[HN Gopher] GE Vernova announces order of 674 wind turbines, pro...
___________________________________________________________________
GE Vernova announces order of 674 wind turbines, providing 2.4 GW
of power
Author : geox
Score : 141 points
Date : 2024-01-09 15:05 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ge.com)
| InTheArena wrote:
| I'd be curious how this compares with some significant projects
| in Europe and Asia?
| i_am_jl wrote:
| An output of 2.4Gw would make it the second most powerful
| onshore wind farm by nameplate output. China's Gansu is much
| (3-4x) more powerful. The UK's most powerful offshore farm,
| Hornsea, is being built in phases. Their phase 1+2 nameplate
| output is ~2.5Gw from 339 turbines, when finished they're
| aiming for 6Gw.
|
| It's big. It isn't the biggest and not really close to the
| biggest, but it's big.
| nharada wrote:
| That's awesome, I wonder what the cost per MW came out to.
| chris222 wrote:
| iirc the transmission and generation was roughly an even split
| on the 11 billion raised.
|
| https://patternenergy.com/pattern-energy-closes-11-billion-f...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| So assuming 25 to 45% capacity factor, $10k to $18k per
| effective kW. Depreciate that linearly over 20 year's and you
| get 5.8 to 10.5C/ per kWh before maintenance and operations.
| Given Arizona pays about 16C//kWh, the project seems likely
| to be viable.
| epistasis wrote:
| You are lumping together the transmission and generation
| costs, which will have different service lifetimes.
|
| Wind turbines are 30+, but advances in technology and
| falling costs have incentivized many wind farms to repower
| with bigger turbines far before the end of service life in
| order to increase profitability.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _lumping together the transmission and generation
| costs, which will have different service lifetimes_
|
| Sure, it's back of the envelope. If you have more precise
| figures I'm genuinely curious.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| An adjacent 350MW project from the same owners has a 46%
| capacity factor and signed a 20-year agreement for
| $0.04/kWh (they did qualify for the PTC so their 'real'
| cost is $0.06/kWh) - this project will surely be well
| under $0.10/kwh wholesale as well:
|
| > _In the event Red Cloud qualifies for 100 percent of
| the PTC, the energy price will be reduced by $2.00 per
| MWh and the new energy price will be $41.00 per MWh. The
| price for Test Energy will be reduced to $30.25 per MWh
| and Excess Energy will be reduced to $16.40 per MWh._
|
| https://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2020/20-1217_misc_09
| -24...
| epistasis wrote:
| The best estimate was the 50% in the comment with the
| original link, which would correspond to $120/mile for
| transmission, which IIRC is right in the correct
| ballpark.
| guepe wrote:
| Example in UK, offshore (with higher costs than onshore)
| are about 60 pounds/mwh (lcoe, so all included). That's 6
| cents /kwh and this is offshore
|
| But UK has lots of offshore wind. Still the 10cents upper
| range is probably quite a bit higher than the real number
| here.
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Wholesale electricity prices generally range from $0.01 to
| $0.1 per kWh in the US.
| https://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/update/wholesale-
| mar...
| epistasis wrote:
| ~$100/mile really highlights the challenge of transmission.
|
| Already, our transmission and distribution costs are more
| expensive than generation costs. Utilities want us to ignore
| these costs, as unavoidably, because they get to "rate base"
| T&D costs and charge a fixed rate of profit, meaning that
| anything extra they can spend on T&D is more profit that,
| without any competition.
|
| This is why residential solar get such stiff propaganda
| against it by utilities, going as far to say that residential
| solar "freeloads" on the grid, rather than saving everybody
| costs on the grid by reducing the peak needs of T&D.
|
| With wind, perhaps these transmission costs are somewhat
| unavoidable, but solar can be place elsewhere, and all solar
| that avoided this doubling of costs due to extra T&D costs
| should be highly encouraged by everyone (except the
| utilities, who lose out on profit).
