Figured this out because I was curious- This would makeup about .17% of total US electricity consumption in 2022.
Assuming 4 trillion kWh. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-elect....
Figured this out because I was curious- This would makeup about .17% of total US electricity consumption in 2022.
Assuming 4 trillion kWh. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-elect....
I wonder if the tribes have enough autonomy to build transmission lines quickly. Just the Navajo Nation can build enough solar/wind and transmission lines within their reservation and probably connect to the grids in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona. US is incredibly slow in building transmission lines, takes decades.
And, if they have enough autonomy to import Chinese panels (50% cheaper), a network of these nations can blanket the entire country with renewables.
May be start the manufacturing facility here and start panel manufacturing here itself !!
Panels are a commodity at this point. I hate to say it but mineral extraction, processing and panel manufacturing will be way more expensive than importing from China.
Prerequisites for manufacturing panels here at an even remotely competitive price includes reducing labor costs and extracting/refining minerals at scale.
I absolutely agree we should onshore solar production but simply onshoring manufacturing isnt the first step. Frankly im not even sure the labor cost is even solvable. Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages
Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages
This mindset lies at the center of neoliberalism and should be examined with nuance and perspective, since the quality of each individual's experience can vary wildly in a market which accepts such inequalities as necessary for the health of the overall system.
It's hard to know what you're saying. Everything should be examined carefully (although you can't examine something "with nuance" - nuance is not an examination tool). What are you actually saying? If $1 buys a good meal somewhere, but it costs $15 for the same meal somewhere else, paying someone less in the former location is not a moral failing.
A meal might be 15x cheaper, but a phone, laptop, car or anything imported will surely not be cheaper.
anything imported will surely not be cheaper
Possibly not, but that can't be solved purely by employers. If a country for whatever reason does not have the economy to support this, this can't be solved quickly. Companies won't pay $15/hr to overseas workers; they'd probably just not spend the money there at all. That's the choice you're giving them.
Also - it probably will be cheaper, for three reasons:
- the local market won't bear the real price, and while this means less profit, it's still some profit, or presence, or whatever reason the vendor is selling for
- a similar but slightly different product might be offered. E.g. I bought a car in South Africa and it was a slightly simpler spec compared to the UK equivalent, despite looking identical
- local labour, fuel tax, sales tax, and other costs all increase prices. Driving the goods to a shop and buying them from it is a pretty different cost in different countries.
A meal might be 15x cheaper, but a phone, laptop, car or anything imported will surely not be cheaper.
Im not sure I understand what you’re saying because it absolutely is orders of magnitude to import phones and laptops. Cars have more tariffs to protect the domestic market so Im unsure about that one.
As a consumer, of course you buy what's cheaper and that's not a moral failing.
Policy makers on the other hand should consider externalities, and optimize for making them less bad, or at least not make them worse.
I think you’re missing the price competitive constraint. I said it would need low foreign wages to be price competitive with China. Under what non-neoliberal mindset is this false? I can only think of one and I dont think its what you have in mind: reduce labor rights and eliminate the minimum wage.
And in a global economy, that is much easier to do because there is no common power to enforce otherwise.
Though, notably, the experience between someone in Mississippi and New York City is already wildly different.
If you examined your thoughts more closely, you'd realize they're ridiculous.
Should we pay everyone the same in a given country? Should a food deliverer make the same as a surgeon? No? Then this creates an economic hierarchy already. This economic hierarchy exists for countries as well.
Is that really cheaper though taking into account that the cheap ones (and perhaps the expensive ones too) have a lifetime of about 50 years and cannot be recycled at all?
That doesn't sound sustainable at all to me.
Recycling is not a magic word for "cheap". Landfilling a bunch of panels every 50 years is fine: they're "just" sintered sand.
Yes because land is free, according to solar power proponents
The amount of material in solar panels is tiny compared to our other landfill-destined refuse streams, and it needs to be compared to the analogous waste streams from other forms of energy generation. Nuclear creates long term storage needs. Coal creates tailings. Fracking pollutes groundwater.
The US installed about 32 GW of solar in 2023. (1)
A modern 395W bifacial solar module (2) weighs 25.7kg; about 65g per watt.
That's about two million metric tons of solar panels to handle every year. In contrast, the US produces about 73 million metric tons of plastic waste per year. We landfill a total of about 131 million metric tons per year (3) -- and that's ignoring that things like coal tailings aren't accounted for in landfilling amounts. We produce and burn about 534 million metric tons of coal per year.
The numbers are large but the relative cost of solar panels 50 years hence is likely extremely tolerable compared to the alternatives.
(1) https://www.seia.org/news/solar-installations-2023-expected-...
(2) https://signaturesolar.com/hyundai-395w-bifacial-solar-panel...
(3) https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...
Cheap in equatorial areas suitable for massive solar farms with expected daytime tempretures of 40-50 C, yes.
Free, not exactly, but certainly affordable.
https://www.pv-magazine-australia.com/2022/04/08/andrew-forr...
For scale reference those solar farms | cattle stations are to provide power to mining operations that ship almost a billion tonnes of iron ore per annum (and remove a factor of overburden) consuming major amounts of fossil fuel in the process.
Work is also underway to upgrade trains that roll that billion tonnes to the coast down a 600m height differential to recoup energy.
See: Infinity train.
You appear to be carrying some beef about "solar power proponents" being unrealistic hippy socialists rather than multi billion dollar industrialists.
The material came from the ground, and the landfill puts them back in the ground.
Sounds pretty circular and sustainable to me.
That's my point: we really don't need to recycle solar panels. We could land fill them for the next 500 years and they'll be the least of our problems, even accounting for heavy metals.
The quip about "cheap" was that recyclability has nothing to do with it (it would likely add cost, not remove any).
Calling solar panels sintered sand is an over simplification. Aside from the amount of energy and water it takes to produce them, a lot of older panels have some pretty toxic materials that can leech out... lead, cadmium etc.
We will need to process these appropriately at their end of life and not just landfill them.
They can be recycled; currently at a cost of about $18/panel, which isn't great (landfilling is cheaper), but there's reason to think that cost can drop some as they improve the process.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/solar/solarcycle-to-bui...
The nice thing about them is that they're pretty simple compared to a lot of modern electronics. More hope about recycling them than piles of old computers.
most of the onshoring is not dictated by cost but the realization that something that looks like COVID lockdowns of Chinese factories and ports makes just-in-time untenable.
Most likely, you will see a lot of made in Mexico/Caribbean/Canada
Aka “friend-shoring”. Honestly I struggle to see why we can’t start bootstrapping some tech build here in the US.
You might want to check how much of the stuff made in Mexico uses components and materials from China
Relying on China as a trade partner, who has been hostile to the US in every way except kinetic, is a hidden cost of those "cheap" panels. Is China's an economy whose growth you want to willingly contribute to? That is sort of like not reading the geopolitical room.
while the geopolitical take is true, the economic sacrifice you'd have by not taking china's surplus is actually not benefitial.
The solar panels can enable other industries locally. For example, cheap and plentiful electricity can be used to produce local stuff that costs energy.
And solar panel production is not really "strategically" important - in a kinetic war, china can withold solar panels and it would not make a difference in the war.
Therefore, there's no reason not to import cheap panels.
A counterpoint: Qcells has been expanding their Georgia (U.S.) solar factories. 8.4GW capacity by the end of the year (which is the equivalent of like... 15 typical centralized power plants). Labor costs are lower in the south. But, overall, I agree with you.
Frankly im not even sure the labor cost is even solvable. Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages
An entitled and creepy af attitude, if there ever was one.
"Foreign" "wages" are not going to stay low forever.
Already gone up and going up in some countries.
Think (and act) smarter, dude.
Only the fittest of the fittest shall survive.
- Bob Marley (Could you be loved)
I know it took my local utility about 5 years just to run about 30 miles of HV wire from me seeing "announcment of public commentary" -> studies -> "final notice of commentary on route" -> building starts. The building itself took about 6 months, as it ran along a road I travel a lot. That's a long time for 30 miles of HV towers.
I'm ignorant of how this works, but aren't tribal nations exempt from at least state and local regs?
Sovereign (as not all are considered such) tribal lands are dictated solely by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (and Congress, obviously, as the institution granting that authority). In practice, unless something goes heavily against Federal interests (illicit drug production/trade, for instance), it is regulated by the nation ("tribe") alone.
so there are reservations that don't have tribal sovereignty? or did you mean off-rez holdings, or federally unrecognized tribes?
There are recognized tribes without recognized lands. There are federally unrecognized tribes. And there are properties of tribal institutions that do not fall on sovereign land.
So the easiest answer is: "yes"/"all of the above"
Oh, I thought you wanted to tell an anecdote about a fast project. Five years sound very quick to me.
Five years is light speed in terms of public works! I felt the same way.
A freeway bypass/overpass is being built on a road I travel a lot.
Funding and consultation started in 2004. Expected completion date 2029. Quarter of a century to build 8km of road.
Related.
Even as energy production prices from solar trend towards zero, end user energy costs is still going to be lower bounded by transmission costs.
California in particular is getting a nasty taste of this, with many customer's bill being mostly transmission costs. However, this is largely because they're paying for PG&E's lawsuit payouts and regulatory required upgrades.
Energy can be free, but reliable and safe transmission will likely always be expensive.
The crazy thing is that CA has ample solar power and the average house likely can be entirely offgrid with a large enough battery system.
This would greatly enhance the usefulness of tribal-electricity.
I would imagine that inside the land they control building lines could be quick but if they are exporting power (which I think is the main idea) they are not going to be able to have the autonomy to build the external lines they need.
Transmission lines are already there because of the nearby decommissioned coal plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juan_Generating_Station
I like the idea of native Americans being the solar barons.
Does anyone have a breakdown of the materials required to create 2.2 million solar panels? I worry that we measure solar strictly on the carbon emissions and not the full environmental impact -- such as that of land and mining of materials.
Edit: I'm not advocating fossil fuels. I think solar makes a ton of sense, but it also seems crazy to think we could build enough solar + storage capacity for the world. Nuclear energy is the real future.
