6 ms·

The Reddit thread has some interesting perspectives on this: User /u/CatsandCrows: > Yeah, it's great and it makes me happy that in this sense we are eco-frie

by markbao 11y ago

The Reddit thread has some interesting perspectives on this: User /u/CatsandCrows: > Yeah, it's great and it makes me happy that in this sense we are eco-friendly, however this comes a great costs. Our electricity rates are one of the highest in the region (central america) and a sht-load higher than the states, this costs summed to other issues scare industrial investment over here. Depending on your area you will have power failures anywhere from 0- 24 times a day, whenever there is a drought we have power shutdowns (as it ocurred some years ago when the country had to shut down residential electricity from 5pm-11pm, eventually "fixed" by adding another hydroelectric plant). It is never as simple as headlines makes it seem... just remember that. https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3xhedt/99_of_costa_ricas_electricity_came_from_renewable/ https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3xhedt/99_of_cos...

toomuchtodo 11y ago
So their electric costs are higher, but they also don't burn any coal or natural gas (which doesn't price in the negative environmental effects those generation types incur). Also, intermittent power can be a function of transmission network quality, not just generation type. Renewables don't do anything but help. Generating too much? Curtail your production until you can store it in a cost efficient manner. Generating too little? Add more capacity.
- mschuster91 11y ago
  > Also, intermittent power can be a function of transmission network quality, not just generation type. Yes, but hydro is the only renewable power source that is weather-independent. Wind, solar and tidal energy all fluctuate wildly during the day. In case there's no backup/storage (e.g. with pump-hydro systems, cheap-ish and effective, but a crime on nature!) you have to either import power from outside the country or resort to conventional power generation. Oh, and even hydro sucks for nature, because hydro plants interrupt natural pathways for fishes and like pump-hydro plants, there's a HUGE additional negative impact if you use a dam (in contrast to natural state, animals can't pass over the waterway, and as seen in China, important areas of biodiversity simply get flooded). The lack of a truly environment-friendly energy storage is and will be keeping renewables from ever truly replacing fossil energy. Batteries need vast amounts of (rare) metals which have to be mined, refined and manufactured, molten-salt high power solar towers are a safety risk (as anything operating at three-digits-celsius temperature is)...
  - justinator 11y ago
    > Yes, but hydro is the only renewable power source that is weather-independent. Droughts? https://wrrc.arizona.edu/drought-diminishes-hydropower https://wrrc.arizona.edu/drought-diminishes-hydropower
    - mschuster91 11y ago
      Hadn't thought of that one, yeah. Thanks. So either we destroy the environment or we destroy the environment (unless fusion actually works)...
      - Litost 11y ago
        Much as i don't want to cause any further depression in an already quite depressing thread, but if you follow Joseph Tainters work on The Collapse of Complex Societies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI a) Complexity has killed off pretty much every major society prior to ours. b) People's innate desire to problem solve increases complexity. c) Cheap energy has enabled this process. So there's an argument, an unlimited source of free energy would actually be a major problem because 1) It would enable more complexity, which is already pretty unmanagable. 2) You've still the problem of out of control resource usage.
  - nl 11y ago
    The lack of a truly environment-friendly energy storage is and will be keeping renewables from ever truly replacing fossil energy. Fortunately this is slowly changing. Different technologies are right in different situations, but the battery story in particular is undergoing rapid development. For example flow batteries[1] usually don't require rare metals, are (fairly) cheap, reliable and are slowly becoming available. One of the first uses is on cellular towers in South and Central America where the power grid isn't reliable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery
  - sokoloff 11y ago
    > hydro is the only renewable power source that is weather-independent. Geothermal and biomass are also weather-independent, in addition to the long-term drought possibility that justinator mentioned.
- justinator 11y ago
  Oh, I would say there's negative environmental effects of hydroelectricity, including the destruction of habitat. Dams also have a life span, which is measured in decades (or less). Once the silt has built up, the dam doesn't really work in generating power any more.
  - riffraff 11y ago
    hasn't the hoover dam been up since the the '30s? Italy's hydroelectric plants have also been working since the '30s AFAIK, and they don't seem to be on the verge of a shutdown.
    - justinator 11y ago
      > hasn't the hoover dam been up since the the '30s? There are tens of thousands of dams in the US alone, and most if not all are not built to the proportions of the Hoover Dam. If you would like to use the Hoover Dam - one of the largest dams in the world, holding back one of the largest man made reservoirs in the world as my counterexample, be my guest. My point wasn't that the dam will fail (although they do) - far from it: my point is that the dam, once put in, is really hard to take out and the dam itself holds back all the debris that usually flows out the river. That debris builds up, until - uh oh - you don't have enough water in your reservoir anymore to generate power. That, and plugging up an entire watershed is pretty much akin to destroying the ecosystem that depends on the water flowing free to the ocean. Entire species of fish die off; the natural environment of other plants and animals is hopelessly changed, etc. Some parts of the US only have 5% of rivers flow without a dam. Hydroelectricity is not sustainable now, and is far from inexhaustible. So, back to the Hoover Dam - who's idea was it, to build a reservoir for water, in the middle of the desert? Did anyone think, "wonder if the water will all evaporate?" Because that's what's happening, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-lake-mead-low-20150429-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-lake-mead-low-20150429-s... http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2666/how-long-are-dams-like-hoover-dam-engineered-to-last http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2666/how-long-are-d... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Environmental_impac... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qou2KkLkYVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qou2KkLkYVg http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/25/opinion/too-many-dammed-rivers.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/25/opinion/too-many-dammed-ri... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dam+disaster https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dam+disaster
- Turing_Machine 11y ago
  Let me guess: your income is more than US$6,000 per year, the median per capita income for Costa Rica. For the United States, the median per capita income is about US$27,000. It looks like electricity costs around US$0.30/kWh in Costa Rica. In the United States, it's about US$0.13. So, the electricity in Costa Rica costs 2.3 times as much, and the income is about 20% of that in the United States, meaning that electric bills are effectively over 10 times higher. Would you be willing to pay an electric bill that was ten times what you pay now? Even if you would, I assure you that many others would not.
  - alextgordon 11y ago
    Let me guess: you don't live in Bangladesh. Where there are ~160 million people, and the country is just one big flood plain. Bangladesh already has the highest population density of any "big" country, and the sea is eating away at the land. If $0.30/kWh is the real price of electricity after externalities have been added in, then so be it. Because the alternative is too awful to imagine. Also you've forgotten to include in your calculations that Costa Ricans probably use a lot less electricity than Americans. Someone earning $6k.pa probably does not have AC, a huge refrigerator, etc.
    - lqdc13 11y ago
      If you pay $300/mo in air conditioning, then of course you won't have an air conditioner, assuming you earn 6k/yr Also, if population density everywhere was the same as in Bangladesh, having green energy wouldn't have helped. It is far more "green" for many countries to force a one child policy than it is to switch to green energy.
      - zlatan_todoric 11y ago
        > It is far more "green" for many countries to force a one child policy than it is to switch to green energy. Which doesn't say anything against having green energy but about current sad state of society and humanity in general...
- eggy 11y ago
  Costa Rica does not maintain a standing army (minor policing, border patrol, and a commando unit - company of 70 men); they informally rely on the U.S.'s army due to the U.S. - Costa Rica relationship. Also the U.S. forgave Costa Rican debt for forest conservation. These and other factors leave some of the GDP for investment in infrastructure like renewables. Other than building or damming another waterway, upgrading or increasing the number of generators, the ability to simply add capacity is limited with hydro.
Pxtl 11y ago
I know, it's almost as if saving the world will require hard work and there may be some bumps and hiccups along the way. We should just not do that.
- izacus 11y ago
  Not sure how you concluded "We should not do that." from the original authors post. He was just adding more information to the original article.
  - tyurok 11y ago
    /s
lagadu 11y ago
Power failures and unreliable power delivery in general is not a renewable energy problem (or rather, it is but it's not an unfixable one), it's a Costa Rica problem due to insuficient infrastructure to handle it. Other nations with very large percentages of green power (Denmark and Portugal come to mind) don't suffer from those.
- semi-extrinsic 11y ago
  The countries you mention have neighbours with large and stable base power generation capacity, and a well-connected international power grid. In Denmark, for instance, a single one of the power lines goin up to Norway has 1700 MW capacity. Costa Rica isn't as fortunate; even though they are connected to their neighbours, the network is limited to just 300 MW total and the neighbours don't have the most stable grids either. From what I can see, Denmark net imports up to 15% of their annual electricity consumption, while Costa Rica gross imports around 2%.
pbreit 11y ago
That's one, uninteresting perspective. Comparing rates is difficult and if it really is higher, that's not a deal-breaker. Electricity in many of Costa Rica's peer countries doesn't work perfectly. "come years ago"? Yes, things get fixed by making improvements.

