6 ms·

Well it's good, and very happy, but seriously, what is going to power Northern Europe in winter? Burning gas which is somehow seen as green? Ginormous batteries

Well it's good, and very happy, but seriously, what is going to power Northern Europe in winter? Burning gas which is somehow seen as green? Ginormous batteries storing summer energy through until April, which people inexplicably assume will become viable by extrapolating exponential growth? Or good old coal as a "temporary measure"? IMO renewables as a backbone for energy generation in a random locale, over nuclear, are misguided. I fear they will replace maybe 60-70% of fossil, if that, then will hit a wall and we will keep on burning stuff to patch the holes, or will build nukes anyway for this purpose, at which point the renewables will have been a waste of money and time. Or maybe we will just all burn to a crisp before any of this matters. I hope I'm wrong, because sure enough no one making energy investments seems to agree with me.

cinntaile 3y ago
It'll likely be mostly be wind, hydro and nuclear. In that order. Not sure how this relates to the topic here though.
mathgeek 3y ago
As with most markets, it will be a mix for the foreseeable future. There will be dominant players and minor ones, holes filled by suboptimal forms, etc. Even if nuclear energy were the dominant source, we would still be burning some fossil fuels. Optimization should be the goal rather than perfection.
hef19898 3y ago
>> because sure enough no one making energy investments seems to agree with me. Let's assume not every investment decision is following SoftBanks approach.
FooBarWidget 3y ago
Isn't there plenty of wind in the winter?
- hef19898 3y ago
  Also hydro, bio gas... And solar is working in winter as well, just a lot less efficient. But than there will still be a grid hetting electricity to those places.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    It's just as efficient, there is just less incidence.
nkoren 3y ago
You literally didn't read the first paragraph of the linked article, did you?
- jahnu 3y ago
  Isn’t it truly tiresome to see obvious questions voted to the top with answers right in the article or easily searchable. Why do HN commenters assume that they are the only person to think about these questions? It’s probably the most discussed and analysed topic of our time with an incredible wealth of professionals writing about it every day.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    The downside of a tendency to apply first principle thinking to everything. My best guess so far.
- armada651 3y ago
  The article: > Power delivered by the ‘GREGY Interconnection’ cable will serve grids in Greece, Italy and Bulgaria. The comment: > what is going to power Northern Europe in winter? You literally didn't read the first sentence of the comment, did you?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    The article discusses lengthy power cables going from Morocco to Britain. Extending those to Northern Europe doesn't take that much imagination.
    - ftth_finland 3y ago
      The question is still relevant. You cannot lay a 2000 mile subsea cable from Greece to the Nordics. The Nordic grid is separate from the Central European grid and interconnection capacity is limited. Time to let your imagination fly. What’s your solution?
totoglazer 3y ago
It’s definitely a problem. However reducing annual global fossil fuel usage by 70% is still huge and worth doing today. In terms of the Northern Europe winter, wind, offshore wind, and solar from Africa will hopefully make up a lot of the shortfall.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Solar from Africa. So tying ourselves to very unstable region which is also in same pattern of production during day...
  - thx-2718 3y ago
    I think they may have used Africa as an example not as the only place. Solar can be exported, for example, as pure hydrogen or potentially as hydrogen in ammonia, or possibly other easier to transport material (I'm not a chemist). Places that receive high amounts of sunlight like Australia would also work for this. As opposed to already tying energy needs to contested regions.
    - robbomacrae 3y ago
      Interesting idea. I went and got chatGPT4 to help me do some back of napkin math and it looks like hydrogen won't be able to compete with coal which is probably between $50-$100 per MWh for Poland. Even assuming the electricity (the biggest cost factor in electrolysis) is free through some carbon credit initiative, the cost of producing 1 MWh of fuel cells is still over $100 and the cost of converting that back to electricity is $17. The cost of shipping is hard to estimate but could potentially be quite small - $1 per MWh. Now if we could somehow raise the price of coal to account for its externalities.. by stipulating minimum taxes on coal and imposing tariffs on any countries that don't implement those... then we might have a chance. But I think wind energy (producing or importing) is probably Poland's best bet for getting off of coal.
      - pjc50 3y ago
        Hmm.. 1MWh of H2 is about 30kg, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/20004-cost-electrolytic-hydrogen-production.pdf https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/20004-cost-electrolytic... claims $5/kg, which puts it at about $150. Seems reasonable. I suspect doing it through economics alone isn't going to happen, instead some version of the Large Combustion Plant Directive will simply ban coal generation in Poland.
thx-2718 3y ago
What's interesting to me is that hydroelectric power generation pretty much dominates when it comes to over output per plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations#Top_20_largest_power_producing_facilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  Yes, hydro's great. The problem is scaling; "that plant is super helpful, let's build ten more nearby" isn't possible like it is with other forms of power generation.
londons_explore 3y ago
I believe big cables will the the future... +-3 million volts and 30,000 amps DC makes a pair of cables each 2 feet thick which can deliver enough power for the whole of the UK, and then take that power from the equator to the north pole while losing only 5%. The cable itself is expensive to make and hard to install, but I believe we will put cablemaking equipment onto a ship, and sail it at 1mph all the way from the equator to northern europe, with other ships bringing shipments of copper, steel, and polymers to keep it going. The cable will be fed by lower voltage feeders, and voltage conversion done by stacked MOSFETS (600V MOSFETS, 5000 of them stacked, and all encased in polymer - at these voltages, air isn't a good enough insulator unless you have absolutely huge buildings.) Each stack can add or remove 300 megawatts of power from the cable - so you need a couple per powerstation or city