What do you propose as an alternative? Coal has to mine their source material. Oil has to drill for their source material. One is much cleaner than the others. Nuclear is where I think we should moving in a perfect world, but the general population is fairly misinformed on modern day nuclear power generation.
I'm not against solar. I think a seriously massive nuclear build up makes sense. To the extent you get economies of scale and not every project is a bespoke effort.
That's financially and politically impossible on a relevant time scale, while solar can be built now.
In America maybe. Lets see what the Chinese do with their nuclear rollout before calling it impossible yet.
They might also abandon theirs on account of being able to make solar incredibly cheap domestically, but they also might not, we have to wait and see.
China might also abandon their nuclear rollout in preference to coal -- consider their recent surge in building coal power plants, "despite climate pledges":
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/chinas-coal-country-f...
Or, maybe they'll build out all-of-the-above electricity-generating options, depending on how their political leaders feel.
China is rolling out a couple of orders of magnitude more renewables than nuclear though. I think every country that wants nuclear bombs also needs a civilian nuclear industry, then the economics of the nuclear plants are less important.
It'll become politically inevitable as this climate catastrophe proceeds.
I doubt that. A couple of reasons:
1) just based on real world observation. The country with the most ambitious nuclear power buildout program is China. It has the perfect combination of incentives: nuclear power is needed to maintain status as a nuclear weapons power, it needs to expand its energy production dramatically while at the same time limiting CO2 emissions, nuclear fuel is a domestic resource and they have a domestic nuclear industry and a generally quite innovative tech sector. But even China only plans to produce 7.7% of its electricity output from nuclear in 2035, barely more than now, while renewables are slated to expand dramatically: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
EDIT: China also doesn't need to worry about domestic political backlash to new nuclear construction.
2) cost and political risk. There is not a single privately owned or listed company in the world that is willing to take on the risk and cost of building a substantial nuclear reactor. And governments are not keen on spending billions of dollars on potential boondoggles either. In comparison, renewable power generation is already cost-effective and can be built out rapidly with available technologies. If you want more, you can simply spend more. Energy storage is somewhat unsolved, true, but you can probably get 90% of where you need to go in terms of climate change mitigation with existing energy storage technology, while nuclear has no viable financial or political path to your goal at all.
And since this is your position I assume you can tell us the mass of a nuclear power station.
I’m not suggesting you did this intentionally, because this sort of stuff is difficult to really know or find definitive answers to. But I think it’s worth being aware that, in general, an over-focus on material cost for creating renewables etc is typically a conservative talking point and recommendation towards maintenance of the fossil fuel status quo. It appeals in particular to logical, skeptical folks like many of us here.
The environmental impact of mining/refining is certainly significant and worthy of some concern. But it is worth noting that fossil fuels also require significant mining and refining. In general it is thought that solar panels would offset their environmental cost within 1-3 years, with an average lifetime of 15-30 years. So roughly, you could expect them to “recoup” about an order of magnitude more than it took to manufacture.
It’s actually a very good and smart question to ask. But I think sometimes it’s perhaps a question over-asked by some groups in bad faith to sow doubt. Similarly you’ll hear the same argument applied to plastic vs cloth shopping bags.
But as I understand it, the cloth bags generally do lose out unless used hundreds of times, which is plausible but hardly a given. And the plastic bags are often re-used as small garbage bags, so eliminating them frequently just means someone is going to buy another plastic bag.
Hear me out— maybe we shouldn’t be using plastic for garbage either, despite the convenience of being able to dump your week-old chicken noodle soup into a plastic bag and throw it away versus recycling (composting) it.
Either way, the plastic bags will be here as microplastic fragments long after the cloth bag has disintegrated and been recycled by microorganisms. The science isn’t quite consensus-level, but it isn’t looking good for microplastics, negative externality-wise.
The vast majority of garbage of most households is not compostable, and most recyclables are already not put in any specific bag due to a lack of fluids. On top of that, many places put recyclables in landfills also. Once you learn that your 30m of extra labor a week of 'doing it right' is literally being thrown in the trash for little benefit, people don't care anymore.
This fixation on picking up plastic bag pennies on the ground while refusing to pick up the $100 bills like funding an electric train transit network and enforce the law on current transit systems so people feel safe to be on them makes it feel like there are no real adults in the room when it comes to these things. Nobody is building nuclear power plants in the desert running mass CO2 scrubbers either.
It depends on what your goal was in the first place. AFAICT most single use plastic bans were put in place to avoid the plastic ending up in waterways etc.
Nuclear energy is the real future
At present in the US there's no reactor that anyone will build. No one will build any more big AP1000s after the unmitigated financial disasters that were its 2 initial projects. Everyone has put their faith in small reactors (SMRs) but the only one with an approved design (NuScale) had its initial project fail after a Utah utility coalition fell apart.
The NuScale project that failed was supposed to come online around 2030. Their other project was some sort of Bitcoin mining fiction, its not clear they will have a future. There are a bunch of SMR startups that are at various stages of development, however, none has an approved design. So, we're looking at after 2030 if we're lucky with speculative designs that may or may not work out.
Not a very certain bet.
If your environmental regulations prevent you from saving the environment by making it too expensive to save the environment, maybe you have too many environmental regulations?
The medium term future of energy in the US at least is california, ie ridiculously expensive and unreliable. Hopefully costs will eventually come down as we get enough batteries and grid infrastructure in place so everyone can have their indian solar power energy--but a sane policy that would have been to have excess nuclear capacity in place and slowly transition to solar panels as the reliability improves.
There's site in FL that has all approvals in place, no environmental issues are barriers. It was to be the next project after the first 2 AP1000 and was cancelled after their experience. The economics of such a project have improved substantially since then due to the IRA's nuclear production tax credit (thanks Biden).
Yet no one has picked up this project. Why? Because the construction risk is too great, not because of environmental regulations.
China has no environmental regulations to worry about when building out nuclear and has great incentives to do so, but their goal for 2035 is a meagre 7.7% of electricity generation from nuclear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China
So China, surely the best case scenario for nuclear power expansion anywhere in the world, will go from 5% nuclear power generation today to 7.7% by 2035. That is about all that you need to know about the potential contribution of current and near future nuclear power technology to solving the climate crisis.
As we need to be basically net 0 CO2 emissions by 2050 at the latest, there is simply no scenario in which nuclear can play more than a minor part in solving this. Meanwhile renewables are cost effective investments today, you simply need to improve the regulatory and infrastructure context (transmission lines). Yes, solving storage is required as well, but that seems vastly more feasible than somehow beating 80 years of real world experience telling you that putting it all on nuclear is not a politically or financially viable path forward.
Is a coal mine better for the land than a silica mine? Are a few mines worse for "land" than tens of thousands of square miles of it sinking into the ocean due to sea level rise, taking millions of homes with it? I think people generally value the coastlines more than piles of rock in an unpopulated area of West Virginia or what have you.
No one mentioned coal
I did. If you object to building solar farms, there will be more coal mined.
Before these recent solar projects, the generating capacity of this area was mostly coal and hydro. The hydro capacity is already exhausted, so the only room for growth is in fossil fuels.
No one has ever thought of that and for sure can’t be available through a basic Google search. Maybe I’m wrong but every time anything with renewables comes there’s comments spreading doubt with basic questions
We also get brilliant insights about how solar panels don’t generate power at night.
Certainly within an order of magnitude or two of any other 1bln project that isn't just shoving money at penpushers. Money that isn't frozen but circulating will cause materials to be mined from the earth and transformed into stuff and/or emissions.
The materials will be insignificant. Its a one time material cost which yields energy for 25 - 30 years. And at EOL, it will still produce ~80% (which is really good!), the life is 25 - 30, but manufacturers won't provide longer warranty. I don't see any compelling reasons to decommission solar fields producing 80% after 30 years.
Also, land usage can be minimal. Vertical panels can allow farming, and are also more efficient (allow heat to escape), cover the early mornings and evenings better.
40m acres (just in US!) are used for ethanol production to produce a small fraction of fuel. I'd imagine the material costs of these 40m acres over 25 - 50 years (fertilizer, harvesting, shipping, refining ....) would be a lot more than solar panels.
Also, 40% of shipping is fossil fuels, we are mining, refining and shipping billions of tons every year.
Also remember the fossil fuel plants and infrastructure are not material free. There is a one time cost of materials there just as much as solar panels. But for fuel, solar panels have zero input costs, zero processing costs, zero waste production.
Here is a great comparison of land use for different power sources, based on power output: https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-per-energy-source
Solar is roughly on par with coal, depending on the exact type of solar technology used. Of course you can put solar on existing structures, in which case the land use is negligible and on par with nuclear.
Regarding energy input, solar panels break even after about two years, I think (no source on hand currently). It would be quite easy to have solar panel production run entirely on renewable energy input.
Regarding the other resources, you can't really compare energy sources to one another, as all are using vastly different inputs and have different challenges regarding disposal of waste and recycling. You'd have to make a judgement based on impact. I.e. coal is really bad, because it produces CO2 which has potentially society-ending consequences. Nuclear has challenges, because the waste remains radioactive for so long. My personal impression is that solar has some challenges, but those are manageable and likely can be mitigated by regulating disposal and recycling of old panels.
(Disclaimer: I often work in the solar industry, but am not currently. I'll try my best not to be biased.)
Does anyone have a breakdown of the materials required to create 2.2 million solar panels?
In academia, these are called "lifecycle analyses" (or sometimes cradle-to-grave/cradle-to-cradle analyses). Here's one by the International Energy Agency, a NGO: https://iea-pvps.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/IEA-PVPS-LCI...
PDF page 21 has a detailed bill of materials for PV modules (solar panels), and pg 60 for li-ion batteries. There are also breakdowns for various parts of subcomponents.
In general, as you noted, we're pretty good at analyzing the carbon impacts of PV manufacturing (TLDR: it's a net positive), but the land use question is much harder because it's not a mathematical equation that you can apply. How do you weigh X solar panels vs Y endangered tortoises or whatever? It's often just a case-by-case determination, and in the US that usually means an specialized environmental review under NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act) or similar state laws.
