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

41–50 of 82 posts

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

#41

Post by ashtonkem »

selectodude wrote: post #36
ashtonkem wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprisingly, a decent chunk of America's nuclear reactors are in the midwest. Illinois and Pennsylvania are by and away the largest producers of nuclear energy in the US, with 11 and 9 reactors respectively.

Nuclear power was invented in Illinois. They got the jump on it and it’s paid dividends for 60 years now.

Nuclear reactions were first mastered in Illinois, but arguably Idaho gets credit for the first generation of electricity via nuclear reactor with the 100kW EBR-1 in 1951. Credit for the first grid-tied nuclear power plant goes to the Soviets, with the commissioning of the the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant in 1954. Curiously the latter produced a miniscule amount of power by modern standards, with a mere 5MW of nameplate capacity.

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

#42

Post by Shalomboy »

I really don't get the whining about categorizing Natural Gas and Coal as dirty. Hydrocarbons make CO2 as a byproduct of each molecular reaction. That isn't debatable!

The thing I do want to debate is the classification of Hydro as Clean Energy. The meager power generation that hydroelectric dams produce isn't nearly enough to offset the environmental damage necessary to produce a hydroelectric reservoir.

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

#43

Post by Scoundreller »

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…

> Sun, wind [have] random output

While true, they do correlate to demand. The sun is going to be the strongest when A/C demand is greatest, shaving peak demand.

Same with wind: a hot wind in summer will drive A/C demand. Same in winter with winds driving resistive heating or the 1hp load from furnace circulating fans.

This falls apart when your system becomes significantly double digit solar/wind, but smaller contributions should pair well with demand.

Hydro can be the worst because you get the most supply at spring thaw, but this the 3rd or 4th lowest demand season.

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

#44

Post by edmundsauto »

tristor wrote: post #38
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> Why are they moving away from nuclear? Because in the US, Twitter determines policy priorities, not science or reason.

The US has been nuclear hesitant since before Twitter was around. Perhaps it's gotten worse, although I think that would be difficult to prove causality.

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

#45

Post by Scoundreller »

q1w2 wrote: post #37
cbhl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe "pumped water" is the currently available battery technology that has the capacities required, but I'm under the impression that it can't scale further (new dams / loss of green space)

Any form of storage will have poor efficiency compared to primary production, particularly pumped water. We're talking about under 50% efficiency. Moreover, you need an absolute MASSIVE amount of storage to make intermittent sources like solar and wind equivalent to baseload power. In winter months, solar in New York will produce less than 5% what the same facility will produce in the summer. Shorter days, lower sun,…

> In winter months, solar in New York will produce less than 5% what the same facility will produce in the summer.

From the numbers I’ve seen, on rooftop systems, output is 2x in the 6 best months versus the 6 worst months:

https://www.lighthousesolarny.com/blog/2017/february/the-sea...

But some of this summer production increase is by design: summer power is worth more on the grid, so you over-design to capture more sun in summer (steeper angles, ignorance of winter shadowing, reduced focus on winter cleaning/maintenance) at the cost of winter production.

If you were building an off-grid system, the summer/winter discrepancy would be smaller. You might even overbuild for winter production at the cost of summer production.

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

#46

Post by throwaway946513 »

ashtonkem wrote: post #35
throwaway946513 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Surprisingly, a decent chunk of America's nuclear reactors are in the midwest. Illinois and Pennsylvania are by and away the largest producers of nuclear energy in the US, with 11 and 9 reactors respectively.

If only my state would adopt cleaner electricity production more so than having predominant production from coal. There is 1 single small reactor supplying less than 10% of power.

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

#47

Post by dragontamer »

q1w2 wrote: post #37
cbhl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe "pumped water" is the currently available battery technology that has the capacities required, but I'm under the impression that it can't scale further (new dams / loss of green space)

Any form of storage will have poor efficiency compared to primary production, particularly pumped water. We're talking about under 50% efficiency. Moreover, you need an absolute MASSIVE amount of storage to make intermittent sources like solar and wind equivalent to baseload power. In winter months, solar in New York will produce less than 5% what the same facility will produce in the summer. Shorter days, lower sun,…

> Any form of storage will have poor efficiency compared to primary production, particularly pumped water. We're talking about under 50% efficiency.

I've generally seen pumped-hydro quoted as 80% efficient.

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

#48

Post by bobthepanda »

philipkglass wrote: post #30
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)…

Indian Point has always been a political flashpoint because of how close it is to NYC, just 36 miles north and in the middle of the suburban bits of the metro area.

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

#49

Post by selectodude »

ashtonkem wrote: post #41
selectodude wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear power was invented in Illinois. They got the jump on it and it’s paid dividends for 60 years now.

Nuclear reactions were first mastered in Illinois, but arguably Idaho gets credit for the first generation of electricity via nuclear reactor with the 100kW EBR-1 in 1951. Credit for the first grid-tied nuclear power plant goes to the Soviets, with the commissioning of the the Obninsk Nuclear Power Plant in 1954. Curiously the latter produced a miniscule amount of power by modern standards, with a mere 5MW of namepla…

The reactor out in Idaho was designed and built as Chicago Pile-4 and was only placed in Idaho because our there it couldn’t blow up around anything that mattered.

I’m not sure a reactor designed, built and operated by scientists at the university of Chicago has much to do with Idaho.

Note: as a native Chicagoan and a lover of nuclear energy, I take this stuff overly seriously :)

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

#50

Post by egberts1 »

jplr8922 wrote: post #31

Note : I am an ex quantitative and algorithmic power trader in the NYISO market I totally agree with the analysis and conclusion of this article. The power grid is is a complex legal, economic and engineering system where our usual political narratives cannot produce a valid analogy for our common understanding. Right now, most green power sources (except non run-of-the-mill hydro) have non-controlable and hardly pre…

that’s why he focused on carbon outputs.
Post reply on HN