A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage • Hacker News Board

Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

#321

Post by wyager » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 2:10 PM UTC

theluketaylor wrote: post #263

wyager wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Big “citation needed” on that assertion. My knowledge of power markets. > HVDC is a widely proposed option I'm sure it's widely proposed by fictional utopian scenario enthusiasts. I will consider it seriously when there's an actual HVDC grid we can use, or even just a successful HVDC interconnect.

There are tons of HVDC interconnects and transmission lines in place, many of which are already over 1000 km long. Many of these projects have been in place for decades. Breakthroughs in solid state HVDC are making it easier and cheaper all the time, but it's not some fanciful science fiction technology. It's a key element of existing power grids already. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects

Mea Culpa! I knew about a few of these projects in the US but there are more than I realized. Thanks for correcting me.

Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

#322

Post by trashtester » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 2:14 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #319

trashtester wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> $50/gallon tax to be competitive At that level, nuclear would be much, much cheaper. Also, there could be a "net tax" system where renewables AND nuclear would get some of those taxes as price subsidies. Let's say that fossil fuels were to be disadvantaged by $X per unit of pollution (lets say 1 unit would be the pollution from 1 ton of natural gas). To prevent all of that disadvantage, one could lower it by $Y (fo…

I'm philosophically opposed to referencing it to "whatever amount would be required to make renewables competitive" but more aligned to "whatever amount represents the true costs, including externalities" (and making the same levies against renewables as well, for mining externalities, waste disposal, etc). Or true costs plus a small margin to ensure there's a nudge. I don't mind people being exposed to the true cost…

Well, I agree with you. I suppose my argument was presuming that either nuclear or renewables WOULD be competitive with fossil fuels for almost all use cases, if all externalities of fossil fuels are included.

Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

#323

Post by imadierich » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 2:20 PM UTC

No post body was provided.

Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

#324

Post by ParksNet » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 2:40 PM UTC

Schroedingersat wrote: post #297

mactitan wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m interested in the new phase out and the realistic time frame. It’s not this: https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/24/22898666/panasonic-4680-t... Currently recycling is very low. I think he’s focused on what’s likely in production for the near future and the real material problem of all infrastructure ( its massive)

I'm hoping we can spend some tax money on real infrastructure rather than handouts for rich people to line elon musk's pockets. A train line, a bike lane and a handful of trolley busses take far less network upgrades than 10,000 luxury cars. It would also help immensely if we could find our sanity and build some 400kg LEVs and NEVs with a 2kWh battery and a 150cc range extender rather than 2-5t padded ego protectors…

The bus and bus network of the future is more likely to be built and operated by Elon Musk than any Government agency. Auto-routing, and segregation by socio-economics (based on rider ratings and enforced subscription fees) is the killer feature of a sustainable mass transit system.

Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

#325

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:10 PM UTC

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #201

Sohcahtoa82 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's odd that the party that claims to be in favor of a free market is passing laws that actively restrict the free market.

IMO the odd thing is people who believe the "Free Market" is or ever was real.

I think it depends on whether or not the definition of a "free market" includes the non-existence of monopolies.

If it does, then a free market isn't possible. It will always devolve into monopolies and conglomerates absorbing everything.

If it doesn't, then a free market is possible, but it would not be good.

Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

#326

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 3:54 PM UTC

caf wrote: post #291

Manuel_D wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only 6.3 GWh of battery storage is actually announced in your link. Plenty of storage facilities are at ratios lower than 2: https://www.energy-storage.news/victorian-big-battery-austra... And if the batteries haven't actually been provisioned yet, it might be hard to build those without securing additional funding: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium

It says this: Eleven months later, and new CIA research shows the pipeline of proposed storage has grown enormously, to over 26 GW of announced projects. The individually enumerated projects in that article appear to be only a subset of those. It's true about the Victorian battery you linked at a ratio of 1.5, so that has the 26GW representing somewhere in the range of 39GWh to 104GWh (ratios close to 2 appear to be…

[deleted]

Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

#327

Post by Manuel_D » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:04 PM UTC

caf wrote: post #291

Manuel_D wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only 6.3 GWh of battery storage is actually announced in your link. Plenty of storage facilities are at ratios lower than 2: https://www.energy-storage.news/victorian-big-battery-austra... And if the batteries haven't actually been provisioned yet, it might be hard to build those without securing additional funding: https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/lithium

It says this: Eleven months later, and new CIA research shows the pipeline of proposed storage has grown enormously, to over 26 GW of announced projects. The individually enumerated projects in that article appear to be only a subset of those. It's true about the Victorian battery you linked at a ratio of 1.5, so that has the 26GW representing somewhere in the range of 39GWh to 104GWh (ratios close to 2 appear to be…

Again, no capacity is actually specified for the vast majority of these proposals - it's the sort of things there if the capacity isn't good you have less incentive to share it, so assuming a ratio of 2-4 is very optimistic . And even if we assume that 100% of these proposals get built (which is unlikely) it's still well short of the 120GWh of capacity assumed by the study.