- kreetx 3y ago
  That's interesting. Not knowing much about electricity read somewhere that it goes ~500km max and was wondering how are they going to get it from Africa to Europe.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    It ran into financial troubles, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link was to be 2,800 miles long. The Morocco-UK cable mentioned in the article would be 2,400; "transmission losses for such a long cable will be relatively high at 13%". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco-UK_Power_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco-UK_Power_Projec...
    - defrost 3y ago
      Hmm- finacial in the sense that at least one large investor went "Nope". The underlying actual issue was the cable path .. not so much the length but the trip across a lively and still active earthquake | volcano | fault ridden region ( that spawned the Krakatoa eruption and others ). The engineering, repeater stations, need for a "backup" cable (that was just as likely to break) etc just didn't add up. The Singapore | Australia cable project may rise again - but for now exporting Australian sunlight is going forward via ammonia shipments.
tiku 3y ago
For my own situation in the Netherlands only december and januari are really low. In december 37kwH with solar, used 235. In januari about the same. In februari it goes up quick, generated about 100 kwh, used 200. From march on i'm in the + with generating solar. So only the 4 winter months here should be abridged or have excess solar power (4 times as much) as normal. This is with a insulated house etc.
- donkeyd 3y ago
  The thing is, many houses (like my own) aren't insulated very well still. Also, you can't look at production and use over a month. We often have multiple cloudy days in a row where we produce next to nothing in comparison to what is used. So you need something to bridge those days. We do have wind and off-shore wind is relatively reliable, so that's good. Solar is just awful for our climate, since we produce most when we use the least, which you can see in the quite extreme negative prices for electricity we've already seen this year... And it's not even summer yet.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    Definitely insulation is key. The grid is key I think to smooth out the irregularly generation and the various power sources but over building solar and good planning for shedding snow is key. In 2021 the array delivered KWh in roughly these groups 8 days over 300 KWh. 96 day over 200 KWh. 84 days over 100 KWh. 110 days over 30 KWh. 20 days over 10 kWh. 15 days at 0 and the rest between 1 an 9 KWh. If I had the install to do over I would have prioritized a steep incline. The location I choose was easy to install but the panels angle is less the 15 degrees which collects snow.
- detourdog 3y ago
  In Western Massachusetts I have an all electric building heated with air sourced heat pumps. December through March is when I buy electricity. I now have documented how KWhs or BTUs I need to eliminate the massive heating load. Last August the Governor made a new deal for better pricing of the electricity I deliver to the grid. This year I will see a much higher income for my excess summer production. I will re-invest this into more production. The real problem with solar is only a few months of the year. Isolating the problem of energy production and storage to only those months demonstrates how close we are to a new energy future. My next step will be solar thermal install. I want a more passive method for heating as a backup. My location 42.73226° N, 73.19623° W. I can provide five years of production data if people are curious.
conradev 3y ago
> will build nukes anyway for this purpose, at which point the renewables will have been a waste of money and time Solar, wind, hydro, fission and fusion are all different, with different strengths and weaknesses. Building capacity for one source (making it cheaper in the process!) does not go to waste. Power plants will continue to operate continuously to recoup their capital cost. A renewable-only grid is generally not the consensus view, just something Greenpeace pushes
- Gwypaas 3y ago
  With the $120 - 200/MWh nuclear costs, which is the averege price they require all year around, you can do many completely insane things from an energy efficiency perspective and still come out ahead. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    Lazard's MWh costs are incorrect for nuclear. Olkiluoto 3, Finlands newest nuclear reactor sells electricity for 40€/MWh. Even if you double that, to account for the French subsidy, you only end up at $86/MWh after currency conversion. The same Lazard research report also states that: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today". Given that you have to produce something other than hydrogen to produce clean energy this drives down efficiency further. So, what are these completely insane things that you can do with renewable energy sources and still come out ahead?
    - Gwypaas 3y ago
      I can confidently tell you that OL3 does not cost €40/MWh. The marginal cost for paid off nuclear plants are €25-40/MWh. The €13B construction cost ends up being more than €86/MWh, unless you decide to amortize it over 80 years or something insane. > The same Lazard research report also states that: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today". 50% hydrogen already in use: https://hydrogen-central.com/ge-new-gas-turbine-help-smooth-florida-transition-solar-heavy-grid-burn-fuel-mix-blending-natural-gas-50-hydrogen/ https://hydrogen-central.com/ge-new-gas-turbine-help-smooth-... A DOE grant to get to 100% hydrogen: https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-doe-accelerating-the-path-towards-100-hydrogen-combustion-in-gas-turbines https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-doe-accelerating-t... No need to let perfect be the enemy of good. Make synthetic methane to get the hydrogen blend needed.
bryanlarsen 3y ago
