> Why some people are so ready to glamorize poverty and restrictions, I don't even understand.
> Not every school had computers, and those which do, often had the fear of something being broken as the main guiding principle
People glamorize exotic places they don't know, and you're doing exactly this here: I grew up in the 90s in the suburb of Paris (not in a poor neighborhood) and we didn't have a single computer in school until. And even later in high school in the early 2000, we had few computers in dedicated rooms the teacher had to book in advance and often not all computer worked.
The West was much better that the eastern block in many aspects, but it wasn't the land of unlimited abundance some people from the East believed it was.
I didn't mention Paris, or even West in general though. Made zero comparisons. The whole text is about the place where I lived. So I'm not sure how did I manage to glamorize something
When you say “Not every school had computers” as a rebuttal without realizing that pretty much no school in a bunch other countries elsewhere in Europe had computers at the time.
> the most striking institutional feature of Japanese rail is that it is privately owned by a throng of competing companies.
Knowing the author I knew it was going to be his main argument before even opening the blog post. And it's obviously wrong, these companies don't compete with one another, they all have a local monopoly. (The article itself acknowledges that and even acknowledges the organizational benefits of such monopolies, but the author could refrain himself from praising the virtue of competition nonetheless…)
I don't know Japan but the author has a whole paragraph about how it's not the case, and how a big part of Japan success comes from the fact that this is not the case, so the author must be wrong one way or the other:
> Unlike other countries, Japan simply returned to the traditional private railway model of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries: tracks, trains, stations, and yards were owned by vertically integrated regional conglomerates.
> There are substantial advantages to vertical integration. Railways are a closed system that has to be planned as a single unit. Changing the timetable at station A can affect the timetable at station Z; buying new trains that can travel faster might require changes to the infrastructure so they can reach their top speed, which in turn requires rewriting the timetables. This becomes especially complicated if different services share tracks. To prevent delays from propagating from one service to another, the timetable needs to be carefully designed to make best use of the available infrastructure.
> […]
> By maintaining and restoring the institutions that built the first railway systems in the nineteenth century, the Japanese have created the mightiest railway system of the twenty-first.
Umm, so we still have to build enough traditional (and, ideally, dispatchable) generation capacity to make sure we can cover our electricity needs during those periods in winter where it's very cloudy and it's not windy?
"Cloudy and still weather has caused Great Britain’s renewable energy output to fall to near zero this week"
"Britain’s wind power output fell to just above zero on Wednesday, which, combined with the cold, dark weather, caused the market price for electricity to climb to almost £250 per megawatt-hour at auction, or almost seven times the average price before the pandemic"
"The sudden drop-off in renewable energy due to dull windless winter weather, known as dunkelflaute in German, has also forced the system operator to pay gas power stations more than £500/MWh to run on Wednesday evening when household demand is expected to reach its peak.
The weather conditions – the third dunkelflaute of the winter so far – left Britain’s electricity grid reliant on gas-fired power stations. They accounted for more than 70% of power generation at points on Wednesday."
In New England it works fine and we project 3 hours of production during the winter months. Not sure what Denmark’s latitude is, but 7 hours of production is not needed.
We have solar in Finland as well, like everyone else. Yes, it's useless in winter. Yes, the expansion has slowed down, because there is no storage and limited export options.
The Nordic power market is a mess, and it's not because solar doesn't work in winter but because the grid needs massive investments on all levels and nobody wants to be left holding the bill for it.
Electrification? Sure, I'll buy an EV when the _local_ grid operator makes sure my lights don't flicker when the neighbor uses an angle grinder. The last update was that they plan to replace the old transformer station from the 60's "when it breaks".
Local generation? Can't get rid of the excess generation if I wanted to.
Is Denmark's power grid expansion still geared at selling Swedish electricity to the Germans?
Sweden? No internal transfer capacity so their consumers have constant high prices while power is exported cheaply.
Indeed, and large parts of the reason has nothing to do with geography. The same applies to Denmark and the rest of the Nordics.
Obviously solar will be decreasingly useful as you get further to the pole, but the Nordics aren't worse off than Alaska or Canada in that regard, and both do solar to some extent AFAIK.
It has lot to do with geographic latitude and weather patterns. The amount of electric output per amount solar installed strongly affects the profitability of solar installation (if you don't count of government subsidies).
And summer isn't when you need the power anyway, so its very inefficient since northern winters has barely any sunlight at all, its close to 0 from solar power then. In warmer countries you want power in the summer for AC during the day, so there it matches usage, but in northern countries solar isn't very useful at all.
> but the Nordics aren't worse off than Alaska or Canada in that regard
Nordics are much further north than Canada, most Canadians live further south than Paris and Paris is a lot further south than even Denmark that is much further south than Finland.
