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

The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks

stevegattuso.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 82 posts

Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks

#21

Post by throwaway946513 »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #20
zdragnar wrote: post #3

I appreciate the analysis, though I am not sure that any of the results should surprise anyone. - NY is moving away from nuclear (counted under "clean") - none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output - all peaker plants and less-desirable and so less-fully-maximized sources fall under the dirty category. Sun not providing enough juice? Ramp up…

Why are they moving away from nuclear? They have a 100% carbon free target, which doesn't exclude nuclear and they intend to introduce a carbon price, which lets nuclear fight on an even ground with other carbon reduction moves. I guess it just didn't make sense financially?

My knowledge with people in a midwestern 'urban' city tells me it's the NIMBYs who want the trend away from nuclear.

Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks

#22

Post by bingohbangoh »

99_00 wrote: post #5
zdragnar wrote: post #3

I appreciate the analysis, though I am not sure that any of the results should surprise anyone. - NY is moving away from nuclear (counted under "clean") - none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output - all peaker plants and less-desirable and so less-fully-maximized sources fall under the dirty category. Sun not providing enough juice? Ramp up…

Is there a battery technology on the market that can be used at scale or do we need to wait for this to be invented?

Some mines use molten salt batteries. [0] I'm surprised they've never been recommended for power grids but I'm probably missing something.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_battery

Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks

#23

Post by 99_00 »

C4K3 wrote: post #18
99_00 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a battery technology on the market that can be used at scale or do we need to wait for this to be invented?

Lithium batteries are used on the grid, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_Energy_Storage

It's great that this is being experimented with, and this doesn't look like a solution that is ready to be deployed at scale.

What is the carbon emissions per kwh, cost per kwh, etc. I'm not saying that the company building this needs to give those answers.

But if this is part of the solution for climate change, those things will need to be known and reasonable.

Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks

#24

Post by cpwright »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #20
zdragnar wrote: post #3

I appreciate the analysis, though I am not sure that any of the results should surprise anyone. - NY is moving away from nuclear (counted under "clean") - none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output - all peaker plants and less-desirable and so less-fully-maximized sources fall under the dirty category. Sun not providing enough juice? Ramp up…

Why are they moving away from nuclear? They have a 100% carbon free target, which doesn't exclude nuclear and they intend to introduce a carbon price, which lets nuclear fight on an even ground with other carbon reduction moves. I guess it just didn't make sense financially?

Cuomo and Riverkeeper entered into a deal with Entergy to shut down Indian Point Energy Center.

I am personally disappointed because it provided good jobs in my community and 1/3 of my school district's revenue.

Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks

#25

Post by bin_bash »

bingohbangoh wrote: post #22
99_00 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a battery technology on the market that can be used at scale or do we need to wait for this to be invented?

Some mines use molten salt batteries. [0] I'm surprised they've never been recommended for power grids but I'm probably missing something. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_battery

it has been used https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-concentrating...

Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks

#26

Post by bingohbangoh »

bin_bash wrote: post #25
bingohbangoh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some mines use molten salt batteries. [0] I'm surprised they've never been recommended for power grids but I'm probably missing something. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-salt_battery

it has been used https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/new-concentrating...

Time to call Governor Hochul

Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks

#27

Post by bryanlarsen »

zdragnar wrote: post #3

I appreciate the analysis, though I am not sure that any of the results should surprise anyone. - NY is moving away from nuclear (counted under "clean") - none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output - all peaker plants and less-desirable and so less-fully-maximized sources fall under the dirty category. Sun not providing enough juice? Ramp up…

> We need batteries, more reliable clean base generation if we want to use less dirty peak generation.

Options that are often cheaper than massive batteries and "more reliable clean base generation" by which I assume you mean "build new nuclear".

- don't shut down existing nuclear

- hydro as implicit or explicit storage

- interconnecting regions

- better green energy mix

- overbuilding green production

- geothermal

- demand management aka variable pricing

Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks

#28

Post by bryanlarsen »

99_00 wrote: post #23
C4K3 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lithium batteries are used on the grid, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_Energy_Storage

It's great that this is being experimented with, and this doesn't look like a solution that is ready to be deployed at scale. What is the carbon emissions per kwh, cost per kwh, etc. I'm not saying that the company building this needs to give those answers. But if this is part of the solution for climate change, those things will need to be known and reasonable.

> What is the carbon emissions per kwh

The raw materials are lithium, potassium and iron. All are abundant but require significant energy to extract. So if we have a clean grid they can be produced with almost no carbon emissions. So if using "dirty" batteries is necessary to create the clean grid, it's still a massive win.

Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks

#29

Post by dragontamer »

zdragnar wrote: post #3

I appreciate the analysis, though I am not sure that any of the results should surprise anyone. - NY is moving away from nuclear (counted under "clean") - none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output - all peaker plants and less-desirable and so less-fully-maximized sources fall under the dirty category. Sun not providing enough juice? Ramp up…

> - none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output

Hydro scales on demand actually, somewhat slowly, but it does. Pumped Hydro in fact turns hydro power into a battery for perfect response vs demand.

Nuclear can scale in theory: but its too expensive to scale down. The fuel is _basically_ free, so there's no point ramping nuclear power plants down. You spend all the money on safety / construction, very little on the ongoing costs.

Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks

#30

Post by philipkglass »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #20
zdragnar wrote: post #3

I appreciate the analysis, though I am not sure that any of the results should surprise anyone. - NY is moving away from nuclear (counted under "clean") - none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output - all peaker plants and less-desirable and so less-fully-maximized sources fall under the dirty category. Sun not providing enough juice? Ramp up…

Why are they moving away from nuclear? They have a 100% carbon free target, which doesn't exclude nuclear and they intend to introduce a carbon price, which lets nuclear fight on an even ground with other carbon reduction moves. I guess it just didn't make sense financially?

New York introduced subsidies to keep nuclear plants operating just a few years ago:

"Five states have implemented programs to assist nuclear power plants"

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41534

It says that some nuclear plants in New York receive subsidies since 2017. I don't know what the New York selection criteria are. Maybe Indian Point just didn't qualify like other plants did, and (regrettably) shut down sooner as a consequence.

Post reply on HN