by markbao 11y ago

toomuchtodo 11y ago

So their electric costs are higher, but they also don't burn any coal or natural gas (which doesn't price in the negative environmental effects those generation types incur). Also, intermittent power can be a function of transmission network quality, not just generation type. Renewables don't do anything but help. Generating too much? Curtail your production until you can store it in a cost efficient manner. Generating too little? Add more capacity.

mschuster91 11y ago
> Also, intermittent power can be a function of transmission network quality, not just generation type. Yes, but hydro is the only renewable power source that is weather-independent. Wind, solar and tidal energy all fluctuate wildly during the day. In case there's no backup/storage (e.g. with pump-hydro systems, cheap-ish and effective, but a crime on nature!) you have to either import power from outside the country or resort to conventional power generation. Oh, and even hydro sucks for nature, because hydro plants interrupt natural pathways for fishes and like pump-hydro plants, there's a HUGE additional negative impact if you use a dam (in contrast to natural state, animals can't pass over the waterway, and as seen in China, important areas of biodiversity simply get flooded). The lack of a truly environment-friendly energy storage is and will be keeping renewables from ever truly replacing fossil energy. Batteries need vast amounts of (rare) metals which have to be mined, refined and manufactured, molten-salt high power solar towers are a safety risk (as anything operating at three-digits-celsius temperature is)...
- justinator 11y ago
  > Yes, but hydro is the only renewable power source that is weather-independent. Droughts? https://wrrc.arizona.edu/drought-diminishes-hydropower https://wrrc.arizona.edu/drought-diminishes-hydropower
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    Hadn't thought of that one, yeah. Thanks. So either we destroy the environment or we destroy the environment (unless fusion actually works)...
    - Litost 11y ago
      Much as i don't want to cause any further depression in an already quite depressing thread, but if you follow Joseph Tainters work on The Collapse of Complex Societies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0R09YzyuCI a) Complexity has killed off pretty much every major society prior to ours. b) People's innate desire to problem solve increases complexity. c) Cheap energy has enabled this process. So there's an argument, an unlimited source of free energy would actually be a major problem because 1) It would enable more complexity, which is already pretty unmanagable. 2) You've still the problem of out of control resource usage.
- nl 11y ago
  The lack of a truly environment-friendly energy storage is and will be keeping renewables from ever truly replacing fossil energy. Fortunately this is slowly changing. Different technologies are right in different situations, but the battery story in particular is undergoing rapid development. For example flow batteries[1] usually don't require rare metals, are (fairly) cheap, reliable and are slowly becoming available. One of the first uses is on cellular towers in South and Central America where the power grid isn't reliable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_battery
- sokoloff 11y ago
  > hydro is the only renewable power source that is weather-independent. Geothermal and biomass are also weather-independent, in addition to the long-term drought possibility that justinator mentioned.
justinator 11y ago
Oh, I would say there's negative environmental effects of hydroelectricity, including the destruction of habitat. Dams also have a life span, which is measured in decades (or less). Once the silt has built up, the dam doesn't really work in generating power any more.
- riffraff 11y ago
  hasn't the hoover dam been up since the the '30s? Italy's hydroelectric plants have also been working since the '30s AFAIK, and they don't seem to be on the verge of a shutdown.
  - justinator 11y ago
    > hasn't the hoover dam been up since the the '30s? There are tens of thousands of dams in the US alone, and most if not all are not built to the proportions of the Hoover Dam. If you would like to use the Hoover Dam - one of the largest dams in the world, holding back one of the largest man made reservoirs in the world as my counterexample, be my guest. My point wasn't that the dam will fail (although they do) - far from it: my point is that the dam, once put in, is really hard to take out and the dam itself holds back all the debris that usually flows out the river. That debris builds up, until - uh oh - you don't have enough water in your reservoir anymore to generate power. That, and plugging up an entire watershed is pretty much akin to destroying the ecosystem that depends on the water flowing free to the ocean. Entire species of fish die off; the natural environment of other plants and animals is hopelessly changed, etc. Some parts of the US only have 5% of rivers flow without a dam. Hydroelectricity is not sustainable now, and is far from inexhaustible. So, back to the Hoover Dam - who's idea was it, to build a reservoir for water, in the middle of the desert? Did anyone think, "wonder if the water will all evaporate?" Because that's what's happening, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-lake-mead-low-20150429-story.html http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-lake-mead-low-20150429-s... http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2666/how-long-are-dams-like-hoover-dam-engineered-to-last http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2666/how-long-are-d... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam#Environmental_impac... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qou2KkLkYVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qou2KkLkYVg http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/25/opinion/too-many-dammed-rivers.html http://www.nytimes.com/1989/11/25/opinion/too-many-dammed-ri... https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dam+disaster https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dam+disaster
Turing_Machine 11y ago
Let me guess: your income is more than US$6,000 per year, the median per capita income for Costa Rica. For the United States, the median per capita income is about US$27,000. It looks like electricity costs around US$0.30/kWh in Costa Rica. In the United States, it's about US$0.13. So, the electricity in Costa Rica costs 2.3 times as much, and the income is about 20% of that in the United States, meaning that electric bills are effectively over 10 times higher. Would you be willing to pay an electric bill that was ten times what you pay now? Even if you would, I assure you that many others would not.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  Let me guess: you don't live in Bangladesh. Where there are ~160 million people, and the country is just one big flood plain. Bangladesh already has the highest population density of any "big" country, and the sea is eating away at the land. If $0.30/kWh is the real price of electricity after externalities have been added in, then so be it. Because the alternative is too awful to imagine. Also you've forgotten to include in your calculations that Costa Ricans probably use a lot less electricity than Americans. Someone earning $6k.pa probably does not have AC, a huge refrigerator, etc.
  - lqdc13 11y ago
    If you pay $300/mo in air conditioning, then of course you won't have an air conditioner, assuming you earn 6k/yr Also, if population density everywhere was the same as in Bangladesh, having green energy wouldn't have helped. It is far more "green" for many countries to force a one child policy than it is to switch to green energy.
    - zlatan_todoric 11y ago
      > It is far more "green" for many countries to force a one child policy than it is to switch to green energy. Which doesn't say anything against having green energy but about current sad state of society and humanity in general...
eggy 11y ago
Costa Rica does not maintain a standing army (minor policing, border patrol, and a commando unit - company of 70 men); they informally rely on the U.S.'s army due to the U.S. - Costa Rica relationship. Also the U.S. forgave Costa Rican debt for forest conservation. These and other factors leave some of the GDP for investment in infrastructure like renewables. Other than building or damming another waterway, upgrading or increasing the number of generators, the ability to simply add capacity is limited with hydro.

