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

Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 474 posts

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#461

Post by robocat »

tfourb wrote: post #434
robocat wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you combine this with renewable generation, it all falls apart Rubbish. Only true if the renewable generation is poorly integrated. Solar plus batteries can provide synthetic inertia if the incentives/regulations are correctly designed. Australia has been adding oodles of solar, and they have been doing it surprisingly well. Nuclear can load follow, within limitations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=362547…

> Solar plus batteries can provide synthetic inertia if the incentives/regulations are correctly designed. Yes, but why build nuclear at all, if you are already building PV + batteries? Nuclear is much more expensive than that combination. And if you add nuclear capacity on a level that actually matters (i.e. 30%+ of peak load), you run into real integration problems. As I've written elsewhere, a toke nuclear program…

> Yes, but why build nuclear at all

I wasn't suggesting that. Why did you assume that and then argue against something I didn't say?

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#462

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

adrian_b wrote: post #457
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please tell me how renewables cause a lack of reactive power. Which was the source of the Iberian blackout. All reasonable grids already force renewables to handle reactive power if they want to connect, like they do for all electricity generation. It is a trivial expense, but still an expense so no one does it unless forced.

In another thread that comments the report it was said that most inverters used in Spain for the renewable energy sources do not implement a control policy to generate an adequate reactive power to compensate the phase fluctuations of the grid, like a synchronous electromechanical generator would do. The inverters only disconnected from the grid when the frequency went outside the permitted range. Ensuring that the i…

Yeah, been trivial forever. In the US it became a requirement for new all utility scale non-synchronous generators a decade ago. And then a bunch of statewide rules for rooftop solar as well.

https://www.ferc.gov/news-events/news/ferc-moves-implement-f...

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#463

Post by yayachiken »

robocat wrote: post #398
yayachiken wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That being said, I was apparently also under the impression of outdated or just plain wrong information. While the report I listed mentions the sudden loss of decentralized generation as starting point of the blackout, and also specifically mentions small-scale rooftop PV, it says that the cause for that sudden synchronized drop-off is actually unknown.

You can't get an "informed opinion" by reading crap like that report. The Spanish systems have systematic design failures for stability and electricity market design. Working out the political failures that led to the design failures is much harder. Consultancies like https://www.nera.com/capabilities/power--utilities--and-rene... specialize in advising about electricity networks and market design. Only those working…

> crap like that report

> Only those working closely in that profession have any knowledge of the underlying causes.

This report is literally from the ENTSO-E which is the main regulatory body for the grid in Europe.

> Crap quote from the report "but no significant oscillations with amplitudes above 20 mHz".

What is the "crap" about that? An amplitude can still be measured in Hz, if you are looking at oscillating frequency deviations, if that is what you mean.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#464

Post by yayachiken »

samuel wrote: post #430
yayachiken wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not that easy, and the 2025 blackout good evidence of that. Renewables need a grid that's engineered for them and that require significative investments. The outage in spain had multiple complex causes. While the grid had a rather routine instability/oscillation on-going during time of the incident, the actual point-of-no-return was completely non-technical: Prices crossed into the negatives, which caused gene…

Very timely, the final report has been released today. I hadn't read the document you referenced, and I admit don't have the prior knowledge, nor the time, to fully understand all the implications of what it says. My opinion is then the result of reading and listening a variety of experts and news sources, and it will have some biases, for sure. Still, I have skimmed the final report to see if there was something tha…

Yes, I think it's wrong, or at least way over-exaggerated.

You can run a grid to supply approximately 80% renewables (long-term average) without significant technical changes.

Only if you want to get the last 20% to renewables, you get technical challenges, e.g. related to synchronization and load-matching. But that is also not unsolvable problems, e.g. instead of relying on the inertia of steam turbines you can "just" build specific-purpose fly-wheels to do the same thing. It's just less elegant.

Source: Volker Quaschning "Understanding Renewable Energy Systems", too lazy right now to look up the exact page.

This is also consistent with the section they quoted. Generally, the load matching in grids is done by the system itself. If you add more wind and solar, which depends on the weather and location, you have to more large-scale intervention, e.g. allow generation re-dispatch. But that doesn't immediately imply that this is a dangerous process.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#465

Post by yayachiken »

adrian_b wrote: post #456
samuel wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very timely, the final report has been released today. I hadn't read the document you referenced, and I admit don't have the prior knowledge, nor the time, to fully understand all the implications of what it says. My opinion is then the result of reading and listening a variety of experts and news sources, and it will have some biases, for sure. Still, I have skimmed the final report to see if there was something tha…

I have not read the report yet, but in another thread someone gave a very plausible explanation of what happened. The high levels of renewable energy happened to contribute to this incident, but not because of something inherent in renewable energy. All renewable energy sources are connected to the grid through inverters, and in Spain most of these inverters do not use an adequate control policy, i.e. they do not com…

Yes, that is plausible indeed, but the problem is that there are many explanations which are plausible, but there doesn't seem to be a smoking gun.

