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

It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 125 posts

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#81

Post by femto »

audunw wrote: post #21
hannasanarion wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it wouldn't, because nuclear isn't reactive enough to produce energy to match the extreme afternoon demand curves when solar capacity drops and demand jumps. To account for those rapid jumps in non-renewable demand, you need an energy source that can ramp up really fast on short notice, like hydrocarbon fire.

> like hydrocarbon fire. Or batteries and other storage methods. It looks like battery solutions could get cheap enough in the next 10-20 years to smooth things out and take care of storage for a few hours (see for instance http://news.mit.edu/2018/metal-mesh-membrane-rechargeable-ba... .. Donald Sadoway has some good talks on YouTube) But yeah, for days that happen to have less wind/solar, I think the best thing is…

AGL in Australia is looking to turn disused coal mines into pumped storage.

https://www.agl.com.au/about-agl/media-centre/asx-and-media-...

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#82

Post by cma »

mikece wrote: post #2

"[Wind and solar are] even close to being competitive with the marginal costs of running the coal and nuclear plants we already have." Is that still true without incentives, green grants, rebates, and tax credits? Because without all of that and with mountains of red tape nuclear still produces energy at the lowest cost, and without emitting any CO2.

>Is that still true without incentives

Are you sure you are accounting for Nuclear's extreme incentives? Nuclear as an industry gets its liability capped to around $12.6 billion, whereas there are plausible trillion dollar accident scenarios. It is as if you got free insurance and only had to pay insurance on paying the deductible.

The law was passed in 1957 partly because we wanted to subsidize nuclear proliferation and used byproducts from plants for weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear...

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#83

Post by danans »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #44
bluGill wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of storage needed is massive. 1000s of hoover dams (including the lakes on both sides) for example. Batteries might work, but so far they haven't scaled that large.

It's about 6000 Tesla Megapacks [1] for the entire US, roughly 20 square miles of land use. "Using Megapack, Tesla can deploy an emissions-free 250 MW, 1 GWh power plant in less than three months on a three-acre footprint – four times faster than a traditional fossil fuel power plant of that size. Megapack can also be DC-connected directly to solar, creating seamless renewable energy plants." We need more Gigafactori…

You don't even need that many if you shift demand via distributed dispatchable loads, like electric hot water heaters and EVs.

Also does your figure of 6000 Megapacks derive from total electricity consumption in the US, or just base load?

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#84

Post by austhrow743 »

air7 wrote: post #28

I don't understand the hype around wind and solar. Or rather I don't see how these technologies can ever be anything more than a minor player in the energy market: These technologies are extremely sensitive to weather conditions which means that other, more stable sources must exist and have "stand by" production cap to produce all the energy these tech won't under bad conditions. If so, what's the point? (I mean in…

>what am I missing?

Unreasonable optimism about battery technology/cost.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#85

Post by nerpderp82 »

keanzu wrote: post #74
dredmorbius wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't scale. Not enough sites. Mind, where it does work, it's phenomenally effective, efficient, and responsive. There are a few sites at which seawater-based systems might be possible, in which the ocean forms the "lower reservoir". These are dependent on suitable terrain. Matching terrain to consumption patterns is difficult: the Netherlands and much of Britain are sorely lacking. Some of the best potential sites…

> Doesn't scale. Not enough sites. Terrible energy density, massive land use. To store the energy contained in 1 gallon of gasoline requires over 55,000 gallons to be pumped up 726 feet (CCST 2012). [1] Itaipu Dam has 14,000 MW installed power, 1,350 square kilometres (520 sq mi) were flooded. [2] [1] http://energyskeptic.com/2015/hydropower-has-a-very-low-ener... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam

Pumped hydro is 70-80% efficient at storing energy. [1]

Converting to sensible units gives

mass = 55e3 * 3.79kg/gallon ~ 208450kg

height = 221 meters

mass * height * 9.8m/s^2 ~ 452043210 joules (watt-seconds)

or 125KwH, 70% of that is 87KwH. What does gasoline have to do with energy storage on the grid? Furthermore, a gallon of gas has 33KwH [2].

What does the Itaipu Dam's installed power have to do with stored energy?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#86

Post by nerpderp82 »

dredmorbius wrote: post #68
nerpderp82 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Energy storage isn't really feasible You couldn't be more Dam wrong.

Doesn't scale. Not enough sites. Mind, where it does work, it's phenomenally effective, efficient, and responsive. There are a few sites at which seawater-based systems might be possible, in which the ocean forms the "lower reservoir". These are dependent on suitable terrain. Matching terrain to consumption patterns is difficult: the Netherlands and much of Britain are sorely lacking. Some of the best potential sites…

Does it have to scale? What does scaling mean? Could the existing 2400 dams in the United States be used for PSH? [1]

How many sites do we need? Why would the Netherlands need pumped hydro, isn't the European grid interconnected?

