4 ms·

Renewables are cheap when they make up a small percentage of total power generation. Solar is cheap when it's only providing supplemental power during the day,

Renewables are cheap when they make up a small percentage of total power generation. Solar is cheap when it's only providing supplemental power during the day, same with wind. Using them as a primary source of energy requires staggering amounts of storage, and proposals to fulfill these demands exist either on paper or in the form of prototypes 4-5 orders of magnitude smaller than what is required. I've repeatedly [1] [2] addressed the shortcomings of your assumption that hydrogen will deliver low cost storage, in particular electrolysis and compression remains only ~30-40% efficient, underground storage is not widespread, and existing infrastructure to transport and storage methane cannot be used for hydrogen. At this point, claiming renewables + storage is a solution to decarbonizing the economy is analogous to saying fusion is a solution. Yes, it's possible and we are familiar with the physics of how to make it work. And if it works, then yes it's a good solution. But it doesn't currently work, and it's unknown whether or not it will work in the foreseeable future. Technology that's 10-20 years away tends to stay 10-20 years a way for much loner than 10-20 years. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23735379 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23735379 2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24619197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24619197

pfdietz 6y ago
Renewables have lower LCoE. Intermittency adds a cost, but the add is finite, and if the LCoE difference is large enough they beat nuclear. You will notice hardly anyone is building nuclear power plants. They can see the writing on the wall. As renewables and storage technologies continue to get cheaper, nuclear will be pushed aside. Yes, you've repeatedly claimed I'm wrong. You're the one who is wrong. Your objections are spurious, as I've repeatedly explained.
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  > You will notice hardly anyone is building nuclear power plants If by "hardly anyone" you mean "most of the world" [1]. Most of the world by population lives in a country building nuclear power. This claim is throughly divorced from reality. > Yes, you've repeatedly claimed I'm wrong. You're the one who is wrong. Your objections are spurious, as I've repeatedly explained. Yet you neglect to actually point out any such inaccuracies, just insist I'm wrong without any specific criticism. Meanwhile, I've actually pointed out which of your claims are false: the notion that we can use existing hydrogen infrastructure ignoring the problems of hydrogen corrosion, assuming that underground hydrogen storage is ubiquitous, and trusting highly optimistic claims on the efficiency of electrolysis. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#/media/File%3ANuclear_power_station.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#/me...
  - pfdietz 6y ago
    > If by "hardly anyone" you mean "most of the world" [1]. You mean, 19 countries? Maybe if you go by population. In many cases, the reasons for building reactors are clearly not because it's cheapest (UAE, I'm looking at you). There's clear regret in the US about Vogtle and Summer, and in France about Flamanville. (For that matter, in India about the cost overruns on their latest Russian PWRs.) > Yet you neglect to actually point out any such inaccuracies, just insist I'm wrong without any specific criticism. Go to those links you provided, where I refuted your cavalcade of bogus arguments. You seem to think that concatenating a series of invalid claims somehow turns that into a valid claim. The technique you were employing is well known, it's called a "Gish Gallop". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
    - Manfredo_1 6y ago