Are you saying it's cloudy for four months straight?
And the panels are still making power during the winter.
A detailed chart would be nice but a good starting point to imagine is 60-70 days that average 50% solar power and the rest of the year is full solar power minus a couple particularly bad days.
Edit: In winter, in denmark, the amount of sunlight you get per square meter of flat ground is absolutely awful. But the amount of sunlight you can catch on a highly tilted solar panel is still pretty good, about half of the average output. So if you space them properly and overbuild based on the average, the 90% number isn't crazy.
> Are you saying it's cloudy for four months straight?
No. But it's cloudy most of the time for four month straight (in average there's only 200 hours of sun between November and February in Copenhagen. Yes, you read it right, that's not even 2 hours per day in average!).
> A detailed chart would be nice but a good starting point to imagine is 60-70 days that average 50% solar power and the rest of the year is full solar power minus a couple particularly bad days
That's an insane assumption! An average of 50% solar power during the day is the higher bound of what you can expect in the middle of the Nevada desert! (Because you know, the sun rises and falls during the day, it's never going to give the full power during daytime). And because there's night half of the time in average, even in Nevada you end up with load factors around 25%! (Go check the figures!)
In winter in Danemark, the situation is obviously far worse! A 2-5% load factor is to be expected depending on the weather. (Just check the live data: we're in April, it's 11am and solar panels are delivering just 10% of their power right now https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/DK-DK1/live/fifteen... )
> the 90% number isn't crazy.
If this number doesn't sounds crazy to you, it's just because you're completely off in terms of orders of magnitude involved. 90% is likely achievable in southern US with great effort, lots of storage for night times and significant over-paneling, but it's pure science fiction in Denmark.
No no no no, that line has nothing to do with load factor. I'm talking about half the kilowatts for the house coming from solar, and half coming from the grid.
> Just check the live data
There's no way those panels are optimally angled and out of shade if they're making that little. Are those panels installed in rows on the ground? Rows that are pretty close to each other? Panels on a roof, the steeper the better, will see a much higher load factor in winter.
I'm other words, a home rooftop install will do much better in winter than a standard commercial install. That's a mixture of chance and optimizing for different things.
A thought experiment: You have one big solar panel mounted very high, with a multi-axis aiming system that points it directly at the sun. Do you think the amount of power you can make is going to be that far off a linear relationship with the number of hours of daylight?
> No no no no, that line has nothing to do with load factor. I'm talking about half the kilowatts for the house coming from solar, and half coming from the grid.
Assuming consumption isn't correlated with sun hours, these are equivalent unless you over-panel. With a load factor of 5%, you need to over-panel 10x to achieve 50% of your energy supply (in fact it's more complex than this and you'll need even more of that but that's an OK simplifying assumption).
> There's no way those panels are optimally angled and out of shade if they're making that little
Those are commercial solar farms, optimally angled under the constraint that the cost must be reasonable.
> A thought experiment: You have one big solar panel mounted very high, with a multi-axis aiming system that points it directly at the sun.
Do you have an idea of how much it would cost?! With Materials + installation + maintenance, such a mechanism would dwarf the price of the panels. There's a reason we don't deploy those at scale in practice …
> Do you think the amount of power you can make is going to be that far off a linear relationship with the number of hours of daylight?
In a country where 80% of the winter is cloudy, it's going to be very far, yes. The 10% power happening right now is because it's cloudy (light clouds, no rain, but still). It peaked at 40% in recent days with proper sun, but it happened only a handful of times in the entire winter.
I don't think so? If your Nevada desert load factor is 25%, then we're talking about it dropping to 12% or something. Unless I'm not understanding the way you're using those numbers.
> unless you over-panel
Some amount of over-paneling would be perfectly fine here. Not 10x, agreed.
> Those are commercial solar farms, optimally angled under the constraint that the cost must be reasonable.
They're optimized mostly for total power output, which affects things. And they don't have a free house to be mounted on.
They're also not trying very hard to avoid shade. The commercial plant has to buy land for every panel, while a house has much more land than panels. That's a massive difference. When the sun is near the horizon, you want your rows of panels to be very far apart or at different heights. Which means:
A commercial solar plant like one pictured in the article will have each panel shade most of the next row's panel when the sun is very low. To stop this effect, you need to put the rows super far apart, or put them at different heights (like on a roof). This means a home install could have 4x as much light hit each panel in the depths of winter.
> Do you have an idea of how much it would cost?!
