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

61–70 of 365 posts

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

#61

Post by cr1895 »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #30
celticninja wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They're not really comparable are they? It's not whether the turbines in the dam will continue to generate electricity, but whether or not the dam itself is structurally sound. My limited understanding is that the Mosul dam is not, while Hoover will outlast us.

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

#62

Post by sandworm101 »

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.…

As I've said many times on hackernews, hydro power isn't carbon free. Land and trees are flooded to support dams. That means a reduction in carbon uptake, less room for bambi and lots of other issues. It's akin to clearcutting a forest, but at least after a clearcut the forest grows back.

It all depends on what type of area you flood. Empty desert is one thing, coastal rain forest another. Better than coal, but not perfect.

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

#63

Post by forgetsusername »

jefurii wrote: post #52

Feels like the article was written by a pro-renewable reporter and edited by an oil-company exec. "Yeah they did it but you should be discouraged instead of hopeful."

>"Yeah they did it but you should be discouraged instead of hopeful."

Probably because a tiny, relatively poor country that happens to have access to geography suitable for hydro power isn't particularly impressive in my eyes. Especially considering that, according to the article, just 2 years ago they experienced a drought and had to up their usage of diesel generators. Where were these reports then?

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

#64

Post by sxcurry »

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.…

I have solar at home and it's extremely reliable. For the last 11 years, it has generated electricity 100% of the time the sun was shining. Oh, maybe you meant something other than reliable?

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

#65

Post by corecoder »

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.…

> hold up against natural disasters

That may not be enough, though[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam

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

#66

Post by jefurii »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #31
ZeroGravitas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The ecological damage is not outdated info. Solar farms are essentially clear-cutting the land. No sun - no life. The ecosystem under the panels is completely disrupted. Not unlike strip-mining.

You make it sound like solar farms are blocking off 100% of the solar radiation over the areas they cover. Have you actually seen any large solar installations? At the ones I've seen in the Mojave desert and Central Valley of California, the actual panels never cover 100% of the surface and a lot of backscatter light gets in even in the shade. I am not an ecologist but it seems like the effect would be more like having a bunch of trees in the desert.

They do tend to remove the underbrush from around the panels, probably because it's easier to install/maintain that way. You could make a case for allowing more vegetation around/under the panels.

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

#67

Post by forgetsusername »

taneq wrote: post #40
sickbeard wrote: post #38

Same story every month. Can't wait for the 100 day update

Future 100 day update: We got 99 days before we had to fall back on non-renewable resources for a day. That's only a 99% fuel saving, which is not enough and means renewables are terrible and we should never try to use them again.

>That's only a 99% fuel saving, which is not enough and means renewables are terrible and we should never try to use them again.

I love the fact that people imply there's some conspiracy to hold down renewable energy meanwhile nearly every country on the globe is subsidizing it.

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

#68

Post by maaaats »

sxcurry wrote: post #64
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.…

I have solar at home and it's extremely reliable. For the last 11 years, it has generated electricity 100% of the time the sun was shining. Oh, maybe you meant something other than reliable?

Probably reactive or controllable. Wind, solar, gas, nuclear etc. cannot be controlled to the degree that opening the gates can. So it can respond better to the energy demands based on time of day.

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

#69

Post by millettjon »

taneq wrote: post #37
millettjon wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So why are they fighting so hard to build hydro dams when they could so easily and cheaply run off solar instead?

They are starting to ramp up solar only in the last year or two. Endesa, the main hydro company, recently gave up fighting to construct 5 dams in the south due to persistent opposition over the last several years. Hopefully this will accelerate the solar deployments even more. The main mining company CODELCO is state owned. Endesa and CODELCO basically try to do whatever they feel like unless there is enough grass roots opposition. There is also a huge potential for wind generation in Chile which they are only starting to use.

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

#70

Post by wstrange »

leojg wrote: post #53
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ecological damage is not outdated info. Solar farms are essentially clear-cutting the land. No sun - no life. The ecosystem under the panels is completely disrupted. Not unlike strip-mining.

What do you propose then? Its obvious that any kind of human activity will produce some kind of alteration to the surrounding environment. Kill the whole planet with greenhouse gases or kill a small and already almost sterile area?

I think the OP would lean towards small scale reactors which have a minimal footprint.

Measured by fatalities per k/W generated, nuclear is by far the safest form of power. The fear of nuclear is irrational.

Post reply on HN