A lot of it will come from hydro used as a battery. The power cables across the North Sea will send power north in the summer and south in the winter. That power will be used to either pump water uphill, or just to replace the hydro power currently being used in the summer.
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  The problem is that there isn't enough hydro. Only Norway has enough hydro to run the country.
  - bryanlarsen 3y ago
    Norway currently gets 90% of its power from hydro. If they didn't use hydro while the sun was shining and/or the North Sea wind was blowing, the combination would serve > 5X as many people. And if some of that solar and wind was used to pump water uphill, the number would get even igger.
    - ftth_finland 3y ago
      Norway doesn't have enough interconnection capacity to do that. And even if it did, the real issue is how to supply power when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow, i.e. windstill winter days. During such periods Norway does not have sufficient excess in hydro power generation to satisfy neighboring countries needs.
      - bryanlarsen 3y ago
        This is exactly the purpose of the North Sea Link and they are talking about building more.
Zemtomo 3y ago
Not sure about the term but I would have assumed northern Europe is Scandinavian countries and they have ground heat, water and nuclear. France already has plans for more nuclear. We Germans might have issues but let's see what this really means in the next 20 years. We have a huge gas network and every sun hour will keep those storage tanks full for longer and it should be predictable enough to get good prices
donkeyd 3y ago
I see the same problems. I don't understand why we're still subsidizing solar. I hope we can harness tidal movements in some way, seems like the most consistent thing we're not really using yet. I have no idea whether that's even feasible though.
- pjc50 3y ago
  Most new solar is unsubsidized.
  - donkeyd 3y ago
    In my country there's still a 0% tax (which can be seen as a subsidy) and there's still what we call the 'salderingsregeling'. That last thing allows people to deduct the KWH they produce in summer from what they use in winter. This can also be considered a subsidy, even though it's not paid by government. Both promote buying solar. The last part looks like we'll finally start to get rid of from 2025.
    - lucumo 3y ago
      The 0% VAT is just a way to get rid of some administrative overhead. Repeatedly selling something (like electricity) makes you a VAT-liable entity. You must charge VAT on what you sell, but you can deduct the VAT others charge you. That can go into the negative, giving you a tax refund. This is how VAT always works. Then there are rules regarding smaller entrepreneurs. Those changed a bit in the past few years, but both before and after the changes there were rules making it so you don't have to pay VAT if you stay below a certain amount of revenue. Those amounts have always been well above what a typical residential solar installation earns. So what happened was, some tax-smart type deducted the panels in their first year, and was planning to not pay VAT in later years. The tax service didn't agree with the whole "I'm an entrepreneur now" thing, and a court case was fought. The court agreed with the entrepreneur, so for years people could get their solar panels essentially VAT-free. But it's pretty complex for ordinary people to do this. There were some specialized companies that could help with it, and installers would offer those services as part of their package. It was a mess, and they finally just said: let's just stop this "vestzak-broekzak" nonsense and set VAT to 0%. So it's not a subsidy, it's a streamlining of an existing tax reality.
pjc50 3y ago
> or will build nukes anyway for this purpose, at which point the renewables will have been a waste of money and time. If you decide to build a nuclear plant today, it might be finished by the time renewables deployed today have reached the end of their design lives. (People will no doubt answer that it can be done quickly, and I urge those people to get on down to Hinkley Point C with a shovel to help them finish the thing)
- rich_sasha 3y ago
  I've been hearing this for decades. Had we built nukes 20 years ago, the problem wouldn't be here today. It's not a great argument.
lucumo 3y ago
> Well it's good, and very happy, but seriously, what is going to power Northern Europe in winter? Wind, onshore and offshore. The North Sea is currently filled up with offshore wind parks. North Sea countries Hydropower is popular in the Nordics, I believe. With pumped storage that could flatten the seasonal variation. Overproduction of both wind and solar is also feasible. Winter production of solar is not nothing, it's just less. Scaling up the number of collectors will still get you more production. Seasonal price fluctuations. Having summer electricity be nearly free can create business opportunities, whereas high winter prices will reduce demand from industrial consumers.
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  > Wind, onshore and offshore. How about when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow? > Hydropower is popular in the Nordics, I believe. Popular, but insufficient. Only Norway could ostensibly be run on hydro. > Overproduction of both wind and solar is also feasible. But is it economically viable? > Winter production of solar is not nothing Yeah, it pretty much is in the Nordics. > Scaling up the number of collectors will still get you more production. Nope. Zero times a large number is still zero. > Having summer electricity be nearly free can create business opportunities, whereas high winter prices will reduce demand from industrial consumers. Sure, business opportunities for end users. But is it sustainable? With too much supply renewables make no money and other producers have to make all their money in the winter months.
  - lucumo 3y ago
    > How about when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow? A rarity. Happens for a few hours a year, which can easily be passed with short-term storage. > With too much supply renewables make no money and other producers have to make all their money in the winter months. Renewables will have to recoup their investments in the winter, yes. Since it's predictable, it's not a big deal to have seasonality. Make a lot of money in winter to tide you over for the summer. Many industries work like that.
    - ftth_finland 3y ago