It's a thought experiment. Don't worry about the cost of tracking. Because it turns out, a 60 degree angle that completely avoids shade is just as good. The key is avoiding shade. Commercial plants do not avoid shade. Rooftop installs do avoid shade (they won't be quite as tilted, but they'll still have a huge advantage). If you have a nice big yard you can also avoid shade.
> The 10% load factor happening right now is because it's cloudy (light clouds, no rain, but still). It peaked at 40% in recent days with proper sun, but it happened only a handful of times in the entire winter.
I think you didn't go through the full implications of this.
It's mid-april. If it's cloudy this far from the depths of winter, that means needing more panels is much more of a year-round thing. Which means a household array needs to be bigger as a baseline. Which means it can tolerate more losses in the winter.
The thing that would make 90% unreasonable is the difference between winter and non-winter power output. If spring and/or fall also require lots of panels, then 90% gets more realistic because expanding the system saves money for more months of the year.
> And they don't have a free house to be mounted on.
Rooftop solar is more expensive than solar farms. There's nothing free in putting a solar panel on a roof. (Which is a pity because it means that if your country doesn't have a desert, the economically optimal way of installing solar panels is deforestation, but that's the world we live in…).
> Because it turns out, a 60 degree angle that completely avoids shade is just as good
Not at all…
The sun isn't just going up and down you know, it also circles from east to West…
> They're also not trying very hard to avoid shade. […] When the sun is near the horizon, you want your rows of panels to be very far apart or at different heights.
> A commercial solar plant like one pictured in the article will have each panel shade most of the next row's panel when the sun is very low.
I'm sorry but this is utter bullshit. The commercial plants do avoid shade as much as possible because shade destroy efficiency (one cell being shaded criples the output of the entire row…).
They don't care about shade when the sun is low because when the sun is low the incidence angle is terrible in the first place. You want your average panel directed south (or north in the southern hemisphere), when the sun is low, it's going to be completely in the East or completely in the West, and you care about the cosine of your incidence angle, which means the output is going to be near zero even without any shade whatsoever.
> It's mid-april. If it's cloudy this far from the depths of winter, that means needing more panels is much more of a year-round thing.
Of course clouds are a year-round thing, what do you think… But sunny days are still much more frequent in summer.
> Which means a household array needs to be bigger as a baseline
Yes, but that's over-paneling…
> The thing that would make 90% unreasonable is the difference between winter and non-winter power output. If spring and/or fall also require lots of panels, then 90% gets more realistic because expanding the system saves money for more months of the year.
Sigh… Over-paneling 10x isn't going to be more worth it just because in spring and winter you need 5x. That's a nonsensical argument…
I'm sorry but you obviously have no idea about any of these things, I can only invite you to document yourself better at this point, because you're just pilling up crazy takes on top of crazy takes here.
> The sun isn't just going up and down you know it also circles from east to West…
Over a narrow range in winter. You get good coverage from pointing very south and avoiding shade.
> I'm sorry but this is utter bullshit. The commercial plants do avoid shade as much as possible because shade destroy efficiency
They do not avoid it "as much as possible". The panels are shading each other in that very photo, and that photo wasn't taken at the crack of dawn.
It's basic trigonometry. Narrow spacing needs the sun to get pretty high before shading stops. A roof install never shades itself. The difference matters.
> They don't care about shade when the sun is low because when the sun is low the incidence angle is terrible in the first place.
Wrong answer. Those panels are plenty tilted for low incidence sunlight. The ones in front will make plenty of power in the winter. But the ones behind them won't.
The limiter is the price of land. If land was free I guarantee they would spread them out more.
And a home install doesn't have this specific issue.
> Yes, but that's over-paneling…
No it's not! If you need it for most of the year it's not "over"!
> Sigh… Over-paneling 10x isn't going to be more worth it just because in spring and winter you need 5x. That's a nonsensical argument…
If you need 5x or more for half the year, you calculated "x" wrong. Your math is what's nonsense here.
> They do not avoid it "as much as possible". The panels are shading each other in that very photo
You haven't linked the photo…
> It's basic trigonometry. Narrow spacing needs the sun to get pretty high before shading stops.
Of course it's “basic trigonometry”… It doesn't matter if the panels are shaded when the incidence angle is high anyway!
> The limiter is the price of land. If land was free I guarantee they would spread them out more.
They wouldn't, they'd just put more panels on a bigger surface. And again, industrial actors are maximizing the economic output they can make. Whatever decision you take at your level, it's going to be more expensive than what they are doing, and more efficient.
> No it's not! If you need it for most of the year it's not "over"
Yes it is… By definition you are over-paneling if your peak production is higher than what you use. This threshold is important because cost calculations only works when you haven't reached that yet!
> If you need 5x or more for half the year, you calculated "x" wrong. Your math is what's nonsense here.