It always boil down to a judgment call (and also local community sentiment, to some degree), the quality of the review, and maybe just plain dumb luck (whether the site surveys happen to notice any listed species at that particular time).
------
Re: Land & mining...
Climate change isn't great for many species either (it does help some plants and such), so even from a land use conservation point of view, the opportunity cost of not building more solar/nuclear often means increased desertification or flooding, etc., just because climate change will slowly affect big swaths of land and water. In a way, these renewables projects can be thought of a way to sacrifice small plots of land to try to protect the rest. With some exceptions (like old growth forests), I think in general we are better able to manage around localized disruptions in land area than global climate change, if only because most land is controlled (and thus permitted/reviewed) only by a few entities and maybe 1-3 governments (federal/state/tribal), vs anything climatic involving the whole damned world and all its politicians and protestors.
The mining of materials, though, also causes a lot of human suffering that a lot of these academic analyses don't fully account for, or illustrate very well on a visceral level. Read: child labor in highly dangerous mines under terrible conditions, just so Joe American can feel a bit better about driving his Tesla with a few panels on his roof. But, to be fair, that system of exploitation is going to exist no matter our energy source. It's not always foreign kids, but coal mining is no easy life either.
-------
Re: Nuclear
I'm pro-nuclear myself, but many people still aren't (for reasons not worth getting into here, which I'm sure you already know).
I think PV has reached such a low price point (thanks, China) that nuclear just isn't really speed- or cost-competitive anymore.
Realistically, though, we really need both (like a solar bridge to nuclear), much more than we have now, and much faster, and we're not going to get enough of either one in time =/
I don't think it's really a "PV vs nuclear" but a "all of the above, and then some!"
International jet travel doubtless seemed like a crazy idea to people 100 years ago, but now it's a reality - and 100 years from now, it's a very good bet that solar will be providing the majority of human civilization's energy demand.
Solar is already cheaper than nuclear in terms of cost per MWH, and while adding extensive storage tends to even the cost out, nuclear still has some disadvantages including: uncertain uranium fuel sources and costs, black swan catastrophe concerns, cooling water demands, and long-term waste disposal costs - all issues solar mostly avoids. Some niche nuclear uses are more promising, e.g. China's current attempt to make pebble-bed helium-cooled models work for industrial process use (500C steam).
Look at France, they've got a big expensive mess on their hands after betting on nuclear: https://www.reuters.com/world/france-braces-uncertain-winter...
If you can understand French or don't mind subtitles, I advise you very strongly to listen the interview Aurore Stéphant gave on the Thinkerview some months ago.
Contrary to what other might be saying, that's not a question we can avoid asking, as there is a physical realities behind the ideal of switching to a fully decarbonated and decentralised grid... Even though that's basically the only thing we can do to keep existing as a specie.
US is incredibly slow in building transmission lines, takes decades.
A lot of bitcoin miners use stranded power, which would otherwise go to waste. People often respond to me on HN that the power could be easily/cheaply sent elsewhere for better uses [0]. Comments like this just re-enforce the fact that these people have literally no idea what they are talking about. Thanks, I'll favorite this one. =)
It would be more useful if that was the way that all (b)/(sh)itcoin miners operated. It is not like that here in Texas [0]. The state has even paid them multimillions of dollars to cut energy consumption during extreme weather periods. [1]
That money came straight from Texas citizens who gain nothing from the operations of these coin miners and who have already had to pay for the near collapse of the power grid back in Feb. 2021 which occurred because utilities are largely unregulated and can ignore requirements that they upgrade facilities or worse, just whine about the costs of bringing power generation plants into compliance with modern air quality standards like a bunch of rich spoiled toddlers. Many of these plants were grandfathered in when standards were established even though they would have been easy to upgrade at the time.
It is about time that the feds do what the Chinese did a few years ago and take a hard look at all the energy waste in shitcoin mining. [2]
In addition to energy consumption, this facility in Granbury, TX is already under fire for being a huge noise nuisance from the cooling fans that operate 24/7. [3]
[0] https://theweek.com/in-depth/1022698/how-voracious-bitcoin-m...
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bitcoin-mining-cryptocurrency-r...
[2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/02/large-cryptocurr...
[3] https://time.com/6590155/bitcoin-mining-noise-texas/
I understand from your replies that you had a personal stake in shitcoin mining and you're pivoting to something else. Maybe for you the handwriting is on the wall.
If you're so upset at what happened in Texas, then you should speak up to your representatives there. To me, it sounds like a larger systemic issue than just Bitcoin mining.
I understand from your replies that you had a personal stake in shitcoin mining and you're pivoting to something else. Maybe for you the handwriting is on the wall.
This feels like a personal attack, which as I understand it, is against the guidelines. But, to explain... I worked for businesses with stakes. I didn't have it myself. That would be like blaming someone who works for SpaceX, for Elon's bad takes.
It was not intended as a personal attack. It was an observation that you may have been involved in the industry long enough to sense that changes were coming in near future and that it might be a good time to think about other ways to earn an income.
As far as the Texas political situation goes, I do what I can. I'm only one vote and experience has demonstrated that when you contact one of your elected reps here, the best that you can hope for is that they forget to add your contact information to their list of Texas residents who might support the election or re-election of people just like them. I made the mistake once of correcting one of my reps during a community phone roundtable discussion and later followed up with an email. Since then I have been trying (with some success) to remove my contact info from their call and email lists. The simple fact that they spam your contact accounts from every state-wide and national candidate in spite of the fact that they should know that they will never have your support tells me that they are trying to discourage people who will vote against them from participating in the process. It won't work with me but it might with others.
This is as far off of the topic of solar panels in the Four Corners region as I think I need to go today. Good luck in your new ventures.
it might be a good time to think about other ways to earn an income.
Ethereum switched from PoW to PoS. GPU mining stopped. The company I was working for wound down. So, yea... way ahead of you.
Bitcoin is about to halve its emissions. I expect a lot of miners to shut down (or at least continue to concentrate into the larger corporations).
way ahead of you.
Comedy must be your true calling.
My partner thinks so.
There is no law of nature that says that the pace of US infrastructure improvements should be like that. It's a matter of policy. The US has built impressive projects before at a staggering rate, and they could do so in the future. (currently China is doing the same but on a larger scale. It shows it is possible if you have the political will)
When people say that the power "could" be sent elsewhere, they are right, you just need to build the damn transmission lines. It's not rocket science.
I'm referring to the whole picture not just platitudes.
The reality of the situation is that certainly a lot of stuff "could" happen, like Fusion and Nuclear power too.
Had fusion power recived a fraction of the funds that went to blockchain stuff over the past decade, we would be much closer indeed.
Had fusion power received a fraction of the funds that went to military wars over the past decade, we would be much closer indeed.
My point is that whataboutism, is probably a bad take here.
I think that “just need to” can be said about a lot of things. And even space x can build rockets, it’s not exactly brain surgery!
A lot of bitcoin miners use stranded power, which would otherwise go to waste.
Often claimed, rarely supported by evidence or numbers.
It's also unlikely to be very practical, because that'd essentially mean running bitcoin miners in load-balancing mode, and not running them most of the time. Given that bitcoin hardware tends to loose value quickly, as the next generation of mining hardware comes to the market, this is unlikely to be a feasible model.
I have evidence and numbers.
Update: I got downvoted for not posting them. I did in the link above though.
https://www.coinmint.one/ is the data center. They have about 500MW of power going to them from the Moses-Saunders dam.
They don't need to shut down cause it is hydro and 24/7. They actually help keep the dam running cause they balance the load coming from it. Just like the aluminum smelter before it did. The location of the facility and dam are near the border of Canada and the US. It is very remote and in the middle of nowhere with enough population to consume the 500MW. There are main grid lines going past them, but it would likely need new infrastructure to connect to it at that much power.
I've seen their power costs (including transmission), I can't post that, obviously. But, a large chunk of their costs, is transmission, which pays for the install and maintenance of the lines running the few miles from the dam. These are large / tall physical towers.
Disclosure: I'm a former very large scale bitcoin/litecoin/ethereum miner and now building an AI bare metal gpu service.
That's actually an interesting situation, but it doesn't support the assertion that the power would "otherwise go to waste" or that this is something a lot of bitcoin miners do. The argument that it's non-trivial to just transmit the power elsewhere is a persuasive one, the argument that bitcoin mining is somehow uniquely able to take advantage of that power is not as persuasive.
Even if the argument is that compute heavy data centers are the only use-case that makes sense, there's lots of compute use cases other than bitcoin. And obviously the former presence of the aluminum shelter suggests data centers are not the only good use-cases. I understand the appeal of the argument that bitcoin mining has less energy impact than people think because it can uniquely take advantage of weird edge cases, but it doesn't make sense to me.
You're trying to apply persuasive logic to something that doesn't need persuasive logic. It is what it is.
The fact that the smelter shut down and literally nobody picked it up and put it to use, speaks volumes. Heck, Alcoa was so desperate to unload it, they let those "dirty" bitcoin miners move in, over any other business potential.
Here is another one... the Quincy/Wenatchee area of WA state. Also sparsely populated, but more hydro power than anyone knows what to do with. This is where a huge number of data centers are, including bitcoin miners.
Would you be willing to post them?
Bitcoin mining is a pioneer species, proving out the tapping of novel and remote energy sources and laying the initial infrastructure for more investment.
https://medium.com/the-bitcoin-times/bitcoin-is-a-pioneer-sp...
As much as I appreciate articles like this, you're not going to win over the HN crowd with them. Especially now that Ethereum has been so successful with PoS and decimating power usage, not just on that chain, but all GPU based PoW chains.
There was only ever going to be one PoW chain that dominates the world.
Ethereum abandoning it just cements bitcoin as the winner. It might have some great utility, but bitcoin is now the standard for immutability that all other solutions will be measured against.
There was only ever going to be one PoW chain that dominates the world.
Only because there is only one chip that can be produced in mass, asic's.
Ethereum abandoning it
Ethereum didn't abandon it, it was part of the plan all along. Bootstrap on PoW, move to PoS. I agree with you about immutability, but that is going to be an issue moving forward, as I believe strongly that human nature favors utility.
