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

91–100 of 365 posts

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

#91

Post by lj3 »

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?

It depends on where the dams are. I live in the North Eastern USA. Most of this part of the country (and eastern Canada) are powered by hydro. Niagara Falls doesn't turn off. Neither do dams, really. Even in the winter (-30F) and during summer droughts, they have water passing over the turbines. None of the dams in my area have needed maintenance in the time I've been alive (about 30 years).

It's cleaner and more reliable than any other kind of energy production on the planet including coal and oil. Nothing is 100% reliable, but hydro is the closest we're likely to get.

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

#92

Post by tamana »

noir_lord wrote: post #85
sabertoothed wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have an objective measure of human consciousness?

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

#93

Post by wyager »

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.

Gas and nuclear can both be adjusted to match grid demand.

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

#94

Post by unprepare »

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.

theres also religious folks who believe the earth was created specifically for humans, and so everything here is for us and us alone.

I find it a rather disgustingly self centered ideology. To presume that one (or ones species) is the most important thing in the world (or universe) is basically the definition of narcissism

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

#95

Post by mason240 »

compute_me wrote: post #74
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...

It might be, but is still more practical. Both solar and wind also rely on mining, something environmentalists also oppose.

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

#96

Post by JoeAltmaier »

zimbu668 wrote: post #87
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?

"100% of the time the sun was shining" What about the other times?

Yeah like Night. Where I live in winter the days are about 8 hours long, when I'm at work, so no electricity when I'm home at all.

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

#97

Post by skizm »

noir_lord wrote: post #85
sabertoothed wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not great, but the best we have at the moment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

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

#98

Post by imgabe »

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?

Everything requires maintenance. Solar panels have to be cleaned or replaced if they get scratched. You have to clean the bird carcasses out of the windmills. Nuclear requires constant supervision. There's no maintenance-free option.

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

#99

Post by antr »

beat wrote: post #77
antr wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Have we looked at it, yes. Are we investing in battery storage, no. It's too early for us to invest in this technology. This should be interesting for energy investors with a slightly higher risk appetite.

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

#100

Post by JoeAltmaier »

unprepare wrote: post #94
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.

theres also religious folks who believe the earth was created specifically for humans, and so everything here is for us and us alone. I find it a rather disgustingly self centered ideology. To presume that one (or ones species) is the most important thing in the world (or universe) is basically the definition of narcissism

Consider: earth may well be the only habitable planet in our galaxy. In that case its nearer the truth to consider it a gift just for us.
Post reply on HN