3 ms·

Cheapest source is accurate. It may not eliminate the need for expensive LPG, but reducing the amount needed is still a massive benefit to the economy.

cupcakecommons 2y ago
[flagged]
- WeylandYutani 2y ago
  This is why the Netherlands builds them out in the sea. Just far enough so that you cannot see them. Even the biggest reactionary NIMBY has no complaints.As for wildlife come on man who the fuck cares?
  - throwaway2037 2y ago
    Minus the last sentence, this is a great point. Do any downvoters have any issue with everything but the last sentence? If anything, the Netherlands is probably Europe's most intensely developed country. There is hardly a square meter that hasn't been carefully planned out over the last 500 years.
    - Paul-Craft 2y ago
      No, I don't have an issue with anything but the last sentence, but the down arrow is all or nothing. We're facing a biodiversity crisis of massive scale (call it the 6th mass extinction if you like). "Fuck wildlife" isn't an appropriate policy position.
    - tsimionescu 2y ago
      The Netherlands still produces 64% more CO2 per capita compared to France, despite having only 45% higher GDP per capita. And France has way more dirty industry, if we looked purely at power generation they would look even better. This is what significant investment in nuclear does. Even the countries that invested the most in renewables can't beat it, yet. I'm very curious to see how long it will take the renewable-only countries to catch up, especially considering that emissions accumulate.
      - throwaway2037 2y ago
        Many great points. Thank you to reply. I have read a few times calling the UK the "Saudi Arabia of Wind". I must say: They have a metric-ton of great sites, both onshore and offshore for wind. That said, great sites don't automatically become energy production sites unless they get funded, approved, and built. > France has way more dirty industry I'm not here nitpick, but do you have source? I know, this one is very hard to debate. On a per capita basis, the ports of Rotterdam and IJmuiden must have a staggering amount of polluting industry (steel, chemical, etc.) And, while Antwerp (Belgium) port isn't in Netherlands, it is literally right on the border. From Google maps sky-view, you can many, many chemical plants in the area. To be clear for all readers: I'm not here to point the finger specifically at NL/BE as being any worse than other highly developed nations.
        tsimionescu 2y ago
        > I'm not here nitpick, but do you have source? Unfortunately no, and maybe I should have phrased that with a little more doubt. Still, I think it's very likely true, given the sheer size difference between the two (geographically), and the fact that France has a massive auto industry, while the Netherlands does not.
- cycomanic 2y ago
  Yes it is true, study after study has shown that LCOE for renewables (in particular wind) is the lowest. It is also quite obvious from the fact that wind and solar installations are what investors are actually investing in, in contrast to nuclear which nobody wants to invest in even with large government guarantees. E. G. See this article on a Lazarus report. https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-power-half-the-cost-of-coal-and-gas-one-third-the-cost-of-nuclear-says-lazard/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-power-half-the-co...
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    LCOE omits delivery issues. Energy isn't just about the cost to produce an electron. It's the cost of getting that electron to people when they need it. For things like wind or solar to ever become a major player you need to deal with intermittency and dispatchability. In other words you need to deal with times when the wind isn't blowing, or when people need more (or less) power than you're producing. The way you'd do this is through excessive production during good times, and then storing the surplus in batteries, artificial hydroelectric, or other such means - and then delivering from those sources as necessary. But doing this sends the real cost per unit much higher. The storage process also entails some (to a significant amount - depending on the type of storage) energy loss as well, so you end up needing to produce more than 1 unit of electricity to get 1 unit. FWIW I'm a huge advocate for solar, so this isn't some random smear on renewables - it's something that needs to be accounted for and which LCOE fails to do.
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
  > It's also soul-crushingly ugly I find them much more appealing than the power plant near me that dumps columns of soot into my skyline. > and remarkably bad for wildlife This talking point is really exaggerated. It's effectively fossil fuel propaganda. The effect on wildlife is downright cuddly compared to the effects of burning fossil fuels. You might have an argument if you're comparing wind to solar.
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  > low capacity factor power I never heard this term before so I Googled it. Gemini (Google AI) defined it as: > "Low capacity factor power" refers to a power source that generates electricity at a significantly lower average output compared to its maximum potential, meaning it doesn't operate at full capacity for a large portion of the time, typically due to factors like weather dependence or intermittent availability; examples include solar and wind power, which experience fluctuations based on sunlight and wind speed respectively, resulting in a lower capacity factor compared to more consistent sources like nuclear power. Ok, sure, makes sense, but what are the alternatives to wind and solar for carbon neutral power sources? (Yes, we all know that nuclear power can do it, but almost no highly developed countries are interested in making large nuclear power investments at this point.) Our power supply structure will need to fundamentally change over the next 30 years. Probably, home- and utility-scale batteries will play a much bigger role. Another point: Isn't the purpose of building wind turbines on the open ocean to capture more regular winds (compared to land-based wind turbines)? Wouldn't that improve capacity factor power? About "soul-crushingly ugly": I never once saw a chemical refinery, nor a large-scale, modern hospital, that was anything other than "soul-crushingly ugly", but we need them in a modern society. So we try to carefully plan where/when/how they are built.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
