5 ms·

Don't get so excited comrade. Renewable does not mean clean. It is mostly biomass, solar is still tiny % overall. We are making progress towards clean energy b

by chewz 7y ago

Don't get so excited comrade. Renewable does not mean clean. It is mostly biomass, solar is still tiny % overall. We are making progress towards clean energy but it is much slower then propaganda numbers. PS. Congrats to India...

rakoo 7y ago
Also, solar and wind for electricity is a disaster in terms of CO2. People ought to look at the real numbers before thinking that intermittent energies instead of nuclear are going to save us.
- ben_w 7y ago
  What is the basis for your claim? EROEI? I’m curious what those were, so I found these: Solar EROEI: 9-35 Wind EROEI: 20-50 Nuclear EROEI: 59-70 Which certainly looks great for nuclear (I do actually like nuclear in general), but is it actually important to be the best when it’s high enough to be economic?
  - rakoo 7y ago
    You have to compare comparable things: in this case the comparable metric that is actually useful is "be able produce N GW of electricity with a 10% variation over a 60 year timespan". If you count this you'll have to account for the fact that solar and wind are intermittent, which means you'll need batteries or a reliable electricity source, and that's _always_ fossil based (typically gas). You also have to account for the fact that the expected lifespan of batteries and panels is around 30 years, so you have to buy them twice. In the other side, a nuclear plant does provide a reliable current, has a long lifespan, and turns out to be cheaper. Even the GIEC says so: we won't be able to efficiently reduce our greenhouse gases without nuclear.
    - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
      Speaking of comparing things correctly, what's supplying the peak power in this nuclear alternative? Are you accounting for the cost of sufficiently overbuilding nuclear and/or storage? Mostly people seem to fixate on nuclear supplying the legendary "baseload" and leave all the other power as someone else's problem. And if you add in whatever supplies the power until the nuclear gets built (either solar and wind, which makes nuclear redundant or fossil, which makes it a non solution) then nuclear doesn't really pencil out.
      - rakoo 7y ago
        Nuclear today is surprisingly flexible, so it's totally feasible to use it not just for the baseload but for more, like 75% to 90% of the needed power. Hint: there's a country that has shown this as a viable solution. > And if you add in whatever supplies the power until the nuclear gets built I don't understand. Are you suggesting building a throwaway source of power until nuclear reactors are built ? That's not how things work. When there really isn't enough countries buy from neighbors. But I agree with your underlying point that building a plant takes a long time; that's why we need to stop being freaked out already and start building them, so we can get rid of all those coal plants.
        ZeroGravitas 7y ago
        You're referring to France, the government of which is planning to phase out nuclear in favour of wind and solar and projecting that it will save them billions. So they don't seem particularly convinced by your argument. They also are one of the largest power exporters in the world, which doesn't really scale up unless we start exporting power to mars. But regardless of those two separate fatal flaws, I don't think wind/solar advocates would be let off by nuclear advocates if they just handwaved away 10-25% of power and just ignored costs because the extra money would come from hidden subsidies to a nationalised energy sector so I don't see why the reverse isn't fair.
        rakoo 7y ago
        The problem is ecology isn't run by facts anymore, it is run by feelings. The French government will have spent 120 billion dollars to fund intermittent energies. All that money will reduce the nuclear part of the mix to replace it with another source that won't provide more than 10% of the electricity yet will pollute more. Even the Cour des Comptes is complaining that this is absurd and that money should have been spent elsewhere to have actual results (https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comptes-alerte-sur-le-cout-des-enr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comp... in french, didn't find other source).
    - benj111 7y ago
      There discussion today that addresses this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317168 "a reliable electricity source, and that's _always_ fossil based" Hydro, bio fuels? And don't forget that big nuclear reactor will need maintenance, so you'll need overprovisioning just like wind and solar. Ps "be able produce N GW of electricity with a 10% variation over a 60 year timespan" I know you're attempting to compare like with like, but there isn't any inherent reason why this should be the case. Just because the grid has been based on a certain model in the past, doesn't mean we can't use a different model in the future.