X is the value for which the cost/MWh makes sense. The further you got from there, the bigger fraction of the power is unexploited and the higher the cost per unit of useful electricity rises.
I didn't invent these concepts or these calculations, those are standards when talking about solar.
They don't build them in deserts that far north, do they?
I got this "fixation" by doing the math to figure out why panels do so badly when there's still seven and a half hours of daylight.
The insolation per square meter of ground is very low when the sun is near the horizon. But the insolation of a flat surface at 60 degrees of tilt is still pretty good. If you avoid shade.
Please tell me you have no disagreements with that. It's basic math.
So as you said with basic panels "one cell being shaded criples the output of the entire row". Normal commercial installs don't try to capture the morning sun. But in the middle of winter in Denmark the "morning" sun is basically all you have access to.
You said "They don't care about shade when the sun is low because when the sun is low the incidence angle is terrible in the first place."
If you tilt really far and avoid shade, you counteract the bad incidence angle. A single square meter of panel can absorb the light that would have hit 6 square meters of ground.
> They don't build them in deserts that far north, do they?
I'm not aware of any desert in Denmark…
But you say the design is driven by lack of space, then why do they use the same design in deserts?! That's my question. Denmark doesn't have much free space, but Sweden do, land is cheap in many places there, yet the Swede don't design their plant differently.
> Normal commercial installs don't try to capture the morning sun. But in the middle of winter in Denmark the "morning" sun is basically all you have access to.
And yet you insist commercial plants don't do that? Why? Are they stupid?
> If you tilt really far and avoid shade, you counteract the bad incidence angle.
Only the vertical angle, not the horizontal one… And again it makes no sense to optimize for winter morning sun when there's only 2 hours of sunlight per day in average during winter…
You could set up a football field of our perfectly optimized morning sun solar panels, plus the same for evening sun, and you'd still have failed to power a house for the full month between January and February where the sun often don't show up once, and in that time span you've already exceeded the 10% non-solar budget in that mental exercise…
Right! A lack of places with such super free land that also have horrible sun angles.
> But you say the design is driven by lack of space, then why do they use the same design in deserts?!
The desert builds don't have to deal with the same horrible sun angles.
But whatever, I might be wrong on what they would do with free land. That was a guess, I admit it. That guess was to illustrate my point about angles. It's not a critical part of my argument.
It's a fact that solar panels on a roof avoid the shading problem, while a normal commercial layout does not. Pure mathematics.
> Only the vertical angle, not the horizontal one…
The horizontal angle doesn't change very much. If you point flat 50-60 degrees south (the year-round optimal angle for Denmark) you will get a significant amount of sun no matter the season if you avoid shade. Winter sun is less than average but it's close to 50%, not 5%.
> And again it makes no sense to optimize for winter morning sun when there's only 2 hours of sunlight per day in average during winter…
That's so close to understanding my argument!
Commercial plants don't bother. They're not optimal for winter. But if you build on a slanted roof you get that optimization for free. So a home install actually becomes better than a commercial install for this specific use case.
But it's not 2 hours of significant light, it's more than that. Clouds don't make the sun useless.
Yes the range reduces in winter especially when you go north, but you still get at least 45° of incidence angle in the best case scenario.
> Winter sun is less than average but it's close to 50%, not 5%.
How can it be 50% when the sun is beyond the horizon for 17 hours straight?! For some reason you obsess with shade, but disregard the most important one: the one caused by earth moving in front of the sun (also called “night”)…
> That's so close to understanding my argument!
> Commercial plants don't bother. They're not optimal for winter
I see what you mean, but plants optimize for electricity value, not rough output, and electricity is more expensive in winter, if they could get good yields at that period, they would actually make more money than the one they get by selling excess electricity in summer…
> But it's not 2 hours of significant light, it's more than that. Clouds don't make the sun useless.
For regular solar panels, they pretty much do, especially in the north (because the cloud layer is effectively much thicker due to the high sunlight incidence angle). Amorphous panels have better performance in these scenarios but it's still far from good, especially if you tilt them heavily to face the sun as these panels need to be facing the sky to get as much diffuse daylight as possible.
As a result, the sunny hours, even though rare, are going to dwarf the others in electricity production, even if there's few of them.
But if you believe you can sustain 90% of your electricity consumption from solar in Denmark, go ahead, I'm not going to convince you otherwise and I'll have no guilt if you lose your shirt in the process.
> How can it be 50% when the sun is beyond the horizon for 17 hours straight?!
50% of the average. The average being a day with something like 12 hours of sunlight. Sorry to be unclear.
