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

Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

exutopia.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 84 posts

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#71

Post by ZeroGravitas »

illiarian wrote: post #70
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This plan for Hawaii is probably roughly in the same ballpark: https://www.wartsila.com/energy/towards-100-renewable-energy...

That is a "model" tat is very handwavy about a lot of things. 36% battery power capable of sustaining Hawaii for 11 hours. 4% is "flexible gas" from "carbon-neutral synthetic fuels" that will be produced using "excess renewable energy", etc. No numbers except "flexible solution is 68% cheaper than just overbuilding renewables". "All technology options have been priced at their expected costs at year 2030." These are…

I know xkcd thinks we should celebrate the 10,000 people learning something new each day, but I wish people would hold back from having strong opinions on renewables if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds.

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#72

Post by wkat4242 »

zamnos wrote: post #60
wkat4242 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really a business interest though.

If the government is holding the gear for your show in customs, and is going to hold it for 3 months, but with a payment it can be released next week and your show can happen and you make a lot of money from ticket sales, that sounds very much like a business interest, and thus a bribe according to the FCPA. That the "gear" is a live cat in my ludicrous example seems immaterial of it's a bribe or not.

Umm yeah but in this case they just wanted to take a few pics for curiosity's sake. It doesn't look like the site they published them on even makes them money, there's no ads.

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#73

Post by illiarian »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #71
illiarian wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a "model" tat is very handwavy about a lot of things. 36% battery power capable of sustaining Hawaii for 11 hours. 4% is "flexible gas" from "carbon-neutral synthetic fuels" that will be produced using "excess renewable energy", etc. No numbers except "flexible solution is 68% cheaper than just overbuilding renewables". "All technology options have been priced at their expected costs at year 2030." These are…

I know xkcd thinks we should celebrate the 10,000 people learning something new each day, but I wish people would hold back from having strong opinions on renewables if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds.

> if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds.

If that was a jab at me it's misdirected. In the comment you originally replied to I literally talk about overbuilding.

And yet very few if any renewables proponents talk about the absolute requirement to overbuild, and the cost.

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#74

Post by pydry »

illiarian wrote: post #42
pydry wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm assuming it can be built because the unit economics work better. Back in 2013 I remember people used to constantly trash solar and wind because it was 1-2% of the grid anywhere, max, while nuclear power was often 10-30% (or 70% in France). We're at that same point with storage. Since then we've had a decline in nuclear power due to the high cost and enormous growth in renewables due to it being 5x cheaper. Un…

> Since then we've had a decline in nuclear power and enormous growth in renewables. The only reason we've had decline in nuclear is politics. That's why now Germany is busy burning coal and importing electricity. > Unit economics prevailed before and theyll prevail again. Wishful thinking is no substitute for reality. Where are the calculations? That include both the need to ridiculously overbuild renewables and the…

Germany is burning less coal than it used to 10 years ago.

Somehow this fact is not only relatively unknown, most people seem to have been led to believe that the exact opposite is true.

Nuclear propaganda has always had a bit of a reality problem.

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#75

Post by pydry »

illiarian wrote: post #46
pjc50 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This whole article illustrates a huge benefit of solar over nuclear: if you deploy 90% of the required solar panels, you get 90% of the energy, while if you build 90% of a nuclear plant, you get nothing. The power of incremental deployment.

> you deploy 90% of the required solar panels, you get 90% of the energy No. You get 0% to 90% of energy. E.g., right now in Germany solar is at 22% of its capacity. Wind is at 11%

On average you get 30% of capacity.

But, a solar plant with a nameplate capacity of 1GW is roughly 15-17x cheaper than a 1GW nuclear plant and starts chipping away at gas and coal usage almost straight away, not in 15-20 years.

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#76

Post by pydry »

illiarian wrote: post #73
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know xkcd thinks we should celebrate the 10,000 people learning something new each day, but I wish people would hold back from having strong opinions on renewables if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds.

> if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds. If that was a jab at me it's misdirected. In the comment you originally replied to I literally talk about overbuilding. And yet very few if any renewables proponents talk about the absolute requirement to overbuild, and the cost.

Oh they absolutely do. "did you know you need to overbuild?" is well up there with "did you know the sun doesnt shine at night?"