      I've refuted each and every one of your claims about the feasibility of hydrogen storage. For the second time, you claim that my claims are invalid, without actually specifying what's invalid and why. You claim to have explained why my criticisms are wrong, but you've done no such thing. In the more recent thread, you insist we have experience manipulating hydrogen at great scale. But I point out we actually have 2,000 times less hydrogen infrastructure. And I point out that 6% of natural gas production used for hydrogen production isn't all that impressive because most of it is used for heating, only a fraction of it is actually used in the steam reformation process. Explaining that our hydrogen infrastructure is orders of magnitude smaller than our natural gas infrastructure, you go silent. This hardly looks like a refutation. If you want to actually refute any of my claims please do so. But you're just insisting I'm wrong without even bothering to specific what I'm wrong about.
reitzensteinm 6y ago
Your "repeated" refutations include a claim of $1400 per kWh-year of hydrogen storage with a link to a report [1]. That seemed way too high for me so I grabbed the report - which, by the way, argues that hydrogen is economical for storage of spilled wind - and have no idea where you got this figure from. It appears you've mixed up kW and kWh at the very least. The figure you're reading also appears to include the cost of buying the electricity at market rates, which is shown to not be economical. But it isn't what parent argued for, and you explicitly state it does not include. Reading further in to the report, it breaks down the capital cost of a hydrogen system minus storage at $550/kW, and notes the very low cost of underground storage at large scales (for smaller scales, it argues for using tanks and being geographically independent). So you disagreed with parent, threw out a nonsensical figure and linked to a report as proof that agrees with them, not you. And hey, it looks like someone informed you of your mistake 3 months ago [2], which you didn't bother to reply to or correct yourself. This is a repeated theme with your accounts (your main and your sockpuppet). Every time I dig in to the numbers you throw out I get a sour taste in my mouth that you've caused me to waste my time. I believe that you are arguing in bad faith, cherry picking whatever numbers you can find, in context or not, to make a pro nuclear case. Which is a bit sad, because I think there are still strong (but dwindling) cases to be made for nuclear. [1] https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi/2011/114845.pdf https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23741288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23741288
- Manfredo_1 6y ago
  Capital cost is the initial cost to build this system. The figure for comes from figure 14. The cost estimates are $3,000 with current technology. This works out to $500 per KWh 20 years system. To match the lifespan of a nuclear plant (typically 60 to 80 years), this works out to $1,500 to $2,000 per KWh when factoring the limited life span of the storage. Regarding the reply with no response, timestamps get more coarse grained the further in the past you get. This reply could easily be weeks after my initial comment, and I would have explained how I arrived at these figures if I has read it. Meanwhile, glaring inaccuracies like calming that existing natural gas infrastructure can be used to transport hydrogen go unmentioned. Or that "hardly anyone is building nuclear" when in fact most of the world by population is. And if we're talking about cherry-picking pfdietz incessantly cherry picks the Vogtle and Flamanville plants as though they're representative of historic nuclear costs. You arrive at the conclusion that I'm arguing in bad faith, while conveniently ignoring these issues with the claims I'm arguing against. This exchange makes me sad, too. Solar and wind serve as useful temporary mitigation of carbon output, even though they don't pave a way to full decarbonization. A hydrogen economy has a place to fulfill demand where energy density is necessary, like in transportation. But trying to advocate pipe-dream projects like storing tens of terawatt hours worth of energy in hydrogen really makes me wonder whether solar and wind advocates really have a grasp on the engineering challenges they're facing. Especially when these plans rest on outright falsehoods, like the claim that we can using existing natural gas pipes for hydrogen.