> I see what you mean, but plants optimize for electricity value, not rough output, and electricity is more expensive in winter, if they could get good yields at that period, they would actually make more money than the one they get by selling excess electricity in summer…
One important factor is that they're not optimizing for power per panel. Panels are pretty cheap, and filling the land with panels makes sense as an overall decision.
Let me reframe things. For a commercial plant it's not that they could get significantly more power in deep winter, it's that they could get the same power with 20% as many panels. But spreading panels out that far would be worse the rest of the year.
Many home installs can get that "spreading" for free.
So to redo my claim from earlier, if there was a magic button to put 50 feet between each row of panels with no downside, I strongly bet commercial installs would pay to press it. And it should take the winter output up from "useless" to "bad".
It's possible I'm still severely underestimating the clouds. But when there is light, there's this interesting advantage small/widely-spaced installs get in winter. Or rather, they have a much smaller disadvantage.
> If this sounds like basic advice, consider there are a lot of people out there that believe they have to start with serverless, kubernetes, fleets of servers, planet-scale databases, multi-zone high-availability setups, and many other "best practices".
I currently work in a small b2c startup with 200 active users (and targeting 5000 by the end of the year) and we're already paying AWS $1000/month on infra and it drives me crazy…
And the deployment process is also over-engineered in a way that makes it hard to change anything (if you want to release without changing things too much that's fine, but changing the deployment process is already a nightmare).
“But best practices”, “but scalability”, “but 99.999% uptime” …
It's not the regulations, it's the financing scheme: if it's not state backed with a long investment horizon, it's very expensive because private investors expect 10% yields in the middle of a ZIRP to cover from the possible political reversal.
The Hinckley Point C EPR reactor would have produced electricity at a rate below £20/MWh instead of a planned £80/MWh if it was financed by government bonds.
It's not just political reversal risk; there's the risk of technological obsolescence. It's very much a stretch to assume a nuclear plant will remain operationally viable (in the sense of being competitive) for 40 years, never mind the 60 or 80 years sometimes mentioned, because the competition isn't standing still.
The only credible competition against a state funded nuclear plant is hypothetical next gen geothermal power though.
Nuclear won't save the planet, as few countries can develop a nuclear industry. But for countries that have one, it should be a no brainer if not for irrational nuclear bomb fears.
> The only credible competition against a state funded nuclear plant is hypothetical next gen geothermal power though.
If we extend renewables and batteries on historical experience curves they could become incredibly cheap, with solar well below $0.01/kWh. Nuclear couldn't even make an operating profit in an environment with solar that cheap.
Price is irrelevant when you need most of your electricity in a season when there's barely any sun.
Most of the European population leave on places that are more northern then Montreal, we have less than 8 hours of daylight per day, and a significant fraction of it is cloudy.
There's no storage solution that can store the excess summer solar exposure (when we get more than 16hours on sun per day) to reinject it into the grid in winter. That's literally science fiction tech, and that's what you'd need to make solar + storage a reliable source in Europe.
Solar in California, India or the middle east? Sure. Solar in Europe, Canada and even Japan, good luck (and yes, these countries constitute most of nuclear power plants operators).
The implication that the energy couldn't be available when you need it is utter codswallop.
At $0.01/kWh, PV electricity, if converted to resistive heat, would be below the cost of Henry Hub natural gas heat. And this heat would be very storable in artificial geothermal at maybe 600 C, where it would lose < 1% of stored energy per month.
Would this have low round trip efficiency if converted back to electricity? Sure. But if the PV electricity is that cheap, so what?
When levelized cost is low enough, there's plenty of room for engineering to work around intermittency and seasonality.
> At $0.01/kWh, PV electricity, if converted to resistive heat, would be below the cost of Henry Hub natural gas heat. And this heat would be very storable in artificial geothermal at maybe 600 C, where it would lose < 1% of stored energy per month.
HN crank solves global warming with one weird trick.
looking at the current Geopolitical Climate this does not seem like an Irrational Fear. And I do not mean the fear of a reactor meltdown. But if you refine Uranium for a Powerplant you can also Refine it for a bomb.
Any country that can make a nuclear bomb could decide to make one whether or not they chose to have a civil nuclear industry (Israel being the prime example).
And in the current geopolitical climate, expect more countries to build a bomb.
Dropping a nuke on a city where nuclear plants aren't … And it's not even close. That'd be exactly like the difference between the sole victim of the Fukushima nuclear accident vs the 19 000 dead from the tsunami that caused the accident.
If nukes get involved, all bets are off no matter what, millions of people would die and the consequences of a subsequent reactor meltdown would be negligible compared to the mess you've got already.
And even compared to a conventional war, nuclear accidents are benign next to armed conflicts. (Not only during the war, but also decades after: most people are familiar with the Chernobyl red zone, but there's red zone in France due to the eternal pollution caused by WWI ammunitions).
