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

231–240 of 368 posts

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

#231

Post by natmaka »

adev_ wrote: post #225
hef19898 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pro-nuclear growd (funny how easy it is for otherwise smart people to be sold on mere talking points) has a point so: during generation a nuclear power plant doesn't emit CO2. What people willfully (?) ignore is the simple fact that a) we don't have enough nuclear capacity installed, and never did and b) you cannot just wish nuclear power plants into existence. The latter being the main blocking point. Just how y…

> Just how you can jump from that to opposing renewables build outs is beyond me. No you do not get it I think. The world need Nuclear AND Renewable energy. Working hand to hand to accelerate decarbonization, as fast as you can. We need low carbon electricity production. And try to achieve that exclusively with renewable due to (close to) religious beliefs is an extremely dangerous bet on humankind. I am not aware of…

> Nuclear AND Renewable energy

It cannot be done because it financially condemns new nuclear plants. "The rates at which conventional power plants are utilized will continue to decrease as competitive pressure from near-zero marginal cost solar photovoltaic and onshore wind power, and battery energy storage continue to grow exponentially worldwide."

Eye-opening video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udJJ7n_Ryjg

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

#232

Post by adrianN »

adev_ wrote: post #129
adrianN wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You build something like 3x peak demand and produce hydrogen or ammonia while you have a surplus so that you can burn it while the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow or use it as feedstock for your industrial processes. Industrial scale hydrogen electrolyzers exist, we just need to build more of them once we have a steady electricity surplus that allows us to run them economically.

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…

It's "easy" in the sense that we know what to do and have the technology, we just need to pay for it. It's easy in the same way going 100% nuclear would be.

Hydrogen can be stored in underground caverns, nobody stores large quantities liquefied like you would in a lab or a rocket. See for example https://www.lindehydrogen.com/technology/hydrogen-storage

Large parts of our natgas infra can be refitted for hydrogen with modest investment.

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

#233

Post by hef19898 »

adev_ wrote: post #225
hef19898 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pro-nuclear growd (funny how easy it is for otherwise smart people to be sold on mere talking points) has a point so: during generation a nuclear power plant doesn't emit CO2. What people willfully (?) ignore is the simple fact that a) we don't have enough nuclear capacity installed, and never did and b) you cannot just wish nuclear power plants into existence. The latter being the main blocking point. Just how y…

> Just how you can jump from that to opposing renewables build outs is beyond me. No you do not get it I think. The world need Nuclear AND Renewable energy. Working hand to hand to accelerate decarbonization, as fast as you can. We need low carbon electricity production. And try to achieve that exclusively with renewable due to (close to) religious beliefs is an extremely dangerous bet on humankind. I am not aware of…

We need nuclear, as a stop gap. New NPS are just impossible in the developed world, cost as well as time wise. Keeping existing NPPs online, sure, as long as safely possible (which is what Germany did). That is not really the argument you are making so, is it?

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

#234

Post by Moldoteck »

natmaka wrote: post #227
Moldoteck wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pls read abt how france is reprocessing waste or how breeding reactors work

Please name a single model of breeder reactor ready for industrial deployment. There is none, therefore this is not a solution.

I fail to grasp what you want. We already have such reactors and these are functional, some are no longer functional but were built in the past. There are also plans to build more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

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

#235

Post by hef19898 »

Moldoteck wrote: post #230
hef19898 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of emissions and polution could come from a nuclear reprossesing site? Hmm... Radiation, maybe? https://www.wired.co.uk/article/inside-sellafield-nuclear-wa... Sellafield is infamous for radioactive polution, reprocessingnof nuclear waste is dangerous, dirty and not always economically feasible. Or do you thonk anybody would buy new fuel rods if reprocessed ones were cheaper?

so you say that something that is done like shit have shit consequences? Somehow La Hague is doing much better so maybe reprocessing/storage is not that a big problem and humanity should just get their sh* together?

You know what else could be done, if we got our shit together and cooperated? A proper energy transition away from fossil fuels to clean alternatives.

