Hacker News Reader

Comment by 7thaccount | Hacker News Reader

All true, but what most of the renewables advocates are advocating for is a system purely of wind, solar, geothermal, and batteries...and to do it as quickly as possible. They're more concerned with a potential climate catastrophe than one where energy becomes far more scarce and demand curtailment the norm. The problem with the latter is if we're not careful and get rid of all of our traditional generation too fast we would have deindustrialization and mass human suffering as well. I'm not being hyperbolic either. Stable electricity is the bedrock of our society and as plant operators move into other roles and generators are moth-balled, going back can't be done at the drop of a hat.

This is a big topic right now. Both views are important. We need to decarbonize, but we have to do it without leading to other major issues.

View on HN

Not sure I get the point as I don't know any plans where energy distributors and providers are not strongly involved, and these actors will be strongly impacted by unstable networks. So, obviously, stability has a very high importance in their mind. And yet, they choose strategies like the one in the Netherlands.

For example, the initial conversation was about Netherlands and negative costs. People who are creating the situation in that country put grid stability very high in their priorities (because it would be catastrophic for them), and still ended up with the situation that currently exists. So, the initial analysis was not far off, and arguing that we should not only look at negative cost is a fair point, but it is incorrect to imply that looking further than negative cost will change the strategy in Netherlands: the strategy in Netherlands is both compatible with "looking at the negative cost" and "looking at network stability".

Germany got rid of their nuke plants and bet billions on solar in a non-sunny country. They were already in a tough spot before losing Russian natural gas and are now having to heavily subsidize industry due to skyrocketing energy costs. A lot of groups in the US are trying to do the same and only a few regulators (e.g. NERC) see the danger. I'm guessing the Netherlands has similar groups that are not looking at the big picture and these groups are influential. Again... decarbonization needs to happen, but we need to think about how.

You are guessing ...

Ok, so, once again, you are just some random dude "having an opinion" with nothing more than prejudices on the subject.

There is a lot of things to say about the mistakes of Germany. And a lot about the mistakes of France, who painted themselves in a corner and is nowadays mentioned as an example to not follow when deploying nuclear. If you apply your own logic, it means that wind and solar is out of question because of Germany, and it means that nuclear is out of question because of France.

(edit: just to be clear, my point is that it is ridiculous to say that the problem of France demonstrates that nuclear is not an option. I'm not saying wing+solar is better than nuclear. I'm just saying that the "Germany argument" is hypocritical, because if you really think it's valid, then you should also be against nuclear)

This ridiculous idea that "a few people on the internet" are the ones in charge of managing the network is just laughable. You are saying "a lot of groups in the US are trying the same". So, what are they doing: they are going to the electricity network owners and are saying "can you give it to me one sec, I don't have any qualifications, but I just want to play with it"? If in US something is changed in the network, it is the results of advanced studies done by very advanced experts. Some expert groups may disagree on strategies, but pretending that idiots who are not even understanding what is happening in Germany will just be able to change things is just ridiculous.

More realistically, the tensions you are talking about are from difference of opinions of two EXPERT groups, but you are just being intellectually dishonest by saying "their idea looks a bit like Germany, so obviously, they are idiots who haven't thought about it".

As you say, decarbonisation needs to happen but we need to think about how. You are not part of the group "thinking about how" if each time you see a plan that superficially looks like Germany, you conclude it can only be "not thought about how".

Are you not concerned that two thirds of the nuclear conversion and over half of the enrichtment capabilities are controlled by Russia and China? [0] This feels like the "cheap Russian energy for Europe"-trap again?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com