cinntaile 3y ago

It'll likely be mostly be wind, hydro and nuclear. In that order. Not sure how this relates to the topic here though.

mathgeek 3y ago

As with most markets, it will be a mix for the foreseeable future. There will be dominant players and minor ones, holes filled by suboptimal forms, etc. Even if nuclear energy were the dominant source, we would still be burning some fossil fuels. Optimization should be the goal rather than perfection.

hef19898 3y ago

>> because sure enough no one making energy investments seems to agree with me. Let's assume not every investment decision is following SoftBanks approach.

FooBarWidget 3y ago

Isn't there plenty of wind in the winter?

hef19898 3y ago
Also hydro, bio gas... And solar is working in winter as well, just a lot less efficient. But than there will still be a grid hetting electricity to those places.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  It's just as efficient, there is just less incidence.

nkoren 3y ago

You literally didn't read the first paragraph of the linked article, did you?

jahnu 3y ago
Isn’t it truly tiresome to see obvious questions voted to the top with answers right in the article or easily searchable. Why do HN commenters assume that they are the only person to think about these questions? It’s probably the most discussed and analysed topic of our time with an incredible wealth of professionals writing about it every day.
- hef19898 3y ago
  The downside of a tendency to apply first principle thinking to everything. My best guess so far.
armada651 3y ago
The article: > Power delivered by the ‘GREGY Interconnection’ cable will serve grids in Greece, Italy and Bulgaria. The comment: > what is going to power Northern Europe in winter? You literally didn't read the first sentence of the comment, did you?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  The article discusses lengthy power cables going from Morocco to Britain. Extending those to Northern Europe doesn't take that much imagination.
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    The question is still relevant. You cannot lay a 2000 mile subsea cable from Greece to the Nordics. The Nordic grid is separate from the Central European grid and interconnection capacity is limited. Time to let your imagination fly. What’s your solution?

totoglazer 3y ago

It’s definitely a problem. However reducing annual global fossil fuel usage by 70% is still huge and worth doing today. In terms of the Northern Europe winter, wind, offshore wind, and solar from Africa will hopefully make up a lot of the shortfall.