tuatoru 2y ago
Check out "The Price is Wrong" by Brett Christophers[1]. It explains at length that what matters is not price, but how profitable an investment is. And how wind and PV don't look great without subsidies in various guises. 1. https://www.amazon.com/Price-Wrong-Capitalism-Wont-Planet/dp/1804292303 https://www.amazon.com/Price-Wrong-Capitalism-Wont-Planet/dp...
- cupcakecommons 2y ago
  You distribute pv and wind over large areas and they get destroyed by weather, get dirty, require significant maintenance. If individuals want to have wind turbines or pv installations that's great - but these things are a giant mess at grid scale - absolutely awful.
  - viraptor 2y ago
    > they get destroyed by weather We get anything from storms to hail few times a year here. My patio roof got holes in it from the ice balls, but the panels are fine. Are you missing some qualifiers on that one? > get dirty You clean them every few months or monitor for issues per group of panels. > require significant maintenance Just like every other device out in the real world. Coal, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, thermal generators require maintenance.
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      What I think the GP is blowing completely out of proportion is: > they get destroyed by weather A few of them, every year. It makes a visible dent on their average longevity. But I don't think distributing them has any impact on this. They just create a risk situation that nobody seems to be insuring and that large farms will self insure without problems. (Anyway, with the price going down the way it is, that will soon become irrelevant.) > get dirty Each person stopping to clean their own panels is much less efficient than professional cleaning centralized panels. It does increase your electricity costs. > require significant maintenance Home maintenance is an entire other level of inefficiency. That extends to any kind of equipment in your home. But again, none of those is a big deal. Solar is mostly operation-free, so distribution mostly doesn't matter.
idiotsecant 2y ago
This may be true, on a watt basis. It also ignores the physics of a synchronous grid. You need to produce exactly what you use at any given moment. If you fail to do that by a little bit bad things happen. If you fail by a lot, the grid fails. You need to be able to get power when you need it, not when it's convenient to your generation plant. If you want to compare solar or wind to something more dispatchable you should really be using numbers from either a pretty massive distributed overbuild or including storage or both. Otherwise it simply isn't apples to apples. I am an electrical engineer specializing in the design of control systems for renewable generation.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  Sounds like an excellent reason to use massive numbers of highly distributed sources that ramp up and down predictably.
  - idiotsecant 2y ago
    That's what over building is. It also requires massive investment in transmission infrastructure because your core assumption is that power in one place get get to load in another. It turns out that transmission costs many many times what the generation does
alvah 2y ago
It's misleading, and those who use it generally know it's misleading. It's used to persuade the layperson that electricity generated by wind turbines is cheaper to the consumer or industry than electricity generated by thermal sources or hydro turbines, when in fact that is only true if you disregard the requirement for said electricity to be available on demand - a fairly important omission.
- Ekaros 2y ago
  I often wonder how many people would accept automatic black outs when buying green energy. A process that "happens" here. You can buy for example purely wind powered electricity. But somehow that does not stop being delivered when there is no wind. Instead there would be electric relay connected to mains in your home and when there is less supply than demand you would get blackout. That would be similar comparison to this.
  - Retric 2y ago
    Assuming you also get closer to wind generation prices not just overall wholesale prices, it would be really popular. People would install a battery at home the way most of the world installs solar and they’d see massive reductions in electricity bills more than paying for the battery. The UK is absolutely terrible location for solar, and it’s still installed because UK’s electricity prices are so high. That said, wind going to absolutely zero nationwide is extremely unlikely but the more people who signed up for such a system eventually just a little power wouldn’t be enough for all of them. So there’s be an economic feedback loop.
    - phicoh 2y ago
      There is no reason for anyone with a wind park to sell cheap if there are customers willing to pay a high price. That said with a battery and dynamic prices, there are many days where you can charge a battery when the prices are low and use them battery when the prices are high.
      - 2y ago

cupcakecommons 2y ago

[flagged]