      - rakoo 7y ago
        Ok so you're actually saying that we should not only approve of those, but also pay to change a working grid ? When there's a perfectly vlaid and working solution ? If it ain't broke, shouldn't we not fix it ?
        benj111 7y ago
        It is broken, it relies on pumping tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere, so there does clearly need to be a fix. Should the fix be nuclear or something else? That's the question. Nuclear is expensive, slow to build, but worst of all, it doesn't have the political support. Personally I'm not against nuclear, you get someone to build it then I'll support it, but I don't want to spend time talking other people round to the idea when we could and should be doing something now.
        rakoo 7y ago
        Yep, here's the central point of contention: do we build nuclear that emits little CO2 but needs public support, or intermittent sources that pollutes tens of times more for an equivalent service ? Is the priority feel-goodness about what we're doing, or actually solving the problem ?
        benj111 7y ago
        Where's your figure for polluting ten times more? If this is all from (currently) dirty electric grids, then aren't you arguing against cleaning up the grid, because the grid is dirty? That doesn't seem to make much sense.
- iso1337 7y ago
  Source please. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_em... Solar is listed at 4x more and wind seems to be on par with nuclear. Both solar and wind are far better than the hydrocarbon alternatives. I used to be very pro nuclear but I think nuclear has a lot of hidden costs - very long ramp up time, long and expensive cleanups.
  - rakoo 7y ago
    Doesn't account for the technology needed to make solar and wind reliable, you won't get the same numbers. See some numbers in https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off-grid-solar-power.html https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off... > Both solar and wind are far better than the hydrocarbon alternatives. Agreed, of course. I'm only mentioning nuclear because people tend to think that merely replacing fossil with pv/wind is good enough. Not only is it not enough, it's also more expensive and barely getting us to the right track. Nuclear isn't perfect of course, but all things considered it's still better.
    - askvictor 7y ago
      Solar and wind are reliable, just not necessarily consistent. Aging coal plants are unreliable (they can and do fail without warning), compared to solar and wind, which run reliably when the sun is shining or wind is blowing, both of which can be predicted quite accurately for a few days.
      - rakoo 7y ago
        That's not the same meaning of reliable. What is usually meant is "can I trust this source to give me this amount of power at this time", or can I rely on it being available: fossil can, intermittent (by definition) can't. You need to look at the overall electricity generating system, not just the individual sources hoping they will seamlessly integrate in the grid with little changes.
Yetanfou 7y ago
> Renewable does not mean clean. It is mostly biomass... Biomass can be as 'clean' as you want it. The term is applicable to anything from a heap of sticks used to cook a pot of cassave to a combined biogas/gasifier plant which emits nothing but CO₂ and H₂O. Don't get scared by CO₂, it is 'clean' as long as it is part of a cycle.
- chewz 7y ago
  My friend works for Engie/GdF. They are importing coconut shells from Sumatra to France in order to fulfill biomass requirements in their power plants. This is nothing near to clean. It is just another absurd due to eco-regulations.
  - Yetanfou 7y ago
    No, that is a nonsensical construction comparable to what is being done in Stockholm where they import biomass from south America to fuel CHP (combined heat and power i.e. co-generation) systems, this in a country where biomass from forestry is abundant. The problem here does not lie with the use of biomass but with those who decide to implement it in such a way. Biomass works when there is a reliable fuel source in the form of forestry or agricultural waste, water treatment plant waste, sewage, etc. If you have to import biomass from the other side of the planet just to satisfy some 'green' requirement it is far better to use another power source - this being France I'd say nuclear power should be one of the first options.
    - gingabriska 7y ago
      And South America to Stockholm distance is covered by some dirty fuel.
      - skybrian 7y ago
        Bunker fuel is pretty horrible but shipping by water can be extremely efficient. Seems like you have to do the math to see which effect is more important?