| vlovich123 wrote:
| I find it hard to believe that truly self-sustained
| residential solar (solar panels + batteries all local) is
| going to be net cheaper than centralized grid generation.
| The maintenance costs should be significantly higher,
| particularly for the batteries.
|
| It's not propaganda. The reason it's freeloading is that
| you're still connected to the grid and thus the T&D costs
| are still there as they're largely fixed. Utilities have
| done a poor job of pricing T&D costs correctly (your hookup
| cost is massively subsidized on the assumption that you
| will consume an average amount of energy from the grid).
| Additionally, for a long time (at least in California)
| utilities were forced to buy back your excess electricity
| at retail instead of wholesale rates (even if they didn't
| need it & they can't really control electricity you
| generate like they can with power plants).
|
| Residential solar is a greedy tragedy of the commons
| solution that is subsidized by everyone else. And if
| everyone had residential solar + batteries + no grid
| hookup, someone would have to do the analysis if the
| maintenance cost vs T&D.
| flir wrote:
| > It's not propaganda
|
| So how come that rhetoric is only coming out of the US?
| The rest of the world's distribution networks don't have
| a problem with residential solar (afaik).
| vlovich123 wrote:
| What other countries have meaningful residential solar
| and haven't had to deal with the problems? Can you cite
| anything because I can't find any good resources online,
| but AFAICT the US and China are leading the world in
| solar and it's possible that the US is leading for
| residential solar on normalized terms (haven't checked).
|
| California is probably one of the places in the world
| with the largest solar residential install and therefore
| has the most experience with this vs some dark propaganda
| conspiracy to keep residential solar down? Trust me,
| residential solar is hugely popular because you basically
| have free electricity and the government subsidizing the
| install cost on top + forcing utilities to buy your
| electricity generation during the day? The political
| incentives are for more residential solar, not less. The
| utilities aren't popular and you can accuse them of shady
| shit (& they do engage on it), but in this specific
| instance it does seem more sincere that people are acting
| because of the threat that residential solar placed to
| the financial stability of the grid. And no, residential
| solar doesn't remove the need for the grid.
|
| https://www.builderonline.com/data-analysis/california-
| snags...
|
| https://ilsr.org/the-states-of-distributed-solar/
|
| 4 of the top 5 solar cities in the US are in California.
| California has stopped with the explicit rebates to fund
| residential solar and it's not just because solar prices
| have dropped - it's bad policy. Other places are still
| lagging because they don't have enough residential solar
| installed to make it obviously a bad idea. The
| residential solar market has seen a massive contraction
| since the state government stopped forcing utilities to
| subsidize them as much - they're still subsidizing a bit
| but they switched from buying back electricity from
| residential at retail rates & now instead use wholesale
| which is what they'd pay any other generator (T&D costs
| are subsidized because the monthly grid hookup rate is
| still too cheap for these kinds of houses).
| flir wrote:
| Spain would be the obvious comparison. They're installing
| rooftop solar like crazy.
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| The Netherlands and Belgium certainly do
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| residential solar freeloads on the grid because it doesnt
| reduce peak need, and home generators have historically
| been paid at a price equivalent to generation plus
| transmission rate. This means other consumers have to pay
| generation + 2X transmission for any home solar power they
| consume.
|
| The economics of home solar are terrible. There is some
| value in home battery, but even then it still makes far
| more sense for industrial scale battery than home.
| flir wrote:
| > it doesnt reduce peak need
|
| Residential solar doesn't use batteries?
