Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by maxerickson » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:28 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #159

maxerickson wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Estimates say there are ~100 billion planets in the galaxy.

I'm also not sure that In fact we've found nothing remotely similar to Earth in all the thousands of samples we've taken. is reasonable.

Take Proxima b. It orbits the Sun's closest neighbor, is in the habitable zone (doesn't mean it is habitable, necessary but not sufficient) and is roughly earth sized. Sure, we don't know a whole lot more about it, so it is quite likely to not be a nice destination for humans, but it seems to be at least remotely Earth like.

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

#172

Post by grb423 » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:32 PM UTC

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.

Alex Epstien, who is widely despised, has written, in The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels that to withhold cheap abundant energy, and the technology it enables, from the world's emerging populations is immoral and fundamentally anti-human. Supported by people who think this Earth would be a much better place if Man never set his filthy foot upon it.

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

#173

Post by madhato » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

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…

In British Columbia (BC) we get 86% of our power from hydro.

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

#174

Post by notyourwork » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

addicted wrote: post #110

DenisM wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

Curious why nuclear is going up? It would seem anything scientific or technically advanced would over time trend down.

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

#175

Post by BinaryIdiot » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

unprepare wrote: post #164

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #160

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. 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 rea…

> 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.

I really don't enjoy the passive aggressive insults here. I provided criticism to your comment because, to me, it sounded wildly off base. If you want to ignore that then that's fine but don't say it makes "perfect sense" when obviously it didn't if we're not on the same page.

> 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.

The initial language wasn't "hard" in the first place as I already explained. I told you it wasn't as huge as you made it out to be and your response is I'm making it soft...then I guess? In the context of your understanding of it I am but I still think you're making a giant crater out of a little ant hill here.

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

#176

Post by pnw_hazor » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:38 PM UTC

Would never work in the US because hydropower is not considered renewable.

"But in general, hydropower is not even considered a renewable energy in most states or, for the most part, by the federal government. "

http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructur...

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

#177

Post by DougN7 » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

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

# theres also atheist folks who believe they answer to nobody and can do whatever feels good.

# I find it a rather disgustingly self centered ideology.

Sweeping generalizations can go both ways and are rarely helpful.

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

#178

Post by solipsism » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:44 PM UTC

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…

Replace "humans" with "white people" in your post, and you'll get a sense of how silly your beliefs seem to me. Not to say my beliefs are more right than yours -- to each his/her own.

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

#179

Post by unprepare » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:44 PM UTC

BinaryIdiot wrote: post #175

unprepare wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 rea…

> 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. I really don't enjoy the passive aggressive insults here. I provided criticism to your comment because, to me, it sounded wildly off base. If you want to ignore that then that's fine but don't say it makes "perfect sense" when obviously it didn't if we're not o…

>The initial language wasn't "hard" in the first place

Right, literally claiming to know the meaning of existence - totally an interpretable statement.

My qualm was never that someone would put humans needs before animals, but that that should be the only consideration made is extreme - that its the very nature of existence to do so is beyond extreme.

Have a good one!

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

#180

Post by beat » Fri, Sep 09, 2016, 4:46 PM UTC

wstrange wrote: post #163

beat wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

I'm not just measuring fatalities. I'm measuring economic costs. A nuclear accident can render a city uninhabitable, even if no one dies.

edit: An additional risk is that a nuclear plant is much more complex and expensive than a solar plant. A major accident, if nothing else, wrecks the plant, taking away a key resource that could take a decade and billions of dollars to rebuild (if it's politically possible to rebuild at all). Solar and wind, made up of collections of small units, can't suffer the same kind of unrecoverable catastrophic failure. Again, economic risk.

And yet another risk... because of the potential destructive nature, nuclear plants are obvious targets for terrorists and military action. This ties back to the ability to disable a plant and its impact. Even if it doesn't cause fatalities, taking a nuclear plant offline and forcing evacuations isn't that hard. High, high economic risk.

This is another example of your original mistake. You're narrowly focusing, and not doing a solid risk analysis. Nuclear power is riskier than solar, because the potential impact of failure is much higher.