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

161–170 of 365 posts

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

#161

Post by kbenson »

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.

Every energy source needs to be looked at with a cost-benefit analysis. The materials for wind and solar are not impact-free, and neither is their use. Before we condemn dams, we should compare them to alternative energy sources that would have been used instead (at the time of building), and assess whether the damage is less or more. Dams may be causing the extinction of a few species (which I assume implies they may yet be saved), but we can't assume that an increase in coal or nuclear power would be impact free in overall climate health or the health of individual species (nuclear has a fairly good track record by plant, but statistically having more plants built in the past may have yielded a disaster, and it only takes once to drastically change the averages for nuclear to significantly worse).

The question is, can new dams be built in ways that reduce or eliminate the problems we've encountered so far?

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

#162

Post by jordanlev »

pkulak wrote: post #119
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 don't think you even need to invoke such a controversial argument as "all non-human lives don't matter". Drastic climate change is likely to impact every species. Considering the vast amount of cheap, safe, carbon-free power that's available from hydro, it's probably the right call for salmon to take one for the team here. I live in the heart of the PNW and most of my power comes from COAL. The rest; natural gas. I…

There are lots of dams in the Pacific Northwest... just drive along the Columbia river, for example.

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

#163

Post by wstrange »

beat wrote: post #103
wstrange wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I guess I don't follow your reasoning.

The long term data (over decades) shows that nuclear kills fewer people than other forms of power generation. Maybe that will change over time (fewer people falling off of roofs when installing solar).

That data includes "high impact" events, including things like Fukushima, which evidently has not resulted in any radiation-related fatalities.

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

#164

Post by unprepare »

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #160
unprepare wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Im not sure if english is your first language, but my response makes perfect sense to who i replied to, and we are discussing a comment by the grand parent.

> Why wouldn't humans flourishing and having happiness be a goal to hit?

you are /immediately/ softening the language - how do you not see yourself doing this?

now its gone from 'the whole point of existence' to 'should be a goal to hit' I'm not even going to read the rest, because youre flat out being dishonest here.

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

#165

Post by kbenson »

chki wrote: post #158
mhurron wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Actually, if mhurron is referring to what I think they are, then it can be fairly global. Think fish migration and spawning, such as with Salmon. Global Salmon population is very susceptible to being disrupted by blocking rivers. That said, I believe there are modern ways to address this problem.

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

#166

Post by wstrange »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #82
wstrange wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd submit that those cost overruns are driven in part by the irrational fear.

It has made it politically difficult to research and deploy safer and more cost-effective reactors.

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

#167

Post by kbenson »

Xylakant wrote: post #149
mschuster91 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> They underestimate their vehicle height all the time There's a simple way to fix that: Have a solid steel bar slightly lower than the max clearance at the entrance. People that can't drive will notice there without causing further damage.

Not to mention multi-level parking lots, which have height restrictions imposed by the structure itself. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind having the top level covered as well.

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

#168

Post by wstrange »

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.

The same could be said for Hydro Dams. When they fail it is catastrophic.

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

#169

Post by ctdonath »

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.

Covering up large areas of a desert with solar panels may be more harmful than you realize.

I've heard & use the term solar strip-mining.

Solar power maxes out at no better than 1kW/m^2 (sun at zenith, clear day, practically 100% efficient conversion), we're talking an absolute minimum of 1 sq km to match a baseline 1GW power plant ... and likely 100 times larger for real-world scenarios (10% efficiency, night/clouds, non-zenith air densities, dust, etc). So yeah, the net effect is "strip-mining" a vast area by removing all (or a seriously impactful percentage) natural power input and thus killing everything off.

Rooftop solar should indeed be the focus. There's even solar panels intended as road/pavement surfaces, super-durable interlinked hexes grabbing power where we've already wrecked the natural surface.

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

#170

Post by unprepare »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #100
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

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.

Humans may not be the only beings on this planet with agency/ consciousness, whatever you want to call it.

How do you know the planet isnt a gift to them, instead of us?

Post reply on HN