9 ms·

Offshore wind is already extremely cheap. Way, way cheaper than nuclear and can get online much faster.

by greenthrow 4y ago

rcstank 4y ago
Do you have more info on this? I’d like to read up on it.
- hannob 4y ago
  Just a few starting points: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/08/price-offshore-wind-power-falls-cheapest-ever-level-uk https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/08/price-of... https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/09/29/vattenfall-steps-in-offshore-germany-matches-zero-subsidy-bid/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/09/29/vattenfall-steps-in-... https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/orsted-first-to-give-financial-green-light-to-zero-subsidy-german-offshore-wind/2-1-1110428 https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/orsted-first-to-give-finan...
  - 411111111111111 4y ago
    None of these are in the oceans i believe. Instead they're using a sea that's between UK and mainland europe It shouldn't be a deal breaker, but doing the same on oceanic water will have it's own challenges with significantly higher wind variance and more flotsam dangers
  - eldaisfish 4y ago
    You claim of offshore wind being “cheap” relies on data from the north sea. A region of: - no freezing water, no icebergs - few, low intensity storms - shallow seas (often less than 100 m) - surrounded by wealthy nations with large population centres The argument does not hold and does not transfer well.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Tade0 4y ago
  Behold, the Haliade X - 14MW offshore turbine which costs a little bit more than $14mln, but boasts a capacity factor of 60%+: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/09/21/rystad-energy-less-is-more-if-using-14-mw-turbines/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/09/21/rystad-energy-less-i...
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  https://www.irena.org/Publications/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2021 https://www.irena.org/Publications/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-... It's coming down. Though massive supply shortages and failure of a bunch of companies to hedge against commodity prices needed to fulfil budgets are going to be pretty rough for anyone who isn't China for a few years. Note how much more Japan's renewables cost than world median. The reasons aren't just policy -- Japan has ben dealt a uniquely terrible hand for renewables matched maybe by Slovak Republic (which at least has close allies to trade with).
tjansen 4y ago
Yes, but it either needs storage or fossil backup. Otherwise you can't compare wind, even offshore wind, with a reliable source of energy.
- KennyBlanken 4y ago
  Storage is a solved problem. Pumped hydro has been in use for decades around the world, and battery systems are becoming commonplace as lithium ion battery prices have plunged and alternative battery technologies have matured. Several Iron-flow chemistries are now commercially deployed. I don't understand why every time wind/solar are mentioned on HN, someone feels the need to say "tHe WiND doEsn'T alWAys BloW" while utilities are actively deploying storage, and not just for "when the sun isn't shining", but to help smooth peak usage to avoid transmission upgrades, provide resiliency from infrastructure failure during weather events, and increase flexibility for service/maintenance that doesn't require outages. Also, it's being deployed commercially for resiliency and off-peak rate utilization. It's integrated into an increasing number of EV charge stations because one of the biggest barriers to DCFC system deployment is getting a beefy enough feed from the utility to handle peak usage. Also, it's being deployed at the residential level, for many of the same reasons.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Where is Japan going to build the reservoirs to support pumped storage? They would literally need to blow up some mountains to do it.
    - andy_ppp 4y ago
      Or build it at the top of said mountains?
      - m4rtink 4y ago
        Well, usually you have many dams in sequence on a river and you can often turn them to pumped hydro by pumping the water from the lower dam back up when you need to store some power. And Japan has a lot of such cascades - even just in Kurobe there are at least 4 major dams one after another.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
Japan has quite different geology to western europe or USA off their coast where the wind resources are. The only option is floating and that's still very much under development. Plus offshore wind isn't that cheap. It's still on the order of $5000/kW of net generation for shallow water, and Japan hasn't had a lot of success breaking $8000/kW as yet. Plus their utility solar market is also a bit borked. There are countless reasons not to build a new nuclear plant, but the costs and risks of using old ones are less than not using them in this case. Especially given that they're also pulling the renewable encouraging levers pretty hard without much success.
krona 4y ago
In the north sea it is, relatively. Now factor in typhoons, cyclones, tsunamis and other local weather phenomena like very low average wind speeds, plus unfavourable geological conditions, and it makes many of the economic assumptions invalid when applied to the Asia pacific.
Mrdarknezz 4y ago
Not if you count auxilary costs, it's also intermittent so it really isn't interchangeable with nuclear.
Herz 4y ago
Renewables are cheap when they produce. The problem is when they don't produce. Wind cannot be predicted, and the sun disappears for several hours during the day. How much does some renewable energy cost me at night when there is no wind, +infinity? Just look at the average capacity factor of renewables, on average it is as if 60-70% of the time they produce nothing during the course of a year. In contrast, a nuclear plant can easily reach 90+% capacity factor, which makes it very reliable as a power source. I am not saying that renewables suck, but to say that they cost little and are the solution to all problems is simply false. Some countries may go 100% renewable, but to claim that everyone must adopt renewables is ideological propaganda. P.S. It is useless to talk about batteries and storage systems, which do not exist on a large scale, except through dams, whose existence is highly dependent on the geology of the country. (By the way, these would be projects that would greatly increase the price of renewable energy, but they are always omitted for idology)
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "Wind cannot be predicted" I can predict you, that the wind on the sea is way stronger and stable, than on land, so your base assumption might be wrong. (Offshore windparks are still not the solution of course.)
  - Herz 4y ago
    I generalized. Over a broad time period (like a year), you can predict the wind production of a wind farm, but on a daily basis you cannot consider wind a reliable source of energy. You can't make predictions today about the next day, and that makes wind a not very reliable source of energy if you have to run a country on it.... The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage, which is a lot of lithium, or energy mix with nuclear (imho, the most logical rational and economical way).
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      "The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage, which is a lot of lithium" You are maybe not aware, that for stationary batteries, there are way more options than lithium based. Natrium for example, is quite common, so you can make literal saltwater batteries.
kergonath 4y ago
It’s one thing to build wind farms in the flat and shallow North Sea. It’s quite another to do that on the Japanese coasts, where the sea floor is really not flat at all. Really, the North Sea is the ideal case for offshore wind. It is very windy but easily accessible and with a nice topology. Almost any other location is worse or much worse. > Way, way cheaper than nuclear and can get online much faster. It is not way, way cheaper. It is cheaper than nuclear if you consider only nameplate capacity. Once you account for the load factor it becomes worse. The capital cost for the wind turbines EDF is building in the UK is broadly comparable with the nuclear equivalent. And if you include the storage that will become more and more necessary as the share of renewables increases, it is much more expensive. It can get online faster, true, and it does not have the same issues regarding waste. They are also more modular, because you can build only 5 of them, whereas you cannot build a half reactor. That being said, it still has issues with waste because we cannot really do anything with the turbines once we decommission them. Also, whilst they are operating, each single turbine consumes several tonnes of aluminium each year.
yamtaddle 4y ago
In Japan's case, I expect they have strategic reasons for wanting to maintain the domestic expertise and equipment to rapidly develop nuclear weapons, which AFAIK still means they need reactors (unless they want to have an outright disconnected-from-peaceful-use nuclear program, which they currently do not want to do). They've long been regarded as a "technically non-nuclear... but only if on short notice" state, ready to join the Big Boy Club quickly if confidence in their position under America's nuclear umbrella wavers. I doubt they want to lose that, so they're going to want some amount of nuclear power as a plausibly-deniable way to keep up some of the equipment, material, and know-how they'll need to maintain that latent threat, even if it's not the most economical option.

