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

321–330 of 365 posts

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

#321

Post by DenisM »

wstrange wrote: post #168
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 same could be said for Hydro Dams. When they fail it is catastrophic.

Indeed, hydro has pretty bad faikure mode. Still, we're not talking about massively irradiated fallouts, the impact is contained booth in space and in time.

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

#322

Post by honkhonkpants »

jcranmer wrote: post #313
honkhonkpants wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Midway is an airport for ants. 10/28 at SFO is 2 sq km, and there are two of them, and 1/19 are 1.5 sq km, and there are two of them. Then you also have OAK and SJC. Point: a square kilometer to generate 1GW peak of electricity would be an obviously excellent trade off, well within the cost parameters that humans are willing to spend on far less useful endeavors like runways and parking lots.

Wikipedia says that 10/28 is 3.618 km. For the runway itself to be 2 km², it would have to be 0.552 km wide. A quick glance at an aerial map indicates that a width of 0.552 km gives approximately the width of both runways, relevant taxiways, and the surrounding ground. Wikipedia says that the runways are in fact .061 km wide, for a total per-runway size of .221 km². I picked Midway because it's a very conveniently si…

Ok you got me. Bad at math.

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

#323

Post by ctdonath »

honkhonkpants wrote: post #310
jcranmer wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, no. Chicago Midway happens to fit very nicely inside 1 mi² = 2.56 km². Its main runways (5 of them) with feeder ramps collectively take up at best ½ the space, so a single runway itself is not 1 km² but more like .2-.3 km².

Midway is an airport for ants. 10/28 at SFO is 2 sq km, and there are two of them, and 1/19 are 1.5 sq km, and there are two of them. Then you also have OAK and SJC. Point: a square kilometer to generate 1GW peak of electricity would be an obviously excellent trade off, well within the cost parameters that humans are willing to spend on far less useful endeavors like runways and parking lots.

Except that 1GW/km^2 is the absolute upper limit. As dreadmorbius computed, reality gives ~1.5% of that.

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

#324

Post by losvedir »

sxcurry wrote: post #64
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 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?

> it has generated electricity 100% of the time the sun was shining

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time.

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

#325

Post by losvedir »

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…

> release of toxins and carcinogens over large residential areas

Thought experiment: how big of a nature-only walled-off preserve would we need around a nuclear plant in order to protect against that? And if that amount of area were instead covered with solar panels, how much energy would that produce?

My impression given the efficiency of nuclear is that it'd still win, plus you get a sweet nature reserve out of it.

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

#327

Post by StillBored »

Semiapies wrote: post #272
pnw_hazor wrote: post #176

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...

You might RTFA, which points out that it "would never work" because it's already working—the US has already tapped most of its available hydroelectric power.

And even at 6% it is by far the largest chunk of the renewable energy production in the US.

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

#328

Post by Chathamization »

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 have an issue with methane emissions (a potent greenhouse gas)[1]. If I remember right, the type of dam also matters, and there are numerous problems with megadams in particular.

[1]http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/methane-emissions-...

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

#329

Post by pharrington »

forthefuture wrote: post #183
hguant wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but the core principle underlying all that is that human happiness is a good in and of itself, and a virtuous and stable society is good only in that it allows for the greatest potential growth of human happiness.

Well I'd much rather have Advancement over Happiness. We can be happy our entire lives but if everyones dies before 100 and humanity never goes anywhere I wouldn't consider that a successful society. Happiness is masturbating 24/7 until you die. If you truly believe that is the goal of humanity I can't help but disagree.

> Happiness is masturbating 24/7 until you die

Try it for one week and report back on how happy that made you. My assertion is that most people, just like you, actually enjoy doing shit!

Of course, your one week fapathon may provoke data to the contrary.

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

#330

Post by beguiledfoil »

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.

Today you learned about the transcendentals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentals
Post reply on HN