To put this in perspective, annual battery production is around 300-400 GWh. You're talking about redirecting a third of all battery output in a given year to produce the storage for a country of just 26 million people.

Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

#328

Post by itsoktocry » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:18 PM UTC

themitigating wrote: post #72

itsoktocry wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ah yes, let's point the finger at California and ignore the one state... Wow, this comment is so indicative of modern discourse. The parent makes an off-hand reference about a state where brown outs have been an issue, (Democratic) California, and you feel the need to jump in with "WHY ARE YOU IGNORING (Repulican) Texas???" as if there's some political motivation behind an innocuous statement of fact.

Why did the parent make the off hand reference? Republicans know if they keep repeating such remarks (or accusations) it will eventually will just be accepted as fact without requiring evidence because people hear it from so many different people over long periods of time. They don't lie either, they just bring to attention a problem in a blue state or with a company considered to be liberal" and ignore similar issue…

>If you were to go to someone and ask "What city has the highest rate of car theft in 2022" they would probably say NYC or LA when in reality, it's Odessa TX (btw Republican mayor). This shows how this manipulation tactic works, it's based on exaggeration, stereotypes, and constantly streaming information

According to this site[0], 3 of the 5 cities with the highest rates of auto theft were in California in 2020.

Meanwhile, you constructed a strawman from a hypothetical question that some person would "probably" answer, and then complained about manipulation tactics. Do you see the issue here?

[0]https://www.insurance.com/auto-insurance/claims/top-cities-r....

Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

#329

Post by trashtester » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC

Schroedingersat wrote: post #103

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a lot of people live in Texas and California where renewables are already pretty advanced, plus there's nuclear in the north, and they have hydro and grid connections with Canada who have even more hydro and nuclear so the USA should be easier. The US intends to hit this target (i.e. 95% carbon-free generation) in 8 years I think, with 100% and wider electrification of current fossil fuel uses in 2035 and it di…

For the cost of 5kW nameplate of new western nuclear (>$10/W) you can get, right now, at retail, as an individual: 50kW nameplate of solar, and 8kW nameplate of wind, and 75kWh of storage and a 5kW generator (which will almost never need turning on) and a biogas digester. And it will produce enough excess power to replace itself (with a cheaper version) or just triple the batteries if you can get 2-3c/kWh for the sur…

This report provides costs for nuclear power down to about $30/MWH (LCOE) at 3% discount rate (interest rate - inflation rate):

https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2020-12...

Most countries should be able to reach such levels if providing guarantees for the credit, removing overly excessive regulation and allowing the most capable and experienced construction companies to lead construction and initial operations, especially if large enough numbers are built that economies of scale kick in.

Renewables-only systems (apart from hydro, where available), are not able to provide constant power output at anything near such levels yet, without a significant percentage of the power being generated by natural gas.

Massive capital investments in the grid, hydrogen generation, etc, MAY be able to actually provide stable power, but would be very unlikely to match nuclear if nuclear is optimized for price.

This could change in a few years, obviously, especially if storage becomes super cheap. But there is no guarantee of that.

As for the astronomical costs of some recent nuclear plants in western countries, those are a bit like evaluating the price of electric cars based on the Tesla Model S Plaid. We can get perfectly serviceable plants for a fraction of the price, by removing most of the bells and whistles, while still making sure that they are safer than most of the plants in operation today.

Re: A near 100% renewables grid is well within reach, and with little storage

#330

Post by kkfx » Thu, Aug 25, 2022, 5:00 PM UTC

SlickNixon wrote: post #316

kkfx wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can store oil. In significant quantity. You can't store electricity in the same way, easiness and quantity. So in case of a war you still have, any country still have months of oil reserves, very little electricity reserves in the form of pumped hydro, fossils and nuclear powers. Not only: a electricity grid disruption is almost instantaneous, oil&gas issue takes at least days and can be foreseeable in months and…

>You can store oil. In significant quantity. >Did you consider how strategical targets became such networks? All your numbers and calculations are background noise when you can't keep your fundamental concerns coherent. Edit: Let me say that I see where you're coming from--I get the concern about large, low inertia systems, the ww2 partisans, the need for self reliance. But that ship has sailed. Russia is currently b…

That's an interesting point: yes, formally renewable are significantly "distributed" geographically, the tech to use them though is not that much and the trade-off between the two (control over localized natural sources vs control over tech needed to exploit distributed sources) could be an interesting scenario.

In that sense I see a far more nightmarish scenario where the progress is not anymore done in public universities but in private companies to a point that civil society can just only get black boxes from them, but that's is a bit OT here.

What's in-topic is that few sources state we are near to 100% renewable option, and some other say absolutely not, with the truth probably lie in the difference between theory and practice + availability of something vs it's adoption on scale. If that it's true IMVHO we will not be able to run on renewable for at least 50+ years AND we will suffer MANY issues trying to go faster...