> the sole victim of the Fukushima nuclear accident
This is a misrepresentation. There is a single person who the courts have established was (to their satisfaction) killed by nuclear exposure from Fukushima, although even that is quite debatable.
But that doesn't mean there weren't any victims, just that they could not (or could not yet) be identified. The estimated ~200 cancer deaths from Fukushima will mostly be lost in a sea of cancers from other causes. This doesn't mean they can be, or should be, ignored. Regulation is not like criminal law; one does not have to prove a technology is guilty beyond reasonable doubt to regulate it.
> The estimated ~200 cancer deaths from Fukushima will mostly be lost in a sea of cancers from other causes. This doesn't mean they can be, or should be, ignored
In comparison to the 19000 persons who died directly from the Tsunami? Yes it can be neglected. That's two orders of magnitude smaller!
> Regulation is not like criminal law; one does not have to prove a technology is guilty beyond reasonable doubt to regulate it.
No industry on earth is even remotely as regulated as nuclear industry. Over the span of the period your “200 excess death” have been calculated, more people in that particular region of Japan will have died from industrial causes, from any other industry (you should check how many people die each year from professional deceases in places as mundane as hairdressing saloons … Should we ban hair coloring?)
What nonsense. Of course we cannot ignore the 200 estimated deaths from radiation, just because people die from other reasons. You might make a cogent case that the value of 200 lives isn't all that great compared to the benefits of nuclear, but whether 19,000 people died in a tsunami is irrelevant to that argument.
Of course it is relevant: the “nuclear accident” was caused by the tsunami in the first place!
It has never been a nuclear accident to begin with, it was just a negligible (<1% in the pessimistic estimates) aggravation of the consequences of natural disaster.
Also nobody died from radiations. The additional cancer is caused by contamination, which is an entirely different health hazard for all intent and purpose.
If risk and disposal is factored into coal, gas, solar power, what would be cheaper? Nuclear has recyclable fuel processes and fail safe systems available.
> That cost doesn’t even factor in disposal because no one knows the true cost yet
There's still some cost factored in, unlike any other industry where the government is expected to clean up after the fact.
> Not sure what risk you think come from renewables
The grid collapse risk (See what happened in Spain last year, which caused 8 deaths, more than every nuclear power plant accidents in the Western world combined…). Grid operators are currently investing a trillion Euro in the EU alone in order to adapt the grid to the new challenges caused by intermittent and distributed energy sources, and this will never be accounted for in renewable electricity prices… (hence the paradox: the more “cheap energy” is being deployed in Europe, the more expensive the electricity prices become).
> and storage
"Storage" doesn't exist yet as a most people imagine it. Batteries can help ease a few hours of peak load/low supply but that's pretty much it, pumped storage is very situational with limited deployment capabilities. So the risk is that the technology simply never materialize.
It's €1.6tn up to 2040. And it's not being built to fix problems "caused by intermittent sources" so much as a complete overhaul of a grid for 27 countries, some of which are relatively backward, with standardised digital control, plus significant new interconnectors.
The finished grid will be far more robust, better able to handle local outages and issues, and generally more adaptive and open to development in various directions.
As for "cheap energy" raising prices - prices rose a little after Covid, but there's been no constant march upwards. The main driver of higher prices is gas, and eliminating gas dependence, for both for financial and strategic reasons, is a key goal.
The current situation in Iran is likely to increase that motivation.
A key point about renewables is that power doesn't rely on imports from war zones.
In my part of the world the authorities can demand a clean up bond as part of giving permission to build the project. That is done to ensure that you can’t skimp on your responsibilities.
Then I just see misinformation on the Iberian blackout. Please go ahead and tell me how thermal planes not delivering the expected reactive power was caused by renewables.
Please tell me how renewables can’t deliver reactive power when the US and all other sane grids have required them to do it for close to a decade.
And with that we’re solving high 90s% of the grid. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good enough when we still need to solve agriculture, construction, aviation, maritime shipping, industry and so on.
All ignoring that storage on larger scales already exists.
You're not going to read them, so why bother since you live in a parallel universe. But if you wanted, you could ask your chatbot so you don't have to put the efforts to read anything.
You do realize that it’s quite telling that you still haven’t been able to point out a single of these ”falsehoods” nor been able to provide any factual information of your own?
> You do realize that it’s quite telling that you still haven’t been able to point out a single of these ”falsehoods” nor been able to provide any factual information of your own?
Brandolini's law. And I'm not going to spend any effort with someone who use "sources" they haven't even read…
> Why are you so afraid of renewables and storage?
