High heat: Spain clocks prelim record of 47.2 C (116.96 F) | Hacker News Reader

High heat: Spain clocks prelim record of 47.2 C (116.96 F)

abcnews.go.com

65 pointsunderscore_ku58 comments

"Earth is on fire. We're all going to die. Oh by the way, please click this ad to lose 30 lbs in 30 days!"

I live very close. Summers here fucking suck. You can't go out from 12 until at least 20.

The socialist government has allowed the price of electricity to soar so high (I think the higher it's been in decades) that many people simply cannot afford to turn on their air conditioners anymore. It really, really sucks.

"Allowed price of electricity to soar". You mean, they have free market that responds to demand? Where is the socialism in it?

Also, what's up with throwing expletives?

I think the OP meant lack of competition. Prices are controlled by one or two public utilities companies and I agree summer in Southern Europe kind of sucks these days with extreme heat and lack of air conditioning. I lived in Houston,TX where we used to have hot summer as well but it was bearable with air conditioning s as we would Just simply stay in

Markets don't have anything to do with capitalism/socialism. There are capitalist places without markets, and socialist places with them.

I am not Spanish but I still know how to read and use Google.

https://rightcasa.com/spanish-utilities-electricity,-gas-and...

"The main electricity companies in Spain include Grupo Endesa (the largest), Iberdrola, Union Fenosa and Hidrocantábrico. Like many other countries, the energy market has been completely opened up, allowing customers to choose which supplier they use (...)"

So, are they lying or not?

Over 50% of the electricity bill is taxes.

Example: https://www.iberdrola.es/webclipb/gc/prod/es_ES/estaticos/in...

So... you are complaining most of the bill goes back to the budget rather than to a private company?

Listen, your country needs to pay for infrastructure some way.

That money has to find its way from your pocket to the budget, there are no miracles here.

At least with electricity bill you have option to use less electricity and pay less taxes. Would you like it to be levied on some things you can't decide to use less?

If you think your country costs too much, vote for people that promise to make the government cost less.

The cost of the infrastructure is not part of the >50% of taxes you pay. It's in the other part. You'd know that if you read the screenshot I posted.

And saying you have the option of using less electricity. Really laughable, sorry. I guess I'll turn off my refrigerator.

We have a goverment'regulated and an unregulated market. Often the regulated power contract is cheaper on the long term.

Man, your region couldn´t barely stay alive in Winter due to hard power shortages. The issue in Spain it´s like a Texas ultra-light version of that.

As I stated in the tread the Spanish goverment regulated power contract is the cheapest option compared to the ones in the free market, and companies have to comply by law so they can offer a regulated contract to the customer. It´s mandatory, but the sad story here is that not everyone is aware of that and power contracts are hard as fuck to understand. Now they even printed math summatories to ¨explain¨ the power spending to the ¨common folk¨ as if everyone got a pre-calculus diploma. Kafquesque.

To be fair, Texas is roughly in the same latitude as Sahara - a winter like the last one is basically once-in-a-lifetime occurence. Kind of makes sense not to prepare for it.

It most certainly does not make sense not to prepare for it when scientists have been telling you this issue will be coming for a few decades now.

Key words - prepare, and will be coming

To paraphrase famous saying from the stock markets: climate scientists predicted 50 of the last 2 severe winters. At some point you get the "boy that cried wolf" problem.

While you're missing the point,

What was the $ damages/lost due to the recent grid failure vs the $ for the winterization of the wind & nat gas plants?

Don't really care about exact numbers, ratio of the two is fine. I'm sure an obvious statement will be seen in said ratio.

You would have to compare against the cost of all predicted climate-related trends, not just the ones that hindsight has validated you about. Go back and find all the wrong predictions, and lump in their preparatory or prophylactic costs if you're interested in a true apples:apples comparison.

No, I wouldn't, because I'm talking about the very recent decision to not winterize the Texas grid, even though all of the data presented pointed to the fact it would be a very good idea to winterize it.

