3 ms·

We need to build all forms of renewable energy and stop falling into the trap of "Build X not Y" where X and Y are one of solar/wind/hydro/nuclear. One form is

We need to build all forms of renewable energy and stop falling into the trap of "Build X not Y" where X and Y are one of solar/wind/hydro/nuclear. One form is insufficient. Nothing will get accomplished with this climate 'whataboutism' type of argument. (I'm making a comparison to whataboutism, I recognize the difference)

hannob 6y ago
When you have two solutions to a problem and one works very well and the other does not and only makes headlines with cost overruns and delays then surely you should "build X, not Y". I know a lot of HN readers don't like this, but the debate is over. Nuclear lost, renewables won. Get over it.
- White_Wolf 6y ago
  What makes you think this is a one solution problem? Very few things in life are black & white. Life comes in shades of gray and problems with multiple solutions(more or less optimal for the time when the decision is taken). Every type of energy comes with downsides: -Solar - storage and delivery infrastructure costs -Wind - same as above -Hydro - same as above + if you build many/too big you change the center of mass leading to changes in the planets rotation speed -Coal/gas/any fuel burned to produce energy - Usually cheaper than other to buil but produces a lot of pollution -Nuclear - Build cost + waste disposal Any kind of energy storage you use for any of the above will need to be recycled at some point. I would count this as a downside for any solution that requires storage to handle peak usage and can't be ramped up. Edit:Some typos(most likely missed some) and formatting
  - hannob 6y ago
    > What makes you think this is a one solution problem? I don't think that. I think Solar + Wind complement each other nicely. I think hydro can be good if the circumstances allow it. I think we'll need to explore a variety of storage technologies, better grids and demand side management to complement wind+solar. I just don't think that an extra expensive technology with plenty of problems is contributing anything.
    - willis936 6y ago
      All intermittent sources dependent on weather is not a diverse energy mix. Also, hydro is not only scarce but awful for the local habitat and extremely dangerous. An improper or unplanned decommissioning could kill millions of people.
- Hammershaft 6y ago
  Our current battery technology is just completely incapable of transitioning us to a %100 renewable grid at current costs and densities. Closing down nuclear plants and replacing them with a mix of renewables and lignite coal plants as we've seen in Germany has been both an ecological and economic disaster. Nuclear fission is a proven baseload power today, whereas getting renewables to cover baseload power globally requires technologies we haven't even invented yet, let alone mass manufactured. "A cost-optimal wind-solar mix with storage reaches cost-competitiveness with a nuclear fission plant providing baseload electricity at a cost of $0.075/kWh27 at an energy storage capacity cost of $10-20/kWh. To reach cost-competitiveness with a peaker natural gas plant at $0.077/kWh, energy storage capacity costs must instead fall below $5/kWh." https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 "The largest announced storage system, comprising more than 18,000 Li-ion batteries, is being built in Long Beach for Southern California Edison by AES Corp. When it’s completed, in 2021, it will be capable of running at 100 megawatts for 4 hours. But that energy total of 400 megawatt-hours is still two orders of magnitude lower than what a large Asian city would need if deprived of its intermittent supply. For example, just 2 GW for two days comes to 96 gigawatt-hours. We have to scale up storage, but how? Sodium-sulfur batteries have higher energy density than Li-ion ones, but hot liquid metal is a most inconvenient electrolyte. Flow batteries, which store energy directly in the electrolyte, are still in an early stage of deployment. Supercapacitors can’t provide electricity over a long enough time. And compressed air and