A lot of bitcoin miners use stranded power, which would otherwise go to waste.
A lot of bitcoin miners are keeping fossil fuel spewing power plants from being retired because the regulations that keep power affordable for Americans haven’t caught up. There’s a reason China killed bitcoin mining and the US needs to follow suit. Literally killing the planet for imaginary coins that don’t solve any problems that weren’t already solved. Well, besides the whole anonymous ransom thing.
I believe that the US should work to end coal plants regardless of who is buying power from them.
Oh and I'm more of a fan of Ethereum. They've now moved to PoS, which consumes a fraction of the power, and there is actual utility on that chain. Moved my bitcoin to wbtc too, but looking forward to more decentralized versions of it eventually.
There’s a reason China killed bitcoin mining and the US needs to follow suit.
According to this data, China tried, but failed to kill bitcoin mining. As of the last update in Jan 2022, China currently has 55% of the hashrate it had before the ban. https://ccaf.io/cbnsi/cbeci/mining_map
Also, mining is a global industry. Banning it in one country is like grabbing a fist full of water. It just oozes out elsewhere. It looks like the China ban mostly oozed into the US and Kazakhstan, before rebounding back into China. The effective reduced total energy use from the China ban barely lasted 6 months before it surpassed previous levels.
This was the result of one of the strongest authoritarian surveillance states in the world. What makes you think anyone else can do better?
Can you please make your substantive points without being snarky or a jerk? If you know more than others, that's great—please share some of what you know, so the rest of us can learn. But please don't post putdowns or shame other people for being wrong. We're all mostly wrong about most everything, after all.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
(We detached this offtopic subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39411064.)
European here. What kind of legal structure is tribe in this context?
“We, as the Ute Mountain Ute tribe, had been a fossil fuel tribe with oil and gas for a long time, probably over 50 years. Today, with the changes in legislation, global warming, and climate change, you can see the impact of what's happening to our world.
I think I only ever heard tribe used to describe a group or maybe 10-30 hunter-gatherers, or perhaps the descendants of such a group, but this is clearly not that. It sounds more like it might be a municipality with jurisdiction over some city+-sized plot of land? Or is it like a church type of structure where anyone in the area can sign up to be a member? Or something completely different?
I've tried looking up tribe but the definition I get is this
A unit of sociopolitical organization consisting of a number of families, clans, or other groups who share a common ancestry and culture and among whom leadership is typically neither formalized nor permanent.
That doesn't sound like the type of structure to have a billion USD to invest. There's three definitions given but none of them fit the context here
Does it matter if this group of people refers to itself as a “tribe” or a “nation” or something else? If they started referring to themselves as a “nation” for example, would anything change.
In any case, it’s quite common in the US for groups like this to be referred to as a “tribe”. I guess today you’re one of the lucky 10,000.
Some tribes were able to secure federal recognition, which grants them a more official diplomatic relationship in regards to their dealings with the federal and state governments of the United States: https://www.bia.gov/faqs/what-federally-recognized-tribe
Because the Constitution vested the Legislative Branch with plenary power over Indian Affairs, states have no authority over tribal governments unless expressly authorized by Congress. While federally recognized tribes generally are not subordinate to states, they can have a government-to-government relationship with these other sovereigns, as well.
Furthermore, federally recognized tribes possess both the right and the authority to regulate activities on their lands independently from state government control. They can enact and enforce stricter or more lenient laws and regulations than those of the surrounding or neighboring state(s) wherein they are located. Yet, tribes frequently collaborate and cooperate with states through compacts or other agreements on matters of mutual concern such as environmental protection and law enforcement.
From https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions
Unfortunately, this is just a continuation of the numerous betrayals the US and military units have inflicted on them for the past centuries. Our government and soldiers routinely violated the treaties we signed and forcibly relocated and murdered many people.
Many tribes did not retain their federal recognition and just kinda exist in a no-man's land between states and the federal government, lacking much of the autonomy of the federally recognized tribes.
This doesn’t actually contradict anything I said (maybe you never intended to contradict me?). But yes you are in fact correct.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to contradict anything you said, just noting that it's not so much "what they call themselves" that determines their status, but whether they were able to secure federal recognition before the treaties stopped.
I see yes this was my original point (though you expanded a bit more than I did). The question of whether they call themselves a tribe or a nation or something else doesn’t really have much bearing on things.
Gotcha. Sorry, didn't mean to make it seem like I was trying to correct anything. Apologies if it looked that way. Just wanted to share the info with people who might not be familiar with tribal governments in the US (it's super complicated!)
But you're totally right, the name itself doesn't mean much.
I might be wrong here, but I was under the impression that their sovereignty was something they possess of their own accord and not merely because the Federal government chose to recognize them?
I seem to remember being taught in school that the native american reservations exist because of treaties signed by the united states government with sovereign nations (those nations being the native americans) and that the US government is obligated to respect their autonomy and sovereignty by the terms laid out in those treaties.
i don't mean to contradict your claims that the Federal Government has a long history of violating these treaties, as that is undoubtedly true. i'm just curious because the way i interpreted your description makes it seem as if they're only autonomous because the federal government has chosen to recognize them.
Well, yes and no. Theoretically, I could create my own sovereign nation on whatever land I want. But if nobody recognizes that sovereignty and applies their laws to that land instead of mine, am I really sovereignty? These reservations exist on land that otherwise is part of the USA. If the government decides not to recognize their sovereignty and say the treaties are void as a result, unless they can mount a resistance, they aren't really sovereign at that point.
It is really complicated, and I'm not at all an expert, but I believe it is more complex than "they are sovereign, end of story".
Through centuries of conquest and betrayal, the US governments have eroded much of the tribes' previous power, and these days they exist under a complex legal framework in which they have some sovereignty and some autonomy, but not to the same degree that, say, Canada or China have. Their rights under US law are granted by (and can be revoked by) acts of Congress. Lacking their own militaries and international diplomacy, they are more like states than countries as we think of them.
But it's actually way more complicated than that and depends on whether the tribe is federally recognized, what specific rights Congress withheld from them, whether they are prosecuting tribesmembers, other Indians, or non-Indian Americans, etc.
At the end of the day, it unfortunately comes down to who has the bigger stick. Tribes can say no all they want but it's up to the US Congress to listen or not. And they don't necessarily have the same Constitutional protections that US states have, either. It just really depends. And again, I'm not an expert at all!
This page has more detail: https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-4/generalprinc...
Does it matter if this group of people refers to itself as a “tribe” or a “nation” or something else?
No, I just did not know what it meant and certainly would not have guessed something close to nation as it turns out to be! I'm feeling like there's suddenly more countries on the planet than I knew about, and wondering why we never hear from them on the news or elsewhere! Well, until now at least :)
A sibling comment says they avoid the word tribe to avoid the historic associations though, so I don't know what their preferred word would be. Probably it also differs between groups or even individuals within one.
In the US, this is a general term for descendants of Native American peoples. Their degree of sovereignty unfortunately varies; some tribes are "federally recognized" and enjoy state-like recognition of their autonomy by the federal (central) government, while others have to bargain with the states surrounding their territories. More info here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_(Native_American)
And a FAQ: https://www.bia.gov/frequently-asked-questions
The land they directly control can be anywhere from tiny to gigantic, depending on the particulars: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Indian_L...
Many people also live in surrounding areas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indian_reservations_in...
Much of the time the tribes have their own small governments, similar to municipal services, but also often with their own equivalents to "courts", "police", etc., who may utilize different corrective measures than the US ones. Often they will have an agreement with surrounding law enforcement (or the federal government) to partner up on certain categories of infractions, such as traffic violations or murders.
Some tribes have some money thanks to casinos and other business activities, but most are unfortunately quite poor, and many of their communities must work very hard to survive.
(This all is just my layman's understanding. I am not Native American, but I've lived near their communities. Please correct me if I'm wrong!)
---------
Edit: The 2023 movie Killers of the Flower Moon is really worth watching: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killers_of_the_Flower_Moon_(fi...
Thanks for the insight! I had no idea some enjoyed so much autonomy, or that something other than the democratically elected government arranged for courts to exist in some regions. If I ever visit the USA, this sounds like they'll be some of the culturally most interesting places to include in the trip. Odd that I had never heard of this before. (That native Americans exist, sure, and the word reservation I've heard as well but that honestly sounds more like zoo than like state. Probably I should have looked into what this means sooner!)
The structure built slowly over the years as the federal government signed treaties with each tribe. In a sense some Indians have rights that are close to foreign countries and are recognized as sovereign entities under federal/constitutional law.
In this case I think the word "tribe" is referring to the Ute Mountain sub-group of the Ute people.
But it's certainly nothing like the primitive society you are imagining, and that's partly why I think a lot of American Indian nations don't use that word to describe themselves.
For example, the "Seneca tribe" calls themselves the Seneca Nation. That is, they were and are a group of people sharing common ethnicity, culture, language, and some kind of governmental organization across their territory, which at one point covered a large portion of what is now western New York state. They lived in towns with palisade walls and farmed several crops. They interacted with other nations in a complicated geopolitical system involving trade, alliance, and war. It's a far cry from the image of dumb savages in crude huts.
In the USA today, American Indian nations are essentially sovereign nations, and have some of their own territory in areas called reservations. So that's what we are talking about here: the actions of a sovereign nation, with its own government and geographical territory.
For example, the "Seneca tribe" calls themselves the Seneca Nation.
That sounds a lot more accurate given the explanation (also from other comments) where they have their own courts and everything. Odd that the words reservation and tribe are still in use like this.
(And perhaps I should clarify: I didn't mean to imply that these people (evidently having a billion to invest in solar) are living in huts or otherwise are like the historic hunter-gatherer societies I mentioned. The word evoced that image for me, but of course I realise that this cannot be accurate, hence the confusion.)
Native American groups were pushed onto reservations in the 1800s. They have political autonomy. The groups are called tribes.
They tend to work in a capacity similar to a US State, e.g. Utah itself but there is a lot of variation and nuance from tribe to tribe and state to state.