by chewz 7y ago

rakoo 7y ago

Also, solar and wind for electricity is a disaster in terms of CO2. People ought to look at the real numbers before thinking that intermittent energies instead of nuclear are going to save us.

ben_w 7y ago
What is the basis for your claim? EROEI? I’m curious what those were, so I found these: Solar EROEI: 9-35 Wind EROEI: 20-50 Nuclear EROEI: 59-70 Which certainly looks great for nuclear (I do actually like nuclear in general), but is it actually important to be the best when it’s high enough to be economic?
- rakoo 7y ago
  You have to compare comparable things: in this case the comparable metric that is actually useful is "be able produce N GW of electricity with a 10% variation over a 60 year timespan". If you count this you'll have to account for the fact that solar and wind are intermittent, which means you'll need batteries or a reliable electricity source, and that's _always_ fossil based (typically gas). You also have to account for the fact that the expected lifespan of batteries and panels is around 30 years, so you have to buy them twice. In the other side, a nuclear plant does provide a reliable current, has a long lifespan, and turns out to be cheaper. Even the GIEC says so: we won't be able to efficiently reduce our greenhouse gases without nuclear.
  - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
    Speaking of comparing things correctly, what's supplying the peak power in this nuclear alternative? Are you accounting for the cost of sufficiently overbuilding nuclear and/or storage? Mostly people seem to fixate on nuclear supplying the legendary "baseload" and leave all the other power as someone else's problem. And if you add in whatever supplies the power until the nuclear gets built (either solar and wind, which makes nuclear redundant or fossil, which makes it a non solution) then nuclear doesn't really pencil out.
    - rakoo 7y ago
      Nuclear today is surprisingly flexible, so it's totally feasible to use it not just for the baseload but for more, like 75% to 90% of the needed power. Hint: there's a country that has shown this as a viable solution. > And if you add in whatever supplies the power until the nuclear gets built I don't understand. Are you suggesting building a throwaway source of power until nuclear reactors are built ? That's not how things work. When there really isn't enough countries buy from neighbors. But I agree with your underlying point that building a plant takes a long time; that's why we need to stop being freaked out already and start building them, so we can get rid of all those coal plants.
      - ZeroGravitas 7y ago
        You're referring to France, the government of which is planning to phase out nuclear in favour of wind and solar and projecting that it will save them billions. So they don't seem particularly convinced by your argument. They also are one of the largest power exporters in the world, which doesn't really scale up unless we start exporting power to mars. But regardless of those two separate fatal flaws, I don't think wind/solar advocates would be let off by nuclear advocates if they just handwaved away 10-25% of power and just ignored costs because the extra money would come from hidden subsidies to a nationalised energy sector so I don't see why the reverse isn't fair.
        rakoo 7y ago
        The problem is ecology isn't run by facts anymore, it is run by feelings. The French government will have spent 120 billion dollars to fund intermittent energies. All that money will reduce the nuclear part of the mix to replace it with another source that won't provide more than 10% of the electricity yet will pollute more. Even the Cour des Comptes is complaining that this is absurd and that money should have been spent elsewhere to have actual results (https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comptes-alerte-sur-le-cout-des-enr/ https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/huet/2018/04/19/la-cour-des-comp... in french, didn't find other source).
  - benj111 7y ago
    There discussion today that addresses this. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317168 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20317168 "a reliable electricity source, and that's _always_ fossil based" Hydro, bio fuels? And don't forget that big nuclear reactor will need maintenance, so you'll need overprovisioning just like wind and solar. Ps "be able produce N GW of electricity with a 10% variation over a 60 year timespan" I know you're attempting to compare like with like, but there isn't any inherent reason why this should be the case. Just because the grid has been based on a certain model in the past, doesn't mean we can't use a different model in the future.
    - rakoo 7y ago
      Ok so you're actually saying that we should not only approve of those, but also pay to change a working grid ? When there's a perfectly vlaid and working solution ? If it ain't broke, shouldn't we not fix it ?
      - benj111 7y ago
        It is broken, it relies on pumping tonnes of co2 into the atmosphere, so there does clearly need to be a fix. Should the fix be nuclear or something else? That's the question. Nuclear is expensive, slow to build, but worst of all, it doesn't have the political support. Personally I'm not against nuclear, you get someone to build it then I'll support it, but I don't want to spend time talking other people round to the idea when we could and should be doing something now.
        rakoo 7y ago
        Yep, here's the central point of contention: do we build nuclear that emits little CO2 but needs public support, or intermittent sources that pollutes tens of times more for an equivalent service ? Is the priority feel-goodness about what we're doing, or actually solving the problem ?
        benj111 7y ago
        Where's your figure for polluting ten times more? If this is all from (currently) dirty electric grids, then aren't you arguing against cleaning up the grid, because the grid is dirty? That doesn't seem to make much sense.
iso1337 7y ago
Source please. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_em... Solar is listed at 4x more and wind seems to be on par with nuclear. Both solar and wind are far better than the hydrocarbon alternatives. I used to be very pro nuclear but I think nuclear has a lot of hidden costs - very long ramp up time, long and expensive cleanups.
- rakoo 7y ago
  Doesn't account for the technology needed to make solar and wind reliable, you won't get the same numbers. See some numbers in https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off-grid-solar-power.html https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/05/sustainability-off... > Both solar and wind are far better than the hydrocarbon alternatives. Agreed, of course. I'm only mentioning nuclear because people tend to think that merely replacing fossil with pv/wind is good enough. Not only is it not enough, it's also more expensive and barely getting us to the right track. Nuclear isn't perfect of course, but all things considered it's still better.
  - askvictor 7y ago
    Solar and wind are reliable, just not necessarily consistent. Aging coal plants are unreliable (they can and do fail without warning), compared to solar and wind, which run reliably when the sun is shining or wind is blowing, both of which can be predicted quite accurately for a few days.
    - rakoo 7y ago
      That's not the same meaning of reliable. What is usually meant is "can I trust this source to give me this amount of power at this time", or can I rely on it being available: fossil can, intermittent (by definition) can't. You need to look at the overall electricity generating system, not just the individual sources hoping they will seamlessly integrate in the grid with little changes.

Yetanfou 7y ago

> Renewable does not mean clean. It is mostly biomass... Biomass can be as 'clean' as you want it. The term is applicable to anything from a heap of sticks used to cook a pot of cassave to a combined biogas/gasifier plant which emits nothing but CO₂ and H₂O. Don't get scared by CO₂, it is 'clean' as long as it is part of a cycle.

chewz 7y ago
My friend works for Engie/GdF. They are importing coconut shells from Sumatra to France in order to fulfill biomass requirements in their power plants. This is nothing near to clean. It is just another absurd due to eco-regulations.
- Yetanfou 7y ago
  No, that is a nonsensical construction comparable to what is being done in Stockholm where they import biomass from south America to fuel CHP (combined heat and power i.e. co-generation) systems, this in a country where biomass from forestry is abundant. The problem here does not lie with the use of biomass but with those who decide to implement it in such a way. Biomass works when there is a reliable fuel source in the form of forestry or agricultural waste, water treatment plant waste, sewage, etc. If you have to import biomass from the other side of the planet just to satisfy some 'green' requirement it is far better to use another power source - this being France I'd say nuclear power should be one of the first options.
  - gingabriska 7y ago
    And South America to Stockholm distance is covered by some dirty fuel.
    - skybrian 7y ago
      Bunker fuel is pretty horrible but shipping by water can be extremely efficient. Seems like you have to do the math to see which effect is more important?