flywheels, the perennial favorites of popular journalism, have made it into only a dozen or so small and midsize installations. We could use solar electricity to electrolyze water and store the hydrogen, but still, a hydrogen-based economy is not imminent. And so when going big we must still rely on a technology introduced in the 1890s: pumped storage. You build one reservoir high up, link it with pipes to another one lower down and use cheaper, nighttime electricity to pump water uphill so that it can turn turbines during times of peak demand. Pumped storage accounts for more than 99 percent of the world’s storage capacity, but inevitably, it entails energy loss on the order of 25 percent. Many installations have short-term capacities in excess of 1 GW—the largest one is about 3 GW—and more than one would be needed for a megacity completely dependent on solar and wind generation. But most megacities are nowhere near the steep escarpments or deep-cut mountain valleys you’d need for pumped storage. Many, including Shanghai, Kolkata, and Karachi, are on coastal plains. They could rely on pumped storage only if it were provided through long-distance transmission. The need for more compact, more flexible, larger-scale, less costly electricity storage is self-evident. But the miracle has been slow in coming." https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/batteries-need-t https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/batteries-need-t... "Given the magnitude of the battery material demand growth across all scenarios, global production capacity for Li, Co, and Ni (black lines in Fig. 3) will have to increase drastically (see Supplementary Tables 9 and 10). For Li and Co, demand could outgrow current production capacities even before 2025. For Ni, the situation appears to be less dramatic, although by 2040 EV batteries alone could consume as much as the global primary Ni production in 2019. Other battery materials could be supplied without exceeding existing production capacities (Supplementary Tables 9 and 10), although supplies may still have to increase to meet demands from other sectors5,9. The known reserves for Li, Ni, and Co (black lines in Fig. 4) could be depleted before 2050 in the SD scenario and for Co also in the STEP scenario. For all other materials known reserves exceed demand from EV batteries until 2050 (Supplementary Table 5). In 2019 around 64% of natural graphite and 64% of Si are produced in China32, which could create vulnerabilities to supply reliability." https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-020-00095-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-020-00095-x
- lucb1e 6y ago
  > a lot of HN readers don't like this, but the debate is over. [...] Get over it. Very dismissive, but I recognize your name as a German journalist, which explains a thing or two. (We share an acquaintance actually and I generally like your work in the security sphere.) I'm also living in Germany and the political environment is exactly like that: there's no point trying to change the public opinion which is wayyyyy negative about nuclear (to the point where many restaurants had stickers on the door "shut down <insert name of nearest plant>!" without being afraid of losing customers). But not everyone in the world is that level of misinformed. There is still a chance to save some emissions elsewhere in the world, even if it's administratively difficult because governments are usually elected for periods shorter than it takes to build, let alone operate and turn a profit on, one of these power plants. Doesn't mean that, with enough information about safety and proper cost calculations, some countries are still likely to vote a government into power that continues to permit the operation of a nuclear power plant within their borders. Let's not give up just yet. Or if you're personally against it, then just say so and bring real arguments instead of pretending everyone except HN is already against it.
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  > the debate is over. Nuclear lost, renewables won. Get over it. This is the level of understanding of Brexit voting stereotype.