You will run into confusing situations where a county law enforcement official might patrol on a reservation because there is overlap or nebulous boundaries with the blessing (cross deputizarion) from the tribal law enforcement. However some tribes defer more of their governance to a Federal Bureau of Indian Affairs.
For a largely autonomous example, the Cherokee in North Carolina are interesting. Largely funded by their casinos and now marijuana which is legal on their reservation but not the encompassing state of North Carolina. They have fairly strict rules around membership, such that a Cherokee that was shipped off to Oklahoma is not eligible for membership. Land ownership is based on tribal membership, not quite following standard American rules. It’s a fun deep dive to read up on their system.
Within the context of the US, tribe can refer to a specific group of Native Americans. Group size is irrelevant, e.g. the Navajo Nation has the largest reservation and 165k members.
Each tribe is free to determine its own legal structure, as it is a separate polity (a sovereign nation) from the US -- sort of. US federal law still applies on federal reservations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United...
A) They're native americans. In the US Native Americans are often referred to as "tribes", "nations" or "reservations".
B) its more like what would be referred to as a "semi autonomous region" in other countries. They have their own governments, police forces, etc.
C) they probably secured some sort of outside investments, these native american reservations are by no means unsophisticated. Other reservations have been able to bring in revenue by using their autonomy to establish casinos and resorts on their lands, even in states where that would be illegal outside of the reservations (because the reservation's autonomy means that they aren't necessarily bound by the laws of whatever state they are in).
Recognized tribes in the US are their own legal entities, with similar theoretically legal status to US states. You're right that it seems unlikely they have $1B lying around to invest. I expect they'll need to finance the project in some way.
A Native American tribe recognized by the United States government possesses tribal sovereignty, a "dependent sovereign nation" status with the Federal Government that is similar to that of a state in some situations, and that of a nation in others, holding a government-to-government relationship with the Federal government of the United States.
The Ute Mountain Ute Tribe referenced in the article is one such Federally recognized tribe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_(Native_American) https://www.bia.gov/service/tribal-leaders-directory
In this context Tribe is a federally recognized sovereign yet dependent nation. They have the ability to govern themselves but are still subject to federal law, but while on reservations they not subject to state law, only federal and tribal law. It's complicated.
They could be raising the money from outside bankers or investors. Commonly, you can get away with stuff on tribal ground that you could not get away with in the surrounding area, since the tribal ground doesn't follow the state laws of the surrounding state.
Dang they went out and found 400+ of a rare cactus and avoided building on them? Anyone know how they actually did that survey? Like someone just goes out for days at a time and looks?
Not sure how it went in that specific case but yes, these type of impact studies are usually hands on, you go out into the field with a bunch of people and comb an area completely.
In case of a chip factory currently developed by Intel in Germany, they went out onto the 200ha (roughly 280 football fields) and found and resettled 7 rare hamsters. 2 of those had to be dug out: https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/sachsen-anhalt/magdeburg/magd...
That's pretty wild. Do you much about this? It's kinda related to a project I'm working on and I'd be interested in chatting if so!
Not really. I’ve done academic fieldwork before but not specifically this type of environmental impact study.
For what it is worth, a lot of environmental work is very hands on. I have a friend who's full time job was to walk in front of tractors and make sure they don't run over snakes. Another who's job was part of a large team with the job walk power lines under construction and make sure birds don't nest in them. If they did nest, the construction project would be on hold for a year.
I wonder how much identification of different floria could be done by hi-def drone capture of an area then image identification of different species could be done these days? I could see things like hamsters being more difficult as small mammals tend to hide to avoid being prey.
The problem as you say likely being that the drone shares properties with predatory birds that make hamsters scurry away ;-). Many endangered plants won't be visible from above due to other, larger plants and you'd need millimeter resolution or better.
I wouldn't underestimate how effective experienced and qualified humans can be in finding and interpreting signs of the presence of a small number of specific species in a large area. Drones and AI will probably get there at some point, but I doubt that its close.
That story is one of the weirder stories I've read on Hacker News recently. Cute though:
"The last hamster of the fields gave a timid crow when Alexander Resetaritz drew it out of the construction on his paw and pushed it into the transport box."
This type of environmental mitigation is pretty common here in Germany. I'm currently working with a local organization that wants to revitalize an old water mill barn from the 1700s (I think). It's currently in a really bad shape but to even start the permitting process to put a new roof on it, we need a qualified person doing an environmental impact study, making sure that there are no rare bats or owls hanging out in the rafters. It's actually not that big of a deal, they basically go in, look closely for any signs of these animals and make a few photos, the actual report is only a page or so. But if there were any of those animals, they'd have to be professionally removed and resettled elsewhere and the new construction would likely have to be adapted to continue to offer habitats.
Back in the day I worked on seismic field crews in that region.
Each crew had field archaeologists and biologists and representatives from the tribes and Bureau of Land Management working closely with us to insure that we followed all procedures to protect sensitive areas from disturbance.
That meant in practice that local or BLM archaeologists and biologists led the way across the area where we intended to acquire data. Just as you see in the photos in the linked presentation (user 1970-01-01), teams of experts surveyed the land looking for sensitive or threatened plants and animals and archaeologists identified areas with cultural artifacts. These areas were flagged and that flagging placed them off limits to our operations. They were No-Go areas. We had permission to operate within a fairly narrow easement across the landscape with strict guidelines about vehicle access, allowable damage to existing vegetation and the landscape, trash removal, etc since that region is very arid and small things like orange peels become items that are recognizable centuries after they are discarded.
For this survey I expect that they staked the potential affected area and walked every bit of it using pin flags to mark things that are not to be disturbed. The area is only about 8 square miles so it shouldn't take that long.
Satellite/aerial imagery followed by more accurate surveying where necessary.
A proposed solar farm on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation will have 2.2 million solar panels
Annual capacity is estimated to be about 756 megawatts.
756 MW/year = ~2 MW/day = less than 1 watt per day per panel?
I get that the sun doesn't shine 24/7, but even so that seems way off. What am I missing? Maybe the 756 MW figure is daily instead of annual?
MW is power, MWh is energy. So annual should be 7564.5365 MWh
You can escape your * with a \.
Ah, thank you
The article is bad, as so often happens with units... The project site: https://www.sunbearproject.com/
971MW, producing up to 1700 to 2400 GWh/year.
That puts it at 2471 hours/year of full-power production equivalent, or 28%. That's good - it's a nice area for solar.
The average solar power purchase agreement is $49 per megawatt hour¹. That is $49,000 per GWh. So if this plant can produce 1700 gigawatt hours per year then they would be able to earn on the order of $83,000,000 annually. Not too shabby.
(1)- https://www.utilitydive.com/news/solar-wind-renewable-energy...
Watts are a rate (energy/time), you don't need to divide them by time again.
756 MW is the peak power rate, not accumulated amount of power that will be generated per year.
756MW of capacity will produce ~3,024 MWH per day
“756MW of annual capacity” doesn’t make sense, given that MW is a measure of instantaneous power. They might mean that the average daily peak output over the whole year is 756MW?
Should be more like 756 GWh
"Having said that, we're going to be producing a large amount of power. So I'm not sure that all of it will be able to be consumed within Colorado."
Hopefully they can attract further industry, that will consume that cheap energy close to production. Metal smelting ones for example.
Metal smelting has the often frowned upon side effect of generating super fund sites.
Hm? What kind of dangerous chemicals do you need to turn for example bauxite into aluminium?
To save others a click
Alcoa released hazardous substances, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), onto the facility property as well as into the Grasse River through four industrial outfalls
I wonder for what you need PCBs in sufficient quantities to cause a superfund site.
Are the PCBs an input or the result of the chemistry?
I suppose recycling existing aluminium is more hazard free.
Luckily the indian reservation has plenty of empty land to pollute.
That makes me sad.
Refining lithium
But also, it makes sense not to transmit power too far from where you are
yep, they’ll waste the energy trying to transmit it
sounds like they’re going to be attracting bitcoin miners. they’re the only use case that’s able to be in the middle of nowhere without needing other infrastructure, like robust internet.
any other use cases you all know of?
Datacenter for AI training workloads.
Thats pretty good if the data is already there, other data centers rely on heavier internet infrastructure
Fiber lines have less power transmission loss than the equivalent power lines themselves. In this hypothetical build out I'm guessing the huge fiber runs would be part of it.
Powering a casino
People have to commute to, well maybe. If more infrastructure comes up around there and people live there then its a nice long game.
Cabling in robust internet wouldn't be too hard, if that were the only factor. Pull fiber from Salt Lake City and Albuquerque, maybe Denver and Phoenix and boom. There's US highways in all directions, so you can pull along the road, most likely. You'd get at least two way redundancy going North and South, maybe three way if you take different paths to get to Phoenix and Albuquerque.
But you also need/want robust power delivery to run a datacenter, and a single local solar project isn't robust power delivery. If you had robust power delivery, those transmission lines could be used to export the solar, and it wouldn't make sense to put a datacenter there anymore.
they’ll waste the energy trying to transmit it
High voltage transmission lines are very efficient. On the order of 1-2% loses per 100 miles for 500 kV carrying 1000 MW [0].
[0] https://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/grady/_13_EE392J_2_Spring...
Transmission lines are already there because of the nearby decommissioned coal plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juan_Generating_Station
Largest in US, but pretty small compared to whats coming up. Todays news, ~$12B in Philippines: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39408076
Edit: 3.58B, not 12 from another comment. Still, pretty large investment for Philippines.
Isn't the actual size important, and not the money involved?
Yes, actual size, but also relative to the size of their economy. Considering Philippines GDP, this is significant.
What's the GDP of the Ute nation? It's probably quite a significant investment for them as well.
2.96bln USD
So 35% of the Ute Nation's GDP vs 1.3% of the Phillipines. OP is clearly either uninformed or biased. Or just doesn't understand Tribal Sovereignty status in the US.
Worth noting GDP is per year. Where the project cost is over the 30 year life[1] of the project. Through the magic of finance 35% becomes 1.17%.
