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

81–90 of 365 posts

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

#81

Post by bbctol »

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 don't mean to disagree, just share a fun fact: the Atacama is actually so dry, parts of it are barely an ecosystem at all. Obviously, the life that does exist there is quite sensitive, but there's large swathes of desert that are some of the only places on Earth where no life has been detected whatsoever; the land is literally just rock, without even bacteria living in it.

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

#82

Post by toomuchtodo »

wstrange wrote: post #70
leojg wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The fear is irrational, but so is the cost. Nuclear always comes in over budget and with far greater construction delays than any other generation type.

Even if you were to start on new reactors today, it would take a decade to complete them; a whole lot of wind and solar are going to be deployed in a decade.

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

#83

Post by beat »

sandworm101 wrote: post #62
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 p…

The power output of a hydro dam, relative to the lost land and its plants, is many orders of magnitude improvement. It's a massive win in terms of carbon footprint.

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

#84

Post by DenisM »

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.

The problem with nuclear is that we can't trust the people running it to follow instructions without failure for decades in a row. Sooner or later a politician shows up and demands an experiment to be done, or maintenance to be postponed.

Failures are rare, but the failure mode is catastrophic.

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

#85

Post by noir_lord »

sabertoothed wrote: post #76
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When someone comes up with an objective measure of consciousness lets consider that.

In the meantime I see no issue with optimising for human happiness in the general case.

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

#86

Post by JoeAltmaier »

DenisM wrote: post #84
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.

The problem with nuclear is that we can't trust the people running it to follow instructions without failure for decades in a row. Sooner or later a politician shows up and demands an experiment to be done, or maintenance to be postponed. Failures are rare, but the failure mode is catastrophic.

Sodium salt / thorium reactors fail by ... stopping cold. So that's the way to go.

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

#87

Post by zimbu668 »

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?

"100% of the time the sun was shining"

What about the other times?

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

#88

Post by imgabe »

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?

You can rely on solar to generate electricity when the sun is shining, but you cannot rely on the sun to always be shining, hence not reliable.

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

#89

Post by taneq »

forgetsusername wrote: post #67
taneq wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I meant to reference the common (uneducated) perception that if there's ever any way that renewable resources fall short, that means they're useless. It's the same mindset that says that an electric car "only" has a range of 300-450km and takes a while to recharge, and therefore is useless as a vehicle because it can't do nonstop cross-country road trips.

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

#90

Post by JoeAltmaier »

beat wrote: post #83
sandworm101 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

The power output of a hydro dam, relative to the lost land and its plants, is many orders of magnitude improvement. It's a massive win in terms of carbon footprint.

And the lake is not dead - its just a different ecology.
Post reply on HN