WeylandYutani 2y ago
This is why the Netherlands builds them out in the sea. Just far enough so that you cannot see them. Even the biggest reactionary NIMBY has no complaints.As for wildlife come on man who the fuck cares?
- throwaway2037 2y ago
  Minus the last sentence, this is a great point. Do any downvoters have any issue with everything but the last sentence? If anything, the Netherlands is probably Europe's most intensely developed country. There is hardly a square meter that hasn't been carefully planned out over the last 500 years.
  - Paul-Craft 2y ago
    No, I don't have an issue with anything but the last sentence, but the down arrow is all or nothing. We're facing a biodiversity crisis of massive scale (call it the 6th mass extinction if you like). "Fuck wildlife" isn't an appropriate policy position.
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    The Netherlands still produces 64% more CO2 per capita compared to France, despite having only 45% higher GDP per capita. And France has way more dirty industry, if we looked purely at power generation they would look even better. This is what significant investment in nuclear does. Even the countries that invested the most in renewables can't beat it, yet. I'm very curious to see how long it will take the renewable-only countries to catch up, especially considering that emissions accumulate.
    - throwaway2037 2y ago
      Many great points. Thank you to reply. I have read a few times calling the UK the "Saudi Arabia of Wind". I must say: They have a metric-ton of great sites, both onshore and offshore for wind. That said, great sites don't automatically become energy production sites unless they get funded, approved, and built. > France has way more dirty industry I'm not here nitpick, but do you have source? I know, this one is very hard to debate. On a per capita basis, the ports of Rotterdam and IJmuiden must have a staggering amount of polluting industry (steel, chemical, etc.) And, while Antwerp (Belgium) port isn't in Netherlands, it is literally right on the border. From Google maps sky-view, you can many, many chemical plants in the area. To be clear for all readers: I'm not here to point the finger specifically at NL/BE as being any worse than other highly developed nations.
      - tsimionescu 2y ago
        > I'm not here nitpick, but do you have source? Unfortunately no, and maybe I should have phrased that with a little more doubt. Still, I think it's very likely true, given the sheer size difference between the two (geographically), and the fact that France has a massive auto industry, while the Netherlands does not.
cycomanic 2y ago
Yes it is true, study after study has shown that LCOE for renewables (in particular wind) is the lowest. It is also quite obvious from the fact that wind and solar installations are what investors are actually investing in, in contrast to nuclear which nobody wants to invest in even with large government guarantees. E. G. See this article on a Lazarus report. https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-power-half-the-cost-of-coal-and-gas-one-third-the-cost-of-nuclear-says-lazard/ https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-solar-power-half-the-co...
- somenameforme 2y ago
  LCOE omits delivery issues. Energy isn't just about the cost to produce an electron. It's the cost of getting that electron to people when they need it. For things like wind or solar to ever become a major player you need to deal with intermittency and dispatchability. In other words you need to deal with times when the wind isn't blowing, or when people need more (or less) power than you're producing. The way you'd do this is through excessive production during good times, and then storing the surplus in batteries, artificial hydroelectric, or other such means - and then delivering from those sources as necessary. But doing this sends the real cost per unit much higher. The storage process also entails some (to a significant amount - depending on the type of storage) energy loss as well, so you end up needing to produce more than 1 unit of electricity to get 1 unit. FWIW I'm a huge advocate for solar, so this isn't some random smear on renewables - it's something that needs to be accounted for and which LCOE fails to do.
MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
> It's also soul-crushingly ugly I find them much more appealing than the power plant near me that dumps columns of soot into my skyline. > and remarkably bad for wildlife This talking point is really exaggerated. It's effectively fossil fuel propaganda. The effect on wildlife is downright cuddly compared to the effects of burning fossil fuels. You might have an argument if you're comparing wind to solar.
throwaway2037 2y ago
> low capacity factor power I never heard this term before so I Googled it. Gemini (Google AI) defined it as: > "Low capacity factor power" refers to a power source that generates electricity at a significantly lower average output compared to its maximum potential, meaning it doesn't operate at full capacity for a large portion of the time, typically due to factors like weather dependence or intermittent availability; examples include solar and wind power, which experience fluctuations based on sunlight and wind speed respectively, resulting in a lower capacity factor compared to more consistent sources like nuclear power. Ok, sure, makes sense, but what are the alternatives to wind and solar for carbon neutral power sources? (Yes, we all know that nuclear power can do it, but almost no highly developed countries are interested in making large nuclear power investments at this point.) Our power supply structure will need to fundamentally change over the next 30 years. Probably, home- and utility-scale batteries will play a much bigger role. Another point: Isn't the purpose of building wind turbines on the open ocean to capture more regular winds (compared to land-based wind turbines)? Wouldn't that improve capacity factor power? About "soul-crushingly ugly": I never once saw a chemical refinery, nor a large-scale, modern hospital, that was anything other than "soul-crushingly ugly", but we need them in a modern society. So we try to carefully plan where/when/how they are built.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

