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

71–80 of 82 posts

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

#71

Post by dredmorbius »

adrianN wrote: post #68
dredmorbius wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We know the fundamental physics and chemistry. Your largest-scaling options are thermal storage (molten-salt thermal, not to be confused with molten-salt electric batteries), compressed air energy storage (CAES), and pumped-hydro. The last as with hydroelectric dams is limited by available sites and environmental impacts. Any thermal storage or thermal-process generation (e.g., molten salt thermal storage, synfuel-ba…

Electrolysis can actually be done at above 70% efficiency. 80% efficiency methods are available. You unfortunately lose some additional energy when compressing the Hydrogen for storage, or when you turn it into Methane for storage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production#Electrolys...

Thanks.

Carbon capture is also possible at low energy cost, from seawater, as described in a set of research articles published by the USNRL through the 2010s. The Google X Project "Foghorn" failed to develop this in an economically feasible manner, but my view is that that's more a measure of the mis-pricing of fossil fuels than of the method itself.

The resulting liquid hydrocabons are largely perfect analogues of petrol, kerosene (jet fuel) or deisel, and require no compression or refrigeration.

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

#72

Post by StanislavPetrov »

xadhominemx wrote: post #54
tristor wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think it’s more because, does it make sense to have a nuclear power plant so close to nyc. Even in a moderate fallout incident the city would have to be evacuated.

>Even in a moderate fallout incident the city would have to be evacuated.

This is exactly the problem when it comes to Indian Point. The only way out of New York is over a few bridges and tunnels. It isn't possible to evacuate even a fraction of the millions of people through a few bridges and tunnels if a radioactive plume is released only 36 miles away. There are arguments to be made for nuclear power, but that we should have one 36 miles from the most populous, densely packed city in the country, which also happens to be an island, is not one of them.

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

#73

Post by simonebrunozzi »

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…

> Note : I am an ex quantitative and algorithmic power trader in the NYISO market

That's why I love HN. Most conversations would have people like him chiming in and giving their views. We should all feel privileged that this forum exists.

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

#74

Post by sleepysysadmin »

dane-pgp wrote: post #61
sleepysysadmin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fella who invented lithium ion batteries invented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_battery https://spectrum.ieee.org/john-goodenough-glass-battery-news... Quebec hydro is actually developing it to go to grid scale. They have much better performance and none of the problems. In fact the early evidence is that the batteries somehow get better over time.

If that all sounds too good to be true, it's worth reading what other battery experts have to say about these claims. For example: > The ninth research paper in Braga and Goodenough's "glass battery" work regrettably shows many of the hallmarks of pathological science. ... ad hoc theory, violations of the laws of thermodynamics, basic mistakes, disregard for established knowledge, absent or invalid chemical character…

>If that all sounds too good to be true, it's worth reading what other battery experts have to say about these claims. For example:

I wouldn't say it 'sounds too good to be true' when a nobel laureate is the one publishing. The same guy who invented the battery everyone uses today. With work being confirmed by multiple countries and multiple universities.

Flipside, this guy has a bias as he's a direct commercial competitor.

and as a battery expert he's saying things like:

>This is, as best I can work out, how it goes:

So he's not a battery expert? He doesn't understand?

>I am not especially familiar with field-effect transistors, but I will touch on this briefly to try and put it in to some sort of context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-effect_transistor

A very simple and old tech that's in tons of tech today? I couldnt even tell you how many mosfets ive let the smoke out of.

>The electrolyte is almost certainly not a ferroelectric glass of extraordinary properties, it is a wet mush of different salts

This isn't an accurate representation at all.

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

#75

Post by bryanlarsen »

99_00 wrote: post #70
bryanlarsen wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is the carbon emissions per kwh The raw materials are lithium, potassium and iron. All are abundant but require significant energy to extract. So if we have a clean grid they can be produced with almost no carbon emissions. So if using "dirty" batteries is necessary to create the clean grid, it's still a massive win.

>if we have a clean grid they can be produced with almost no carbon emissions Everything is possible. But not everything is practical. Energy density matters. Especially in industrial applications. For example, electric passenger vehicles are a great solution because the weight of passengers is negligible. Electric semis hauling freight? Not so much. The payload has to be reduced by a significant amount because the b…

> Everything is possible. But not everything is practical.

Which is why your question is so impractical. You're asking about kilotonnes of carbon on a project that will save megatonnes annually. If your question forces them to source batteries with a 10% smaller carbon footprint, you'll will likely have done net harm to the environment by delaying the project and forcing us to rely on dirty electrical sources for longer.

Your question is standard FUD technique. On the surface it appears to be a reasonable question. Because it is, at least in other contexts. But in the context of a green energy production plant, it's a distraction.

Yes, we need to make mines greener. So ask your question in the context of mines.

> Electric semis hauling freight? Not so much. The payload has to be reduced by a significant amount because the battery is so damn big.

More FUD. The batteries + motors weigh about one tonne more than the engines and diesel they displace. In response, Europe has increased weight limits for electric semis by 2 tonnes, and the US by 0.9 tons. Even if they didn't, a 1 tonne difference in a 35 tonne load is not especially significant.

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

#76

Post by jplr8922 »

7thaccount wrote: post #69
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…

How did you like being a trader?

I liked the 'data analysis' part, and 'buidling your own trading software part'. However the work environment was very toxic for me, and it ended in a minor burnout. Now I work as a kind of Product Owner in a startup where I highly respect my boss, and I am super happy about it!

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

#77

Post by 7thaccount »

jplr8922 wrote: post #76
7thaccount wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How did you like being a trader?

I liked the 'data analysis' part, and 'buidling your own trading software part'. However the work environment was very toxic for me, and it ended in a minor burnout. Now I work as a kind of Product Owner in a startup where I highly respect my boss, and I am super happy about it!

Gotcha. I work in this industry, but not as a trader. I figured it would be pretty rough. I too would also love to build my own software stack from the ground up.

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

#78

Post by Scoundreller »

greenyoda wrote: post #52
Scoundreller wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 contrib…

> The sun is going to be the strongest when A/C demand is greatest Not necessarily. There are lots of hot summer days when the sky is cloudy. Also, there can be direct sunlight heating up NYC while there are clouds over the solar plant, which could be miles away.

A/C isn’t just about resisting ambient temperature, but also solar gain.

About the latter, that’s where smart grids come in. Clouds move and it’s incredibly unlikely to be sunny but cloudy a few miles away for an extended period of time.

(Obvs don’t build solar where fog sits regularly).

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

#79

Post by Scoundreller »

ajsnigrutin wrote: post #51
Scoundreller wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 contrib…

You also need power to heat, and there's usually very little sun then... sometimes even no wind. Nuclear and thermal are both slow to ramp up and ramp down, and unusable for short term peaks. Hydro is actually great for that, because you can regulate the power production relatively fast (as long as you have enough water).

> You also need power to heat

Most heating in NY will be carbon-based. For now anyway.

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

#80

Post by notreallyserio »

klyrs wrote: post #66
tristor wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My understanding of the situation is that it's a generational thing. Millenials and younger see nuclear power as much more appealing than folks over 40. So, not twitter.

It was the opposite in 2012[0] but I haven't found more recent data. (Although their dividing line was 50, not 40).

0: https://news.gallup.com/poll/153452/americans-favor-nuclear-...

Post reply on HN