Specifically the Texas grid is what I'm talking about, I care not about anything else you may feel the need to refer to

1) Quite a motte and bailey maneuver you're pulling here, given the broad scope of your earlier comments.

2) Merely saying "it could have been different" is not an argument, unfortunately. What you refer to was 10 years ago, when the TX legislature made the decision to recommend electric grids be made more weather-resistant, instead of requiring it. Many electric cos did those upgrades. Most people would consider that actually a pretty good outcome given that this is a one-in-a-decade type of event.

> Quite a motte and bailey maneuver you're pulling here, given the broad scope of your earlier comments.

You're accusing me of not knowing what I was referring to when I posted something.

Both the parent, and grandparent, of which I replied to, are mentioning Texas. Grandparent, broadly, parent, much more specifically. With the recent cold snap in Texas, I presume all context is there to make it clear I was speaking of Texas, specifically.

Anyways - 10 years... yeah, that is well within the realm of what I'm talking about. If it were say, more than 25 years ago when it was highly recommended to winterize grids, perhaps I would relent.

I hope you do not venture into local/state politics, because your type of thinking is how these bad things happen.

Wrong predictions like what? If you're preparing for hundred-year weather, there's not much that will actually be "wrong" unless you really screw up your math. And it's mostly just hot, cold, and flood, isn't it? And some of the preparations will be shared.

I assure you that doing something like installing ACs in every home in Seattle would incur a massive cost, and it is not guaranteed that such a measure would ever be necessary at any point in the next 100 years.

What does that have to do with power grid failures?

Also having AC, even if it's not necessary, can be very useful.

"Seattle averages 24 days a year when the thermometer reaches into the 80s °F (over 27 °C). The temperature typically climbs to 90 °F (32 °C) on just one or two days a year."

That's high enough to cause a serious reduction in productivity/enjoyment. If the average person is exposed to those temperatures for 3 hours a day as a lack of home AC, and loses 10% of that time, that's 7 hours a summer. Multiply by minimum wage and it only takes a summer and a half to meet the cost of a window AC unit. Which should last a long time if it's only used one month a year.

> a winter like the last one is basically once-in-a-lifetime occurence

This will be interesting to watch. Any description of weather events that relates them to time (eg 1 in 100 years) seems to be massively wrong and getting less accurate each year.

If I read the IPCC report correctly, the extreme heatwaves will increase in likelihood while the extreme “cold waves” will actually decrease. So it’s not clear if this will become more common.

Didn't it happen 10 years ago already? And in the aftermath it was reported it will happen again and the network needs to be prepared better next time?

> a pre-calculus diploma

Isn't that high school?

You would defend a free market that kills people as long as it makes more money?

And if you can't swear when people are fucking dying then when would be more appropriate?

Both PP, PNV and PSOE have ties with gas and power companies.

It doesn´t matter who is in charge.

Current energy prices are caused by a high gas price and the lack of wind.

Blame whichever government decided to stop with investing more in renewable energy in 2012 (particularly solar power) and praise whichever government decided to start investing again in 2018.

According to [1] high prices are produced by, mainly, a tax hike on CO2 emission and secondly by the high gas price.

In fact nuclear power (which is the cheapest and safest) has been in decline the last decades, which is shameful since it has prompted burning more fossil fuels and many more thousands of indirect deaths. We should go from nuclear straight to renewable, not to fossil fuels as we are (or buying nuclear from France).

[1] https://www.eleconomista.es/empresas-finanzas/noticias/11355...

Nuclear is crazy expensive, which is a big part of why it’s in decline globally. Even with serious subsidies it just can’t compete with other sources. Just look at what unsubsidized insurance would cost to cover the full amount of any possible nuclear disaster. Realize nobody forces them to pay that and they still can’t compete on the open market.