Ekaros 3y ago
Solar from Africa. So tying ourselves to very unstable region which is also in same pattern of production during day...
- thx-2718 3y ago
  I think they may have used Africa as an example not as the only place. Solar can be exported, for example, as pure hydrogen or potentially as hydrogen in ammonia, or possibly other easier to transport material (I'm not a chemist). Places that receive high amounts of sunlight like Australia would also work for this. As opposed to already tying energy needs to contested regions.
  - robbomacrae 3y ago
    Interesting idea. I went and got chatGPT4 to help me do some back of napkin math and it looks like hydrogen won't be able to compete with coal which is probably between $50-$100 per MWh for Poland. Even assuming the electricity (the biggest cost factor in electrolysis) is free through some carbon credit initiative, the cost of producing 1 MWh of fuel cells is still over $100 and the cost of converting that back to electricity is $17. The cost of shipping is hard to estimate but could potentially be quite small - $1 per MWh. Now if we could somehow raise the price of coal to account for its externalities.. by stipulating minimum taxes on coal and imposing tariffs on any countries that don't implement those... then we might have a chance. But I think wind energy (producing or importing) is probably Poland's best bet for getting off of coal.
    - pjc50 3y ago
      Hmm.. 1MWh of H2 is about 30kg, https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/20004-cost-electrolytic-hydrogen-production.pdf https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/20004-cost-electrolytic... claims $5/kg, which puts it at about $150. Seems reasonable. I suspect doing it through economics alone isn't going to happen, instead some version of the Large Combustion Plant Directive will simply ban coal generation in Poland.

thx-2718 3y ago

What's interesting to me is that hydroelectric power generation pretty much dominates when it comes to over output per plant. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations#Top_20_largest_power_producing_facilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity

ceejayoz 3y ago
Yes, hydro's great. The problem is scaling; "that plant is super helpful, let's build ten more nearby" isn't possible like it is with other forms of power generation.

londons_explore 3y ago

I believe big cables will the the future... +-3 million volts and 30,000 amps DC makes a pair of cables each 2 feet thick which can deliver enough power for the whole of the UK, and then take that power from the equator to the north pole while losing only 5%. The cable itself is expensive to make and hard to install, but I believe we will put cablemaking equipment onto a ship, and sail it at 1mph all the way from the equator to northern europe, with other ships bringing shipments of copper, steel, and polymers to keep it going. The cable will be fed by lower voltage feeders, and voltage conversion done by stacked MOSFETS (600V MOSFETS, 5000 of them stacked, and all encased in polymer - at these voltages, air isn't a good enough insulator unless you have absolutely huge buildings.) Each stack can add or remove 300 megawatts of power from the cable - so you need a couple per powerstation or city

kreetx 3y ago
That's interesting. Not knowing much about electricity read somewhere that it goes ~500km max and was wondering how are they going to get it from Africa to Europe.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  It ran into financial troubles, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia-Asia_Power_Link was to be 2,800 miles long. The Morocco-UK cable mentioned in the article would be 2,400; "transmission losses for such a long cable will be relatively high at 13%". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco-UK_Power_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xlinks_Morocco-UK_Power_Projec...
  - defrost 3y ago
    Hmm- finacial in the sense that at least one large investor went "Nope". The underlying actual issue was the cable path .. not so much the length but the trip across a lively and still active earthquake | volcano | fault ridden region ( that spawned the Krakatoa eruption and others ). The engineering, repeater stations, need for a "backup" cable (that was just as likely to break) etc just didn't add up. The Singapore | Australia cable project may rise again - but for now exporting Australian sunlight is going forward via ammonia shipments.

tiku 3y ago

For my own situation in the Netherlands only december and januari are really low. In december 37kwH with solar, used 235. In januari about the same. In februari it goes up quick, generated about 100 kwh, used 200. From march on i'm in the + with generating solar. So only the 4 winter months here should be abridged or have excess solar power (4 times as much) as normal. This is with a insulated house etc.

