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

171–180 of 368 posts

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

#171

Post by epups »

hef19898 wrote: post #157
epups wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Backed into a corner? This thread basically started with "Portugal ran on 100% renewables"... Sobat least for one point in time, it is possible. There are two options now: Take it from there and figure out options to make that one point in time sustainable all the time (requires real engineering and creativity, and time and money). Or throw our hands up, blame environmentalists for shuting down nuclear plants (which…

> Backed into a corner? This thread basically started with "Portugal ran on 100% renewables"... Sobat least for one point in time, it is possible.

Sure, but that's not sustainable, as the numbers on the parent comment clearly indicate. From that perspective, what gives us a way forward is acknowledging that headlines such as these are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and trying to design an energy strategy that is compatible with the facts at hand.

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

#172

Post by adev_ »

choeger wrote: post #161
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…

Interestingly, you don't give a source for Germany, which according to this source has much lower emissions per kWh these last days: https://www.agora-energiewende.de/daten-tools/agorameter/cha... And even this source is a bit dubious, as there's no clear correlation between the amount of coal and gas and the emissions. Presumably they also count imported energy.

The sources are the same [1].

You can see the instant consumption today at 653g/kwh [2] and normalized over a month here 416g/kwh [3].

Values are also aligned with what other specialized sources estimate [4]

You can also extract similar numbers on the site of European Union itself [5]

Wierdly I have more doubts about the partiality of the data of your source. Specially when tags itself as "EnergyWiende" in the title.

> Presumably they also count imported energy.

It does not. These number account only for production.

Germany numbers considering consumption are generally better because most of its neighbours have cleaner electricity production than Germany (excepted Poland).

[1]: https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE

[2]: https://postimg.cc/zLPrw1K0

[3]: https://postimg.cc/14BLDSS6

[4]: https://www.nowtricity.com/country/germany/

[5]: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-i...

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

#173

Post by someplaceguy »

epups wrote: post #147
adev_ wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, but how much energy storage do you really need if, say, renewables account for 5x or even 10x peak demand? If prices keep going down, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible.

> Then they start talking about things that currently cannot account for even 0.001% of our global energy storage needs

Not currently, but who's to say that it won't be possible to scale out manufacturing capacity for the technologies that we'll need? A couple of decades ago, EV production and EV charging networks basically did not exist, so by the same reasoning you'd be saying that it wouldn't be possible to have them.

But look where we are now.

Furthermore, the space of possibly feasible ideas/technologies is gigantic, you're just lacking in imagination. For starters, we haven't yet explored my idea:

1. Turn gym equipment into energy-generating devices.

2. Mandatory gym time by law for every able-bodied man and woman.

Solve the renewable problem and health/obesity problems at the same time. Boom.

If that's not enough:

3. Mandatory gym time also for pets and farm animals.

4. Install wind turbines on airplanes (deployed only when descending).

5. Install boat engines on floating wind turbines and remotely navigate them into hurricanes (imagine all that wind energy we're currently wasting!).

6. And if that's not enough, let's start constructing a Dyson sphere already. We already know how to build space rockets. So what's taking us so long? Less talk, more action.

And that's just the ideas that I, a layman, have come up with. So imagine what the experts could think of.

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

#174

Post by hef19898 »

epups wrote: post #166
KingOfCoders wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

`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…

Nuclear waste is a problem, but it is nothing compared to the waste from gas and coal, which we release to the atmosphere daily. It kills thousands every year and will kill millions in the future. And you may think: well there you go, let's get rid of all of that and just use renewables then. But we can't, as the parent comment demonstrates. Some days you just need a stable energy source, and your only realistic choi…

Agree, CO2 emissions are big problem, a life threatening one for some people. Nuclear is a problem too, just not a global obe. You know, both things can be true at the same time.

Again, what would be your alternative way forward? Coal and oil burning has to go, that much is sure. We still need electricity so, hence we need clean sources. And we need them fast, because as a species we were asleep at the wheel for way too long. Also, we need a lot of those clean sources.