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Batteries use batteries, not solar.
|
| Either way, Peak need is still determined by when
| residential batteries are empty because residential
| batteries are not sized to a day without sun, let alone
| multiple.
|
| Therefore, you are always stuck with a grid built with
| capacity for the same peak.
| flir wrote:
| > Therefore, you are always stuck with a grid built with
| capacity for the same peak.
|
| Thanks, I understand your point now. I thought you were
| arguing something much looser.
|
| But I think you're looking at residential solar in
| isolation, and not considering the load-shifting that
| comes with a smart grid.
| opo wrote:
| >...This is why residential solar get such stiff propaganda
| against it by utilities, going as far to say that
| residential solar "freeloads" on the grid
|
| The problem with rooftop solar is that it is very expensive
| compared to utility grade solar:
|
| >...Rooftop solar photovoltaic installations on residential
| buildings have the highest unsubsidized levelized costs of
| energy generation in the United States. If not for federal
| and state subsidies, rooftop solar PV would come with a
| price tag between 147 and 221 U.S. dollars per megawatt
| hour.
|
| https://www.statista.com/statistics/493797/estimated-
| leveliz...
|
| If we want to subsidize a renewable energy source, why
| should we subsidize rooftop solar when we could subsidize
| utility grade solar or wind? Money is fungible and not
| unlimited - a dollar that goes to subsidize residential
| rooftop solar is a dollar that would go much, much further
| if it was used to subsidize utility grade solar or wind.
| Rooftop solar subsidies are also unusual in that much of
| the subsidy is often paid by less well-off households to
| subsidize their wealthier neighbors - sort of a reverse
| Robinhood scheme.
| slaw wrote:
| Residential solar is very inexpensive if you install it
| yourself. 3kW solar panel is $195.90 [0]. 10kW battery is
| $2200.
|
| [0] https://www.aliexpress.us/item/3256806170563774.html
| evilos wrote:
| Something's off there. From the product description:
|
| 3000WProduct Description
|
| Widely used: Under 4 hours of full sunlight, the daily
| production capacity is 400wh/day. It is very suitable for
| RVs, caravans, oceans, camping vehicles, electric
| scooters, golf carts, power wheels, fishing motors, tool
| trailers, and backup power sources for small sheds.
|
| [( Excellent Performance )] : Single crystal solar panels
| are made of corrosion-resistant aluminum frames, which
| can be used for more than ten years and can withstand
| strong winds (2400Pa) and snow loads (5400Pa). IP65 rated
| terminal box and 21% high battery efficiency.
|
| [Easy to install]: Pre drilled holes on the back and plug
| and play cables allow for quick installation
|
| [( Multi protection )] : 20A PWM controller: built-in
| short circuit, open circuit, and overload protection to
| ensure safety. And it supports three types of batteries:
| lithium batteries, lead-acid batteries, and colloidal
| batteries.
|
| Technical parameters:
|
| Rated power: 100W
| kragen wrote:
| > _The problem with rooftop solar is that it is very
| expensive compared to utility grade solar:_
|
| that's not the _utility 's_ problem
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Related:
|
| https://electrek.co/2023/12/28/largest-clean-energy-project-...
|
| https://patternenergy.com/projects/sunzia/
| kevincox wrote:
| The announcement doesn't seem provide any estimation of power
| output? Just the peak power. It would be interesting to see what
| the overall output is expected to be.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Typical capacity factors of current wind farms are between 25%
| and 45%. Nuance is expected curtailment [1], if there are
| batteries at commissioning or potentially in the future for
| firming and curtailment reduction [2], how this compliments
| solar and other generation types in the US West at delivery
| points, etc.
|
| [1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=57100
|
| [2]
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S23521...
| (solar PV specific, but the same modeling can be applied to
| wind prediction)
| plorg wrote:
| Siting, of course, is the other big factor. I assume the
| project developer has priced this in and judged this project
| to be at least profitable, so you might assume they have good
| wind.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Yes.
|
| https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/wind-resource-assessment-
| an...
|
| https://windexchange.energy.gov/states/nm#maps
| BenoitP wrote:
| From wikipedia [1]
|
| > Typical capacity factors of current wind farms are between 25
| and 45%
|
| Offshore being about 10% higher than on land.
|
| Of note is that it is in unconstrained conditions, defined by
| the weather; when it is needed or when a flexible production
| can reduce its output, or when flexible consumption can absorb
| it. As renewables' share increase, this is becoming a problem
| in some parts of the world: electricity prices can even go
| negative at times.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
| colechristensen wrote:
| It's a problem that fixes itself. The market for renewable
| energy is different because of these peaks, it just takes a
| while for business to learn to take advantage of the
| opportunities periodic low pricing.