There is plenty of talk around lowering cost of construction, but even if you got a new reactor for build free it still wouldn’t be cost effective to operate and decommission it without subsidies if you’re only paid market rates for power.

again, the problem is always money

maybe we should eliminate money from the equation? it seems to be very limiting

They have no problem funding CERN and ITER. Why not spend some on research for lower cost fission reactors.

It isn't in decline [0]. The world has mostly recovered from Fukushima-induced panic. Only Europe is holding the number back from being actual growth.

> Nuclear is crazy expensive

People say that like it is a law of nature. It isn't. Prior to COVID I was regularly moaning that the government was destroying lives with their overzealous safety standards.

The suddenly COVID comes along and "this vaccine shouldn't be mandatory" it isn't even the safest opinion for an extremely hastily developed vaccine. Previously the record was something like 4 years, typically longer [1]. Turns out almost all that time is safety testing.

Nuclear will be similar. The majority of the cost will be government regulation rather than any sort of intrinsic difficulty, and we'll have the technology to do it cheaply. It is simply unbelievable that the cost of this specific technology would go up over time, given that every other new technology we know of has the cost going down and usually radically.

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy

[1] https://theconversation.com/covid-19-vaccines-were-developed...

>People say that like it is a law of nature. It isn't. Prior to COVID I was regularly moaning that the government was destroying lives with their overzealous safety standards.

Given how friendly nuclear with safety standards has been, nuclear with those pesky "overzealous safety standards" would be a hoot.

A free market without regulation would lead to safe and cheap nuclear energy. Is this a libertarian thing?

We need a second planet far away from me where these experiments can be tested with willing participants.

I’m not qualified to say whether Nuclear is a viable option or not, but the level of regulation is ridiculous compared to other energy sources. For instance, every Coal plant releases more radiation than any nuclear plant is permitted to. That’s far from a level playing field.

However the potential maximum release from a coal plant is… something. The maximum accidental release from a nuclear plant is one that can cause absolute devastation of a country or entire region.

That’s substantially only true of the designs we stopped building in the 1970s (outside the USSR, where safety standards mixed “overbuilt” with “crucial details not addressed due to internal politicking”, resulting in disaster). Chernobyl could have been so much worse.

That said, when comparing planetwide, the mean outcome is more important than the worst case. Eg: on average, over it’s lifetime, including the explosion, Fukushima was less polluting than a brown coal plant.

Modern are only passive safe in the sort term, these designs still need active cooling in the long term. So if humans disappeared tomorrow these reactors would eventually release a great deal of radioactivity into the environment. It’s not a serious concern outside of wide scale natural disasters, but over hyping modern designs isn’t a good idea as it eventually harms perceptions of the industry.

>That’s substantially only true of the designs we stopped building in the 1970s

That's what they say every time. This time will be different, new designs are safe, etc...

Sorry, meant to write "without those pesky"

I'm discussing Spain in a Spanish thread in case that wasn't clear, where it's been declining for the last 20 years in % of energy demand: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energ%C3%ADa_nuclear_en_Espa%C...

The comment said "decline globally". Spain isn't the globe.

Global electricity production has been increasing by ~3% per year over the last 20 years. So that nearly flat graph represents a 1/3 drop in relative supply.

For scale in 1999 6.56% of total energy was generated by Nuclear, by 2019 it was down to 4.27%. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-by-sou...

A drop in relative supply isn't a decline. 2019 saw the most electricity produced from nuclear energy in all of recorded history.

The technical term for a thing which is getting bigger is "growth". And realistically looking at the chart the term for nuclear power should be "steady".

That’s actually a sign of a dying industry. Capacity factor increases as you lower the percentage of the grid from inflexible base load Nuclear and Coal.

In 2018 there where 449 nuclear reactors world wide, in 2019 there where 442, in 2020 441. Sure that’s up from 438 in 1996, but this isn’t a growing industry. At best the output has been improving slightly per reactor over time, except again most of that is moving away from base load power plants.