[1] One feels that 30 life for something where components can be constantly replaced as they wear out is a misnomer.
Doing the same to the Filipino project drops it down to .35%, so the total impact is still 1/3 that of the Ute project.
Additionally, the Ute will need to weather that impact for a full 30 years, while the Filipinos will only need to for a few.
spectacular public works history in the Phillipines !
Bhadla Solar park in India. 7 miles long and 3.5 miles wide. If I’m not mistaken, it’s currently the largest in the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park?wprov=sfti1#...
It's unclear how they will finance this $1B project or who they will sell the juice to. Is the tribe getting suckered into a bad deal?
who...will they sell the juice to?
Utah is already a power exporter. Utah generates about one-fifth more electricity than it consumes, and the state is a net supplier of power to other states.[1]
This tribe is in Colorado, not Utah, despite the name.
Transmission is expensive; you'd rather sell locally. Before you finance a $1B project it would be good to have a sense of how you expect to sell the outputs!
Simply put, we're going to have to build transmission infrastructure in the US.
Right now we get past a lot of that by bundling up coal and natural gas in trains and pipes and generating closer to the sink.
There is a star of WECC transmission lines going all around the region just south of the Colorado border near ShipRock NM.
Part of what made this project viable IMHO was the adjacency to existing WECC Interface Paths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WECC_Intertie_Paths#/media/Fil...
Transmission lines are already there because of the nearby decommissioned coal plant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Juan_Generating_Station
The financial outfit behind it seems to have a decent track record with smaller projects around the world:
https://energypeople.com/news/story/green-returns-for-green-...
They also state that they're interested in developing hydrogen and ammonia production capability using the electricity produced, rather than selling it to the grid, but building such production facilities would increase up-front costs by several billion.
Thanks! I'd be interested in hearing more about the specific terms and sources of capital for this project, if you know.
IIRC this tribe has a casino
Sounds like a nice, sustainable economic boom for the Ute Tribe once they bring it online.
Reading the slides from the biological/archaeological impact studies from Canigou Group shows that someone didn't proofread their slide.
The burrowing owl study states that it is "Threatened with the State of Colorado but not Federally".
It was probably supposed to say "Threatened within..."
Good luck to the Utes. There is not much industry other than oil and gas exploration in that region unless recent interest in nuclear power generation has restarted local mining operations shut down in the 1970's that used to be large employers (and polluters) out there.
EDIT: Following the link posted by another comment shows that the slide in this article has been corrected. The same slide on that link says "in" instead of "with".
Sounds like a nice, sustainable economic boom for the Ute Tribe once they bring it online.
As long as they properly distribute the profits to tribe members. There have definitely been some boondoggles in the past that only help the 1% ers
This is a problem with all tribes. Resource extraction on tribal land is not necessarily improving the living standards of all members of the tribe. It's the same story whether we look at oil and gas production, coal or mineral mining, hydroelectric power generation, timber production, or wind and solar energy production.
Electing tribal leaders who will focus on improvements that spread the wealth and boost living standards can be as difficult for them as it is for other Americans to elect leaders who attempt to improve their constituent's lives and create opportunities for them.
It is also a challenge, less so today than in the past, to find tribal members with the domain knowledge to be able to understand how all this can be put to best use for the benefit of all.
Then you also need firewalls in place to prevent exploitation by multinational corporations with the domain expertise who use that to draft agreements that end up cheating the tribes out of profits that should go to the tribes.
It's a hard problem since it is so endemic in the American business world and since many programs that are currently in place have no one conducting effective oversight to insure that business is conducted transparently and to the benefit of the ones owning the resources.
This is not a tribal problem this is a human problem. This is a universal situation. I think you agree with this. There is an ongoing problem of singling out "tribal" issues as though tribes are somehow specially deficient.
I do agree that it is a human problem that affects most of us to some extent due to corporate capture of regulatory processes by those who are supposed to be regulated. When you have (1) no oversight or (2) oversight with limited enforcement authority or (3) oversight with enforcement authority that does not function as an effective deterrent then you have created the situation we see today.
Those who should be regulated end up writing the regulations that govern their activities and so they do this in a manner that offers the least friction to their operations at the lowest cost to them.
It is definitely not just a tribal problem here in the US. It is endemic in the corporate world and in government. That's why I mentioned that part at the end of that post.
Seems to me like the 1%ers not handing down profits is a problem in Silicon Valley and beyond too...
Threatened with the State of Colorado
If you don’t eat your vegetables I’m sending you to live with your uncle Phil, in Colorado.
Contrast this news with that of LPEA from neighboring Durango area putting a stop to new solar installation due to maxing out energy needs
https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/la-plata-electric-put...
Promote electric vehicles, heat pumps, inductive cooktops, and other decarbonization that would increase electricity demand since you've got a plethora of electricity? Nope.
Incentivize home energy storage and invest in grid level energy storage and encourage purchasing EVs that can be used as grid batteries? Nope.
Invest in better grid-level interconnects to export electricity? Nope.
Work with the community to attract industry that uses lots of electricity and approach commercial/industrial users to find ways to decarbonize? Nope.
Ban customers from new grid-intertied solar: YES.
Engage in scare-mongering about solar causing fires and being dangerous or causing grid instability when grid-intertie systems have a slew of safety mechanisms? YES.
Absolute morons.
Also buried in that article: they signed a contract with their wholesale provider mandating that they can only generate 5% of their own electricity. The article claims, but does not explain, how this doesn't limit solar generation - there's a bunch of hand-waiving about how "it doesn't prohibit homeowners from generating solar power."
That contract goes until 2050. Who looked at the electricity market and said "you know what? Let's sign a multi-decade contract, that seems smart!"?
I doubt they're morons, more likely perfectly intelligent and know exactly what they're doing and for whom.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Incentives explain a lot more than ethier
Keep in mind, that contract was signed way back in 2000 and things were pretty different back then. I also believe it was signed by a primarily conservative LPEA board.
Energy production is a huge moneymaker that also happens to be government owned/taxed to a large degree in many countries. Solar panels and batteries are at the point where they will completely disrupt this entire industry.
Many incumbents will try their best to prevent it, and to be fair it's not entirely for malicious reasons. Energy taxes and income from power plants pay for a lot of community value. The income has to be replaced somehow if it is removed.
I think that solar + various storage options are technically already the best solution for energy supply, and this kind of political inertia is the main obstacle to overcome in order to make it a reality.
Whenever I see comments about how slow public projects are these days, I think about this documentary: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/race-under...
It's a PBS special about the history of the Boston subway (which was one of the first in the nation).
To give you an idea of what construction safety was like back then, they would routinely encounter gas lines, cut them WITHOUT turning off the gas, and keep working.
Obviously, this led to lots of explosions but also very quick construction. If you are optimizing for speed over safety/environmental/etc it's pretty surprising how quickly you can build something.
Safety usually isn't the problem. It's the public notice periods, feedback collection, final notices, environmental impact studies, lawsuits over whether the environmental impact studies were sufficient, possible need to get the government to invoke eminent domain, studies over which potential version of a project needs the least disruption, and so forth.
Near where I live is a bridge over a river that needs replacing. The county had to study three different ways to do it, weighing environmental impact, traffic disruption, total cost of each option, and so forth.
The planning and regulatory portion of the project is easily 75% of the timeline, and that's for a fast one due to the condition of the bridge itself. If it were less urgent, it would have likely taken even longer.
Meanwhile collapsed Minneapolis I-35W bridge (remember that? Gusset plates, etc?) got replaced in something like 7 months, they picked a colorado company and started construction very quickly. Of course a half dozen local construction companies filed suit but the bridge was built really fast.
Right next door to that bridge are three other projects: a cliff/dirt collapse/erosion/retaining project that kept the river parkway closed for like 4 years, and two bridges being reconditioned that have been closed for 3. Those went through the "normal" channels.
A friend of mine was on I35W, about a half mile or mile before where the bridge collapsed, and had to take an exit to get off the freeway. Lots of small quirks of fate slowed down his trip that day just enough that he wasn't over the portion that collapsed when it went down.
I think a part of the difference is that the federal government provides funds for maintenance of the interstates, and the sheer volume of traffic that was being re-routed down other roads that weren't really intended for the extra traffic (adding lanes to 94 certainly helped some).
Shame that it requires a catastrophe to see what we can really do when it needs doing.
they would routinely encounter gas lines, cut them WITHOUT turning off the gas, and keep working
That's still done today, evidently! A few months back, there was a small gas leak in my neighborhood. When they knocked on my door to say they'd be working in the area, the repair crew leader was kind enough to indulge my questions.
I asked them if my gas would be shut off. They said no, they do the work while the gas is still on!
And they must have been cutting into the gas line because they replaced a section that ran under the street. They used a backhoe to dig huge holes on both sides of the street and then fed a flexible pipe through.
Here's a video about something kind of similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCMs__ZnOfA
I'm sure today's techniques are different and much safer, so I don't think it negates your point that they used to do risky stuff.
I asked them if my gas would be shut off. They said no, they do the work while the gas is still on!
My understanding is that most "last mile" gas lines are pretty low pressure and low flow. On purpose, so that if theirs a leak they aren't releasing massive amounts of gas into the atmosphere in a hurry, so the concentration doesn't raise to dangerous levels.
Then when they are working on the lines and in those pits to make connections, they have detectors to tell if there's a dangerous build up, and ventilation to ensure it doesn't happen anyway.
The system generally being low pressure is why sometimes during really cold periods when demand is high, the gas company has to adjust field regulators to increase flow so that demand can be met. They normally run at low enough flow that if everyone's furnace and stove and water heater all run at once, the lines would effectively run out of gas.
part of the issue in 2024 is that the ground is a lot fuller than it used to be, so it takes more time. In some cases, like in New York, step one is figuring out where any of that stuff even is, because for privately owned infrastructure the maps are not public or even shared with government, and in some cases the infrastructure is so old that the maps are not accurate, if they are even available.
we now build projects to relocate utilities (so that you don't have to shut down a subway line to replace an adjacent water pipe) but that stuff is costly and everyone is prepared to sue the other in case of a mess-up. but there is a lot of the physical version of tech debt; New York is still replacing wood and lead piping, for example.