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| As a somewhat interesting aside, the transmission line associated
| with this project (the "SunZia" project) has been a bit mired in
| a web of (legitimate) complexities, mostly related to
| environmental protection and Indigenous sovereignty.
|
| The San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Tohono O'odham Nation in
| particular have protested the line's route in Arizona, and it's
| currently in Bureau of Land Management review.
|
| https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-landline-bidens-push-for-...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Tohono O'odham Nation in
| particular have protested the line 's route in Arizona_
|
| Can't tell if the tribes [1] want an amended path, to kill the
| project, to be paid off or are NIMBYing [1].
|
| [1] https://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/wp-
| content/uploads/2023...
| yardie wrote:
| The US Govt has hardly honored any of their Native American
| agreements. I find it acceptable to extract money from a
| belligerent government in any way possible.
| TulliusCicero wrote:
| We should really stop pretending that the Native American
| reservations are 'sovereign states', and just label them
| semi-autonomous zones or something.
| mminer237 wrote:
| Didn't the 1871 Indian Appropriation Act essentially do
| that?
| chris222 wrote:
| Tbey just announced the close of financing on Dec 27 so this is
| great news that the order with GE was confirmed so quickly.
| Things are moving along nicely.
|
| https://patternenergy.com/pattern-energy-closes-11-billion-f...
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| The GE press release made it sound like they've previously done
| more than 1GW worth of wind power business with this company. I
| imagine that the track record made it really easy to get the
| financing in place.
| foobarian wrote:
| I was curious how it compares to the large nuclear plants and
| came across this [1] where it turns out the top 7 stations are
| all hydro. The top one being 22GW! Wild.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_power_stations
| darknavi wrote:
| I really want to like hydro but it has clear negative effects
| on ecology (namely fish). I am really hoping wind and solar
| don't affect local ecology as much.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Layman's question: don't the reservoirs create a new habitat
| for fish? They'd be "artificial" in a way but eh, so is
| everything else. Or is the problem that they all get turned
| into fish pie in the turbine...
| voakbasda wrote:
| River fish need different habitat than lake fish.
|
| And in many areas, migratory fish are impeded from reaching
| their spawning grounds. Fish ladders and other contrivances
| are a poor workaround for an unimpeded flow.
| nereye wrote:
| One of the main issues is that dams tend to block access to
| the upstream spawning grounds for species such as Coho
| salmon. E.g. see https://www.reuters.com/world/us/save-
| salmon-us-approves-lar....
| bilekas wrote:
| Not sure how prevalent they are bit aren't fish ladders
| built with dams for this exact reason?
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092585
| 741...
| burkaman wrote:
| Yes, but it's very hard to get fish to use them. Some
| species are almost completely blocked even if there is a
| ladder.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| They don't work for many species. For example, one study
| found that 3% of American shad were able to use a fish
| ladder. https://e360.yale.edu/features/blocked_migration_
| fish_ladder...
|
| Fish ladders are akin to greenwashing.
| latchkey wrote:
| Imagine in countries like Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos where they
| dam up rivers for hydro so badly that it prevents
| downstream flows, wiping out the downstream natural
| ecology.
|
| They also have wet/dry seasons, so for part of the year
| everything gets flooded, overruns the dams and wipes out
| whole villages.
|
| Pretty much a complete eco disaster that few talk about.
