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

71–80 of 365 posts

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

#71

Post by gotofritz »

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.…

The problem with hydro is that they don't last forever, and when they get old you have to spend a fortune maintaining them, because you can't just "switch them off", especially if in the meantime they've built cities where the river used to be... http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/one-of-africas-bigges...

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

#72

Post by hguant »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #59
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 sometimes think they reject the idea that the whole point of existence is human flourishing and happiness. Yes, many people reject this idea. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone express this idea.

It's actually a really old idea. Sadly, not one that gets a lot of press, as it's not very sexy to talk about dead Greeks (except to reject them).

https://orwell1627.wordpress.com/2013/06/30/aristotles-purpo...

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

#73

Post by te_platt »

goodcanadian wrote: post #49
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.

I would caution that deserts are some of the most sensitive ecosystems in the world. Covering up large areas of a desert with solar panels may be more harmful than you realize. That said, I am a strong solar advocate; I simply believe we should start with the roofs of warehouses. These are huge areas of relatively flat space where the ecological damage has already been done.

I agree that we should use caution in setting up solar panels. That said the ecosystem in most of northern Chile is dirt. Not sagebrush or cactus with a few insects, or dormant seeds waiting for the next rain. Just dirt, sometimes rocks. If ever there was a place for solar panels it's northern Chile.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atacama_Desert#/media/File:Ata...

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

#74

Post by compute_me »

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.…

Here is a little bit of background why hydro can be seen as less carbon neutral than say wind or solar: http://www.ecowatch.com/the-hydropower-methane-bomb-no-one-w...

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

#75

Post by millettjon »

goodcanadian wrote: post #49
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.

I would caution that deserts are some of the most sensitive ecosystems in the world. Covering up large areas of a desert with solar panels may be more harmful than you realize. That said, I am a strong solar advocate; I simply believe we should start with the roofs of warehouses. These are huge areas of relatively flat space where the ecological damage has already been done.

I agree. They should start by deploying local solar in the huge and already impacted active mining areas.

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

#76

Post by sabertoothed »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #59
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 sometimes think they reject the idea that the whole point of existence is human flourishing and happiness. Yes, many people reject this idea. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I've ever heard anyone express this idea.

Especially "_human_ flourishing and happiness".

Why only human? Why not the well-being of all conscious creatures?

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

#77

Post by beat »

antr wrote: post #51
millettjon wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Energy investor here with a pretty large wind portfolio (1GW) under management. This geographically dispersed portfolio idea doesn't really work. Due to different wind patterns, and wind types, a wind portfolio cannot be relied on for stable power generation... this is ignoring power curves, availability, transmission losses, network balancing, node bottlenecks, etc. Take as an example the entire wind capacity in Ire…

Are you looking into storage as well? The engineer in me says caching is the way to convert an intermittent source to a steady load. I'm really curious what a wind investor is thinking about this!

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

#78

Post by lostlogin »

maaaats wrote: post #68
sxcurry wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pulling out control rods or cranking up the gas turbine are presumably pretty quick. Helping this is the fact that humans aren't all that difficult to predict in terms of energy usage.

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

#79

Post by yourapostasy »

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.

There are numerous parking lots and parking structures, I'm gathering from your comment these are not big enough to make maintenance cost-effective compared to dedicated farms? Is anyone working on the problem of remotely-performed maintenance of multiple solar panel installations to reduce the maintenance labor footprint at each site?

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

#80

Post by mschuster91 »

jefurii wrote: post #56
goodcanadian wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would caution that deserts are some of the most sensitive ecosystems in the world. Covering up large areas of a desert with solar panels may be more harmful than you realize. That said, I am a strong solar advocate; I simply believe we should start with the roofs of warehouses. These are huge areas of relatively flat space where the ecological damage has already been done.

> roofs of warehouses And parking lots.

Parking lots are dangerous to build over, for two reasons:

1) people cannot drive. The amount of dents or other damage from incompetent drivers done to a concrete-built park house is crazy, I don't want to imagine the damage they'll do to tiny aluminium/steel constructions holding the panels

2) people cannot drive. They underestimate their vehicle height all the time - just google for "can opener bridge". Just a couple days ago a truck driver massively damaged the lighting in a Munich tunnel because he forgot that the excavator on the flatbed was higher than the truck...

Post reply on HN