Offshore wind is already extremely cheap. Way, way cheaper than nuclear and can get online much faster.

rcstank 4y ago

Do you have more info on this? I’d like to read up on it.

hannob 4y ago
Just a few starting points: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/08/price-offshore-wind-power-falls-cheapest-ever-level-uk https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jul/08/price-of... https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/09/29/vattenfall-steps-in-offshore-germany-matches-zero-subsidy-bid/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2022/09/29/vattenfall-steps-in-... https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/orsted-first-to-give-financial-green-light-to-zero-subsidy-german-offshore-wind/2-1-1110428 https://www.rechargenews.com/wind/orsted-first-to-give-finan...
- 411111111111111 4y ago
  None of these are in the oceans i believe. Instead they're using a sea that's between UK and mainland europe It shouldn't be a deal breaker, but doing the same on oceanic water will have it's own challenges with significantly higher wind variance and more flotsam dangers
- eldaisfish 4y ago
  You claim of offshore wind being “cheap” relies on data from the north sea. A region of: - no freezing water, no icebergs - few, low intensity storms - shallow seas (often less than 100 m) - surrounded by wealthy nations with large population centres The argument does not hold and does not transfer well.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Tade0 4y ago
Behold, the Haliade X - 14MW offshore turbine which costs a little bit more than $14mln, but boasts a capacity factor of 60%+: https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/09/21/rystad-energy-less-is-more-if-using-14-mw-turbines/ https://www.offshorewind.biz/2020/09/21/rystad-energy-less-i...
Schroedingersat 4y ago
https://www.irena.org/Publications/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-Generation-Costs-in-2021 https://www.irena.org/Publications/2022/Jul/Renewable-Power-... It's coming down. Though massive supply shortages and failure of a bunch of companies to hedge against commodity prices needed to fulfil budgets are going to be pretty rough for anyone who isn't China for a few years. Note how much more Japan's renewables cost than world median. The reasons aren't just policy -- Japan has ben dealt a uniquely terrible hand for renewables matched maybe by Slovak Republic (which at least has close allies to trade with).

tjansen 4y ago

Yes, but it either needs storage or fossil backup. Otherwise you can't compare wind, even offshore wind, with a reliable source of energy.

