Live data from Hacker News

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

canarymedia.com

201–210 of 368 posts

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

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the not so high level nuclear waste? Is that not also dangerous? How much of that is there?

You’re the one arguing against nuclear power; where are your sources for its damage? What about the “not so high level” waste from coal which results in trillions of dollars of health issues worldwide?

I'm not. I'm actually French, and generally prefer nuclear over coal.

I'm simply pointing out that this graphic may be somewhat misleading, because it only focuses on a part of nuclear waste.

Obviously coal is pretty awful as well, from air pollution to mercury in the oceans.

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

#202
post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't that be g/person not g/kwh? E.g. when travelling to the US I was astonished to see escalators going at night with no one around. In Germany they stop at night. Or Germany uses lots of public transport while the US doesn't. Which reflects in the numbers, the US has much higher g/person compared to Germany (Didn't look into Portugal).

I think both metrics have their value. g/kwh gives you nice overview at how clean the energy is, and there is value in optimising that figure. The problem with measuring CO2 per person is that it is heavily influenced by the wealth level of the country's population. Poor counties have very low CO2 emissions, but people in wealthy countries wouldn't want to trade their living standards for those of a poor country. Tha…

"kWh per hour worked" would be an interesting comparative metric, like the Big Mac index.

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

#203
post #195

It really doesn't tell what really happened: -This was only due to hydro production... -The amount of rain that fell was consistent along those days, which is definitely not usual. -The energy produced was mainly exported to Spain, but at ZERO or even NEGATIVE euros. Does this help? Doesn't seem to me! And besides having to pay full price to the renewables producers (while exporting the same energy at ZERO), which am…

In addition, the title "Portugal just ran on 100% renewables" is inherently misleading because it implies the whole country operated free of fossil fuels and should really be "Portugal's electrical grid just ran on 100% renewables". Often less than half of a country's energy usage passes through the grid, with more than half of it being fuel in vehicles, fossil fuel heating, etc.

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

#204
post #195

It really doesn't tell what really happened: -This was only due to hydro production... -The amount of rain that fell was consistent along those days, which is definitely not usual. -The energy produced was mainly exported to Spain, but at ZERO or even NEGATIVE euros. Does this help? Doesn't seem to me! And besides having to pay full price to the renewables producers (while exporting the same energy at ZERO), which am…

When/if the UK gets to this landmark it'll be because the wind was unusually strong.

I don't think that takes away from the achievement.

We also have negative prices on windy days and the interconnects tend to be exporting power to Europe at night.

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

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's a company working to build a 3600km long cable between solar + wind farms in Morocco, and the UK. 3.6GW cable, 10GW of generation, 20GW of battery storage, and the cable should run at full load for 20h a day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco%E2%80%93UK_Powe...

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

#206
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…

> Nuclear power plants are nowhere near insured to risk and nuclear waste is not paid for.

Are Coal plants insured for the environmental damage they cause?

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

#207

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…

> The lion share of renewables in Portugal is hydroelectric.

This is not true. Portugal produces more wind power than it does hydroelectric:

https://datahub.ren.pt/pt/eletricidade/balanco-mensal/

10 TWh versus less than 8 for hydro. Solar is also already past 3 TWh and has barely started in a country with excellent conditions for it. We also already have quite a bit of storage. Hydro already contributes over 3 TWh of storage.

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

#208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A very large percentage of the world is already on 100% renewables, they simply don't have grid power. Their footprint is a fraction of the wealthy remainder.

Who do you think is using renewable power that is not connected to a grid? Poor off-grid communities are pretty much exclusively burning fossil fuels or biomass for primary energy, which are most certainly not carbon-neutral or good for the environment.

Biomass is carbon neutral.

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

#209

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…

Base load, for starters, is an overblown problem, multiple days with close to 100% renewables showed us that. Now that this is out of the way:

Massive build out of renewables, mainly solar and wind. Build the grid for that as well. Use gas peaker plants, if needed. Keep nuclear plants running as long as safely possible. Invest in a green hydrogen network for storage. Make industrial demand more flexible. Reinterate, rinse and repeat.

I work from memory here, based on what I learned during my masters and a couple of stints in energy hungry industries a couple of yeaes ago. Besides gas peaker plants and green hydrogen, all of that is already happening in Europe.

Especially solar and wind build out is progressing massively across the world, even without a concentrated effort behind it.

Regarding industrial demand flexibility, that is also happening for a decade now (I personally know it does in the chemical industry, paper industry and graphite industry, surprising how much flexibility companies can squeeze out of production tech that was historically seen as being not flexible at all when there is loads of money to be made). Domestic demand is different, convenience beats saving most of the time, also households don't have professional energy management (hint: there isba massive, hard, start-up idea here: provide automated consumption control of electricity for households beyond smart thermostats ansball the other "smart" home crap).

Nuclear is a dead end in the developed world: too expensive (Hinkley C was already more expensive than wind like 7 years ago), takes too long install (just google year per kWh for the last NPPs installed) and has additional, unsolved, long term issues (waste storage only being one of those). Heck, even investors are quiting NPPs across the Western world. Nuclear has a future so: existing plants need be run as long as safely possible (the main reason German plants were shit down, they reached the end of their service live), for countries with nuclear arsenals, for the production of medical radionucleoids, for research... New ones are a waste of time, energy and money right now so.

And yet again, you said why something doesn't work, because just building dozens of plants and go fully nuclear is not feasible or realistic for the developed world.

For developing countries it is different, and they should build nuclear plants instead of coal ones, but then those have a lot of catching up to do. They could also go fully renewable right away so, they should have an "easier" (nothing is easy about any of this) life doing so without a century of legacy structures and systems to worry about (grids, industry, domestic use...).

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

#210
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…

What's the cost of a once a generation nuclear incident v ongoing pollution from coal plants?

Maybe they are under insured, but the whole fossil fuel industry is too

Post reply on HN