don't want them because they emit CO2. Biomass is a disaster for land-use (so is solar for that matter). It's almost like the process of elimination takes us to hydro and nuclear as the only viable power sources (that are proven to work) that don't actually need some other base load provider.

I guess we'll have to waste a few more decades before we realize that solar and wind are a dead-end as replacements for fossil fuels.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#176

Post by JoeAltmaier »

macspoofing wrote: post #161

Serious question, Britain's energy mix is ~80% Nuclear/Hydro and 20% Wind/Solar/Other ('other' must be either natural gas or bio fuels, garbage or wood) ... Why even bother with wind and solar? Why not just do nuclear and hydro and be done with it. I've noticed anytime there's an article that talks about some country reaching 100% renewable energy it is always due to Hydro (and maybe Nuclear). Wind and solar are neve…

In the US, some states are almost entirely wind-powered now. It can work with the right geography. I'm in Iowa, and some days our entire demand is met by this. But it costs - about $1B per Gigawatt. Estimates are an average of about 1/3 total potential (windy days per year).

Still, nuclear is the clear winner in the long run. You can make as much as you want, and put it where its needed. Wind is entirely opportunistic.

And I'm not sure wind total-cost-of-ownership is even positive. Those towers cost money, and they require maintenance and have a life span.

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#177

Post by macspoofing »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #176
macspoofing wrote: post #161

Serious question, Britain's energy mix is ~80% Nuclear/Hydro and 20% Wind/Solar/Other ('other' must be either natural gas or bio fuels, garbage or wood) ... Why even bother with wind and solar? Why not just do nuclear and hydro and be done with it. I've noticed anytime there's an article that talks about some country reaching 100% renewable energy it is always due to Hydro (and maybe Nuclear). Wind and solar are neve…

In the US, some states are almost entirely wind-powered now. It can work with the right geography. I'm in Iowa, and some days our entire demand is met by this. But it costs - about $1B per Gigawatt. Estimates are an average of about 1/3 total potential (windy days per year). Still, nuclear is the clear winner in the long run. You can make as much as you want, and put it where its needed. Wind is entirely opportunisti…

>almost entirely wind-powered now. It

Wind provides base-load? Since when?

Behind every big wind deployment is a natural-gas company awash with profits. Seriously, natural gas companies are probably the biggest lobby groups for, and proponents of, wind and solar these days. Just look a little deeper into any major wind deployment and you'll see a natural gas company staring back at you. Why?

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#179

Post by macspoofing »

cardinalfang wrote: post #173
macspoofing wrote: post #161

Serious question, Britain's energy mix is ~80% Nuclear/Hydro and 20% Wind/Solar/Other ('other' must be either natural gas or bio fuels, garbage or wood) ... Why even bother with wind and solar? Why not just do nuclear and hydro and be done with it. I've noticed anytime there's an article that talks about some country reaching 100% renewable energy it is always due to Hydro (and maybe Nuclear). Wind and solar are neve…

Britain's energy mix for 2019 had more wind than nuclear+hydro 56 TWh nuclear, 6 hydro, 132 gas, 64 wind, 12 solar, 36 bio https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

Is that good? Why so much natural gas usage, pray tell?

Re: Britain has gone two months without burning coal to generate power

#180

Post by Andys »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #143
renaudg wrote: post #106

Every time there's a thread on the topic, I like to share this fantastic realtime map of the carbon intensity of electricity production in various countries : https://www.electricitymap.org/map As I write this, the UK's intensity is 326 gCO₂eq/kWh, which is nothing to write home about. This is better than the worst European offender (coal-loving Poland : 652g) as well as Baltic countries, the Netherlands and Germany…

It looks like somebody needs to inform Australia that solar exists and they get a lot of sunlight.

This has been one of the worst times of the year for renewables - it has been cold, cloudy, rainy, and not very windy. Spot prices on the wholesale market apparently spiked to $12000
Post reply on HN