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

151–160 of 365 posts

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

#151

Post by cwbrandsma »

gotofritz wrote: post #71
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...

They can be switched off, depending on how they were built. During the building process you have to create a diversion tunnel, as the water has to keep flowing while you are building them. They should also have ways of draining the reservoir. Also in my state (Idaho, which is largely powered by dams) we have removed a some of the older ones. I don't have any source materials for you, but I had to go thru a ton of dam tours as a kid to learn how the dams worked. We have also had a dam burst (Idaho Falls with the Teton Dam). But every dam is unique, you certainly cannot account for all of them.

Also, dealing with the flood plain, which the dams protect against, that is another story.

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

#152

Post by kbenson »

hguant wrote: post #134
kbenson wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Having a theory of mind is another one of those big ones. The problem is differentiating true awareness of the concepts of 'self' and 'other' from rote instinct - is a leopard stalking a gazelle aware of the gazelle as an entity and takes actions accordingly, or is it merely reacting to known sets of stimuli?

Exactly. Being able to discuss what constitutes consciousness meets criteria handily because having a clear concept of self and other as well as being able to reason about that are both prerequisites.

It's sort of like the old question of what constitutes pornography? The border is fuzzy and unknown (in this case because people have different standards), but it's fairly easy to construct a case where the vast majority agree it's on one side or the other.

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

#154

Post by benologist »

hkjgkjy wrote: post #148
eggy wrote: post #142

Costa Rica also sits on the Ring of Fire like I do here in East Java, so geothermal is accessible there. Costa Rica did not have to maintain a standing army to protect its borders thanks in large part to relying on treaties and understandings with the US. This frees up some of their GDP for R&D into sustainable energy. I wonder what the demand for electricity is in Costa Rica today compared to when I was last there i…

>Costa Rica did not have to maintain a standing army to protect its borders thanks in large part to relying on treaties and understandings with the US. As a non-american, I never understood what's up with this. Is it voluntary? Are they an independent nation?

It's a completely independent country that simply chooses not to have an army. 60 years ago they decided that money would be better off being invested in their population, and now they are a posterchild for stable democracy, the wealthiest centroamerican country, and consistently ranked one of the happiest countries in the world.

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

#155

Post by sangnoir »

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

The human race as a whole is still comfortable with snuffing out conscious human lives (death sentence, wars, 'collateral damage', etc). I think the other creatures should join the line...

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

#156

Post by unprepare »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #150
unprepare wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> To presume that one (or ones species) is the most important thing in the world (or universe) is basically the definition of narcissism Humans are the most important things in the world. Why? Because I am a human. My family are humans. To me, and likely most people, humans are most important. If I were an Otter and capable of self reflection I would likely think Otters were the most important things in the world. No…

I said nothing about what the parent believes, i said that there are religious groups that have an ideology i find narcissistic at best.

besides that gp didnt say 'i prefer humans above other animals' dont change what they said to suit your needs; they said:

>the whole point of existence is human flourishing and happiness.

Thats a significantly stronger statement than you allude to

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

#157

Post by devicenull »

mschuster91 wrote: post #80
jefurii wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 coup…

There is no reason to make them tiny: http://solairegeneration.com/project/rutgers-university/

You just build the solar panel mounts like you would usually build lighting mounts (big concrete bases).

Height is less of a concern in some parking lots (where it's virtually all cars)

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

#158

Post by chki »

mhurron wrote: post #122
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.

But the big difference is that the effects are almost completely local and not anywhere as threatening on a global scale compared to burning stuff and causing everything to heat up. This is actually a decisive point because whoever builds the dam will also lookout for the effects it causes and be more reasonable.

On top of that I think that the extinction of species is really not comparable to global warming, which will probably cause mass extinctions on a scale that has not been seen before in human history.

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

#159

Post by JoeAltmaier »

maxerickson wrote: post #138
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Earth being the only habitable planet is incredibly improbable.

We hardly have enough data to say that. In fact we've found nothing remotely similar to Earth in all the thousands of samples we've taken. So if there are any others at all, they number in the dozens?

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

#160

Post by BinaryIdiot »

unprepare wrote: post #156
BinaryIdiot wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To presume that one (or ones species) is the most important thing in the world (or universe) is basically the definition of narcissism Humans are the most important things in the world. Why? Because I am a human. My family are humans. To me, and likely most people, humans are most important. If I were an Otter and capable of self reflection I would likely think Otters were the most important things in the world. No…

I said nothing about what the parent believes, i said that there are religious groups that have an ideology i find narcissistic at best. besides that gp didnt say 'i prefer humans above other animals' dont change what they said to suit your needs; they said: >the whole point of existence is human flourishing and happiness. Thats a significantly stronger statement than you allude to

> I said nothing about what the parent believes, i said that there are religious groups that have an ideology i find narcissistic at best.

So you brought up a point that is unrelated to parent's about what people who belong to a religion believe in? I...should that even be in this thread? I don't get it unless you're actually replying to the parent above you.

> Thats a significantly stronger statement than you allude to

It's not though. They didn't say to bulldoze all the things. Why wouldn't humans flourishing and having happiness be a goal to hit? I can't think of a single thing that we do, when we interact with nature, that doesn't affect the environment in at least some fashion. It's all about balances. If you can add a dam, reducing carbon emissions from other power sources, but it displaces animals within X square miles that needs to be understood. It may be very worth it. It may not it.

What I got from your comment was that the parent poster was bad and that you think most people are bad because they find themselves most important.

Post reply on HN