They should definitely mine bitcoin. No transmission lines needed. Can use all of their excess power.
Possibly the worst idea for what you can do with excess power.
Most tribal governments have more respect for nature than that.
Just like damming rivers to generate carbon free energy turned them into lakes and changed the climate and ecosystems that we are trying to preserve, paving over many square miles of land with solar panels (that will all end up in landfills eventually) will change ecosystems and climates. Carbon gas is not the only thing we need to be focused on if preserving our earth the way it is is our goal.
Low carbon and low footprint options like nuclear should be our top priority. All this focus on wind and solar power is a distraction from real long-term solutions to preserving our ecology and climate.
we are trying to preserve
That's the trick of it. Turns out "leave nothing but footprints, take nothing but pictures" philosophy doesn't scale. We can respect andanage nature while recognizing we are part of it too.
turned them into lakes and changed the climate
Global climate? or strictly local area effects?
Global nuclear currently generates approximately half the energy that hydropower does, and less than an eighth of that generated by coal and gas which is the goal to replace - to replace that with nuclear will take many many years which will then no longer be "low foot print".
All this focus on wind and solar is largely because it is delivering replacement power now and at less cost than nuclear.
paving over many square miles of land with solar panels
You can graze animals | have market gardens | etc. underneath you know (maybe you don't, perhaps you might wish to learn more).
Solar farm trial shows improved fleece on merino sheep grazed under panels
https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2022-05-30/solar-farm-graz...
Having said that, we're going to be producing a large amount of power. So I'm not sure that all of it will be able to be consumed within Colorado.”
That’s a surprisingly vague statement on a billion dollar project. I’d expect there would be spreadsheets and models estimating production/consumption locations for decades out and the company would be quoting a percentage figure even if that was a guesstimate.
When people say things like that you know they aren't spending their own money.
I’d note that in 2024 $1bb isn’t THAT much money. Further the constraints will likely have more to do with distribution infrastructure outside their control.
Officials are planning to break ground on the construction of the Sun Bear Solar Farm later in 2024, with the goal of producing electricity in 2026. Annual capacity is estimated to be about 756 megawatts.
I wonder what kind of capacity factor they're using.
Yeah this is obviously wrong. They meant just capacity, not "annual capacity". Annual output should be around 1500 GWh.
This could power data centers, then the only outside link needed is fiber optic lines.
Correct. Data centers over casinos.
But then again, those data centers could have bitcoin miners, at which point, we'd be back to the casino. =)
Imagine if the US enabled/supported native tribes in things like land management, sustainable bison management, solar farms, and things that actually seek to improve the national health/fertility/ecosystem instead of the gross complex they've created for them now.
There's been a larger focus during the Biden administration on supporting indigenous peoples and improving and reforming the relationship between the US Federal government and these peoples. His administration appointed Deb Haaland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deb_Haaland) as the first Native American Secretary of the Interior. Interior is in charge of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and she's been leveraging her position to tackle some of those exact efforts you mentioned. In March of 2023 last year she announced $25,000,000 for bison restoration efforts which admittedly is not enough but it's better than previous administrations have managed. (https://apnews.com/article/bison-restoration-tribes-haaland-...)
Thanks for this link.
Lol a Ute in Australia means a pickup truck. I first thought it meant that lol.
Sorry, but with the thousands of square miles of parking that we have in the US, it seems very very stupid to do greenfield solar power, particularly in one of the few zones where the ecosystem is preserved.
The financial backer of the project (London-based Canigou Group) says they're looking into using the electricity for water -> hydrogen -> ammonia pathways, which is a way around the energy transport problem (the best places for solar are often not co-located with human populations).
https://www.canigougroup.com/news/evaluation-of-green-hydrog...
Methanol is another valuable endpoint, the Chinese version of this (CEEC Songyuan) is using the same approach but intends to make both ammonia and methanol.
Off topic, but does anyone know if Ute tribes share money with each other for big projects like this?
I'm pretty sure this tribe has a casino on their reservation, but I know the one in Utah doesn't, both get money from oil extraction, but I'm not sure if they are totally independent from each other?
two what? did you say Utes?
Incredible news and momentum. The entire land will have an advanced smart renewable grid that scales to any size and is very fault-tolerant and self-recovering. It is beautiful to observe the Melting Pot producing great ideas and vast installations of great systems. Great job all around and it's encouraging to observe communities joining forces and brains to work on planet-scale problems. Godspeed, USA! The Melting Pot will continue to lead the world in producing cultural exchange and elevation for all communities.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Also for context, the quoted 756MW figure is about 68% of a single AP1000 reactor.
And an AP1000 reactor costs about $6.8 billion to build, and substantially higher operating costs. 68% of the power for 14% of the price seems like a pretty good deal to me, there's a reason people are investing more in solar than nuclear, it's just more cost effective.
edit: Oh, and that $6.8 billion looks optimistic. This project with two AP1000s looks like it costs $30 billion. https://www.ans.org/news/article-3949/vogtle-project-update-...
This doesnt take into account capacity factors. A "800MW" solar plant would be expected to actually product 10-25% of that after day/night and seasons are taken into account. Nuclear plants are more of a 90+% capacity factor.
Yes, it's an over-simplification. But this is an area of the country where capacity factors are in the 25-30% range: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39832 (the Ute Mountain Reservation is in the very Southwestern corner of Colorado, a little bit of New Mexico, and a little bit of Utah: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ute+Mountain+Reservation,+...)
So even if you discount the capacity by a 25% capacity factor, and use the lower cost per reactor that I originally quoted, this is still cheaper than nuclear. And that's just the up-front investment. Operating costs are much cheaper for solar as well, the majority of the cost is in the initial build.
Given that transmission isn't free, there are areas of the country where solar has a lower capacity factor than this, and solar and wind take more land, there are still cases where nuclear may be a better investment. I'm just pointing out that there are plenty of simple, economic reasons why solar and wind are growing at a much faster rate than nuclear; it's cheaper overall, it requires less up-front capital, etc. Nuclear is likely to fill niches for a long time, but investment in nuclear is not going to be the major way to decarbonize.
Building nuclear in a desert feel a bit like building hydropower dams in a desert. It does not really make sense and whatever the capacity factor is, being in a desert should increase it.
The only real drawback to building solar power in a desert is sand storms. That means the capacity factor is less relevant but life span and repair costs is a different matter. It is a bit similar to ocean wind farms. The capacity naturally goes up, but the salt water and transportation (as well as increased risks to engineers) makes life span and repair a bit more of an issue (it should be noted that most ocean based wind farms tend to use shallows and nature reserves near large cities).
But again, this project is built in a desert. The very definition of a place with consistent amount of sun. I hope the project works out.
There is an ecological cost to miles and miles of solar panels. Desert ecosystems are extremely fragile, and these kinds of projects can be very damaging. It’s not just wasteland. (Said as a desert Southwest denizen and lover who gets the impression that many people think, “oh, there’s no trees? It’s unimportant land.”)
I want the Utes to have success in this, but I don’t want the general attitude to be “trash the desert because there is sun there”.
The ecosystem will change, no doubt about that. Just like it changes when we start agriculture somewhere, or pastoralism. Even if we consider that the new ecosystem of desert with a lot of shade might affect neighboring pristine desert within quite a radius, there will still be a lot left in the foreseeable future. Very much unlike agriculture and pastoralism, which have been pushed into almost every corner even remotely viable for millennia.
It might be worthwhile to exclude certain areas of particularly rare variations of the ecosystem to be built in. But it's easy to end up with too much red tape that will be abused for NIMBY and by people who hide a fossil yolo attitude behind a facade of conservationism.
Perhaps there could be some mechanism for operating some veto quota, "pick the project you want most desperately to be stopped"? That scheme would probably end getting gamed in the ugliest ways, with sacrificial decoy projects getting proposed, not vetoed and then getting built to keep up appearances. Better not, heh.
Exactly. And a nuclear plant does not change the ecosystem like all those other things you mentioned.
Good luck finding a spare river or two to evaporate for cooling. And not changing ecosystems in the process.
An that's before even mentioning the other thing. Would you be interested in talking about uranium mines? Oh, not the other thing you expected?
There is the concept of "agrivoltaics" where solar and agriculture can be colocated. Apparently, certain fruits and veggies grow better with a bit of shade provided by solar panels.
That's not a desert anymore
The LCOE cost advantage of alternative energy vs ... everything ... at this point is well known and calculated in Lazard's yearly LCOE study.
Nuke advocates do themselves no favors playing shell games and weasel words with the economics. Nuclear is expensive. The nuclear industry needs to figure out how to make it a lot cheaper. And no, it's not just the NIMBY regulation.
The legacy nuke industry has a ton of deeply embedded lobbying and relationships with the regulatory agencies and congress, including ancillary groups that do fuel rod reprocessing and waste transport, cushy high-cost satellite industries.
Nuclear is stuck in a rut. Economically viable nuclear needs a clean-slate redesign and all the old players need to be thrown out. Computer designs, modern software and sensors, materials, etc. Research LFTR to the wazoo.
One of the big pushes IMO should be the US Navy, which should start using nuclear power for all its fleet ships not just subs/carriers.
Solar is cheaper when you have a flexible and well interconnected grid capable of smoothing out, say, a cloud passing over Ute nation land and abruptly pulling 1GW out of the grid. That kind of grid costs money and we have no idea how much and how achievable it is. The alternative, grid scale storage for the full rated power, is still insanely expensive and makes renewables completely uncompetitive.
Yes, nuclear is getting buried on price, but you make out the total cost of solar much lower and much more certain than it is in reality. Nobody really knows how much will renewables end up costing when they start to make up the majority of production.
Considering that full economies of scale and technology has not yet been matured in solar certainly, and possibly wind, and certainly in battery storage...
Look, you're treating the current LCOE numbers and making the (mistaken or disingenuous) implication that solar/wind won't fall EVEN FURTHER, but they almost certainly will.
