Hacker News Reader

Comment by emp_zealoth | Hacker News Reader

Do you even know just how much it costs to run a power plant?

You need a few hundred (400-600) tons of coal per hour per one decently sized BLOCK (few hundred MW), usually power plants have several of those, sometimes a dozen or more, a few jet engines running at full blast its a big deal compared with a FUCKING POWER PLANT /rant

Also, none of the renewable energy sources are cheaper than coal, especially when you look at the bigger picture (mostly unutilised capacity, grid overbuild requirements, volatility)

View on HN

They could transition to a combined cycle plant if they wanted to increase efficiency. I'm obviously not an expert, just like 99% of people here. If you look at the basic sentiment here it is that this seems like a fake solution to the problem of coal power plants and I somewhat agree. I think that it would help to know that they are at least attempting to move away from coal towards nuclear or renewable sources. It seems like there are a lot of solutions that could be pursued.

The problem is smog.

>They could transition to a combined cycle plant if they wanted to increase efficiency.

And who is going to pay for that? How do they fuel them? They already have to import a sizable part of their natural gas consumption. Do they spend even more and add coal gassification?

India is building out nuclear, obviously after Fukushima retards made sure to obstruct as much as they could

Again, the issue is smog, that is killing right fucking now. Should they just ignore the problem and develop a massive program so you feel better?

You can use coal and avoid smog. It's an incentive problem without enforcement pollution is slightly cheaper. So, really the core problem is corruption not technology.

Considering many people can save money by installing solar power without incentives that's not actually true.

The problem with coal is not power production, it's the infrastructure of power distribution that makes going off grid so viable.

If you actually manage to go off grid then yes, maybe you are able to save. Good luck doing it without either massive lifestyle change or tons of capital for storage in most of the world.

Once you take the feed-in away the benefit is not so clear cut. Also, many people dump the externalities of home solar on everyone else (the negative spot electricity price) and then use cheap power from the grid for most of the 24h cycle

Where do you think going off grid is so viable?

For people like me that use less than 600kwh / month or 20kwh/day just about anywhere in the US works as long as you are not in an apartment. In the northern US you will want a solar hot water heater, but that's got a 2-5 year ROI.

Granted, my electric would only be 50-60$ a month so the savings is also not huge, but that still adds up to 9-11k in 15 years and panels last well past that.

PS: Solar quietly got really cheap, installation is often one of the major costs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com