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

21–30 of 365 posts

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

#21

Post by JoeAltmaier »

jfaucett wrote: post #19

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.…

They can't rely 100% precisely because hydro is unreliable. A dry season and it runs down (which it did).

And dams - isn't Mosul going to be destroyed soon because its dam requires constant maintenance (a clay curtain pumped into the porous bedrock) which hasn't happened since Desert Storm?

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

#22

Post by jackmott »

jfaucett wrote: post #19

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.…

nature is inherently violent yes, but the effect of humans on the rest of the species on the planet is equivalent to extinction events that are rare on geologic time scales (already!) and some people want to keep making that worse so we can populate the world with even more sheeple who have even more iphones.

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

#23

Post by jfaucett »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #21
jfaucett wrote: post #19

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.…

They can't rely 100% precisely because hydro is unreliable . A dry season and it runs down (which it did). And dams - isn't Mosul going to be destroyed soon because its dam requires constant maintenance (a clay curtain pumped into the porous bedrock) which hasn't happened since Desert Storm?

"They can't rely 100% precisely because hydro is unreliable." True in an absolute sense but in comparison to solar and wind hydro is extremely reliable, and can be used to power the grid when all other energy sources fail [1,2]

As far as Mosul I'm unsure, maybe someone else more informed can chime in on the actual state of affairs there since wikipedia/google turned up multiple contradicting results for me.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Advantages

[2] http://www.hydro.org/why-hydro/reliable/

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

#24

Post by vetinari »

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?

It's not hatred for humanity; it's objectively looking at the data.

For example, with comparative similar power output, wind power plants will kill way more birds, than Chernobyl did. And that's just at the power generation/operation stage. It's impossible to argue that it will reduce harm to any living being; some "green" power generation techniques increase the harm to them.

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

#25

Post by collyw »

geff82 wrote: post #8
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…

So then let's drop some atomic bombs and let some reactors explode for the sake of nature! Are you in?

North Korea might give it a try soon.

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

#26

Post by celticninja »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #21
jfaucett wrote: post #19

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.…

They can't rely 100% precisely because hydro is unreliable . A dry season and it runs down (which it did). And dams - isn't Mosul going to be destroyed soon because its dam requires constant maintenance (a clay curtain pumped into the porous bedrock) which hasn't happened since Desert Storm?

Mosul is hardly an example of a well engineered dam though built in 1984 and falling to pieces. The Hoover Dam was built in 1933 and is not in need of pulling down.

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

#27

Post by millettjon »

jfaucett wrote: post #19

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.…

Unreliability of wind power generate can be largely mitigated by interconnecting disparate wind farms spread over a large area.

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

#28

Post by jfaucett »

jackmott wrote: post #22
jfaucett wrote: post #19

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.…

nature is inherently violent yes, but the effect of humans on the rest of the species on the planet is equivalent to extinction events that are rare on geologic time scales (already!) and some people want to keep making that worse so we can populate the world with even more sheeple who have even more iphones.

"...some people want to keep making that worse so we can populate the world with even more sheeple who have even more iphones."

That sentence is horrible. We're talking about living, breathing, thinking human beings not "sheeple". And to equate people who have dreams, hopes, and aspirations to a lot of mindless animals whose only desire is to destroy the planet and play on iphones is an egregious misrepresentation of reality.

If we want to make our planet better for all its inhabitants we need to be clear and honest about the facts and our goals. I happen to think our primary goal should be human flourishing, self-actualization and happiness. If you think our primary goal should be the elimination of species extinction or something else - I don't want to put words in your mouth - we could discuss that...

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

#29

Post by millettjon »

jfaucett wrote: post #19

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.…

In Chile, the mining companies in the North use a disproportionate amount of energy. They are located in one of the driest deserts in the world and could easily supply their power needs from solar with minimal impact. Instead they continually fight to build dams in pristine temperate rain forest in the South.

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

#30

Post by JoeAltmaier »

celticninja wrote: post #26
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't rely 100% precisely because hydro is unreliable . A dry season and it runs down (which it did). And dams - isn't Mosul going to be destroyed soon because its dam requires constant maintenance (a clay curtain pumped into the porous bedrock) which hasn't happened since Desert Storm?

Mosul is hardly an example of a well engineered dam though built in 1984 and falling to pieces. The Hoover Dam was built in 1933 and is not in need of pulling down.

If maintenance were interrupted (social upheaval) then Hoover too would fail. It take maintenance to keep it running - in particular mussels would foul and stop the turbines in a few seasons.
Post reply on HN