tuatoru 2y ago

Check out "The Price is Wrong" by Brett Christophers[1]. It explains at length that what matters is not price, but how profitable an investment is. And how wind and PV don't look great without subsidies in various guises. 1. https://www.amazon.com/Price-Wrong-Capitalism-Wont-Planet/dp/1804292303 https://www.amazon.com/Price-Wrong-Capitalism-Wont-Planet/dp...

cupcakecommons 2y ago
You distribute pv and wind over large areas and they get destroyed by weather, get dirty, require significant maintenance. If individuals want to have wind turbines or pv installations that's great - but these things are a giant mess at grid scale - absolutely awful.
- viraptor 2y ago
  > they get destroyed by weather We get anything from storms to hail few times a year here. My patio roof got holes in it from the ice balls, but the panels are fine. Are you missing some qualifiers on that one? > get dirty You clean them every few months or monitor for issues per group of panels. > require significant maintenance Just like every other device out in the real world. Coal, gas, wind, solar, nuclear, thermal generators require maintenance.
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    What I think the GP is blowing completely out of proportion is: > they get destroyed by weather A few of them, every year. It makes a visible dent on their average longevity. But I don't think distributing them has any impact on this. They just create a risk situation that nobody seems to be insuring and that large farms will self insure without problems. (Anyway, with the price going down the way it is, that will soon become irrelevant.) > get dirty Each person stopping to clean their own panels is much less efficient than professional cleaning centralized panels. It does increase your electricity costs. > require significant maintenance Home maintenance is an entire other level of inefficiency. That extends to any kind of equipment in your home. But again, none of those is a big deal. Solar is mostly operation-free, so distribution mostly doesn't matter.

idiotsecant 2y ago

This may be true, on a watt basis. It also ignores the physics of a synchronous grid. You need to produce exactly what you use at any given moment. If you fail to do that by a little bit bad things happen. If you fail by a lot, the grid fails. You need to be able to get power when you need it, not when it's convenient to your generation plant. If you want to compare solar or wind to something more dispatchable you should really be using numbers from either a pretty massive distributed overbuild or including storage or both. Otherwise it simply isn't apples to apples. I am an electrical engineer specializing in the design of control systems for renewable generation.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
Sounds like an excellent reason to use massive numbers of highly distributed sources that ramp up and down predictably.
- idiotsecant 2y ago
  That's what over building is. It also requires massive investment in transmission infrastructure because your core assumption is that power in one place get get to load in another. It turns out that transmission costs many many times what the generation does

alvah 2y ago

It's misleading, and those who use it generally know it's misleading. It's used to persuade the layperson that electricity generated by wind turbines is cheaper to the consumer or industry than electricity generated by thermal sources or hydro turbines, when in fact that is only true if you disregard the requirement for said electricity to be available on demand - a fairly important omission.

Ekaros 2y ago
I often wonder how many people would accept automatic black outs when buying green energy. A process that "happens" here. You can buy for example purely wind powered electricity. But somehow that does not stop being delivered when there is no wind. Instead there would be electric relay connected to mains in your home and when there is less supply than demand you would get blackout. That would be similar comparison to this.
- Retric 2y ago
  Assuming you also get closer to wind generation prices not just overall wholesale prices, it would be really popular. People would install a battery at home the way most of the world installs solar and they’d see massive reductions in electricity bills more than paying for the battery. The UK is absolutely terrible location for solar, and it’s still installed because UK’s electricity prices are so high. That said, wind going to absolutely zero nationwide is extremely unlikely but the more people who signed up for such a system eventually just a little power wouldn’t be enough for all of them. So there’s be an economic feedback loop.
  - phicoh 2y ago
    There is no reason for anyone with a wind park to sell cheap if there are customers willing to pay a high price. That said with a battery and dynamic prices, there are many days where you can charge a battery when the prices are low and use them battery when the prices are high.
    - 2y ago