pfdietz 6y ago

Renewables have lower LCoE. Intermittency adds a cost, but the add is finite, and if the LCoE difference is large enough they beat nuclear. You will notice hardly anyone is building nuclear power plants. They can see the writing on the wall. As renewables and storage technologies continue to get cheaper, nuclear will be pushed aside. Yes, you've repeatedly claimed I'm wrong. You're the one who is wrong. Your objections are spurious, as I've repeatedly explained.

Manfredo_1 6y ago
> You will notice hardly anyone is building nuclear power plants If by "hardly anyone" you mean "most of the world" [1]. Most of the world by population lives in a country building nuclear power. This claim is throughly divorced from reality. > Yes, you've repeatedly claimed I'm wrong. You're the one who is wrong. Your objections are spurious, as I've repeatedly explained. Yet you neglect to actually point out any such inaccuracies, just insist I'm wrong without any specific criticism. Meanwhile, I've actually pointed out which of your claims are false: the notion that we can use existing hydrogen infrastructure ignoring the problems of hydrogen corrosion, assuming that underground hydrogen storage is ubiquitous, and trusting highly optimistic claims on the efficiency of electrolysis. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#/media/File%3ANuclear_power_station.svg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_by_country#/me...
- pfdietz 6y ago
  > If by "hardly anyone" you mean "most of the world" [1]. You mean, 19 countries? Maybe if you go by population. In many cases, the reasons for building reactors are clearly not because it's cheapest (UAE, I'm looking at you). There's clear regret in the US about Vogtle and Summer, and in France about Flamanville. (For that matter, in India about the cost overruns on their latest Russian PWRs.) > Yet you neglect to actually point out any such inaccuracies, just insist I'm wrong without any specific criticism. Go to those links you provided, where I refuted your cavalcade of bogus arguments. You seem to think that concatenating a series of invalid claims somehow turns that into a valid claim. The technique you were employing is well known, it's called a "Gish Gallop". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
  - Manfredo_1 6y ago
    I've refuted each and every one of your claims about the feasibility of hydrogen storage. For the second time, you claim that my claims are invalid, without actually specifying what's invalid and why. You claim to have explained why my criticisms are wrong, but you've done no such thing. In the more recent thread, you insist we have experience manipulating hydrogen at great scale. But I point out we actually have 2,000 times less hydrogen infrastructure. And I point out that 6% of natural gas production used for hydrogen production isn't all that impressive because most of it is used for heating, only a fraction of it is actually used in the steam reformation process. Explaining that our hydrogen infrastructure is orders of magnitude smaller than our natural gas infrastructure, you go silent. This hardly looks like a refutation. If you want to actually refute any of my claims please do so. But you're just insisting I'm wrong without even bothering to specific what I'm wrong about.

reitzensteinm 6y ago

Your "repeated" refutations include a claim of $1400 per kWh-year of hydrogen storage with a link to a report [1]. That seemed way too high for me so I grabbed the report - which, by the way, argues that hydrogen is economical for storage of spilled wind - and have no idea where you got this figure from. It appears you've mixed up kW and kWh at the very least. The figure you're reading also appears to include the cost of buying the electricity at market rates, which is shown to not be economical. But it isn't what parent argued for, and you explicitly state it does not include. Reading further in to the report, it breaks down the capital cost of a hydrogen system minus storage at $550/kW, and notes the very low cost of underground storage at large scales (for smaller scales, it argues for using tanks and being geographically independent). So you disagreed with parent, threw out a nonsensical figure and linked to a report as proof that agrees with them, not you. And hey, it looks like someone informed you of your mistake 3 months ago [2], which you didn't bother to reply to or correct yourself. This is a repeated theme with your accounts (your main and your sockpuppet). Every time I dig in to the numbers you throw out I get a sour taste in my mouth that you've caused me to waste my time. I believe that you are arguing in bad faith, cherry picking whatever numbers you can find, in context or not, to make a pro nuclear case. Which is a bit sad, because I think there are still strong (but dwindling) cases to be made for nuclear. [1] https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi/2011/114845.pdf https://prod-ng.sandia.gov/techlib-noauth/access-control.cgi... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23741288 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23741288

Manfredo_1 6y ago
Capital cost is the initial cost to build this system. The figure for comes from figure 14. The cost estimates are $3,000 with current technology. This works out to $500 per KWh 20 years system. To match the lifespan of a nuclear plant (typically 60 to 80 years), this works out to $1,500 to $2,000 per KWh when factoring the limited life span of the storage. Regarding the reply with no response, timestamps get more coarse grained the further in the past you get. This reply could easily be weeks after my initial comment, and I would have explained how I arrived at these figures if I has read it. Meanwhile, glaring inaccuracies like calming that existing natural gas infrastructure can be used to transport hydrogen go unmentioned. Or that "hardly anyone is building nuclear" when in fact most of the world by population is. And if we're talking about cherry-picking pfdietz incessantly cherry picks the Vogtle and Flamanville plants as though they're representative of historic nuclear costs. You arrive at the conclusion that I'm arguing in bad faith, while conveniently ignoring these issues with the claims I'm arguing against. This exchange makes me sad, too. Solar and wind serve as useful temporary mitigation of carbon output, even though they don't pave a way to full decarbonization. A hydrogen economy has a place to fulfill demand where energy density is necessary, like in transportation. But trying to advocate pipe-dream projects like storing tens of terawatt hours worth of energy in hydrogen really makes me wonder whether solar and wind advocates really have a grasp on the engineering challenges they're facing. Especially when these plans rest on outright falsehoods, like the claim that we can using existing natural gas pipes for hydrogen.