donkeyd 3y ago
The thing is, many houses (like my own) aren't insulated very well still. Also, you can't look at production and use over a month. We often have multiple cloudy days in a row where we produce next to nothing in comparison to what is used. So you need something to bridge those days. We do have wind and off-shore wind is relatively reliable, so that's good. Solar is just awful for our climate, since we produce most when we use the least, which you can see in the quite extreme negative prices for electricity we've already seen this year... And it's not even summer yet.
- detourdog 3y ago
  Definitely insulation is key. The grid is key I think to smooth out the irregularly generation and the various power sources but over building solar and good planning for shedding snow is key. In 2021 the array delivered KWh in roughly these groups 8 days over 300 KWh. 96 day over 200 KWh. 84 days over 100 KWh. 110 days over 30 KWh. 20 days over 10 kWh. 15 days at 0 and the rest between 1 an 9 KWh. If I had the install to do over I would have prioritized a steep incline. The location I choose was easy to install but the panels angle is less the 15 degrees which collects snow.
detourdog 3y ago
In Western Massachusetts I have an all electric building heated with air sourced heat pumps. December through March is when I buy electricity. I now have documented how KWhs or BTUs I need to eliminate the massive heating load. Last August the Governor made a new deal for better pricing of the electricity I deliver to the grid. This year I will see a much higher income for my excess summer production. I will re-invest this into more production. The real problem with solar is only a few months of the year. Isolating the problem of energy production and storage to only those months demonstrates how close we are to a new energy future. My next step will be solar thermal install. I want a more passive method for heating as a backup. My location 42.73226° N, 73.19623° W. I can provide five years of production data if people are curious.

conradev 3y ago

> will build nukes anyway for this purpose, at which point the renewables will have been a waste of money and time Solar, wind, hydro, fission and fusion are all different, with different strengths and weaknesses. Building capacity for one source (making it cheaper in the process!) does not go to waste. Power plants will continue to operate continuously to recoup their capital cost. A renewable-only grid is generally not the consensus view, just something Greenpeace pushes

Gwypaas 3y ago
With the $120 - 200/MWh nuclear costs, which is the averege price they require all year around, you can do many completely insane things from an energy efficiency perspective and still come out ahead. https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-energyplus/ https://www.lazard.com/research-insights/levelized-cost-of-e...
- ftth_finland 3y ago
  Lazard's MWh costs are incorrect for nuclear. Olkiluoto 3, Finlands newest nuclear reactor sells electricity for 40€/MWh. Even if you double that, to account for the French subsidy, you only end up at $86/MWh after currency conversion. The same Lazard research report also states that: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today". Given that you have to produce something other than hydrogen to produce clean energy this drives down efficiency further. So, what are these completely insane things that you can do with renewable energy sources and still come out ahead?
  - Gwypaas 3y ago
    I can confidently tell you that OL3 does not cost €40/MWh. The marginal cost for paid off nuclear plants are €25-40/MWh. The €13B construction cost ends up being more than €86/MWh, unless you decide to amortize it over 80 years or something insane. > The same Lazard research report also states that: "Combustion turbines for 100% hydrogen are not commercially available today". 50% hydrogen already in use: https://hydrogen-central.com/ge-new-gas-turbine-help-smooth-florida-transition-solar-heavy-grid-burn-fuel-mix-blending-natural-gas-50-hydrogen/ https://hydrogen-central.com/ge-new-gas-turbine-help-smooth-... A DOE grant to get to 100% hydrogen: https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-doe-accelerating-the-path-towards-100-hydrogen-combustion-in-gas-turbines https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-doe-accelerating-t... No need to let perfect be the enemy of good. Make synthetic methane to get the hydrogen blend needed.

bryanlarsen 3y ago

A lot of it will come from hydro used as a battery. The power cables across the North Sea will send power north in the summer and south in the winter. That power will be used to either pump water uphill, or just to replace the hydro power currently being used in the summer.

ftth_finland 3y ago
The problem is that there isn't enough hydro. Only Norway has enough hydro to run the country.
- bryanlarsen 3y ago
  Norway currently gets 90% of its power from hydro. If they didn't use hydro while the sun was shining and/or the North Sea wind was blowing, the combination would serve > 5X as many people. And if some of that solar and wind was used to pump water uphill, the number would get even igger.
  - ftth_finland 3y ago
    Norway doesn't have enough interconnection capacity to do that. And even if it did, the real issue is how to supply power when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow, i.e. windstill winter days. During such periods Norway does not have sufficient excess in hydro power generation to satisfy neighboring countries needs.
    - bryanlarsen 3y ago
      This is exactly the purpose of the North Sea Link and they are talking about building more.

