undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbelorn10mo ago0 comments

If you want to present the plan as renewables and subsidized natural gas as being better than nuclear than be open about it and present it as that. It is not the same as a subsidize free renewables and storage solution.

Those 97.5% sounds very nice. Denmark has well over 100% renewables production from wind and solar, but in terms of consumption only get around 50%. The rest they need to import. 97.5 vs 50 means there is some work to be done.

I recently posted this link (https://svensksolenergi.se/statistik/elproduktion-fran-solen...) that illustrate how much energy that solar farms produce in Sweden. Getting 97.5% from that would be a nice challenge, especially around the winter months. December and January had around 3% production compared to the best previous month (which we could use as a stand-in for 100% capacity but that would be incorrect).

Natural gas is not fine. The geopolitical consequences are terrible, the environmental impact are not sustainable, and the cost are carried almost exclusively through subsidizes. Trying to sell natural gas as "saving the environment" is a political message that I do not agree with.

0 comments

derriz10mo ago

You're including a bunch of different generation technologies which have vastly different operating characteristics which means they are not substitutes for each other.

For example, nuclear takes days to start from cold and is really only economic if operating at a constant output. Thus you need complimentary sources to help meet changes in demand. These days, typically this means gas turbines.

Whether your grid has nuclear or renewables, it will also have natural gas capacity.

natmaka10mo ago

> Whether your grid has nuclear or renewables, it will also have natural gas capacity.

No, turbo-alternators 'burning' hydrogen do exist. And green hydrogen (produced by renewables) is cheaper than pink hydrogen (produced by a nuclear reactor) because the total cost of renewables' electricity is lower than nuclear's.

derriz10mo ago

I don’t see the connection with my comment but hydrogen is irrelevant and contributes less than a rounding error to global electricity generation. The technical components for a hydrogen based energy market do exist but are simply unviable financially. Nuclear also struggles to compete on the basis of price in competitive markets but is a genuinely low-carbon source of electricity. You could argue (I personally would not) that the higher cost of nuclear can be justified on this basis but the fact that hydrogen is an extremely potent greenhouse gas and is prone to leakage means it doesn’t even have that going for it.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsbelorn10mo ago0 comments

0 comments

derriz10mo ago

You're including a bunch of different generation technologies which have vastly different operating characteristics which means they are not substitutes for each other.

Whether your grid has nuclear or renewables, it will also have natural gas capacity.

natmaka10mo ago

> Whether your grid has nuclear or renewables, it will also have natural gas capacity.

derriz10mo ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse