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

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

#331

Post by ChuckMcM » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:05 AM UTC

Interesting to see people pick apart what constitutes renewable and base loads etc. It is an interesting milestone that some part of the planet can be lived in with electricity that is only from renewable sources. That's pretty neat, you can live there after civilization collapses (assuming you can displace whomever is already living there :-)

Its a huge boon for a nation state to reach the crossover point of 100% renewables. Then they can start to grow it from there. It is much harder for a nation-state to simply lose access to imported energy sources, then there is the whole rioting and anarchy until enough population dies off that the remaining start seeing the others as necessary for survival not a threat to it.

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

#332

Post by duaneb » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 2:53 AM UTC

ars wrote: post #302

duaneb wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't necessarily need water: http://www.aresnorthamerica.com/

If you run the numbers on that - cost, amount of energy stored, how much stuff you need, you'll quickly realize you do in fact need water.

I'd love to see them.

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

#333

Post by jklinger410 » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 3:33 AM UTC

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.

Optimising for human happiness includes not decimating ecosystems that we depend on to survive.

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

#334

Post by prewett » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 3:42 AM UTC

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.

A large part of the reasoning behind building many of the dams in the U.S. was flood control. In fact, I think the Hoover Dam was built for flood control reasons, and the hydroelectric part was the means to pay for it.

Enabling consistent river flows, which enables human settlement and farming in otherwise desert areas is definitely an environmental impact, but it's not clear that it is a bad impact.

And not burning fuel is certainly a positive in the eyes of global warming. All that fuel burning could result in rather permanent environmental changes of its own as sea levels rise, etc. If global warming is caused by CO2, then if we got all our power from dams instead of burning fuel, that seems like a place we'd like to get to right about now.

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

#335

Post by wtallis » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 7:42 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #297

goodcanadian wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a couple of square miles of solar panels in the Mojave Desert. If you zoom out, you'll find quite a bit more nearby. Whether or not you count this as large, the impact is not negligible. https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B048'44.1%22N+118%C2... EDIT: To be clear, I am not fundamentally opposed to such installations just as I am not fundamentally opposed to new hydroelectric projects, but we need to be a…

Traditional power stations aren't exactly small, either. In fact, people will think you're a lunatic if you start talking about nuclear or coal in "per square meter of land" terms.

For context: my local nuclear power station is about 600 W/m^2, unless you count the purpose-built lake it relies on for cooling water, in which case it's 50 W/m^2. The 17 W/m^2 estimate above for solar doesn't look as bad as I would've guessed.

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

#336

Post by astrodust » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 8:08 AM UTC

totony wrote: post #317

astrodust wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wiping out a species to save a single life is monstrous and absurd. I hope you're not serious.

If there is no consequence for humans then I would find it perfectly normal. It isn't monstrous nor absurd.

The consequence is you've destroyed a species and set a precedent and for what? One life?

While human life should be preserved whenever possible, there are situations where you must realize that human life is, from the perspective of our role as planetary stewards, cheap and disposable.

Sacrificing some lab animals, even thousands, to cure some obscure but crippling disease that affects a handful of people could be justified.

Wiping out an entire species to save a single person is atrocious, and completely insane.

If you're prepared to wipe out, say, otters to save one person then what's next? Elephants for another? What if it takes two or three species to save someone else. At what point do you stop?

Like would it be acceptable to kill all non-human life to save a single life? There must be some kind of line.

The "no consequence to humans" part is hugely subjective, but a case could be made that we're worse off than our ancestors because of how many species we've obliterated.

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

#337

Post by astrodust » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 8:10 AM UTC

leodeid wrote: post #298

astrodust wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have spent way too much time on Hacker News. Gross Domestic Happiness was coined in 1972 and the idea exists way beyond that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness For example, the US Constitution proudly proclaims that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" are unalienable rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_...

Nit: The inalienable rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. None of those things are broadly recognized as rights in the Constitution. I have been unable to determine to what extent referencing the Declaration of Independence is permissible in questions related to constitutional law. I'm inclined to believe that it depends on the party involved. (Scalia certainly…

I stand corrected, but in any case, the very founding of the country was, in stark contrast to basically every country on Earth that had ever existed to that point, declaring that the "pursuit of happiness" is of utmost importance.

That says something about what America was striving to be, and comments like the one that sparked this thread show how absurdly far from that goal America has slid.

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

#338

Post by Gibbon1 » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 8:25 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #297

goodcanadian wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is a couple of square miles of solar panels in the Mojave Desert. If you zoom out, you'll find quite a bit more nearby. Whether or not you count this as large, the impact is not negligible. https://www.google.com/maps/place/34%C2%B048'44.1%22N+118%C2... EDIT: To be clear, I am not fundamentally opposed to such installations just as I am not fundamentally opposed to new hydroelectric projects, but we need to be a…

Traditional power stations aren't exactly small, either. In fact, people will think you're a lunatic if you start talking about nuclear or coal in "per square meter of land" terms.

Think I point out is there is a perception issue. When people thing 'power plant' they think of a large concrete building with a bunch of machines in it. But they don't think of all of the supporting infrastructure. (Comment I've heard about nuclear power in France is on hot days it's partly limited by the need to avoid dumping too much waste heat into the rivers. Coal fired plants seem neat and tidy until one thinks of the strip mines. Gas fired, the massive network of pipes needed to extract the gas and move it to where it'll be burned.

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

#339

Post by nugga » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 9:14 AM UTC

metaphorm wrote: post #203

forthefuture wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

are you serious? that reads like satire.

I read it as totally sincere show of support for continuous technological advancement. My belief is that ultimately humanity will take full control of their existence. Science & technology is what will lead us there.

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

#340

Post by cderwin » Sat, Sep 10, 2016, 12:43 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…

> You've essentially manufactured a belief here (parent believes humans are most important therefore all others are in the way), projected it onto the parent and then became outraged by it.

This is the definition of a "straw man".