Comment by maerF0x0 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by maerF0x0 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> “The intermittent nature of wind power (wind turbines only generate electricity if the wind is blowing, and how much electricity they generate depends on how windy it is) present operational challenges for grid operators,” analysts from the US Energy Information Administration wrote in a report on Monday. “Low wind and high demand periods could result in energy emergencies.”

> Wind plays a central role in meeting demand in Texas as well as the two power grid regions that cover most of the central part of the United States. Drought conditions and low levels of major reservoirs could also hurt hydro power generation.

> NERC also flagged concerns about new environmental rules that restrict power plant emissions, warning these regulations will limit the operation of coal-fired generators in 23 states, including Nevada, Utah and states along the Gulf Coast, mid-Atlantic and Midwest. This is the first summer since the implementation of the EPA’s Good Neighbor Plan, which aims to reduce cross-state smog from power plants and other industrial sites.

This is pretty clearly regulation/environmentalist caused. Not that we shouldn't pursue a climate friendly grid, but we're not there yet and forcing the timeline is causing creaks and issues.

Everything is caused by regulation in one way or another. But your statements don't represent the reality of the report that was released: https://www.nerc.com/news/Headlines%20DL/2023%20SOR%20announ...

Links to detailed analyses can be found in the link above.

Key notes:

"... overall, the North American bulk power system (BPS) remains highly reliable and resilient. However, extreme weather events continue to pose the greatest risk to its reliability and stability"

"Today’s BPS transmission system is continuing to show improvements in reliability and resilience, despite more common and extreme weather trends. However, higher overall outage rates for coal and gas generation, as well as some utility-scale solar generation not operating as necessary for reliability, indicate that there is still significant work to be accomplished"

"In 2022, conventional generation experienced its highest level of unavailability (8.5%) overall since NERC began gathering GADS data in 2013 as measured by the weighted equivalent forced outage rate. Figure 3 shows consistently increasing outage rates for coal over the observed five years, correlating with higher numbers of startups and maintenance outages."

Yes, there are issues to contend with when implementing new power sources. But those issues are nothing compared to the lack of investment in infrastructure more generally.

Would we ever move if we weren’t forced or would we just get to a different emergency after putting off necessary changes?

My point being is that the other option wasn’t to do a gradual, planned rollout, given the political realities

We could still go nuclear, which gives power 24/7 no matter if it's windy, sunny, cloudy or raining.

But nope...

Nuclear is great for steady state power demand, but isn't a good match for peaky power demands, like air conditioning demand during heat waves.

You can use the excess power (during low loads at night) to generate hydrogen fuel, pump water uphill to use hydro during the day, etc.

If you've got a way of storing power, why would you use expensive nuclear power rather than cheap renewable power?

Again, political realities don’t allow for nuclear in the US. The best that could get accomplished is that we start regulating how much pollution you spit out like in the above referenced “Good Neighbor” plan because all but the craziest libertarian types at least begrudgingly acknowledge that you shouldn’t be able to throw trash on someone else’s lawn

I mean.... daily blackouts vs nuclear... which kind of a politician would you want to be?

Yes, some people are stupid, a lot of "the greens" included here, but choosing unreliable and unstable power sources while demanding more power use (ban on ICE cars, ban on burning stuff for heat and cooking, etc.), is well.. stupid too.

> I mean.... daily blackouts vs nuclear... which kind of a politician would you want to be?

Apparently you’re missing some context since nearly every politician is risking daily blackouts vs ramping up nuclear production.

Do you think that every single one is mistaking what will go over well with the people or that there is maybe a political issue that changes the calculus that you are either undervaluing or have missed entirely?

Edit: I didn’t even engage with your question correctly. That’s a false dichotomy. The politicians are banking that moving us towards renewables with its associated risks is a better path forward than moving us towards nuclear with its associated risks. Moving to a new energy paradigm like nuclear also could come with the risk of “daily blackouts” as whatever that migration would look like plays out. It’s not a “risky” choice vs a “risk-free” choice

Tell that to France who has repeatedly had to shutdown nuclear stations because the rivers were too warm to cool the plant.

Never thought about that, interesting. Can you share a source?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/03/edf-to-redu...

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threa...

Sheesh. It really is now or never... and by that I mean the yesterday before yesterday.

Saying that this is regulation / environmentalist caused is only looking at half of the picture.

You could just as easily say that this is caused by greed and the desire for more profits. Wind power is extremely cheap (almost half the cost per megawatt hour compared to fossil fuel). So utilities are actually making more money when they sell their customers wind power. Where is the profit margin going? Not back into the infrastructure, that's for sure.

In every major outage the true cause is utility companies not investing back into making sure that their infrastructure is resilient. That includes resiliency against wind power going offline, such as building battery storage, gravity power storage, etc.

Yes, and regulation prevents them for charging the true cost for peak/constrained energy demand (except in texas where you can get a $16,752 for running your lights)

Naturally theres a wide spectrum of options between fixed prices and dynamic pricing that leads to shocking results.

Your comment is completely unrealistic. The battery supply chain doesn't produce enough for grid scale storage. It will be many years until that is practical. Gravity power storage holds promise, but outside of a few limited pumped hydroelectric facilities it remains unproven.

> The battery supply chain doesn't produce enough for grid scale storage.

It didn't produce enough for widespread smartphone adoption, either. Until it was needed.

You've got to be kidding. The quantities needed for grid scale storage are orders of magnitude larger than smartphones. We are up against fundamental supply chain limits. Production can be ramped up but that will be a slow process.

So let's treat this like the environmental emergency it is and put some real resources and effort behind it. Growing up I was told we were the best at building things when we really want to.

We can "force the timeline" on the machinery and infrastructure that we control, or nature will force the timeline on the environmental factors we can't control. All the extreme weather is showing the latter is already happening.

No, it's not. This is regulated industry insiders complaining about the impact of regulations on them--of course they're going to forecast doom and gloom.

Actually reading the details of the report, I don't think the power plant emissions regulations is actually a major impact; it seems that the lower efficiencies of power plants during extreme heat waves is having more of an impact on potential shortfalls rather than emissions cutoff. Except maybe for Texas, but Texas in general looks extremely screwed regardless.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com