I'm not afraid of them. I'm afraid of people making wrong decisions based on idealistic views of technologies.
Renewable (outside of hydro) are a very good complement to fossil fuels. And they are a key tool to half emissions from electricity production in most of the world where electricity production is mostly done through fossil fuels. And that's great.
But also that's it. They aren't going to carry the grid on their own, they aren't going to cure cancer or bring world peace.
I have read all the sources I linked. Well, to be perfectly honest, for the ENTSO-E final report I read the summary and the relevant sections and for the actual FERC regulation, rather than the news posts I used to find the true root source, I left it at the introduction which says "non-synchronous sources must provide reactive power as per this technical specification from Y date".
But that's of course not good enough.
But you know that I am right, which is why you're trying to avoid facing reality and pretending everything I say is false, rather than dare to face it.
The consensus among grid operators and researchers is that renewable grids are a solved problem. They’ve moved on to the implementation details instead. Reddit is firmly stuck in the past though.
But, if you are curious, the modeling lands on a combination of this depending on local circumstances:
- Wind, overbuilt
- Solar, overbuilt
- Demand response
- Long range transmission to smooth out variability
- Existing nuclear power (for the grids that have them)
- Exising hydro
- Storage
- In places with district heating: CHP plants running on carbon neutral fuels.
- An emergency reserve of gas turbines. Run them on carbon neutral fuel if their emissions matter.
Why do you want to waste tens of billions of euros on handouts per new built large scale reactor?
Love it. Keep ducking. Why are you so afraid? You still haven't pointed out a single falsehood.
Then you go link a seminar from unknown people in French as your source.
But I get it. You Frenchies truly are in the shit.
The new Greece of Europe economically with a spiraling debt being completely unable to reign it in. With a crumbling nuclear fleet you are unable to replace in time. Which renewables are already cratering the earning potential for.
The perfect solution to that of course is an absolutely stupidly large handout to new built nuclear power!
So go ahead. Link some internationally credible research telling me how wrong I am. You still haven't been able to do it, which is extremely telling,
Funny how random sources you haven't read from the internet are valid sources but a conference on the topic given in France's most prestigious academic place, conference which I followed, isn't because you don't like French people. Thanks for acknowledging I was right not to bother giving more material you wouldn't have read.
“On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog” as the saying goes, buy everyone knows you're a lame troll.
> "Random sources on the internet" = the pan European entity responsible for the largest grid in the world and FERC.
= a source that you picked at random without reading it (and which doesn't back your argument since it acknowledges the fact that renewable render the grid more vulnerable, but who cares about the facts).
> Why are you so afraid of renewables?
I'm not, it's a projection of your own fear of nuclear though. Scary atoms making up everything.
> When will France fix their economy by not wasting hundreds of billions on insane handouts and state capitalism?
It's funny because France has among the cheapest electricity in Europe and the nuclear operator have been forced to subsidize its competitor to compensate for the competitive advantage of NPP. (ARENH, but you're not gonna read about it either).
I just read enough of it to verify its accuracy as to the point I was making.
It also verifies that the US has required non-synchronous plants to manage this for the past decade. And for that matter, I just picked the US because it is well known jurisdiction. All reasonable grids, except Spain until after the blackout, have the same regulations in terms of managing reactive power.
Managing reactive power is trivial to do today. But since it is not free it won't be done unless if the grid operator requires it.
I have no fear of nuclear power. I always argue that we should keep our existing nuclear reactors around as long as they are:
1. Safe
2. Needed
3. Economical
In that order. The problem is wasting decades of opportunity cost and trillions on handouts to new built nuclear power when we still need to decarbonize industry, aviation, shipping, construction, agriculture etc.
And then you finish off by living on almost half a century old merits. Like I said, the French should keep the fleet around as long as the criteria I mentioned above requires it.
The problem is wasting hundreds of billions on handouts to new built nuclear power when renewables and storage are the cheapest energy source in human history.
Don't let the French pride make you become the next Greece.
The definition of “major accident” used in nuclear is orders of magnitude more strict than in any other industries though, which distort the picture.
The worst nuclear accident involving a nuclear plant (Chernobyl, which occurred in a country without regulation for all intent and purpose) killed less people than the food processing industry cause every year (and I'm not counting long term health effect of junk food, just contamination incidents in the processing units leading to deadly intoxications of consumers).
In countries with regulations there's been 2 “major accidents”: TMI killed no one, Fukushima killed 1 guy and injured 24, in the plant itself. In any industries that would be considered workplace safety violation, not “major accident”… And it occurred in the middle of, and because, a tsunami which killed 19000!
I'm actually happy this regulation exist because that's why there ate so little accidents, but claiming that it's still hazardous despite the regulations is preposterous.
