Live data from Hacker News

The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

energymonitor.ai

61–70 of 75 posts

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#61
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big picture is that theyre not just cheaper but 5x cheaper. In fact it's so much cheaper that it's even more economic to use solar/wind to synthesize natural gas and burn that to generate electricity. Never mind all of the cheaper short term storage options (pumped storage, batteries). And this doesnt even account for the storage nuclear power would need (it's even less economic to use it for load following) or the n…

>> In fact it's so much cheaper that it's even more economic to use solar/wind to synthesize natural gas and burn that to generate electricity. Interesting. Never heard of this being done in practice before, do you have references of what you're referring to?

No one will do this at scale until we stop burning fossil gas.

But as a technology it exists. The early outputs will be for things that can't be replaced with cheap renewable generated electricity, like e-fuels for spacecraft, which Tesla is doing in Texas.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France transition from coal and oil to almost 100% nuclear in 20 years. I'll wait here for any other country to do remotely as well with 'renewables'. Lets see how Germany did after 20 years of their Green revolution ... mmhh yeah they would have done a lot better with nuclear. Nuclear was the fastest scaling of any energy source ever discovered in the US. Faster then even oil. But then regulation changed and basical…

Many would argue that Germany saved human civilization by investing early in renewables. Various other countries/places/people/organisations contributed too, but still, it's weird that something can be considered as so dramatically successful on such a scale and also such a complete failure by different groups.

[deleted]

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#63
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the ~$800 billion cleanup costs of a Fukushima event werent fully borne by taxpayers then maybe the safety regulations wouldnt have to be as onerous. But they are, and Ive never heard of a single pro nuclear advocate ever argue that nuclear power is safe enough that this enormous subsidy should be unwound. They generally pretend it doesnt exist. Meanwhile solar/wind/storage is a lot cheaper even without taking thi…

Funny how anti-nuclear people never admit that the last 30 years of anti nuclear opposition have lead to 1000s of deaths, 100000s of people less health and more cost then any theoretical nuclear accident. Its totally ok to argue that the government should have shared responsibility for health care. But arguing that government should control the energy production in a sensible way and adopt the risk for that is someho…

Nuclear has failed for now 70 years to change anything. It's because it plainly doesn't work. Worldwide only one country has managed to produce the vast majority of its electricity from nuclear and even this country is faltering right now. The french electricity company is deeply in debt, was nationalized as a consequence of it and just posted a 20 billion loss for last year. The plants are reaching their end of life, the prototype replacement in Flamanville is a national embarrassment and is now over a decade and over 10 billion over budget.

If the world decides to go all in on nuclear it would take decades to decarbonize a tiny percentage of the grid and horrendous costs.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how anti-nuclear people never admit that the last 30 years of anti nuclear opposition have lead to 1000s of deaths, 100000s of people less health and more cost then any theoretical nuclear accident. Its totally ok to argue that the government should have shared responsibility for health care. But arguing that government should control the energy production in a sensible way and adopt the risk for that is someho…

Nuclear has failed for now 70 years to change anything. It's because it plainly doesn't work. Worldwide only one country has managed to produce the vast majority of its electricity from nuclear and even this country is faltering right now. The french electricity company is deeply in debt, was nationalized as a consequence of it and just posted a 20 billion loss for last year. The plants are reaching their end of life…

The world doesn’t have to decide to go "all in" on anything. It can simply lift all the unnecessary burdens it placed on the nuclear industry and let the free market sort out the best solution, like always.

If nuclear works for the world's subs, it works on land too. It will probably be a mix of energy sources anyway, each with its own strengths and weaknesses and it’s own place in ecosystem.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#65
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how they prevent the gas in such a cavern from exploding?

By not adding oxygen?! Hydrogen itself doesn't spontaneously explode.

Sure, but if there's a leak you have a problem.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#66
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear has failed for now 70 years to change anything. It's because it plainly doesn't work. Worldwide only one country has managed to produce the vast majority of its electricity from nuclear and even this country is faltering right now. The french electricity company is deeply in debt, was nationalized as a consequence of it and just posted a 20 billion loss for last year. The plants are reaching their end of life…

The world doesn’t have to decide to go "all in" on anything. It can simply lift all the unnecessary burdens it placed on the nuclear industry and let the free market sort out the best solution, like always. If nuclear works for the world's subs, it works on land too. It will probably be a mix of energy sources anyway, each with its own strengths and weaknesses and it’s own place in ecosystem.

>If nuclear works for the world's subs, it works on land too.

Kind of like saying that if solar panels work on the ISS then they work on land too.