With solar, there is perovskites and many other avenues of improvement in the core technology. Both wind and solar will still drop in price from increased economies of scale. And battery storage is going to plummet with sodium ion in the near term, and hopefuly sodium-sulfur techs in the future in addition to whatever grid-specific use cases are developed.
So it's true! Nobody know how much renewables will cost... or HOW LITTLE they will cost... in the long run.
Existing already-built nuclear is woefully noncompetitive, but I'll take it for grid levelling over gas turbine and (ugh) coal, so keep the lights on.
But NEW nuclear? What price are you targeting? I would guess in the timespan of a new nuke plant construction (10 years), solar will drop by 50%-60% in costs (inflation adjusted), and I think wind still has 33% drops coming. I mean, how does a sensible person approve a nuclear project with this degree of uncertainty/evolution/revolution in power costs?
And if you want to talk uncertainty in cost of electricity, the unreliable final construction and operation costs of nuclear are much more unreliable from that standpoint.
Again, this is not about the production price of renewables, which is low and falling quite predictably, but the unknown long term costs of integrating substantial intermittent production into the grid.
Believable models of achieving that goal call for setting up capacity markets where traditional suppliers are paid to not emit, and stand by to intervene when required by weather conditions, achieving close to net zero year round emissions (¹. Nobody really knows how this will end up costing because no such grid exists today.
Grid scale battery storage is still very far from competing with traditional baseload production, even when supplied with free renewables. Sodium has been the next big thing for the last decade, but its only deployments are in the experimental, MWh range. It's still far from a mature, proven technology, let alone one that can disrupt lithium in the gridscale storage space.
Perhaps you are handwaving substantial technical and economic details away and making too bold claims insufficiently supported by data. Not unlike the nuclear fanboys who are seeing thorium fast breeders just around every corner.
(¹ Btw, this is just another nail in the nuclear coffin - coal too - because they can't play nice with a fast moving grid.
Australian research on this suggests renewables will still be cheapest as the grid moves to fully carbon free, includin the cost to integrate with the grid:
https://www.csiro.au/en/news/all/articles/2023/october/genco...
It is very expensive, there is no way around the extreme engineering costs of nuclear reactors. Even before trying to make then safe from threats extant and possible.
That is before the unknown costs of handling long term waste using technology that has not been proven, or invented, yet
What about at night? Or when it’s cloudy?
Wind, hydro, and storage. Pumped hydro has already existed for a long time for helping nuclear with load following https://www.wbur.org/news/2016/12/02/northfield-mountain-hyd... and as battery prices fall and production ramps up, even battery based storage is likely to become feasible for grid-scale storage.
Pumped hydro is very dependent on geography. Good luck doing pumped hydro in Kansas.
Sure. No solution is one size fits all. This particular solar installation happens to be in Colorado, very close to a lot of area where pumped hydro would be extremely cost effective.
Somewhere like Kansas, wind power and battery based storage may be more effective.
Here's a map of pumped storage hydro potential; note how dense the potential is throughout most of the Western US. https://maps.nrel.gov/psh
Pumped storage requires creating new lakes, destroying existing ecosystems.
And creating new ones. Why are the existing ones more valuable?
The entire point of pumped hydro is that you're constantly draining and replacing the water. The reservoir is not an ecosystem.
Another graphic: https://hydrosource.ornl.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/hmr...
I know "Kansas is flat" is a popular trope, but it's not even that accurate.
Depending on how you measure, lots of states are flatter than Kansas. Florida is the flattest state by nearly all measures. Illinois is crazy flat as well.
Not every day is a windy day. Battery storage is ridiculously bad for the environment and wasteful. As mentioned, not a lot of hydro storage in Kansas.
Plus, when the hydro storage fails and floods a town, that’s still pretty bad.
In my experience of home solar cloudy isn’t necessarily a problem. It doesn’t reduce power much.
That’s pretty cool! My experience is playing with dc power and smaller panels off the grid (campingish) and I am foiled by clouds! I can totally see at a large scale clouds may not be quite as impactful as first thought.
You pay a higher price for power that works in darkness
Yeah, but even renewables + storage is likely to be cheaper than nuclear. Right now pumped hydro is one of the best for grid-scale storage, but with the the reduction in cost of batteries, it may be that grid-scale battery storage becomes viable not too far in the future.
And remember, nuclear generally needs some form of storage or supplementation with on-demand generation (generally via fossil fuels). Nuclear reactors are very slow to increase or decrease their output; they're best providing a constant base power output, but to account for periodic changes in demand across the day, you need either grid-scale storage or to supplement them with things like gas turbines that can quickly spin up and down. Many of our existing grid-scale energy storage systems are there to support nuclear. For example: https://www.wbur.org/news/2016/12/02/northfield-mountain-hyd...
But if you're already going to be building the grid-scale storage, supplying it with renewable energy can be a lot cheaper than supplying it with nuclear.
I'm not saying that nuclear will have no place in the energy grid as we decarbonize. But the economics are hard to justify as renewables and storage become cheaper.
Reactors can load follow reasonably quickly, but the economics look terrible when the utilization drops, so you don’t want to load follow if you can about it. That’s also why nuclear and renewables don’t mix well.
IIRC the French are more aggressive about using nuclear for load follow, which is also why a lot of their plants went down for maintenance, because it’s harsher on them as well.
Like wind turbines? ;-)
When comparing solar to nuclear we also need to include storage and dimensioning to get an equivalent guaranteed 24/7 output.
This might still make solar cheaper but difference will be smaller than headline numbers (and you might retort that for nuclear we then need to include dismantling costs as well).
In that case you'd also need to model how the cost changes if you combine solar with wind and other renewables. Wind and solar are to some extend complementary (there is statistically more wind when there is little sun and vice versa). You'd also need to account for distributing solar and wind across large geographic areas (i.e. the U.S. is so wide that there are a few hours difference between the sun setting on the east coast and on the west coast, somewhere wind is always blowing, etc.)
There are probably studies that have done an analysis of this kind for the entire U.S. and calculated various scenarios. I know that these have been done for Germany and other European countries. A 100% renewable system usually comes out cheaper than including nuclear in the mix to any large extend (though Germany has no remaining old reactors which could get their lifetime enhanced relatively cheaply).
Thats still building 2x the power generation (and you've got storage in there too). Those wind turbines aren't free. They have different maintenance costs too.
You don't get to say "oh well it'll be 1GW of solar if we also build 1GW of wind" because that's not the project.
This is all an excuse to talk around Solar's god awful capacity factors which take the shine off those $/MW headlines.
Yeah, but peaker plants exist. 2 GW of wind + solar will actually reduce 2 GW of peaker plant usage.
All the proper "whole system" studies I know account for capacity factor and renewables come out ahead anyway.
When comparing solar to nuclear we also need to include storage and dimensioning to get an equivalent 24/7 output.
This might still make solar cheaper but difference will be smaller than headline numbers.
True. This happens to be in a region of the country that gets a 25-30% capacity factor on solar; in the northeast or northwest, you'd see much worse results.
The basic point is that nuclear is just really, really expensive, and it has been getting more expensive over time, while solar and wind have been getting cheaper.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levelized_cost_of_electricity
No, that is a red herring. That exact comparison would be only for greenfield projects disconnected from everything else. When connecting to an existing network, the existing (and future) generation on it is also important. For instance, if the network already has a high enough amount of gas generation, 10MW of solar or 10MW of nuclear would reduce the use of fossil fuel by the same amount; the same applies to reducing the use of water stored in hydroelectric dams.
Comparing just on W/$ feels like it's missing a bunch of additional problems with the power generation, such as nuclear risk or needing more than solar to cover a full year's electrical demand.
Yeah, it's definitely a simplification.
A lot of the nuclear risk is already included in that cost; we have fairly robust nuclear regulation and safety engineering these days. I have pretty high confidence in the safety of modern nuclear reactors, because there has been the engineering needed to ensure it, and there's fairly strong regulatory oversight. Of course, that all gets factored into the price tag, which is part of why the price tag for nuclear is so high.
I'm just saying that I see a lot of discussion of more nuclear investment as the solution to decarbonization, but it's hard to make the economics work out; nuclear has gotten more expensive over time, while renewables have been dropping in price dramatically.
I'm sure there is some room for nuclear in the market, but it's hard to see it providing more than a fraction of what renewables do, just due to the massive cost difference.
Idk.
Plz bro, just 10 more years and the next design will finally solve all the probs.
I don’t like solutions that don’t ever make real progress. Solar is getting cheaper in real-time, as are batteries. Nuclear is getting comparatively more expensive every year.
It doesnt even seem like it will utilize that much more land either. How much land does a Nuclear site take with all of the zones around it?
It does require a lot more land; but we have a lot of land available.
Nuclear will continue to be viable in denser areas, with lower solar resources, and when you want to get a lot of production closer to large population.
There's a reason there are so many nuclear plants in the Northeast Corridor (Boston to Washington area), and so many fewer in the southwest, and I imagine that this trend will continue.
That's a serious overestimate. Figuring a 90% capacity factor for the reactor and 20% for the solar installation, it's 1005MW delivered power for the former and 151MW delivered for the latter. That's 15% of one reactor, or put another way, it would take about six and a half of these solar installations to provide the same power as one reactor.
My impression (trying to read charitably) was that the 756MW figure included some capacity factor, if an extremely optimistic one. (For the nuke, a reasonable capacity factor of 95% of 1100W is still more or less 1100W.) Of course you are correct if the stated figure is maximum output of the solar farm.
I've never seen solar installations reported as anything other than nameplate.
I don't like it. I do like renewable power, but this kind of puffery makes people think that we're right on the verge of building an all-renewable electrical grid. Which we are not.
We could have a zero-emissions electrical grid in ten years, by embracing a nuclear baseline, putting in a bunch of solar and wind where it makes sense, and adding some battery storage to soak up the intermittency of the latter. But when people read solar by the nameplate, they think it's 7x cheaper than it is, and try to compare that number to nuclear, rather than the actual one.
Too bad no one wants to build AP1000s even though there is a site in FL with all approvals and the new Biden subsidy. That's how badly the two projects fucked up.