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| Is that for hydro or water storage though? Surely you
| want the flow for hydro.
| latchkey wrote:
| This isn't about storage. They build hydro dams on
| running rivers.
| mdorazio wrote:
| That's not how it works. After it fills up you have to
| let water out of the dammed reservoir at the same rate it
| flows in (on average) or else it overflows. The issues
| created are related to sediments and flow consistency.
| More info in the top response here: https://earthscience.
| stackexchange.com/questions/18287/do-da...
| latchkey wrote:
| I don't appreciate the downvote because you aren't
| listening to what I'm saying.
|
| When it rains, it floods. They (stupidly) build dams for
| rate of flow during low season (cause it isn't
| raining)... then the wet season comes and the dams all
| overflow. Poor construction practices doesn't help
| either. They also build dam after dam along the same
| river... I've see 10+ of these things... ends up being a
| chain of mess when the first one fails.
|
| Just a bit of googling to give you examples:
|
| "Dam design and greed may factor into flood devastation
| in Vietnam"
| https://www.refworld.org/docid/58f9ca0c13.html
|
| https://tuoitrenews.vn/news/society/20231012/investigatio
| n-u...
|
| https://www.voanews.com/a/vietnam-must-improve-flood-
| resilie...
| avar wrote:
| Before the dam they'd have around the same amount of
| water, actually slightly less than that, as the reservoir
| loses water through evaporation.
|
| Dams don't create water that wasn't there before.
|
| It sounds like they're upset that the dam wasn't
| oversized to handle flood control in addition to
| hydropower.
|
| That's a legitimate gripe with public investment and
| shortsightedness, but the damn aren't going to be making
| it worse (unless they're managed by morons).
| latchkey wrote:
| > _unless they 're managed by morons_
|
| Apparently, you've never been to a country like Vietnam.
| It is a combination of poor education and greed.
| ben_w wrote:
| > They also have wet/dry seasons, so for part of the year
| everything gets flooded, overruns the dams and wipes out
| whole villages.
|
| This implies a degree of incompetence or corruption on
| the part of the dam designer and/or dam builder.
|
| I won't say such things never happens, but it is what not
| being able to predict and design around a regular change
| of season implies.
| latchkey wrote:
| > _This implies a degree of incompetence or corruption on
| the part of the dam designer and /or dam builder._
|
| Of course it does!
|
| In Laos/Cambodia, the dams are mostly built by China in
| order to help them build their silk road to Sihanoukville
| (so that they can have an easier route to Africa). In
| Vietnam, it is just plain greed since they aren't in as
| much of a rush to help China.
|
| Unless you ride a motorbike into the furthest remote
| areas of these countries, like I have, you wouldn't be
| the wiser. I've see it all.
|
| Compare and contrast:
|
| http://english.scio.gov.cn/m/beltandroad/2022-05/09/conte
| nt_...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/jul/31/no-
| cambodia-l...
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Dams are incredible for wet/dry seasons. They allow you
| to moderate the flow as you fill and release the revivor.
| It sounds like youre just describing incompetence.
| latchkey wrote:
| > It sounds like youre just describing incompetence.
|
| I am.
| audunw wrote:
| Look at pictures of a hydro power plant reservoir. Look at
| the water edge when the water level is lower. It's like a
| desert.
|
| When the water level goes up and down it kills all life
| along the edge. That life is an important food source for
| fish.
| gosub100 wrote:
| people already mentioned fish, but still water harbors
| bacteria and generally has lower oxygen levels than
| turbulent water. also nutrient-rich sediment piles up at
| the base of the dam instead of getting distributed evenly
| down the river.
| lvspiff wrote:
| In NV it has really depended on the type of solar but seems
| anything that takes up large acres of land is going to be an
| issue. For ground based solar cell arrays we've had issues
| with the desert tortoise and other animals that it encroaches
| on their habitat. When you are using the molten salt method
| the bird population ends up at risk due to the laser like
| beam of light that gets directed towards the tower. They go
| so far as to deploy hawks and sounds but inevitably some bird
| brain gets fried.