It's surface level true while missing the broader issue.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#67
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear has failed for now 70 years to change anything. It's because it plainly doesn't work. Worldwide only one country has managed to produce the vast majority of its electricity from nuclear and even this country is faltering right now. The french electricity company is deeply in debt, was nationalized as a consequence of it and just posted a 20 billion loss for last year. The plants are reaching their end of life…

The world doesn’t have to decide to go "all in" on anything. It can simply lift all the unnecessary burdens it placed on the nuclear industry and let the free market sort out the best solution, like always. If nuclear works for the world's subs, it works on land too. It will probably be a mix of energy sources anyway, each with its own strengths and weaknesses and it’s own place in ecosystem.

In that case nuclear is completely dead. There probably hasn't been a nuclear power plant built without government subsidies in history. French nuclear for instance is essentially bankrupt because they can't even run them let alone build new ones, so the government nationalized it last year.

But sure, get rid of all subsidies on everything and let the market sort it out. We can agree on that.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#68
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By not adding oxygen?! Hydrogen itself doesn't spontaneously explode.

Sure, but if there's a leak you have a problem.

Even then. Hydrogen quickly moves upwards. If it is a ground storage, any burning should happen above the storage and not enter it (at least in theory). And you can measure changes in pressure quite easily. I mean, it is not like hydrogen storage has not been done for more than 100 years.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France transition from coal and oil to almost 100% nuclear in 20 years. I'll wait here for any other country to do remotely as well with 'renewables'. Lets see how Germany did after 20 years of their Green revolution ... mmhh yeah they would have done a lot better with nuclear. Nuclear was the fastest scaling of any energy source ever discovered in the US. Faster then even oil. But then regulation changed and basical…

Many would argue that Germany saved human civilization by investing early in renewables. Various other countries/places/people/organisations contributed too, but still, it's weird that something can be considered as so dramatically successful on such a scale and also such a complete failure by different groups.

I started this talking about nuclear policy only, but I wrote more on all the issues I have with German environmental policy. I'm gone lay out a case on why German is a negative player in the global movement against climate change.

Their removal of perfectly well functioning nuclear plants that could have run for another 50 years is nothing less then criminal, Ill talk more of that later. Their strong anti-nuclear position influenced the countries around them to also get ride of their perfectly well functioning nuclear plants.

Belgium for example turned of a perfectly well functioning plant in the middle of the energy crisis. Switzerland stopped investing in its own energy production because Germany would just produce so much cheap energy that can easily be imported, yeah great policy.

Even France had been persuaded that nuclear is bad and in 2015 they basically also followed Germany and tried to do a nuclear phase out far earlier then technically possible. All in blind trust that they can just replace 20+ nuclear plants with a few solar panels. They also forced the potential profit of the utility (from nuclear) to be reinvented into solar (not to mention forcing them to support fossil as well).

All nations around Germany have to breath the coal ash that Germany distributes over all off Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland and Eastern France. And have done so for decades and it has measurable effect on air quality and health in all those places. Somehow Switzerland (where I'm from) doesn't get coal ash from France, funny how that works.

France on the other hand has had clean energy for 40 years. Even home heating in France is usually done with electric. Its baffling to me that people see Germany as this great success, when their coal plants are still going strong and will be for another 10 years at least. Housing in Germany is still often oil and gas as well.

Anti-nuclear people love to just ignore the last 50 years of coal use in Germany and have for over 30 years insisted that nuclear is to expensive and slow, despite the evidence from France that you can change a economy to nuclear in 20 years and having paid very little for it. Don't believe people who claims France has high taxes because of nuclear, that is nonsense.

Its countries with the cleanest energy use the most nuclear, Switzerland, France, Sweden, Finland. Some countries with a lot of wind do decently well but also build a lot of gas capacity so it isn't as cheap as people claim.

Just look at the electricity map right now:

https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/DE

611 gCO₂eq/kWh right now, France 28. And that is with all the idiotic anti-nuclear policy France has adopted in the last 20 years. Germany currently has almost 25 GW of coal on the network, and only 2.7 GW nuclear. At peak, Germany had enough nuclear capacity to replace all the coal use they have today, but they made the choice to shut down all nuclear before all coal, and this was widely supported by Greens and environmentalists.

How anybody can call this a success, because they invested in some solar panel production is beyond me. Germany played itself up as the environmental savoir nation in the international press, everybody around the world tried to 'be like Germany'. And yet, France had literally already achieved more then Germany decades earlier but of course that was never mentioned anywhere.

I'm genuinely baffled why people are so positive about Germany. They have been selling themselves as this green nation for decades. But reality this is not supported by any evidence what so ever.

