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

Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 612 posts

Re: Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout

#591

Post by Saline9515 »

gregbot wrote: post #400
Saline9515 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind turbines are not recyclable[1]. Besides, the foundations use a massive amount of concrete (nowadays often extracted from the seabed, with all the problematic ecological consequences involved), that stays forever in the ground. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S23527...

Who cares? Those blades and that concrete are totally inert and just sit in the ground after their useful life. The ground already has lots of rocks in it.

It defeats the "renewable" designation, since it is quickly consumed and thrown away. Compare this with hydropower, where a dam can last centuries.

Re: Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout

#592

Post by Saline9515 »

triceratops wrote: post #574
Saline9515 wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wind turbines are not recyclable[1]. Besides, the foundations use a massive amount of concrete (nowadays often extracted from the seabed, with all the problematic ecological consequences involved), that stays forever in the ground. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S23527...

Curious you're so worried about "ecological consequences" but only when it's window power.

The problem is that those power sources are marketed as "renewable" (they aren't as they quickly end in landfills), are intermittent, require fossil fuels for when the wind doesn't blow, and are not profitable.

One could also say that they change heavily natural landscapes, but this is a matter of taste.

Re: Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout

#593

Post by Rover222 »

gregbot wrote: post #577
Rover222 wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an 11 year old study that is no longer correct based on the modern electric grid. Also focusing on only carbon footprint is misleading. EVs pollute far less overall, even on the 2015 electric grid.

I await your updated study to back up your claims

I shall not explain the obvious

Re: Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout

#594

Post by nasmorn »

Saline9515 wrote: post #591
gregbot wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? Those blades and that concrete are totally inert and just sit in the ground after their useful life. The ground already has lots of rocks in it.

It defeats the "renewable" designation, since it is quickly consumed and thrown away. Compare this with hydropower, where a dam can last centuries.

But if you repower the wind mill, the foundation can serve for the next turbine

Re: Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout

#595

Post by gregbot »

philipkglass wrote: post #556
gregbot wrote: post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you post a link to those projected costs?

"EDF estimates EPR2 programme cost at EUR72.8 billion" France's EDF has said its preliminary cost estimate for the project to build six EPR2 reactors at Penly, Gravelines and Bugey totals EUR72.8 billion (USD85.3 billion). https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/edf-estimates-ep... Each reactor outputs 1650 megawatts of electricity running at full power. Assuming they run at 92% capacity factor, that's $9.38 per…

Great. So 538TWh per year is 61 GW so roughly 61 GW * $9.38 = $576 billion staggered over the 80 year life of nuclear plants is $7.2 billion per year of capital expenditure.

For comparison, wind is about $5/W. Assuming a 35% capacity factor and a 30 year expected lifetime for the latest turbines that comes to $10.0 billion per year of capital expenditure with no storage or fossil backup systems or extra capacity given weather variability.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_France

Re: Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout

#596

Post by matthewdgreen »

gregbot wrote: post #595
philipkglass wrote: post #556

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"EDF estimates EPR2 programme cost at EUR72.8 billion" France's EDF has said its preliminary cost estimate for the project to build six EPR2 reactors at Penly, Gravelines and Bugey totals EUR72.8 billion (USD85.3 billion). https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/articles/edf-estimates-ep... Each reactor outputs 1650 megawatts of electricity running at full power. Assuming they run at 92% capacity factor, that's $9.38 per…

Great. So 538TWh per year is 61 GW so roughly 61 GW * $9.38 = $576 billion staggered over the 80 year life of nuclear plants is $7.2 billion per year of capital expenditure. For comparison, wind is about $5/W. Assuming a 35% capacity factor and a 30 year expected lifetime for the latest turbines that comes to $10.0 billion per year of capital expenditure with no storage or fossil backup systems or extra capacity give…

PV solar is between $.97 and $1.16 per watt, so that's going to be the front line. With storage you can get from $1.60 to $2. This is already the bulk of the power generation in Europe and is only going to increase. The idea that you're going to run nuclear plants at 95% capacity factor economically is also very suspect in a continent saturated with cheap PV solar.

