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

121–130 of 365 posts

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

#121

Post by jdright »

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.…

> whole point of existence is human flourishing and happiness.

Because humans are gods. Right. Unbelievable.

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

#122

Post by mhurron »

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.…

Dams are an ecological disaster, just as much as burning fossil fuels. Dams have directly caused or are causing the extinction of several species around the world, that is not counting all the permanent environmental impacts a dam creates.

Hydro is a green energy source if you define green as simply not burning fuel.

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

#123

Post by pkulak »

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.

Sometimes you have to act before all possible information and understanding is in.

The odds are overwhelming at this point that many, many non-human animals have consciousness very much like our own.

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

#124

Post by snovv_crash »

nimos wrote: post #109
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?

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. C…

Maybe not reliable, but very predictable.

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

#125

Post by kbenson »

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?

Well, for the most part, that's the accepted interpretation. We just don't value non-human well-being as much as human well-being (which I think given the current species involved is acceptable). The problem is the difference in how we value non-human well-being between different subsets of the population causes strife between those subsets. I believe very few think it's alright to torture an animal for no reason, but to kill an animal (preferably with little pain) for food is acceptable to the vast majority of people. The many levels in-between those are where most people start having problems with the actions of others.

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

#126

Post by toyg »

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?

*> Why not the well-being of all conscious creatures?

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

I guess viruses and parasites are a bit pesky to deal with, but still...

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

#127

Post by meggar »

imgabe wrote: post #88
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?

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.

But if solar panels were located at both the north and south poles and connected to the grid, would that work?

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

#128

Post by ptaipale »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #96
zimbu668 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Where I live, the number of sunshine hours in December varies between 6 and 49 (years 1981-2010), average is 26 hours. That means a bit under one hour per day on average, but sometimes there's a week when the sun doesn't show up at all.

Not really a great place to use solar when you need most electricity, although on the average we get more sunlight hours than Central Europe. We just get them when there is less need for electricity.

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

#129

Post by msisk6 »

nimos wrote: post #109
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?

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. C…

From a grid scale perspective, reliability means it can be scheduled for a certain amount of energy. In some areas solar is very reliable.

Gas, coal, and nuke generation goes down for maintenance all the time. But if it can be scheduled so energy demand is met all is good.

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

#130

Post by hfourm »

nkoren wrote: post #6
geff82 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.

While a minor but noticeable uptick in radiation-induced cancer is unacceptable for humans, animals don't especially seem to mind. The areas around Chernobyl have become a superb wildlife reserve, and Fukushima is probably on its way to a similar state. Compared to the area submerged by a dam -- where the habitat is, without hyperbole, utterly and completely annihilated -- I have difficulty seeing how you can prefer…

Yea, I am sure the area submerged by a dam could equally rebound in its own way 30 years after.
Post reply on HN