22 ms·
Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity
- m_mueller 10y agoIf anyone is wondering about the worldwide big picture of where electricity is coming from: I made this map / spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16K4gNhy_AN8Eg4Ov3z7pF_dgON1oObkHQ8Px5I73Hvc/pubhtml https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16K4gNhy_AN8Eg4Ov3z7p...
- pmyjavec 10y agoThis is awesome, thank you!
- edpichler 10y agoVery good, this is a great step, but just a thing to be remembered: hydroelectric energy is renewable, better than coal, oil, etc, but it still kills a lots of animals and flood great areas, disappearing with waterfalls and changing landscapes.
- geff82 10y agoI prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.
- masklinn 10y agoWhat landscape did Fukushima waste? Are you confusing Fukushima and the Tōhoku earthquake? Hell, if Chernobyl is any indication, nuclear accidents tend to save landscapes more than they waste'em. Or do you mean "waste" in the sense that humans can't wring them dry?
- geff82 10y agoThey are inhabitable zones for humans now and have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy.
- masklinn 10y ago> They are inhabitable zones for humans now I'm guessing you mean uninhabitable (as in "humans can't live there"). That seems to be an excellent way to preserve the landscape. > have a bad effect on a lot of other organisms. Which, if the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone is any indication, is significantly lower than the effect humans have on most of these organisms. > I think humanity has done harm to the whole ecosystem (including humans themselves) by beginning to use atomic energy. Whereas I think humanity has done harm to just about everything by beginning to use fossil energy, and much larger civilian application of atomic energy would have been a significant improvement at pretty much all levels, including (and possibly especially because of, though they've really been much too rare for that) the odd nuclear accident.
- geff82 10y agoYour inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. I still have to grasp it. So Costa Rica is living on renewable energy now, strongly reducing any harm on any living beings, and you, at least that's what one could read in it, don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right?
- masklinn 10y ago> Your inherent hatred for humanity fascinates me. Now what are you talking about? > you don't like it because this doesn't eliminate the space for humans as a good nuclear accident would do. Did I get it right? You know you don't have to make stuff up right? I haven't given any opinion on the Costa Rican situation, I have only replied to your inane comments on nuclear energy.
- MaulingMonkey 10y ago
- nkoren 10y agoWhile a minor but noticeable uptick in radiation-induced cancer is unacceptable for humans, animals don't especially seem to mind. The areas around Chernobyl have become a superb wildlife reserve, and Fukushima is probably on its way to a similar state. Compared to the area submerged by a dam -- where the habitat is, without hyperbole, utterly and completely annihilated -- I have difficulty seeing how you can prefer that.
- geff82 10y agoSo then let's drop some atomic bombs and let some reactors explode for the sake of nature! Are you in?
- collyw 10y agoNorth Korea might give it a try soon.
- masklinn 10y ago> animals don't especially seem to mind. They do mind, they mind a lot, it's just that for the vast majority of wildlife humans (land alterations, activity and presence byproduct) have an even larger effect than a touch of long-term radiation-induced lethal disease.
- csydas 10y agoI think the point was more that nature seemed to adapt very quickly to the fallout from Chernobyl. Instead of a nuclear wasteland it's a pretty thriving ecosystem with a lot of new life, and even large mammals seem to be doing just fine. I caught a documentary while on a transatlantic flight about the Wolves of Chernobyl [1], and it discusses how the wildlife seems to be thriving with few to no ill effects. This isn't me suggesting that irradiating the land with nuclear waste is good - far from it. But it does seem that nature is pretty resilient to it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkyM2XSVhBI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkyM2XSVhBI
- 10y ago
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago" 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.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago> No mention whatsoever of nuclear, which is by far the more practical solution. And far less ecologically damaging. I vaguely follow developments in this area, and this seems to either outdated or simply untrue information. The people building traditional nuclear don't seem to be able to do so economically, even when they punt on insurance and eventual disposal. The people building the new nuclear which is going to eat up all the old nuclear waste don't seem to be making much progress, even in China where you'd assume they'd quite happily take a chance if this was anywhere near a viable state. Meanwhile, solar and wind are here today and prices continue to plummet. Any sensible economic or ecological assement would take into account the fact you can have solar up and running and contributing money/carbon savings on very short timescales, and do so in a distributed fashion, whereas you're talking potentially decades for nuclear which arrives all at once in a big lump.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoThe ecological damage is not outdated info. Solar farms are essentially clear-cutting the land. No sun - no life. The ecosystem under the panels is completely disrupted. Not unlike strip-mining.
- cup 10y agoUnless its a desert area. Like most of Australia, Central Asia, North Africa etc.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
- jfaucett 10y agoNotice 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. The biggest real problem with Hydro in the context of human flourishing is ensuring that the dams are well-constructed and nature proof i.e. hold up against natural disasters because if they don't downstream settlements and human lives can be at risk.
- JoeAltmaier 10y agoThey can't rely 100% precisely because hydro is unreliable. A dry season and it runs down (which it did). And dams - isn't Mosul going to be destroyed soon because its dam requires constant maintenance (a clay curtain pumped into the porous bedrock) which hasn't happened since Desert Storm?
- jfaucett 10y ago"They can't rely 100% precisely because hydro is unreliable." True in an absolute sense but in comparison to solar and wind hydro is extremely reliable, and can be used to power the grid when all other energy sources fail [1,2] As far as Mosul I'm unsure, maybe someone else more informed can chime in on the actual state of affairs there since wikipedia/google turned up multiple contradicting results for me. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Advantages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroelectricity#Advantages [2] http://www.hydro.org/why-hydro/reliable/ http://www.hydro.org/why-hydro/reliable/
- celticninja 10y agoMosul is hardly an example of a well engineered dam though built in 1984 and falling to pieces. The Hoover Dam was built in 1933 and is not in need of pulling down.
- sickbeard 10y agoSame story every month. Can't wait for the 100 day update
- taneq 10y agoFuture 100 day update: We got 99 days before we had to fall back on non-renewable resources for a day. That's only a 99% fuel saving, which is not enough and means renewables are terrible and we should never try to use them again.
- forgetsusername 10y ago>That's only a 99% fuel saving, which is not enough and means renewables are terrible and we should never try to use them again. I love the fact that people imply there's some conspiracy to hold down renewable energy meanwhile nearly every country on the globe is subsidizing it.
- taneq 10y agoI meant to reference the common (uneducated) perception that if there's ever any way that renewable resources fall short, that means they're useless. It's the same mindset that says that an electric car "only" has a range of 300-450km and takes a while to recharge, and therefore is useless as a vehicle because it can't do nonstop cross-country road trips.
- sickbeard 10y agoI think you misunderstood my comment. This article has been posted before when it was about 50 or 60 days. Now it appears again at 76 days. Why does the number of days matter?
- taneq 10y agoObjection: Geothermal technically isn't renewable.
- empath75 10y agoI mean technically solar isn't renewable, on long enough time scales.
- amorphid 10y agoGeothermal also produces radioactive waste! Water gets pumped into the ground, becomes steam, the steam rises, and is used to generate power. The steam brings with it toxic sludge, which needs to be disposed of. Not sure why, but they don't wanna pump the sludge back into the ground. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power#Environmental_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power#Environmental...
- pilom 10y agoDepends on the location. In some places, people bathe in the water after it gets pumped into the ground: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Lagoon_(geothermal_spa) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Lagoon_(geothermal_spa)
- awqrre 10y agoMaybe they are afraid of earthquakes, like how they are realizing that fracking wastewater wells are causing many [1] 1. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-07/oklahoma-wastewater-well-closures-increase-as-quake-upgraded http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-07/oklahoma-w...
- jbrun 10y agoQuebec has gone about 50 years.
- goodcanadian 10y agoI think your offhand comment deserves more attention, so here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec
- herge 10y agoWell, solidly 95% of Quebec's electricity is from hydro-electric. It still keeps other types of power plants online for research purposes.
- Raphmedia 10y agoWe are lucky to have big rivers far north. This allowed us to destroy entire ecosystems and native lands where nobody could see or hear about it. Hydro electricity is not without its downside.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- hjnilsson 10y agoAs has Norway. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Norway https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Norway Main problem with hydropower is it's geographical dependency. Denmark could never do what Norway is doing for example.
- dredmorbius 10y agoWell, it could. But it would have to dig a hell of a hole.... Denmark is utilising a resource it has in some abundance: wind. Part of a renewables strategy is using what you've got, not what you wish for.