KennyBlanken 4y ago
Storage is a solved problem. Pumped hydro has been in use for decades around the world, and battery systems are becoming commonplace as lithium ion battery prices have plunged and alternative battery technologies have matured. Several Iron-flow chemistries are now commercially deployed. I don't understand why every time wind/solar are mentioned on HN, someone feels the need to say "tHe WiND doEsn'T alWAys BloW" while utilities are actively deploying storage, and not just for "when the sun isn't shining", but to help smooth peak usage to avoid transmission upgrades, provide resiliency from infrastructure failure during weather events, and increase flexibility for service/maintenance that doesn't require outages. Also, it's being deployed commercially for resiliency and off-peak rate utilization. It's integrated into an increasing number of EV charge stations because one of the biggest barriers to DCFC system deployment is getting a beefy enough feed from the utility to handle peak usage. Also, it's being deployed at the residential level, for many of the same reasons.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Where is Japan going to build the reservoirs to support pumped storage? They would literally need to blow up some mountains to do it.
  - andy_ppp 4y ago
    Or build it at the top of said mountains?
    - m4rtink 4y ago
      Well, usually you have many dams in sequence on a river and you can often turn them to pumped hydro by pumping the water from the lower dam back up when you need to store some power. And Japan has a lot of such cascades - even just in Kurobe there are at least 4 major dams one after another.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

Japan has quite different geology to western europe or USA off their coast where the wind resources are. The only option is floating and that's still very much under development. Plus offshore wind isn't that cheap. It's still on the order of $5000/kW of net generation for shallow water, and Japan hasn't had a lot of success breaking $8000/kW as yet. Plus their utility solar market is also a bit borked. There are countless reasons not to build a new nuclear plant, but the costs and risks of using old ones are less than not using them in this case. Especially given that they're also pulling the renewable encouraging levers pretty hard without much success.

krona 4y ago

In the north sea it is, relatively. Now factor in typhoons, cyclones, tsunamis and other local weather phenomena like very low average wind speeds, plus unfavourable geological conditions, and it makes many of the economic assumptions invalid when applied to the Asia pacific.

Mrdarknezz 4y ago

Not if you count auxilary costs, it's also intermittent so it really isn't interchangeable with nuclear.

Herz 4y ago

Renewables are cheap when they produce. The problem is when they don't produce. Wind cannot be predicted, and the sun disappears for several hours during the day. How much does some renewable energy cost me at night when there is no wind, +infinity? Just look at the average capacity factor of renewables, on average it is as if 60-70% of the time they produce nothing during the course of a year. In contrast, a nuclear plant can easily reach 90+% capacity factor, which makes it very reliable as a power source. I am not saying that renewables suck, but to say that they cost little and are the solution to all problems is simply false. Some countries may go 100% renewable, but to claim that everyone must adopt renewables is ideological propaganda. P.S. It is useless to talk about batteries and storage systems, which do not exist on a large scale, except through dams, whose existence is highly dependent on the geology of the country. (By the way, these would be projects that would greatly increase the price of renewable energy, but they are always omitted for idology)

hutzlibu 4y ago
"Wind cannot be predicted" I can predict you, that the wind on the sea is way stronger and stable, than on land, so your base assumption might be wrong. (Offshore windparks are still not the solution of course.)
- Herz 4y ago
  I generalized. Over a broad time period (like a year), you can predict the wind production of a wind farm, but on a daily basis you cannot consider wind a reliable source of energy. You can't make predictions today about the next day, and that makes wind a not very reliable source of energy if you have to run a country on it.... The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage, which is a lot of lithium, or energy mix with nuclear (imho, the most logical rational and economical way).
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "The only solution to this problem are seasonal storage, which is a lot of lithium" You are maybe not aware, that for stationary batteries, there are way more options than lithium based. Natrium for example, is quite common, so you can make literal saltwater batteries.

kergonath 4y ago

It’s one thing to build wind farms in the flat and shallow North Sea. It’s quite another to do that on the Japanese coasts, where the sea floor is really not flat at all. Really, the North Sea is the ideal case for offshore wind. It is very windy but easily accessible and with a nice topology. Almost any other location is worse or much worse. > Way, way cheaper than nuclear and can get online much faster. It is not way, way cheaper. It is cheaper than nuclear if you consider only nameplate capacity. Once you account for the load factor it becomes worse. The capital cost for the wind turbines EDF is building in the UK is broadly comparable with the nuclear equivalent. And if you include the storage that will become more and more necessary as the share of renewables increases, it is much more expensive. It can get online faster, true, and it does not have the same issues regarding waste. They are also more modular, because you can build only 5 of them, whereas you cannot build a half reactor. That being said, it still has issues with waste because we cannot really do anything with the turbines once we decommission them. Also, whilst they are operating, each single turbine consumes several tonnes of aluminium each year.

yamtaddle 4y ago

In Japan's case, I expect they have strategic reasons for wanting to maintain the domestic expertise and equipment to rapidly develop nuclear weapons, which AFAIK still means they need reactors (unless they want to have an outright disconnected-from-peaceful-use nuclear program, which they currently do not want to do). They've long been regarded as a "technically non-nuclear... but only if on short notice" state, ready to join the Big Boy Club quickly if confidence in their position under America's nuclear umbrella wavers. I doubt they want to lose that, so they're going to want some amount of nuclear power as a plausibly-deniable way to keep up some of the equipment, material, and know-how they'll need to maintain that latent threat, even if it's not the most economical option.