See my comment below.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2018/04/f51/Hydropow...

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#87

Post by bjourne »

mikece wrote: post #2

"[Wind and solar are] even close to being competitive with the marginal costs of running the coal and nuclear plants we already have." Is that still true without incentives, green grants, rebates, and tax credits? Because without all of that and with mountains of red tape nuclear still produces energy at the lowest cost, and without emitting any CO2.

Almost all recent cost studies put the cost of wind and solar far below the cost of new nuclear power. See f.e:

"The cost of generating solar power ranges from $36 to $44 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at $29–$56 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between $112 and $189."

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower/nucle...

"Onshore generation costs, at the upper bound installed cost of $2,000/kW, vary from $101/MWh at 6m/s, down to $55/MWh at 9m/s.

At the median cost of $1,600/kW, the corresponding figures are $80/MWh and $44/MWh.

At the lower-bound installed cost of $1,200/kW and a wind speed of 6m/s, the generation cost is $59/MWh, falling to $38/MWh at 8m/s.

... Apart from gas, wind now has no other competitor among fossil-fuel sources. There have been no new nuclear developments, leaving the UK price for its Hinkley Point C power station as a benchmark, at around $130/MWh in 2017 money."

https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1455361/tipping-poi...

"According to the US Energy Information Agency, the average nuclear power generating cost is about $100 per megawatt-hour. Compare this with $50 per megawatt-hour for solar and $30 to $40 per megawatt-hour for onshore wind."

https://thebulletin.org/2019/08/the-false-promise-of-nuclear...

See also: https://www.lazard.com/media/450784/lazards-levelized-cost-o... and https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation..... In the last report the cost for advanced nuclear is estimated to between $75.1 - $81.2/mWh and to $38.9 - $72.9/mwH for onshore wind.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#88

Post by bjourne »

tofflos wrote: post #36
mikece wrote: post #2

"[Wind and solar are] even close to being competitive with the marginal costs of running the coal and nuclear plants we already have." Is that still true without incentives, green grants, rebates, and tax credits? Because without all of that and with mountains of red tape nuclear still produces energy at the lowest cost, and without emitting any CO2.

Not according to the article. Unsubsidized solar and wind are both listed as $40 while coal and nuclear are listed as $34 and $29 respectively. The article also mentions that increased solar and wind necessitates batteries but doesn't list a price for those. > "In the case of both utility-scale solar and onshore wind power, this rate has dropped to about $40 per megawatt hour..." > "With government subsidies, the ave…

For nuclear and coal, the costs are for continuing to operate existing plants - not building new ones. Plants from the 70's and 80's will require extensive repairs and upgrades and if you factor in those costs, wind and solar becomes cheaper.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#89

Post by bjourne »

air7 wrote: post #28

I don't understand the hype around wind and solar. Or rather I don't see how these technologies can ever be anything more than a minor player in the energy market: These technologies are extremely sensitive to weather conditions which means that other, more stable sources must exist and have "stand by" production cap to produce all the energy these tech won't under bad conditions. If so, what's the point? (I mean in…

Do you know about the law of large numbers? Basically it says that in the long run "things even out." Suppose you flip a coin 100 times. It can happen that you only get one heads in those 100 flips, but would you worry about it?

In my city the electric scooter companies have carpet bombed the city centre with their vehicles. When I'm downtown can I be certain that one is available to take me from place A to B? I can't and in the worst case I'll have to walk a block to find one to ride on. Big deal.

The electricity grid works the same. It doesn't matter if one wind farm isn't producing because there are so many of them. As long as the total output from them is big enough. Think of it like a RAID system.

Re: It can make more sense to build new renewable capacity than run old coal plants

#90

Post by credit_guy »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #66
08-15 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost for dealing with the spent fuel isn't externalized. The problem is that the government promised to deal with the waste, charged a fee for doing so, forbade utilities from dealing with the waste themselves (Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982), and then... did nothing. That little bit of waste can be dealt with, and comparatively cheaply. Think about it, you can produce 8TWh of electricity, sell it for maybe $40…

> Don't blame the industry for a dysfunctional government. The Utilizes got exactly what they wanted from the government in this case. Complete externalization of the problem for a nominal fee. The government also capped their liability so they could buy insurance. No insurance, no financing.

> Complete externalization of the problem for a nominal fee.

If you call $750MM/year a nominal fee, your definition of nominal is maybe a bit non-standard?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Waste_Policy_Act#Nucle...

Post reply on HN