Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 365 posts

Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

#11

Post by masklinn »

nkoren wrote: post #6
geff82 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.

While a minor but noticeable uptick in radiation-induced cancer is unacceptable for humans, animals don't especially seem to mind. The areas around Chernobyl have become a superb wildlife reserve, and Fukushima is probably on its way to a similar state. Compared to the area submerged by a dam -- where the habitat is, without hyperbole, utterly and completely annihilated -- I have difficulty seeing how you can prefer…

> animals don't especially seem to mind.

They do mind, they mind a lot, it's just that for the vast majority of wildlife humans (land alterations, activity and presence byproduct) have an even larger effect than a touch of long-term radiation-induced lethal disease.

Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

#12

Post by geff82 »

masklinn wrote: post #9
geff82 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are inhabitable zones for humans now and have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy.

> They are inhabitable zones for humans now I'm guessing you mean uninhabitable (as in "humans can't live there"). That seems to be an excellent way to preserve the landscape. > have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. Which, if the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is any indication, is significantly lower than the effect humans have on most of these organisms. > I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (i…

Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. I still have to grasp it. So Costa Rica is living on renewable energy now, strongly reducing any harm on any living beings, and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right?

Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

#13

Post by masklinn »

geff82 wrote: post #12
masklinn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are inhabitable zones for humans now I'm guessing you mean uninhabitable (as in "humans can't live there"). That seems to be an excellent way to preserve the landscape. > have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. Which, if the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is any indication, is significantly lower than the effect humans have on most of these organisms. > I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (i…

Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. I still have to grasp it. So Costa Rica is living on renewable energy now, strongly reducing any harm on any living beings, and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right?

> Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me.

Now what are you talking about?

> you don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right?

You know you don't have to make stuff up right? I haven't given any opinion on the Costa Rican situation, I have only replied to your inane comments on nuclear energy.

Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

#14

Post by csydas »

masklinn wrote: post #11
nkoren wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While a minor but noticeable uptick in radiation-induced cancer is unacceptable for humans, animals don't especially seem to mind. The areas around Chernobyl have become a superb wildlife reserve, and Fukushima is probably on its way to a similar state. Compared to the area submerged by a dam -- where the habitat is, without hyperbole, utterly and completely annihilated -- I have difficulty seeing how you can prefer…

> animals don't especially seem to mind. They do mind, they mind a lot, it's just that for the vast majority of wildlife humans (land alterations, activity and presence byproduct) have an even larger effect than a touch of long-term radiation-induced lethal disease.

I think the point was more that nature seemed to adapt very quickly to the fallout from Chernobyl. Instead of a nuclear wasteland it's a pretty thriving ecosystem with a lot of new life, and even large mammals seem to be doing just fine.

I caught a documentary while on a transatlantic flight about the Wolves of Chernobyl [1], and it discusses how the wildlife seems to be thriving with few to no ill effects.

This isn't me suggesting that irradiating the land with nuclear waste is good - far from it. But it does seem that nature is pretty resilient to it.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkyM2XSVhBI

Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

#15

Post by masklinn »

csydas wrote: post #14
masklinn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> animals don't especially seem to mind. They do mind, they mind a lot, it's just that for the vast majority of wildlife humans (land alterations, activity and presence byproduct) have an even larger effect than a touch of long-term radiation-induced lethal disease.

I think the point was more that nature seemed to adapt very quickly to the fallout from Chernobyl. Instead of a nuclear wasteland it's a pretty thriving ecosystem with a lot of new life, and even large mammals seem to be doing just fine. I caught a documentary while on a transatlantic flight about the Wolves of Chernobyl [1], and it discusses how the wildlife seems to be thriving with few to no ill effects. This isn'…

Wildlife does thrive in the exclusion zone, but again that's not because wildlife is somehow immune to radiations[0] it's because radiation-induced morbidity is lower than humanity-induced morbidity.

[0] they're not, though r-strategist will tend to be pretty resilient

Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

#16

Post by csydas »

masklinn wrote: post #15
csydas wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point was more that nature seemed to adapt very quickly to the fallout from Chernobyl. Instead of a nuclear wasteland it's a pretty thriving ecosystem with a lot of new life, and even large mammals seem to be doing just fine. I caught a documentary while on a transatlantic flight about the Wolves of Chernobyl [1], and it discusses how the wildlife seems to be thriving with few to no ill effects. This isn'…

Wildlife does thrive in the exclusion zone, but again that's not because wildlife is somehow immune to radiations[0] it's because radiation-induced morbidity is lower than humanity-induced morbidity. [0] they're not, though r-strategist will tend to be pretty resilient

Well, no, I agree, and I don't think I suggested that at all.