| adventured wrote:
| There is nothing of meaningful physical scale that can be
| built that doesn't encroach on some animals habitat. There
| are no exceptions, whether we're talking about a house, a
| road, a store, a factory, a power plant, a train line, a
| commercial office building.
|
| Humans only have two choices: de facto suicide, or
| encroach.
|
| I vote encroach.
| foota wrote:
| Hydro is mostly (not entirely) tapped out for power
| generation (not, of course, for pumped storage, which doesn't
| require rivers). Creating reservoirs is also ecologically
| damaging, and releases a lot of methane (although I'm not
| sure how large the impact is relative to the carbon savings,
| this could be FUD I'm repeating)
| Scoundreller wrote:
| Sort by annual generation and it changes things a bit. 2 of the
| top 7 are then nuclear.
|
| Interesting how the #1 (Hydro dam in China) can put out 60%
| more than #2 (Brazil/paraguay dam) at max, but only puts out 9%
| more per year.
| bilsbie wrote:
| This really puts into perspective how much the 1.21 GW that the
| delorean used.
| aperson_hello wrote:
| There's a philosophical discussion to be had here regarding the
| difference between a gigawatt and a jigawatt!
| airstrike wrote:
| Technically "jigowatts" per the script
| http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/bttf4th.pdf even though
| they really meant it to be gigawatts
| jokteur wrote:
| In the french dub, they say jigowatt.
| bilsbie wrote:
| Also could be very little energy depending on how long they
| needed to apply the power.
| flir wrote:
| Well a lightning bolt solved that problem, so...
| bilsbie wrote:
| Do you think the flux capacitor played a role in storing
| the energy?
| p1mrx wrote:
| Why store the energy, when you can just send it forward
| in time?
| bilsbie wrote:
| Hmm. Maybe it's a mini Time Machine that steals energy
| from the future to power full scale time travel?
|
| Sort of like a time travel boot loader?
| mminer237 wrote:
| So say 10 gigawatts over 50 microseconds. So you could
| charge it up in about 31/2 minutes from a standard
| residential outlet.
| danbruc wrote:
| Wikipedia says a typical lightning bolt releases 1 GJ, so
| 10 GW you can have for 100 ms, for 50 us you can have 20
| TW. And most importantly 1.21 GW for the better part of a
| second, 826 ms to be precise.
| bilsbie wrote:
| What if they just built batteries into the base of turbine? And
| it could become a base load power source by smoothing its output.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _What if they just built batteries into the base of turbine?_
|
| What would this gain other than making the turbines more
| expensive to build and maintain? It's cheaper to put the
| batteries almost anywhere else and altogether.
| epistasis wrote:
| Adding batteries is already quite common to allow for small
| amounts of price arbitrage. Its more common for utilities
| scale solar, with over half of new solar including storage,
| but wind isn't far behind, IIRC.
|
| The advantage of putting it next to the generation is that
| you get to reuse the transmission line, and make better use
| of it. And since transmission and distribution are more
| expensive than generation, anything that cuts those costs is
| a big win. Also, it's a site that the wind farm owner already
| controls, which makes it far easier than obtaining
| interconnection somewhere else, as interconnection queues are
| one of the biggest roadblocks to deploying more renewable
| resources right now.
|
| (Additionally, with solar, you get to reduce your inverters,
| which you can't do if the storage is placed at a second site)
| Symbiote wrote:
| The suggestion was the base of each turbine.
|
| That has no advantages compared to the point the turbines
| are connected to the electricity grid -- N locations to
| service rather than 1, N copies of everything rather than 1
| big one, etc.
| epistasis wrote:
| You are correct, I misunderstood! Hopefully my prattling
| on will be helpful to others though...
| kolinko wrote:
| They will probably have an energy storage facitilty nearby.
| There's little benefit to bundling these, and the cost of
| maintenance is increased. Also, batteries will have shorter
| timespan than the turbines.