Zemtomo 3y ago

Not sure about the term but I would have assumed northern Europe is Scandinavian countries and they have ground heat, water and nuclear. France already has plans for more nuclear. We Germans might have issues but let's see what this really means in the next 20 years. We have a huge gas network and every sun hour will keep those storage tanks full for longer and it should be predictable enough to get good prices

donkeyd 3y ago

I see the same problems. I don't understand why we're still subsidizing solar. I hope we can harness tidal movements in some way, seems like the most consistent thing we're not really using yet. I have no idea whether that's even feasible though.

pjc50 3y ago
Most new solar is unsubsidized.
- donkeyd 3y ago
  In my country there's still a 0% tax (which can be seen as a subsidy) and there's still what we call the 'salderingsregeling'. That last thing allows people to deduct the KWH they produce in summer from what they use in winter. This can also be considered a subsidy, even though it's not paid by government. Both promote buying solar. The last part looks like we'll finally start to get rid of from 2025.
  - lucumo 3y ago
    The 0% VAT is just a way to get rid of some administrative overhead. Repeatedly selling something (like electricity) makes you a VAT-liable entity. You must charge VAT on what you sell, but you can deduct the VAT others charge you. That can go into the negative, giving you a tax refund. This is how VAT always works. Then there are rules regarding smaller entrepreneurs. Those changed a bit in the past few years, but both before and after the changes there were rules making it so you don't have to pay VAT if you stay below a certain amount of revenue. Those amounts have always been well above what a typical residential solar installation earns. So what happened was, some tax-smart type deducted the panels in their first year, and was planning to not pay VAT in later years. The tax service didn't agree with the whole "I'm an entrepreneur now" thing, and a court case was fought. The court agreed with the entrepreneur, so for years people could get their solar panels essentially VAT-free. But it's pretty complex for ordinary people to do this. There were some specialized companies that could help with it, and installers would offer those services as part of their package. It was a mess, and they finally just said: let's just stop this "vestzak-broekzak" nonsense and set VAT to 0%. So it's not a subsidy, it's a streamlining of an existing tax reality.

pjc50 3y ago

> or will build nukes anyway for this purpose, at which point the renewables will have been a waste of money and time. If you decide to build a nuclear plant today, it might be finished by the time renewables deployed today have reached the end of their design lives. (People will no doubt answer that it can be done quickly, and I urge those people to get on down to Hinkley Point C with a shovel to help them finish the thing)

rich_sasha 3y ago
I've been hearing this for decades. Had we built nukes 20 years ago, the problem wouldn't be here today. It's not a great argument.

lucumo 3y ago

> Well it's good, and very happy, but seriously, what is going to power Northern Europe in winter? Wind, onshore and offshore. The North Sea is currently filled up with offshore wind parks. North Sea countries Hydropower is popular in the Nordics, I believe. With pumped storage that could flatten the seasonal variation. Overproduction of both wind and solar is also feasible. Winter production of solar is not nothing, it's just less. Scaling up the number of collectors will still get you more production. Seasonal price fluctuations. Having summer electricity be nearly free can create business opportunities, whereas high winter prices will reduce demand from industrial consumers.

ftth_finland 3y ago
> Wind, onshore and offshore. How about when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow? > Hydropower is popular in the Nordics, I believe. Popular, but insufficient. Only Norway could ostensibly be run on hydro. > Overproduction of both wind and solar is also feasible. But is it economically viable? > Winter production of solar is not nothing Yeah, it pretty much is in the Nordics. > Scaling up the number of collectors will still get you more production. Nope. Zero times a large number is still zero. > Having summer electricity be nearly free can create business opportunities, whereas high winter prices will reduce demand from industrial consumers. Sure, business opportunities for end users. But is it sustainable? With too much supply renewables make no money and other producers have to make all their money in the winter months.
- lucumo 3y ago
  > How about when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow? A rarity. Happens for a few hours a year, which can easily be passed with short-term storage. > With too much supply renewables make no money and other producers have to make all their money in the winter months. Renewables will have to recoup their investments in the winter, yes. Since it's predictable, it's not a big deal to have seasonality. Make a lot of money in winter to tide you over for the summer. Many industries work like that.
  - ftth_finland 3y ago