> The definition of “major accident” used in nuclear is orders of magnitude more strict than in any other industries though, which distort the picture.
What would your definition of a "major incident" be for photovoltaics?
> I am pretty sure we dont need to evacuate large areas and keep sarcofag over former food processing plants.
If we only tolerated the same long term risk level for food, you wouldn't be be eating anything but organic vegetables. The fact that we put a sarcophagus to prevent material from leaking is just the reflection of the accepted limits. Flint water crisis was much more dangerous than leaving Chernobyl without the latest sarcophagus but nobody cared for a decade.
> The chernobyl was poisoning Russian soldiers by the start of Ukrainian invasion
The stories of acute radiation poisoning have been debunked repeatedly, there simply isn't enough radioactive material left there to cause such symptoms (it's still a very bad idea to eat mushrooms or the meat of wild animals living there, you'd risk long term cancer, but nothing close to acute radiation poisoning, it's simply not possible from a physics standpoint).
And again, we're talking about an accident that happened in Soviet Union on a reactor absolutely not designed with safety in mind and with a Soviet party member who threatened the engineers into bypassing safety mechanism in order to operate outside of the design domain of the plant. And the resulting accident was nowhere near close to the Bhopal catastrophe.
Chemical site have deadly accidents every other years and nobody seems to care but they'll obsess about nuclear ones even when they barely kill anyone. And chemical plants accident do leave long lasting pollution with durable health effect, but we don't permanently evacuate the places because we tolerate the risk.
Your "large area" is actually tiny, and the solution is to... not go there. Yeah, all you have to do is not go to a very specific tiny area in Ukraine. I think that's quite easily manageable.
As usual, when such things are mentioned, you lack any and all sense of scale and statistics. Just pure fearmongering.
Look at the number of all nuclear plants over their entire lifetime and divide their benefits by the cost of what, the two or three major incidents you can think of? This simple calculation alone makes your arguments utterly ridiculous. We accept 1000x the risk and cost of that on a daily basis, in e.g. driving, gas and coal plants.
Go ahead and evacuate to get away from the negative effects of soot, tire dust, CO2, and all the other fun pollution that's spread out over the entire atmosphere. Good luck living on Mars.
It's even worse than this, you'd don't even need to compare to other industries, nuclear-induced death over the past 40 years are negligible even when you compare to stuff like professional diseases of maids or electricians (and I'm purposely not picking hazardous professions…).
> So, the lessons for all other countries in the world is pretty clear: grow yourselves some mountains, dig yourselves a big river, and dam, baby, dam !!
Came to say that, every time you'll see a country running on 100% renewables for an extended period, it's going to be hydro, because it's the only controllable supply among renewables (with geothermal as well, but it's been so niche so far I put it aside, but I hope it will change).
Unfortunately most of the hype and investments go to solar and wind power, which fundamentally don't offer the same capabilities. (Solar is fine as long as you're in q sunny place that is not in Europe though because it can be predictable enough to be relied on, but Solar in above 40° North and wind are borderline scams at this point).
I've yet to see a convincing explanation of what make such a “license” legally bounding in the first place.
There's no copyright on model weights themselves (because they are produced purely mechanically without involving human creativity, the same way there's no copyright on compiled artifacts of a piece of software or an h264 encoded movie file).
For software and movies the copyright cover the source material, not the resulting binary, and for LLMs the source material can also be protected by copyright. The problem, is that LLM makers don't own most of the copyright on the source material and worse they claim the training process is transformative enough to erase the copyright of the source material so even the part of the training data for which they own copyright couldn't extend their copyright protection to the weights.
It's very likely that these licenses are entirely devoid of legal value (and I don't think Meta engaged in any legal actions (not even a DMCA takedown) on any of the bazillions llama finetunes violating the llama license on huggingface).
> after someone revealed that their recipe was AI-generated, a couple people literally spat out the food they were enjoying and threw their plates in the trash
Not entirely unwarranted given the track record of LLMs as a chef though:
Of course it was two years ago and it's unlikely to happen again, but that's the drawback of the “move fast and break things” attitude: sometimes you've broken public perception and it's hard to fix afterwards.
> Not every school had computers, and those which do, often had the fear of something being broken as the main guiding principle
People glamorize exotic places they don't know, and you're doing exactly this here: I grew up in the 90s in the suburb of Paris (not in a poor neighborhood) and we didn't have a single computer in school until. And even later in high school in the early 2000, we had few computers in dedicated rooms the teacher had to book in advance and often not all computer worked.
The West was much better that the eastern block in many aspects, but it wasn't the land of unlimited abundance some people from the East believed it was.
reply