|
| It may begin to make sense when battery prices get so low that
| installation and setup costs increase - similarly to solar
| where a large part of price currently is installation and
| scaffolding, not the panels themselves
| adrianmonk wrote:
| Because of finite transmission capacity, the optimal place to
| put batteries is pretty complicated.
|
| Consumption varies over time, and there can be bottlenecks
| getting power into an area, so you might want storage near
| consumption. Wind power is going to vary in how much it
| generates, so if there are bottlenecks getting power out of the
| area, you might want storage near generation.
|
| Plus, bottlenecks can move around. For example, if two power
| plants share the same line to send power to two cities.
| jl6 wrote:
| 3.5MW per turbine is quite modest. GE have a 14MW model -
| possibly onshore vs offshore is the difference?
|
| Also, $11bn for the whole 3.5GW project isn't bad compared to
| $34bn for 2.2GW of new nuclear:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogtle_Electric_Generating_Pla...
|
| (3.5GW of wind nameplate capacity being ~1.2GW at the typical
| onshore capacity factor of 35%)
|
| You could buy a lot of storage for the difference.
| varjag wrote:
| Offshore stuff is just bigger: the sweet spot is different due
| to substantial fixed cost of wind park installation. But for
| perspective, two decades ago when we had our earliest
| deliveries to wind power sector, 1.3MW turbines were state of
| the art for offshore.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| Vogtle notoriously suffered from cost overruns and was
| complicated by Westinghouse going through bankruptcy during the
| construction. It's not obvious that this is a representative
| example and "1" is not a statistically valid sample size. It
| was also the first US plant brought online in 40 years, which
| required a lot of lessons to be learned for the first time in a
| generation, as would not be the case for future construction.
|
| And you're comparing the ultimate cost of the completed reactor
| to the estimated cost of the wind project -- the _estimated_
| cost of Vogtle was $14B, and now SunZia is getting sued for
| whatever it is this time. The US makes it unreasonably
| expensive to build _anything_.
|
| And even then, by the time you account for capacity factor,
| short-term storage and long-term storage, even with all the
| cost overruns, the cost of Vogtle was the same order of
| magnitude as the _estimated_ cost of a wind project that would
| supply the same amount of power.
|
| I honestly don't understand why people think these things are
| particularly in competition with each other. If we're going to
| stop burning carbon, we're going to electrify transportation,
| and _that_ is where most of the storage batteries are going to
| go for the foreseeable future. And then we 're going to have to
| increase the amount of generating capacity to charge all of
| those batteries. But that's great -- they're batteries so we
| can charge them with new renewables without having to worry
| about intermittency.
|
| Except that means we just allocated the bulk of our production
| capacity for both storage _and_ renewable generation to
| electrifying transportation, and we still need to stop burning
| carbon for the existing baseload power generation. Hence
| nuclear.
| ViewTrick1002 wrote:
| Keep in mind that about half the cost is the transmission
| line. [1]
|
| Vogtle closely matches nuclear costs in Europe so trying to
| frame it as a special snowflake we will never repeat does not
| add up. Until proven otherwise it is what nuclear
| construction is expected to cost in advanced economies.
|
| Bent Flyvbjerg has studied megaprojects. Looking at those the
| most likely to come in on time and budget are solar pv and
| wind projects. On the complete opposite end of the spectrum
| we have nuclear energy only beaten by the Olympics and
| nuclear waste storage in terms of cost over runs and delays.
|
| The HVDC line adds risk but we have gotten quite experienced
| at building those globally.
|
| The equivalency in risk you try to construct does not exist.
|
| https://patternenergy.com/pattern-energy-
| closes-11-billion-f...
| SoftTalker wrote:
| > You could buy a lot of storage for the difference.
|
| Theoretically yes, but is it actually available?
| ViewTrick1002 wrote:
| California built 4.2 GW of storage in 2023. With a typical 4
| hour storage rate that is 16 GWh being cycled daily.
|
| There are now times in the California grid where the second
| largest producer is batteries.
