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

In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

e360.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

701–710 of 809 posts

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#701

Post by myrmidon »

throwaway_20357 wrote: post #662
clarionbell wrote: post #600

Meanwhile European chemical manufacturing is collapsing under weight of record energy costs.[1][2] Most of other manufacturing is somehow tied to chemicals, you can't build things without material after all. So this will feed ongoing industrial collapse, which now affects even Germany.[3] Meanwhile, low income households are running into financial issues if they want to turn up the heat.[4] The whole process has been…

Why "abundant cheap energy is a key requirement to survive in today's globalized markets" has not made it into the EU leaderships' mindset is beyond comprehension.

Because it's reductive bullshit.

Energy price is just one of many inputs for the viability of industry.

Availability of (educated) labor, wage level, infrastructure, political stability and a ton of other factors are at least as if not more important.

Why should we keep tolerating irreversible damage to planet/climate just to keep costs/prices low? If you can't produce some shit sustainably because that makes it too expensive, then maybe it should not get produced in the first place?

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#702

Post by Tor3 »

a_paddy wrote: post #603
black_puppydog wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice link, thanks! Still, the renewables (I'm not counting nuclear and biofuels, but counting hydro and "other renewables") make up 21.1% of the total energy consumption as well, up from 13.3% in 2015. That's still quite marked. Also after clicking the "settings" button to show absolute values, I was surprised to see that total energy consumption peaked in 2006 (hey, that's 20 years ago!) at ~18,900TWh, and is now at…

Do not underestimate the impact of transitioning from incandescent to LED lighting. An average home could be consuming 1Kw for lighting alone at busy times.

Where heating is needed, and where heating is done by electricity, changing to LED lighting indoors don't make any difference whatsoever. Unless your main heating source is a heat pump. In my home there's a heat pump upstairs, but not downstairs. All the lights downstairs are now LED, but the only effect that has is monetary - LED lights are way more expensive, and contrary to claims, don't last longer either. But these days LED is the only option available when buying.

Heat pumps though.. they really save a lot of electricity. Very visible on my electricity bill.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#703

Post by natmaka »

triceratops wrote: post #689
natmaka wrote: post #673

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Decentralizing through subsidies Consider the lower production cost of renewable electricity: in the long run, it offsets the investment. Bonus: no risk of accidents, no hazardous waste, no dependence on a fuel source, no weapons proliferation...

I didn't say subsidize nuclear. I said subsidize grid-scale solar before rooftop solar.

Indeed, sorry.

Decentralizing solar power reduces electricity transmission costs and improves reliability. This doesn't offset the additional cost, but it's not negligible.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#704

Post by natmaka »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #695
natmaka wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Strategically, if nuclear power experiences a resurgence, procuring uranium could become difficult because the superpowers (Russia, China, and the US) will want to reserve it for themselves, and corresponding efforts have already begun. The majority of nuclear-producing nations (Australia, Canada, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, etc.) will immediately comply. Wind and sun, however, cannot be confiscated or withheld by blocka…

There is so much uranium in the ground (in the west too) that it doesn’t make sense to ”keep it” for yourself. Why would Russia wanna keep a supply for the next one million years instead of selling it and get money today? Same with all other countries with uranium.

Regarding known and exploited or rapidly exploitable deposits, we are very, very far from millions of years: "As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply"

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Peak_uranium

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#705

Post by Tor3 »

nandomrumber wrote: post #583
korhojoa wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confident talk, but that's not at all the reality that I'm seeing. Public transport is almost completely electric powered where I live (ferries still haven't changed to electric, but it's coming.) Trucking is electrified, as in, the operators have realzed that they're cheaper to run, so they are changing over when possible. (Sidenote: with some of the heaviest loads worldwide) Very many agricultural buildings in acti…

> not at all the reality that I'm seeing. You’re not looking hard enough, past the greenwash.

What was listed by the poster you replied to are genuine real facts, so the one who should look harder is you, in this case.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#706

Post by ben_w »

zdragnar wrote: post #520
jacquesm wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anywhere you use resistive heating you're better off with a heatpump which is far more efficient than that.

Unless you live somewhere that (air, e.g. in an EV) heat pumps can't function at high efficiency. Tonight and tomorrow night will be -20F/-28C. Always good to have a backup plan, no matter what your primary heat source is.

My area doesn't get that cold, but the insulation is so good that last year we accidentally turned the heat off for a week without noticing despite it snowing outside; our "backup" was our own body heat plus the waste heat from our normal electricity consumption (which also isn't high).

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#707

Post by benjymo »

clarionbell wrote: post #600

Meanwhile European chemical manufacturing is collapsing under weight of record energy costs.[1][2] Most of other manufacturing is somehow tied to chemicals, you can't build things without material after all. So this will feed ongoing industrial collapse, which now affects even Germany.[3] Meanwhile, low income households are running into financial issues if they want to turn up the heat.[4] The whole process has been…

There's a recent case of Wacker. They tried to build their own windpark in Germany but this got shot down by residents. Now they are moving to a chinese industrial area that is connected to windparks and battery storage providing cheap energy.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#708

Post by ben_w »

WarmWash wrote: post #382
mekdoonggi wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I am aware. Which means that if China takes over political control of Taiwan and says, "We will still sell chips just like normal to everyone except the US". Would the rest of the world decide to go to war with China for the political freedom of Taiwan?

Taiwan will burn (explosive demolition) the fabs before China gets them. This is baked into their defense plan and made known to China.

While I do know this is the plan in the event of an invasion, I don't know what to expect in the event of a blockade.

"Let the food and oil in or we will burn to the ground the only bargaining chip we have"… I just don't know how to model how credible a threat this is to either party.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#709

Post by jacquesm »

ben_w wrote: post #706
zdragnar wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you live somewhere that (air, e.g. in an EV) heat pumps can't function at high efficiency. Tonight and tomorrow night will be -20F/-28C. Always good to have a backup plan, no matter what your primary heat source is.

My area doesn't get that cold, but the insulation is so good that last year we accidentally turned the heat off for a week without noticing despite it snowing outside; our "backup" was our own body heat plus the waste heat from our normal electricity consumption (which also isn't high).

I've seen a demo house in Canada that had a bucket standing in the middle of a room with -20 outside. The bucket had been there all winter and it never froze, a single, huge candle warmed the house. It was most impressive. I never did figure out how enough oxygen made it in to keep that candle burning!

But it really made me realize that even though I'm used to brick houses and stone everywhere that that is a terrible thing efficiency wise. A properly insulated wooden house can indeed be heated almost by body heat and waste heat alone. The big loss is windows so triple insulated and properly mounted windows are a must for such a setup.

Re: In Europe, wind and solar overtake fossil fuels

#710

Post by benjymo »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #196

Solar with a modern LFP battery system is a no-brainer solution for 21st century energy infrastructure. The safety record beats pretty much everything else, and as long as the sun is out, it just works.

Don't forget wind.

For example in germany, wind is 31.4% of production, solar is 16.8%. For the EU it's 18.1% for wind and 11% for solar.

Wind is often producing more during the morning/night where solar falls short.

Post reply on HN