This looks like wishful thinking on your part. I got curious about how much nuclear construction was going on [0] and new plants are being built at a rate that far outweighs capital depreciation.

Capital depreciation is something like a lifetime of 50 years ~= 2% per annum, but new supply is being bought on line at ~12% of global capacity.

And they claim there are 443 reactors, so your precipitous decline might be overstated by 33%. 6 instead of 8 :)

[0] https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/facts-and-...

First you ignored the direct evidence that being a dying industry is why capacity factors have been increasing. Total installed capacity of nuclear reactors in 2018: 402.04 GW total installed capacity worldwide in 2020: 397.78 GW that’s the opposite of growth. https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/WorldTrendNuclear...

Next your comparing a single year process with a multi year construction process. Even China takes over 5 years on average to construct a reactor. So your 12% is under 2.4% per year and in practice looking at when things are coming online it’s below 2%.

Personally I don’t have an issue with Nuclear. I was looking to go into the industry so I started trying to predict the market, and things look bleak outside of China.

It is not, it's in fact one of the cheapest, look at the "coste marginal" in the table (only more expensive than solar and hydraulic):

https://www.eoi.es/blogs/merme/coste-y-precio-de-las-diferen...

Has anyone ever generated a single watt of nuclear power and the bill for its cleanup been paid in full?

Yes. Idk about Spain, but most countries provision the full decommissioning and cleanup costs upfront when building, which is part of the reasons why nuclear is expensive. Nobody does that for any of the alternatives ( of course the risk and costs there are quite lower, but still)

It is expensive, but so are the only viable alternatives when externalities are properly added ( fossil fuels). Renewables are unsuitable for base load without significant storage, which is only barely starting to get somewhat realistic ( pumped up hydro requires earthworks that destroy existing ecosystems, and large scale battery storage is IMHO a waste of precious battery manufacturing capacity that is better used elsewhere). Build nuclear, subsidise it, and run it for decades.

Base load isn’t an advantage it’s simply the term for inflexible power delivery. “4h” batteries are being built at a lot of solar power plants which sounds minimal except they are only producing the equivalent of about 8h of power per day at maximum output and daytime demand is much higher.

So those 4h batteries + solar actually covers grid demand much better than a similar nuclear reactor producing similar MWh per year at vastly lower prices.

_price of electricity to soar so high (I think the higher it's been in decades)_

Highest since there are records, i. e. in History. Shameful.

I suspect you are being knee-jerk downvoted because in the USA being critical of anything "socialist" often implies you have right or far-right political views.

People should be aware that the current ruling party in Spain is the "Spanish Socialist Workers' Party", so "socialist" is not being used as an insult here, it is an accurate description.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Socialist_Workers%27_P...

Meanwhile in the Basque Country we are 26 C and we just saw the Sun literally 7 days along all the summer. 7 damn days from late June.

46-47C looks high but in Andalucia, Murcia and Extremadura you got 43 C temps granted every summer.

If the North of Spain reaches temps over 30 is when you should be extremely worried.

>With night-time temperatures forecast to exceed 25 degrees Celsius (77 F) in much of Spain, Royé worried about residents who cannot afford air conditioning and other vulnerable people, like the homeless or outdoor workers.

26 C at night here. I have no worries about temps in the South except for the elderly and workers around road building and hot tar.

>46-47C looks high but in Andalucia, Murcia and Extremadura you got 43 C temps granted every summer. If the North of Spain reaches temps over 30 is when you should be extremely worried.

That's kind of a non sequitur. We don't need to worry for 47 in Andalucia/Extremadura because they get 43 "every summer", but we should worry for Basque who is 26 if they ever get "over 30"?

Isn't 43 to 47 in the South similar to the North going from 26 "over 30"? Why is the first (which is here) not to worry about, but the latter would be? I.e. why would record temps in one area not be worrisome just because another has low temps?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com