Live data from Hacker News

Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity

vox.com

101–110 of 365 posts

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

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Humans have flourished too much; we're killing the planet. If anything, we should focus on constraining ourselves. What took millions or billions of years to evolve is in the process of begin destroyed in a few hundred years. On a geological timescale we're the equivalent of a bomb going off.

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

#102
post #84

" 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.

We have had 6 and half decades now of successful operation in the US.

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

#103
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.

"Fatalities per kw" is terrible risk management. I really wish nuclear activists would stop making crappy arguments.

Risk analysis has two axis - likelihood, and impact. The maximum potential impact of solar/wind plant failure is negligible - what's it going to do, fall over on someone? Meanwhile, the maximum potential impact of virtually any civilian nuclear plant is massive - release of toxins and carcinogens over large residential areas, rendering them uninhabitable.

Any respectable risk analysis requires looking at impact, not just likelihood.

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

#104

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 itself is inherently violent, dangerous and in a constant state of flux

beware the anthropic fallacy. nature itself just is. violent is a human value judgment. danger is subjective and situational. "constant flux" is itself a contradiction in terms. some ecosystems are long-term stable, others change rapidly even in the short term, and others get suddenly disrupted by unpredictable events.

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

#105
post #72

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.

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...

Eudaimonia is more like "ethics for virtuous and stable society" rather than saying very much about human relationship with the ecosystem. in the ancient world the human relationship with the ecosystem was extremely different than it is now.

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

#106
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Having a discussion about what constitutes consciousness likely meets whatever criteria you can come up with handily.

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

#107

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.

Whether or not someone agrees with your idea of the purpose of life is not the only cause they have for decision making. Even the very idea of "human flourishing and happiness" means something different to everyone. Personally I cannot imagine myself flourishing or being happy in world were we have destroyed the beauty around us. Here is an excerpt from the book "A Last Chance to See" by Douglas, which does a much better job than explaining the ideas of conservation.

> "In every remote corner of the world there are people like Carl Jones and Don Merton who have devoted their lives to saving threatened species. Very often, their determination is all that stands between an endangered species and extinction. But why do they bother? Does it really matter if the Yangtze river dolphin, or the kakapo, or the northern white rhino, or any other species live on only in scientists' notebooks? Well, yes, it does. Every animal and plant is an integral part of its environment: even Komodo dragons have a major role to play in maintaining the ecological stability of their delicate island homes. If they disappear, so could many other species. And conservation is very much in tune with our survival. Animals and plants provide us with life-saving drugs and food, they pollinate crops and provide important ingredients or many industrial processes. Ironically, it is often not the big and beautiful creatures, but the ugly and less dramatic ones, that we need most. Even so, the loss of a few species may seem irrelevant compared to major environmental problems such as global warming or the destruction of the ozone layer. But while nature has considerable resilience, there is a limit to how far that resilience can be stretched. No one knows how close to the limit we are getting. The darker it gets, the faster we're driving. There is one last reason for caring, and I believe that no other is necessary. It is certainly the reason why so many people have devoted their lives to protecting the likes of rhinos, parakeets, kakapos, and dolphins. And it is simply this: the world would be a poorer, darker, lonelier place without them.”

Studying nature shows us just how resilient plants and animals have been to the intense changes in environment and finding and endless stream of ways to survive. However, it has become increasingly even more so since this passage was written that the human race may be the one hurdle life on earth may not be able to overcome. Human flourishing and happiness itself is reliant on the very planet we currently occupy and it's no longer enough to try and temper our environmental impact. We need to minimize it. I'm not well informed enough to have an opinion on hydro verse solar, but I can say its incredibly valuable and important there are people who hold different ideas on the importance of conservation.

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

#109
post #64

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?

Something that works only during certain times of day and weather is not reliable from the perspective of generating electricity.

The fact that your solar installation is in good working condition means it works reliably but that doesn't make it a reliable source of electricity.

Whether or not something is a reliable source of electricity or works reliably are two separate things and OP is talking about the latter. Can I flip a light switch at any time and reasonably expect solar to provide me electricity? No. Then it's not reliable source of electricity.

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

#110
post #84

" 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.

The biggest problem with nuclear is that it's too expensive. Even after massive subsidies, it's more expensive than unsubsidized renewable alternatives would be.

And the worst part for nuclear is that while solar and wind are getting significantly cheaper, nuclear is getting more expensive.

Finally, the major costs for solar/wind at the moment is storage. With electric cars, and the fact that nearly every consumer company is spending money towards cheaper electricity storage, it's just a significantly better bet at the moment.

Post reply on HN