| jjcm wrote:
| Looks like they currently have around 4.51 GW of power generation
| in the state based off of this (someone please double check my
| math, but 3250GWh in Sept / 720 hours in Sept = 4.51GW):
| https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=NM#tabs-4, so this should be a 53%
| increase in power generation for the state. Truly a massive
| project.
| andruby wrote:
| The stated 2.4GW of the article is "nameplate" output (+- peak
| output).
|
| You computed the average generation over a whole month.
|
| The difference between both is called "capacity factor" and is
| of course different per region. I've found some online numbers
| between 30 and 45%. Multiplying your 53% number with a 35% CF
| becomes a more realistic but less impressive 18.5%
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power#Capacity_factor
| palemoonale wrote:
| Yay! More ugly landscape-disturbing things helping only during
| certain hours, compared to established nuclear technology, or
| still-in-research fusion technology.
|
| PS, the usual peeps downvoting not just me: Sure, let your
| emotions guide you, don't care. My comment above is not offtopic.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| It's not off-topic, but it's not in the spirit of HN either. I
| assume your tone is why you're downvoted.
| ben_w wrote:
| "Ugly" is an opinion, which means it's neither true nor false.
| Me, I like them, but I know that me liking them doesn't
| invalidate your dislike.
|
| And calling them "landscape-disturbing" is true, but so are all
| other things -- I've been to some wind farms, they are much
| less disruptive to the environment than the nuclear reactors I
| can only see from a distance. Sheep grazing under and around
| them, for a start.
| threeseed wrote:
| Nuclear is simply not price competitive.
|
| And according to Tokamak Energy who is one of the fusion
| leaders it won't be ready until 2030s at the earliest.
| kaskakokos wrote:
| I agree with you, they have a big impact on several levels:
| noise, landscape, soil, wildlife and even local economy (would
| you like to go on a rural escape to a beautiful mountain
| village full of roads and metal giants)?
|
| Where I live in Spain there are several associations trying to
| prevent the installation of wind turbines in many of the
| beautiful mountains that are otherwise going to be
| industrialised [1].
|
| I recommend joining local associations if you want to prevent
| wind turbines from being installed on your home.
|
| [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2023/05/20/spain-
| new-...
| Dah00n wrote:
| Why is it every post about solar or wind have to end up with
| comments about how great nuclear is? It is like a religion they
| simply _must_ preach.
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| Probably because it's the only known carbon-free source of
| dependable and non-intermittent energy that can be deployed
| nearly anywhere.
|
| Let's be realistic about the devastatingly massive amounts of
| environmental damage wind/solar are doing by requiring
| unimaginably large amounts of minerals to be mined for both
| solar/wind AND the required batteries.
|
| Right now, it's an "out of sight, out of mind" kind of a
| problem because the mining happens in poor countries. How many
| cobalt and lithium mines have been approved in the U.S? I can
| think of only a couple in the past couple of decades. Why?
| Because they're terrible for the environment.. so we outsource
| the environmental damage to poor countries.
|
| Nuclear is expensive, but if we build a new plant every 40
| years... what do we expect? Each plant is a one-off bespoke
| creation. The same economies of scale that have made solar+wind
| so cheap also apply to nuclear tech.
|
| We have the technology to solve the climate emergency. Nuclear
| lets us do it. Everything else is wishful thinking.
|
| p.s wind and solar have a part to play - specially in unstable
| and failed states where the existence of fissile material could
| be very dangerous.
| rtpg wrote:
| Nuclear cannot be deployed anywhere, it needs a source of
| water. It also needs staffing, and it needs to be kinda near
| to people who need electricity.
|
| This last point is important because nuclear plants generate
| a lot of power, so you cant easily build a plant "just" for
| 500 people in the same way you can for other energy sources.
|
| I am fine with nuclear in principle. There are real reasons
| nukes are expensive and not the ideal option in many
| situations. We have to be clear eyed about this.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-01-09 23:00 UTC)