One thing so: France, or rather all French goverents, are as pro-nuclear as it gets. And even they only built one reprocessing plant. Should tell you something.

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

#236

Post by sergiosgc »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #145
adev_ wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am half surprised. People are often shocked when they discover the real number about the Carbon intensity of the German electricity production. There is years of green washing to digest before accepting the truth.

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

Obviously these aren't independent domains. Make electricity cheap and it takes over the other energy domains. Heat pumps for heating, BEV/hydrogen for transportation.

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

#237

Post by kawhah »

Moldoteck wrote: post #234
natmaka wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please name a single model of breeder reactor ready for industrial deployment. There is none, therefore this is not a solution.

I fail to grasp what you want. We already have such reactors and these are functional, some are no longer functional but were built in the past. There are also plans to build more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

They were built in the past as part of nuclear-weapons-oriented industry of the Cold War. Like many things about nuclear, taking away the need to build weapons changes a lot of the economics around them.

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

#238

Post by hnaccount_rng »

avar wrote: post #184
ajross wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

The problem with your logic is, that nuclear is _only_ competitive with a 100% utilization rate/capacity factor. Only with these 90+% capacity factors do you get to competitive rates per kWh produced. Otherwise the initial CapEx is just too large, especially in a non-zero rate environment, as these plants are _already_ scoped/calculated/financed to 40 years. At 90+% capacity factor! That amount of CapEx is basically impossible without either very high earning potential (that’s why TSMC works. Everyone will just pay their price) or government backing (because then you don’t have to care about financing and optionality costs and can just pay for it with taxes). Neither one will be possible, at least in western societies

(And yes this ignores a certain amount of externalities, like the tendency of requiring large scale evacuations in their surroundings every second decade, but we can set that aside, as it’s irrelevant for the economic argument above)

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

#239

Post by natmaka »

adev_ wrote: post #139
troupo wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a different discussion a few days ago someone told me I was lying when I pointed out that Germany is burning 20GW of coal to compensate for their 140GW of renewables working at only 15% capacity.

I am half surprised. People are often shocked when they discover the real number about the Carbon intensity of the German electricity production. There is years of green washing to digest before accepting the truth.

This is not because renewables cannot tackle the challenge, but because this is a work in progress (not quick enough) => not enough electricity produced => it offers a path for coal which is important for social and financial reasons. Add the Ukraine crisis (less imported methane).

From 2010 to 2020 (crisis) Germany burnt less and less fossil fuels for its electricity, and methane (gas) isn't booming (from 90 to 96), while renewables do: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/electricity-production-by...

it induced a decrease in its carbon intensity: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/carbon-intensity-electric...

Comparing it to France implies to take every pertinent parameter into account, for example GDP/capita, climate (heating needs) and the fact that France imports more, and exports less (it lost approximately 50% of its industry since 1980) and therefore "avoids" emitting by using products built in other nations: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-co2-embedded-in-tra...

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

#240

Post by hackerlight »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #101

For most economies, assuming positive real interest rates, the choice is between natural gas and nuclear. Solar + wind will be the cheapest, and will make up the bulk of primary production. But they won’t replace coal, natural gas, oil and nukes—not in the near term, and certainly not if we’re tooling up for EVs. Portugal has gone gas. America will, too, in all likelihood. Both will be subsidised by countries without…

> Solar + wind will be the cheapest, and will make up the bulk of primary production. But they won’t replace coal, natural gas, oil and nukes

Replacement isn't binary, though. What I want is to go like 80-90% solar+wind immediately by following Denmark model but with addition of solar & overbuilding & inter-country sharing. The last-mile is made up of natural gas until cheaper storage tech is invented.

Nuclear can get you to 100% but you have to look at AUC of emissions from now until the future, which is potentially worse for nuclear because it takes longer to build, not to mention the higher financial cost of getting there.

If you really want to make a purely climate argument, you could even say that with the money you save by not going nuclear, you can subsidize renewables in poor countries. Two countries with ~60%+ renewables can be better than one country with 100% nuclear. Notwithstanding the AUC emissions benefit of renewables that I describe above.

Post reply on HN