So what is your proposal? A realistic one, please, not a scenarion of "we should have done X decades ago", but one that can be worked on right now, on the basis we have.

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

#175

Post by lm28469 »

icy_deadposts wrote: post #165
himinlomax wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's complete bollocks, because all those CO₂ emissions are propo…

> Solar panels and wind turbines also require emitting CO₂ for their manufacture, and it turns out that they emit more than nuclear, fuel included. You traced every aspect of the supply chain of both technologies to come to this conclusion? > in France for instance it's nuclear energy fueling enrichment. And tell me, where are the uranium mines in france?

> And tell me, where are the uranium mines in france?

And tell me, where are the

rare earth mines...

lithium mines...

solar panel factories...

windmills factories...

in France ?

Ah right, same as uranium mines, abroad, the only difference is one require much less transport and processing to get much more energy

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

#176

Post by lm28469 »

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…

If we start taking such arbitrary metrics then literally nothing works ever

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

#177

Post by tsimionescu »

notTooFarGone wrote: post #141
marcusverus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First of all, to avoid the 2 degrees warming threshold, we need to be at net 0 emissions in like 10 years. Which absolutely requires 0% fossil fuels in electricity and heating, all year round, all over the world. 10% fossil fuels in electricity is nowhere close to good enough.

Secondly, the current best for renewables is nowhere close to 90% year round. Those 6 days in the article are a huge record for Portugal. 90% would essentially mean 330 days of exclusive renewables use, which no one in the world is close to, except maybe Iceland.

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

#178

Post by hef19898 »

someplaceguy wrote: post #173
epups wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, but how much energy storage do you really need if, say, renewables account for 5x or even 10x peak demand? If prices keep going down, I don't see why that wouldn't be possible. > Then they start talking about things that currently cannot account for even 0.001% of our global energy storage needs Not currently, but who's to say that it won't be possible to scale out manufacturing capacity for the technologies th…

Also, peak demand isn't a natural law. When prices change, demand will. And it does already for close to ten years now for the important consumers in the industry. Make it profitable enough for those to move their demand, and they will.

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

#179

Post by DoingIsLearning »

The lion share of renewables in Portugal is hydroelectric. The renewable statistics looks good on paper but wind power and PV is still fractional in their contribution. Base load is still assured by Methane 'Natural' gas.

The country has the geography and a long history of politicians focusing on large infrastructure projects, dams are needed for water supply since most water has origin in Spain who itself also hogs it.

The hydro turbines are a bonus on top of water supply since the country has to import most hydrocarbon based fuels.

All countries with the funds for it should continue to invest in Wind and PV but unless we as a collective of nations seriously invest in renewable 'storage' there will never be a renewable assured base load.

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

#180

Post by hef19898 »

epups wrote: post #171
hef19898 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Backed into a corner? This thread basically started with "Portugal ran on 100% renewables"... Sobat least for one point in time, it is possible. There are two options now: Take it from there and figure out options to make that one point in time sustainable all the time (requires real engineering and creativity, and time and money). Or throw our hands up, blame environmentalists for shuting down nuclear plants (which…

> Backed into a corner? This thread basically started with "Portugal ran on 100% renewables"... Sobat least for one point in time, it is possible. Sure, but that's not sustainable, as the numbers on the parent comment clearly indicate. From that perspective, what gives us a way forward is acknowledging that headlines such as these are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and trying to design an energy strategy…

This strategy already exists so: more renewables, heat pumps for heating, EVs, green hydrogen, flatten peak demand by making industrial demand more flexible. That strategy actually does work, it requires a ton of investment, and time, to scale so. Throw in existing nuclear as stop gap solution.

Besides being contrarian, which I get because I have the same tendencies, what would be your alternative? Not doing anything is obviously bad, new nuclear power plants take too long to build and are too expensive (all numbers prove that). So? Any other ideas?

Post reply on HN