Strange about that explanation for example is that the time correlation is backwards. First the solar generation started to drop out and only then central generator stations tripped. Also the on-going frequency oscillations had already stabilized. If it was related to frequency issues, the solar inverters would either have shut down 15 minutes earlier (while the frequency oscillations were at the peak) OR 1-2 minutes later (when power stations tripped and frequency would have dipped)

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#466

Post by lelanthran »

Planktonne wrote: post #443
lelanthran wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my state, we removed protections for housing and employment discrimination against trans people because... one trans athlete existed? I think you're sort of proving the parent's point - when you're in an existential fight, is it really that important that you use the limited attention of the public to fight for the rights of a single person? Trans rights ain't even that popular; most people are okay with "you th…

> when you're in an existential fight, is it really that important that you use the limited attention of the public to fight for the rights of a single person? Yes. That's what rights are. If we don't support them for one person, we don't have them for any person.

> Yes. That's what rights are. If we don't support them for one person, we don't have them for any person.

That's not the question that was asked. The question is whether it is wise to dilute your message when the message is warning of existential threat?

The binary question of fighting for a rights was never contended. The question was weighting that specific right against an existential threat.

There's more nuance here than you're willing to admit (hence the resounding loss of the left).

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#467

Post by lelanthran »

watwut wrote: post #425
lelanthran wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In my state, we removed protections for housing and employment discrimination against trans people because... one trans athlete existed? I think you're sort of proving the parent's point - when you're in an existential fight, is it really that important that you use the limited attention of the public to fight for the rights of a single person? Trans rights ain't even that popular; most people are okay with "you th…

> I think you're sort of proving the parent's point - when you're in an existential fight, is it really that important that you use the limited attention of the public to fight for the rights of a single person? Literally conservatives did that. THEY made this focus of the debate. Democrats reaction do not even matter here. It is ultimately irrelevant, because people like you then obsess over imaginary democrats posi…

> Democrats reaction do not even matter here.

It does indeed matter - they were the ones who were insufficiently convinced of their nominees messages. Not convinced enough to vote for them, at any rate.

The opposition does not matter when your "supporters" don't vote for you because the message they received is different from the message you think you transmitted.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#468

Post by abustamam »

Mashimo wrote: post #336
abustamam wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the companies have a large carbon foodprint to deliver a product or service for the consumer. I agree that that's _why_ they have a large carbon footprint, no company is just burning fossil fuels for fun. But it doesn't change a) the fact that they do have a large carbon footprint, and b) entire cities could ban gas cars and everyone could take public transit and it still wouldn't make a dent in the global carb…

Oh my bad, I used negative wrong. I mean if I buy a car (and never drive it) and have a phone, ipad and computer that I never use. Is it not ME who has a huge carbon footprint?

Compared to coal companies fighting tooth and nail to keep their industry relevant and the govt acquiescing instead of focusing on renewables, I don't think any individual can be considered to have a "huge" carbon footprint.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#469

Post by actionfromafar »

adrian_b wrote: post #458
actionfromafar wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, nuclear is a strategic missile target. It's harder to take out renewables and batteries because they are more distributed.

Nuclear could be more distributed too. The obstacles for small nuclear reactors have not been technical, but the fear that they may be more easily misused. There are good arguments against nuclear, but not being more distributed is not one of them.

No I am not against that. I'm just against any medium-to-large to large nuclear reactor built in within striking distance of a credible foe. Which is to say, at this point in time, all of them.

But if we start producing Fallout style reactors everywhere, sure, why not.

Re: Iran war energy shock sparks global push to reduce fossil fuel dependence

#470

Post by dzhiurgis »

aaplok wrote: post #459
dzhiurgis wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why wouldn't you condemn grandparent post first? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47439266

GP reported on an opinion and called it insane. That's not an ad hominem. There is a difference between judging an opinion and judging a person. If the response had been something like "what is crazy is to think the world can just switch off its dependence on petrol suddenly", I would not have reacted either.

[flagged]
Post reply on HN