A solar farm with a nameplate capacity of 1 GW is about 5% of the cost of a 1GW nuclear plant. The need for overbuilding pushes the price up to roughly 20% of the cost.

Adding all the necessary storage to provide peaking can push it all the way up to ~80% of the cost of a nuclear power station.

Storage is kind of a moot point anyway these days. Most grids don't even have enough nameplate capacity to supply 100% of demand for even 1 day a year. With a few exceptions every GWh produced at any time by any solar panel or turbine - is just a GWh of gas that can be burned some other day.

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#77

Post by ZeroGravitas »

illiarian wrote: post #73
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know xkcd thinks we should celebrate the 10,000 people learning something new each day, but I wish people would hold back from having strong opinions on renewables if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds.

> if facts like the sun not shining at night are blowing their minds. If that was a jab at me it's misdirected. In the comment you originally replied to I literally talk about overbuilding. And yet very few if any renewables proponents talk about the absolute requirement to overbuild, and the cost.

I linked you to a comprehensive study that explicitly discussed overbuild and storage to meet both diurnal and seasonal variation, for 147 regions around the globe.

There are many interesting take aways from that, but the one you quoted, and added your own emphasis to, is that solar has a 25% capacity factor.

> Because the sun is only shining for part of the day, solar panels can on average over the whole day produce energy at maximum of around 25% of their installed capacity"

Why did you find this interesting if you are aware that the sun doesn't shine constantly all day and night?

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#78

Post by zamnos »

wkat4242 wrote: post #72
zamnos wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the government is holding the gear for your show in customs, and is going to hold it for 3 months, but with a payment it can be released next week and your show can happen and you make a lot of money from ticket sales, that sounds very much like a business interest, and thus a bribe according to the FCPA. That the "gear" is a live cat in my ludicrous example seems immaterial of it's a bribe or not.

Umm yeah but in this case they just wanted to take a few pics for curiosity's sake. It doesn't look like the site they published them on even makes them money, there's no ads.

I didn't claim their cat was a business expense, but presented a scenario where it could be considered one. I don't see what their site has to do with my hypothetical.

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#79

Post by actionfromafar »

danielfoster wrote: post #57
lentil_soup wrote: post #32

> in such an economy the majority of workers will be glad to take a bribe > gesturing to our cameras, making a meaningful pat of his wallet inside his pocket > It might have been the presence of the work crew that deterred this man ... Perhaps the team of workers were looting the place I really hate this attitude, this feeling of superiority that because you're in a poorer country and you're rich and entitled you jus…

I agree but think the only issue here is the use of the word “bribe.” Some places have a culture of paying “grease money” to get things done. This is common behavior in poor areas with little tourism simply because no formal system for officially visiting exists and people do not earn enough to survive. These small payments are not seen as “bribes” in the western sense. For example I just visited Guinea in Western Af…

Tribune?

Re: Cuba’s Unfinished Nuclear Power Station

#80

Post by actionfromafar »

0xDEF wrote: post #52
nivenkos wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putin is the chosen successor of Yeltsin, who was backed by the USA. I wouldn't pin the current state of Russia on the USSR - the Orthodox Church, etc. have far more influence. Your point is definitely true for the psuedo-occupied countries like Romania, Poland, the DDR, etc. though. My point wasn't to defend the USSR but that we need competition to drive progress. For example now the EU has almost none of its own in…

>Yeltsin, who was backed by the USA Russian victimhood is so tiring. You forget the part where they blame Bill Clinton for causing child prostitution in 1990s Russia. The "US caused 1990s Russian chaos" narrative is based on an 1996 IMF loan and Yeltsin hiring American political marketers for his 1996 reelection campaign. But by 1996 Russia was already in utter chaos. In 1996 Russia asked for a peanut $10 billion IMF…

Not exactly caused, but the voucher privatisation was under western influence.

However, the stage was set for total chaos already in the 80s when the komsomol money laundering loophole opened.

It feels like USSR / Russia took so many bad turns in the late 80s early 90s.

You can’t blame western yuppies for creating chaos when you explicitly import them to administer “shock therapy”.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Russia

Post reply on HN