Re: Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout

#597

Post by gregbot »

pfdietz wrote: post #582
gregbot wrote: post #578

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's no market for them In an economic sense, when compared to burner reactors, this is correct. As the rise of wind and solar has shown however, political will and popularity matter more than pure economics. Burner reactors are more of a 22nd century technology, assuming the grid storage problem doesn’t get solved by then and we just go full renewable on economics. But nothing is set in stone

What nonsense. What solar and wind have shown is the overwhelming importance of economics. They are dominating now because they have become cheap, not because of some sort of "triumph of the will". And they have become cheap because they are inherently the kind of technologies that has good experience curves. Unlike nuclear.

Nonsense? Why was US nuclear built at all in the 60’s and 70’s? Or in France? Because it was cheaper? No. It was built because people thought it was a good idea. The same is true for intermittents today. They are popular with a section of the population so they get the funding. And no, nuclear has fantastic experience curves. Look at any country building lots of reactors and the n-th of a kind is cheap. Building out nuclear and maintaining industry experience works to keep costs low.

Re: Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout

#598

Post by gregbot »

matthewdgreen wrote: post #596
gregbot wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. So 538TWh per year is 61 GW so roughly 61 GW * $9.38 = $576 billion staggered over the 80 year life of nuclear plants is $7.2 billion per year of capital expenditure. For comparison, wind is about $5/W. Assuming a 35% capacity factor and a 30 year expected lifetime for the latest turbines that comes to $10.0 billion per year of capital expenditure with no storage or fossil backup systems or extra capacity give…

PV solar is between $.97 and $1.16 per watt, so that's going to be the front line. With storage you can get from $1.60 to $2. This is already the bulk of the power generation in Europe and is only going to increase. The idea that you're going to run nuclear plants at 95% capacity factor economically is also very suspect in a continent saturated with cheap PV solar.

US NREL Puts it at $2/W with no storage and ~20% capacity factor. Lifetime of latest panels is unknown but optimistically is 25 years. Assuming perfect and free storage that comes to $24.4 billion per year of capital expenditure for a country the size of France to be 100% solar. So no, it would not be more economical to use solar over nuclear. Wind would be better but when you add the full system costs of storage and backup intermittent heavy systems are vastly more expensive and emit more carbon than nuclear ones. https://discussion.fool.com/t/levelized-full-system-costs-of...

Intermittents are only gaining market share because their unreliable and intermittent power which is less valuable is being purchased by governments at prices that far exceed what it is worth. In other words, massive hidden subsidies. Without those, there would be next to no intermittents on the grid anywhere.

See “Market matching costs” here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Re: Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout

#599

Post by gregbot »

rsynnott wrote: post #527
gregbot wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uranium actually does not require mining. Most uranium is extracted using underground wells where water is pumped underground and the Uranium is extracted from the water. Also extracting Uranium from sea water (which would be basically unlimited) is close to being commercially viable and has received a lot of lab-scale research. Also, Uranium is only recyclable once with light water reactors. With breeder reactors (w…

> Most uranium is extracted using underground wells where water is pumped underground and the Uranium is extracted from the water. ... I mean that's mining?

Arguably yes! But it avoids a lot of the safety and environmental hazards of traditional methods.

Re: Photos capture the breathtaking scale of China's wind and solar buildout

#600

Post by gregbot »

Rover222 wrote: post #593
gregbot wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I await your updated study to back up your claims

I shall not explain the obvious

In 2023, coal-fired electric power plants accounted for 86% of West Virginia's total electricity net generation

https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=WV

Looks like west virginia is still a state where hybrid-electric vehicles have lower emissions than all-electric ones. Who knew.

Post reply on HN