In fact, though you said it much more intelligently with terminology I was unaware of, I was more suggesting that nature is more resilient in the face of nuclear waste/damage than one might expect, and I think that's what the parent is suggesting as well.

No more, no less. We should still be very cautious because there is undoubtedly a limit (perhaps even known?) as to how much punishment an environment can take. But Chernobyl's ecosystem does seem to show that when you take humans out of the equation, Nature can be pretty darn tough.

Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

#17

Post by JoeAltmaier »

" its per capita electricity consumption is about one-quarter of, say, France or Belgium."

Its in the bottom quartile worldwide I believe.

Also the recommendations for the USA are way off. The "only way" to reach this goal is apparently to build lots of wind and solar. No mention whatsoever of nuclear, which is by far the more practical solution. And far less ecologically damaging.

Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

#18

Post by ZeroGravitas »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #17

" its per capita electricity consumption is about one-quarter of, say, France or Belgium." Its in the bottom quartile worldwide I believe. Also the recommendations for the USA are way off. The "only way" to reach this goal is apparently to build lots of wind and solar. No mention whatsoever of nuclear, which is by far the more practical solution. And far less ecologically damaging.

> No mention whatsoever of nuclear, which is by far the more practical solution. And far less ecologically damaging.

I vaguely follow developments in this area, and this seems to either outdated or simply untrue information.

The people building traditional nuclear don't seem to be able to do so economically, even when they punt on insurance and eventual disposal.

The people building the new nuclear which is going to eat up all the old nuclear waste don't seem to be making much progress, even in China where you'd assume they'd quite happily take a chance if this was anywhere near a viable state.

Meanwhile, solar and wind are here today and prices continue to plummet. Any sensible economic or ecological assement would take into account the fact you can have solar up and running and contributing money/carbon savings on very short timescales, and do so in a distributed fashion, whereas you're talking potentially decades for nuclear which arrives all at once in a big lump.

Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

#19

Post by jfaucett »

Notice this is because 80% of the energy obtained was from Hydroelectric power, which is a great energy source because it is reliable - unlike wind and solar which in this case provided 7% and 0.01% respectively and are not reliable. It frustrates me that so many environmentalists are still against hydro because it alters ecosystems when nature itself is inherently violent, dangerous and in a constant state of flux. I sometimes think they reject the idea that the whole point of existence is human flourishing and happiness. The biggest real problem with Hydro in the context of human flourishing is ensuring that the dams are well-constructed and nature proof i.e. hold up against natural disasters because if they don't downstream settlements and human lives can be at risk.

Re: Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

#20

Post by MaulingMonkey »

geff82 wrote: post #12
masklinn wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are inhabitable zones for humans now I'm guessing you mean uninhabitable (as in "humans can't live there"). That seems to be an excellent way to preserve the landscape. > have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. Which, if the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is any indication, is significantly lower than the effect humans have on most of these organisms. > I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (i…

Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. I still have to grasp it. So Costa Rica is living on renewable energy now, strongly reducing any harm on any living beings, and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right?

> Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me.

One doesn't need to hate humanity to recognize humans as the apex predator and being really really really really high on the list of causes for habitat destruction and stock depletion for a number of species, and the value of nature preserves and other low/no human zones for helping reduce the harm of such things.

> and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it

You could read it that way, but I think that's likely an inaccurate reading and can't recommend it.

Renewables and nukes both have their drawbacks. Ignoring them isn't productive. Overstating them is also not productive. Trying to correct such perceived mistakes doesn't mean anyone likes or dislikes either.

In-context, hydro isn't available everywhere, and I'd rather see some of the safer nuke tech than coal - but Fukushima seems to be heading towards more coal instead. Perhaps you think that's better?

If you do, you either think the harms of nuclear tech much greater than I do, or the harms of coal much fewer. If you don't think that's better, perhaps you can see why others would wish to encourage the fair treatment of nuclear power.

Post reply on HN