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

181–190 of 368 posts

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

#181

Post by j-a-a-p »

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.

Just recently I got downvoted questioning the reason behind that logic that e-fuel is bad, because when you burn it, CO2 is produced. Climate and energy are complicated things, but even the simple stuff seems to be difficult to grasp for a lot of people.

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

#182

Post by himinlomax »

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?

There are known uranium reserves in France, they're not mined currently because the ore is dirt cheap and much more easily mined in Australia/Kazakhstan/Canada etc ...

The amount of ore is very small, and the environmental impact is also much less compared to that of mining rare earth minerals that so-called renewables need so much of.

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

#183

Post by ncruces »

wewxjfq wrote: post #156
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…

> "Green" Germany... Germany managed to have dirty electricity with nuclear energy, too. Why do people point at Germany and pretend it's a green energy failure, when Germany had a conservative government for 16 years that never cared about green energy? Green energy was never a policy*, what makes Germany the poster-child of a green energy failure? The conservatives said renewables drive electricity prices up and set…

Germany closed NPPs while extending open pit coal. That's reason enough to criticize them.

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

#184

Post by avar »

ajross wrote: post #98
avar wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this scenario you could just run the nuclear plant all the time, but just direct its electric production to heating a giant pool of water or whatever. Then when the grid needs more power you do less of that, and instead send electricity to the grid.

Yes, but the point is that the problem is isomorphic to wind or solar: you get power when you don't want it. So nuclear isn't backstopping any particular need, it has the same drawbacks. The reason gas plants are used as peaker plants is that they can be turned on and off more or less instantly.

You're just assigning magical value to "turn it off".

That's only a big deal with fossil fuels due to the fuel cost, the fuel cost of nuclear is marginal.

Yes, I agree that it's stupid to build a (big) nuclear power plant only to use it to boil an Olympic sized swimming pool most of the time.

But that's stupid because we're over-relying on "green" energy that can't provide baseload power.

It's even more stupid with fossil fuels, now you also need an entirely different backup infrastructure, but the fossil one pollutes much more than nuclear.

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

#185

Post by heavyset_go »

monero-xmr wrote: post #34
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.

Why did they cancel all the wind power plants in New Jersey even though they are cheaper?

Orsted backed out of the deal.

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

#186

Post by KingOfCoders »

hef19898 wrote: post #154
KingOfCoders wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

See, that is why the switch to heat pumps for heating makes sonmuch sense: you can store oversupply of renewable electricy in the form of hot water, cutting down significantly on the CO2 emissions currently produced by heating with oil and gas.

Yes.

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

#187

Post by katbyte »

hef19898 wrote: post #174
epups wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is none except hydro and nuclear for base load. Unless you want to burn gas (co2) or coal (co2 and radioactive emissions that cause more cancers in the us then nuclear has world wide)

Renewables outside hydro cannot, and will never, be able to provide a a stable base load for the grid, battery storage isn’t there and has all sorts of issues, pumped storage requires even more rare conditions then hydro, as does geothermal, so we are left with nuclear as the only real clean and reasonable path forward that we would have done decades ago if not for oil and gas doing everything to prevent it.

So what is YOUR proposal to provide a stable base load?

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

#188

Post by vbeeaz »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #122
lispisok wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I knew somebody was going to regurgitate this. That's if you make up some number for fossil fuel externalities and count it as a subsidy. Pollution from fossil fuels is a very real and very big issue but it has been presented in such a way that people think governments are actually giving oil companies trillions of dollars in direct subsidies. No other business has had this kind of math applied to it. The fossil fuel…

Big [citation needed]

Citation needed for that number, I suppose, because the number is absolutely made up. There is no way to determine the cost of the externalities of fossil fuels (if they exist). Even if we were to say that CO2 is causing global warming so we need to remove it from the atmosphere, such technology does not yet exist, so we don't know how much it would cost.

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

#189

Post by Symbiote »

hef19898 wrote: post #138
fyrn_ wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back before the interest rate increases even barely tenable projects were doable. Cost of financing is higher now, so the risk equation changes. That company is still going ahead with a project in New York, and Jersey has another wind projected lined up from another company. Wouldn't take this single data point as indicating anything meaningful

Yeah, start-upsnonly fail because of the interest rate hike and not because they are unsustainable businesses. But other sectors requiring serious financing are absolutely not affected... Not.

Ørested isn't a startup, it's a decades-old energy company which built the first off-shore wind turbines. It used to be called DONG, Danish Oil and Natural Gas.

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

#190

Post by andyjohnson0 »

katbyte wrote: post #187
hef19898 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is none except hydro and nuclear for base load. Unless you want to burn gas (co2) or coal (co2 and radioactive emissions that cause more cancers in the us then nuclear has world wide) Renewables outside hydro cannot, and will never, be able to provide a a stable base load for the grid, battery storage isn’t there and has all sorts of issues, pumped storage requires even more rare conditions then hydro, as does…

> There is none except hydro and nuclear for base load.

I'm not the person you're replying to, and I mostly agree with your points, but I think its necessary to point out that nuclear and hydro have long lead times to build the infrastructure. And we basically don't have enough time left to build it.

I don't have good answers. Solar + interconnectors, maybe? So that areas in daylight can power areas that aren't? But this obvs requires cooperative behaviour.

Post reply on HN