- jefurii 10y agoFeels like the article was written by a pro-renewable reporter and edited by an oil-company exec. "Yeah they did it but you should be discouraged instead of hopeful."
- forgetsusername 10y ago>"Yeah they did it but you should be discouraged instead of hopeful." Probably because a tiny, relatively poor country that happens to have access to geography suitable for hydro power isn't particularly impressive in my eyes. Especially considering that, according to the article, just 2 years ago they experienced a drought and had to up their usage of diesel generators. Where were these reports then?
- DasIch 10y agoIt shows both sides and they're important to consider. You don't need to be in favor of oil or any fossil fuel to see that there remains a vacuum that needs to be filled somehow.
- mbloom1915 10y agoAs great as this is and large step for other countries very soon, decarb can only be achieved through transport efforts. transport makes up over 1/3s of emissions so why residential/commercial consumption energy efficiency is great, it is a tiny fraction of achieving overarching goal
- eggy 10y agoCosta Rica also sits on the Ring of Fire like I do here in East Java, so geothermal is accessible there. Costa Rica did not have to maintain a standing army to protect its borders thanks in large part to relying on treaties and understandings with the US. This frees up some of their GDP for R&D into sustainable energy. I wonder what the demand for electricity is in Costa Rica today compared to when I was last there in 1993. I was going to buy land then, but I was a bit wary of new laws on foreign-owned properties. It would have cost me a lot to bribe/pay my way to getting power distributed to my land. I was going to use a generator and solar panels anyway. Many people kept guns to defend their property from bandits in my travels there back then. I'm sure it has changed a lot. Selva Verde was my first 'eco-tourist' experience, and I remember talking to some of the worker's there, and the owner's daughter. I am glad to see the business model took off. It's a beautiful country.
- hkjgkjy 10y ago>Costa Rica did not have to maintain a standing army to protect its borders thanks in large part to relying on treaties and understandings with the US. As a non-american, I never understood what's up with this. Is it voluntary? Are they an independent nation?
- benologist 10y agoIt's a completely independent country that simply chooses not to have an army. 60 years ago they decided that money would be better off being invested in their population, and now they are a posterchild for stable democracy, the wealthiest centroamerican country, and consistently ranked one of the happiest countries in the world.
- hkjgkjy 10y agoThat sounds very nice :). How come noone with even a tiny fleet sails over there and takes it over? Any billionaire could become a king that way.
- 10y ago
- pritianka 10y agoNothing important to say here, except, I just LOVE Costa Rica!
- pnw_hazor 10y agoWould 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-infrastructure/gov-hydropower-renewable-energy.html http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-infrastructur...
- jessaustin 10y agoHydropower is somewhat environmentally questionable, but it's "renewable" by any reasonable definition. Your link confirms this: ...because it is an endless, constantly recharging system, hydropower is defined as a renewable energy by the Environmental Protection Agency.
- pilom 10y agoUnfortunately it isn't exactly endless. Even if you ignore the decreasing amounts of water at many dams due to climate change, eventually dams fill up with sediment. Lake Powell and Lake Mead already have about 10% less capacity than they did when built due to sediment infill.
- jessaustin 10y agoDams aren't endless, but no human artifact is. It is totally within design parameters to have to drain and excavate (and perhaps patch the cracks in the dam) every hundred years or so. The rain will still fall. Actually one expects that aquatic sediment-removing robots will eventually be created to obviate this basic maintenance task, but that sort of assumes that humans will want dams in future. It's possible that they'll develop cheap energy without the drawbacks inherent in hydropower, and decide that rivers are better than artificial lakes.
- Semiapies 10y agoYou 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.
- fuddle 10y agoIn some places in Costa Rica the electricity can be sporadic, when it goes out people use petrol powered generators.
- ChuckMcM 10y agoInteresting 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.
- gjolund 10y agoEvery fucking day I see this posted. Can we just update when they aren't using 100% renewable energy again.
- dilisbarb 10y agoI'm flaking out now. When shall we cross meet? http://u.to/iOg3Dw http://u.to/iOg3Dw
- handfini 10y agoHey, buzzard, are you cloth-eared? Come on, look at hotchas here http://u.to/gug3Dw http://u.to/gug3Dw
- vireama 10y agoGet hundreds of webcamshow for free. Sign up there http://yis2ar.skhit.in/ http://yis2ar.skhit.in/