They didn't do very much to get away from oil and gas heating. Their strongest industry is the car industry, and they are backwards in terms of the new green urbanism. Their high speed rail network is still patchy, sub-optimally designed and incredibly delay prone. 'Die Bahn' the German railway operator is generally regressive in its European policies, opposing many major European rail reforms. The Autobahn high speed is polluting. Their car makers are currently trying to prevent the adoption of laws EU laws that push EVs.

They had international obligation and agreements to increase cargo rail transport North-South in Europe. A real all electric rail cargo highway, from North Sea ports all the way to Italy. Switzerland build the longest rail tunnel in the world and everything else. Even f*ing Italy build its part of this project. Germany, mmmhh, maybe they will do it next decade. Well I guess at least the Autobahn will be used for more diesel trucks instead, thanks Germany.

I can't think of a single area of environmental policy where Germany is actually leading. Germany is everything that is bad with the environmental policy. Its a success of marketing over results. 3rd world nations around the world should not look to Germany, they should look to France (in the 70/80, not so much lately) for electricity, to Netherlands for urban policy, Switzerland for public transport.

Re: The four-horse race to decarbonise steel

#70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how anti-nuclear people never admit that the last 30 years of anti nuclear opposition have lead to 1000s of deaths, 100000s of people less health and more cost then any theoretical nuclear accident. Its totally ok to argue that the government should have shared responsibility for health care. But arguing that government should control the energy production in a sensible way and adopt the risk for that is someho…

Nuclear has failed for now 70 years to change anything. It's because it plainly doesn't work. Worldwide only one country has managed to produce the vast majority of its electricity from nuclear and even this country is faltering right now. The french electricity company is deeply in debt, was nationalized as a consequence of it and just posted a 20 billion loss for last year. The plants are reaching their end of life…

> Nuclear has failed for now 70 years to change anything.

Its almost as if nobody tries to do something it doesn't happen, shocking insight.

> It's because it plainly doesn't work.

Except that its actually proven to work and renewables are not proven to work. Because there is actually a major world industrial economy that worked on nearly 100% nuclear and there is not such a nation that runs on only renewables.

So maybe if there is prove of anything, its that one works the other doesn't.

> The plants are reaching their end of life

Complete nonsense ... there are many far older plant operating. Nuclear reactors can run 80-100 years.

> the prototype replacement

Like the innovative Superphénix that was killed of by the Green-Leftis coalition.

> was nationalized as a consequence

France has had 40 decades of the lowest energy prices in Europe and still has very low cost. All the construction cost of the whole nuclear fleet were on the books of the utility and were paid off over decades. If French utility was allowed to charge as much as energy prices in Germany, it would be wildly profitable.

The French state forced them to invested profit from nuclear into solar that hurt their own networks operation and also forced them to cheaply sell bulk nuclear electricity to support fossil and then the utility had to buy that capacity back at a way higher price, losing billions in the process.

France has for 25 years now had governments that didn't like nuclear, they have let go the whole industrial base that built up. The were so spoiled by nuclear that they didn't do any of the basic maintenance and upgrades done in pretty much every country in the world (including ironically Germany). Had they just done so, they wouldn't have had any of the problems they had last year.

France treated its amazing nuclear capacity from the 70/80s like the tree in 'The Giving Tree'. The reality of course is France saved incredibly amounts of money in their health care system because they had 50 years of nuclear rather then 50 years of coal. Nuclear in France was one of the best energy policies ever done by anybody.

> If the world decides to go all in on nuclear it would take decades to decarbonize a tiny percentage of the grid and horrendous costs.

Lets look at a case study, UAE. They decided in 2009 to do nuclear, first plant active in 2020 and finishing 1 reactor a year. So a nation with no nuclear and no experience in 1 year will have 25% nuclear and these plants will last 100 years or more. The could have just continued this and by 2030 the could have 100% nuclear. But this is political.

Let me do some basic math for you. Even at the still high unit prices UAE was charged. Starting in the year ~2000, when Germany really adopted 'Grünewende'. At that point they had 20% of well functioning nuclear. At that point the total cost of going 100% nuclear in Germany, even with a very high very conservative cost of 5 billion $ per plant, for like 250 billion Germany could have gone 100% electric. That is approximately 5% increase in debt to GDP. Realistically it would be much less as data shows that if you are building many of the same plant with the same workforce it gets vastly cheaper. Germany could have done this in 20-30 years no problem, if France can do it so can Germany. This would have guaranteed Germany clean green energy for the next 100 years or more.

The failure of nuclear was and is about politics, not about the technology.

Post reply on HN