Pxtl 11y ago

I know, it's almost as if saving the world will require hard work and there may be some bumps and hiccups along the way. We should just not do that.

izacus 11y ago
Not sure how you concluded "We should not do that." from the original authors post. He was just adding more information to the original article.
- tyurok 11y ago
  /s

lagadu 11y ago

Power failures and unreliable power delivery in general is not a renewable energy problem (or rather, it is but it's not an unfixable one), it's a Costa Rica problem due to insuficient infrastructure to handle it. Other nations with very large percentages of green power (Denmark and Portugal come to mind) don't suffer from those.

semi-extrinsic 11y ago
The countries you mention have neighbours with large and stable base power generation capacity, and a well-connected international power grid. In Denmark, for instance, a single one of the power lines goin up to Norway has 1700 MW capacity. Costa Rica isn't as fortunate; even though they are connected to their neighbours, the network is limited to just 300 MW total and the neighbours don't have the most stable grids either. From what I can see, Denmark net imports up to 15% of their annual electricity consumption, while Costa Rica gross imports around 2%.

pbreit 11y ago

That's one, uninteresting perspective. Comparing rates is difficult and if it really is higher, that's not a deal-breaker. Electricity in many of Costa Rica's peer countries doesn't work perfectly. "come years ago"? Yes, things get fixed by making improvements.