hannob 6y ago

When you have two solutions to a problem and one works very well and the other does not and only makes headlines with cost overruns and delays then surely you should "build X, not Y". I know a lot of HN readers don't like this, but the debate is over. Nuclear lost, renewables won. Get over it.

White_Wolf 6y ago
What makes you think this is a one solution problem? Very few things in life are black & white. Life comes in shades of gray and problems with multiple solutions(more or less optimal for the time when the decision is taken). Every type of energy comes with downsides: -Solar - storage and delivery infrastructure costs -Wind - same as above -Hydro - same as above + if you build many/too big you change the center of mass leading to changes in the planets rotation speed -Coal/gas/any fuel burned to produce energy - Usually cheaper than other to buil but produces a lot of pollution -Nuclear - Build cost + waste disposal Any kind of energy storage you use for any of the above will need to be recycled at some point. I would count this as a downside for any solution that requires storage to handle peak usage and can't be ramped up. Edit:Some typos(most likely missed some) and formatting
- hannob 6y ago
  > What makes you think this is a one solution problem? I don't think that. I think Solar + Wind complement each other nicely. I think hydro can be good if the circumstances allow it. I think we'll need to explore a variety of storage technologies, better grids and demand side management to complement wind+solar. I just don't think that an extra expensive technology with plenty of problems is contributing anything.
  - willis936 6y ago
    All intermittent sources dependent on weather is not a diverse energy mix. Also, hydro is not only scarce but awful for the local habitat and extremely dangerous. An improper or unplanned decommissioning could kill millions of people.
Hammershaft 6y ago
Our current battery technology is just completely incapable of transitioning us to a %100 renewable grid at current costs and densities. Closing down nuclear plants and replacing them with a mix of renewables and lignite coal plants as we've seen in Germany has been both an ecological and economic disaster. Nuclear fission is a proven baseload power today, whereas getting renewables to cover baseload power globally requires technologies we haven't even invented yet, let alone mass manufactured. "A cost-optimal wind-solar mix with storage reaches cost-competitiveness with a nuclear fission plant providing baseload electricity at a cost of $0.075/kWh27 at an energy storage capacity cost of $10-20/kWh. To reach cost-competitiveness with a peaker natural gas plant at $0.077/kWh, energy storage capacity costs must instead fall below $5/kWh." https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 https://www.cell.com/joule/fulltext/S2542-4351(19)30300-9 "The largest announced storage system, comprising more than 18,000 Li-ion batteries, is being built in Long Beach for Southern California Edison by AES Corp. When it’s completed, in 2021, it will be capable of running at 100 megawatts for 4 hours. But that energy total of 400 megawatt-hours is still two orders of magnitude lower than what a large Asian city would need if deprived of its intermittent supply. For example, just 2 GW for two days comes to 96 gigawatt-hours. We have to scale up storage, but how? Sodium-sulfur batteries have higher energy density than Li-ion ones, but hot liquid metal is a most inconvenient electrolyte. Flow batteries, which store energy directly in the electrolyte, are still in an early stage of deployment. Supercapacitors can’t provide electricity over a long enough time. And compressed air and flywheels, the perennial favorites of popular journalism, have made it into only a dozen or so small and midsize installations. We could use solar electricity to electrolyze water and store the hydrogen, but still, a hydrogen-based economy is not imminent. And so when going big we must still rely on a technology introduced in the 1890s: pumped storage. You build one reservoir high up, link it with pipes to another one lower down and use cheaper, nighttime electricity to pump water uphill so that it can turn turbines during times of peak demand. Pumped storage accounts for more than 99 percent of the world’s storage capacity, but inevitably, it entails energy loss on the order of 25 percent. Many installations have short-term capacities in excess of 1 GW—the largest one is about 3 GW—and more than one would be needed for a megacity completely dependent on solar and wind generation. But most megacities are nowhere near the steep escarpments or deep-cut mountain valleys you’d need for pumped storage. Many, including Shanghai, Kolkata, and Karachi, are on coastal plains. They could rely on pumped storage only if it were provided through long-distance transmission. The need for more compact, more flexible, larger-scale, less costly electricity storage is self-evident. But the miracle has been slow in coming." https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/batteries-need-t https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/batteries-need-t... "Given the magnitude of the battery material demand growth across all scenarios, global production capacity for Li, Co, and Ni (black lines in Fig. 3) will have to increase drastically (see Supplementary Tables 9 and 10). For Li and Co, demand could outgrow current production capacities even before 2025. For Ni, the situation appears to be less dramatic, although by 2040 EV batteries alone could consume as much as the global primary Ni production in 2019. Other battery materials could be supplied without exceeding existing production capacities (Supplementary Tables 9 and 10), although supplies may still have to increase to meet demands from other sectors5,9. The known reserves for Li, Ni, and Co (black lines in Fig. 4) could be depleted before 2050 in the SD scenario and for Co also in the STEP scenario. For all other materials known reserves exceed demand from EV batteries until 2050 (Supplementary Table 5). In 2019 around 64% of natural graphite and 64% of Si are produced in China32, which could create vulnerabilities to supply reliability." https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-020-00095-x https://www.nature.com/articles/s43246-020-00095-x
lucb1e 6y ago
> a lot of HN readers don't like this, but the debate is over. [...] Get over it. Very dismissive, but I recognize your name as a German journalist, which explains a thing or two. (We share an acquaintance actually and I generally like your work in the security sphere.) I'm also living in Germany and the political environment is exactly like that: there's no point trying to change the public opinion which is wayyyyy negative about nuclear (to the point where many restaurants had stickers on the door "shut down <insert name of nearest plant>!" without being afraid of losing customers). But not everyone in the world is that level of misinformed. There is still a chance to save some emissions elsewhere in the world, even if it's administratively difficult because governments are usually elected for periods shorter than it takes to build, let alone operate and turn a profit on, one of these power plants. Doesn't mean that, with enough information about safety and proper cost calculations, some countries are still likely to vote a government into power that continues to permit the operation of a nuclear power plant within their borders. Let's not give up just yet. Or if you're personally against it, then just say so and bring real arguments instead of pretending everyone except HN is already against it.
robertlagrant 6y ago
> the debate is over. Nuclear lost, renewables won. Get over it. This is the level of understanding of Brexit voting stereotype.