5 ms·

Peru Unveils Plan to Use Solar Panels to Provide Electricity to 2 Million People

52 points by dayaz36 13y ago

aaron695 13y ago
Shame about the last dumb statement, since it is a interesting project that they seem to not understand. "If Peru can do this for its people, it makes you wonder why more prosperous countries can’t do the same." Which purely takes away from the whole concept of helping remote, poor people who a little electricity can mean a lot. As compared with the different issue of mass producing energy for high use, rich consumers in a efficient and environment friendly way.
- Lazare 13y ago
  Looks like the link has already been changed to a neutral newspaper article. You're quite right, the initial story was stupid. "Peru deploying modern technology to electrify remote villages who aren't on the grid!" "Why can't more prosperous countries do this?" Answer: They did...a hundred years ago.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - D9u 13y ago
    I live in the USA, in a rural agricultural community, and there is still no electricity on my part of the road. Apparently the funds from the "Rural Electrification Program" were spent elsewhere. We got phone lines in during the 1990's but no power, yet my neighbors right up the road from me have had electricity for years.
umsm 13y ago
Is it true that many nations could afford to provide unlimited renewable energy, but choose not to? http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/24/cost-of-war-spent-on-solar-power-instead/ http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/24/cost-of-war-spent-on-sol...
- ZirconCode 13y ago
  Not to speak of education, or gasp preventing famine. The military budget of the US alone ($+1trillion [1]) would eradicate world hunger ($44 billion [2]) more than 20 times over and still have money left to build them housing. I know it's not a realistic example but it's purpose is simply to add some perspectives. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S... [2] http://www.deliveringdata.com/2010/11/how-much-money-is-needed-to-eradicate.html http://www.deliveringdata.com/2010/11/how-much-money-is-need... (UN-FAO)
- Lazare 13y ago
  > Is it true that many nations could afford to provide unlimited renewable energy, but choose not to? No. What your link suggests is that roughly $2.5 trillion would be enough to, maybe, with some optimistic assumptions, shift the amount of renewable electricity in the US from 13% to maybe 25%. Give or take. It couldn't be further from "unlimited renewable energy"; we're talking about installing around 467 MWh/yr of solar panels in a country that consumes ten times that. (And mostly consumes that in different places and at different times than the solar panels would be functioning; a brief skim of the article indicates that they're being wildly optimistic about the actual net impact of the solar panel installation...) The problem is that the US does not have $2.5 trillion lying around to do this with. They didn't have $2.5 trillion for the GWoT either, but the money was scrounged up anyhow. But while there was an interest in aggressively fighting terror, nobody (not voters, not Congress) has any real interest in installing a zillion solar panels. So...it's not really clear if, any any meaningful sense, the US could have "chosen" to do this. And while we're on the subject, we're discussing spending $2.5 trillion to get 466,989 GWh/yr of clean energy. Which is...fine. But it's worth noting that one single nuclear installation in Japan generates 33,317 GWh/yr of clean energy. The last reactor built there had install costs of...um...around $3k per kW, which means the whole thing would cost maybe $23 billion to replace. Fifteen of them would cost $340 billion, and generate slightly more power than the solar panels. Or for $2.5 trillion you could build 110 of the stupid things, generating, roughly, ten times more power than the solar panels would, and roughly as much power as the US currently consumes. Even with operating and decommissioning costs, that would be pretty huge. (Let's not even start on what you could do with a similar investment in thorium power...) TL;DR: You cannot generate unlimited energy. Spending very large amount on solar would generate a fair amount of energy. Spending similar sums on nuclear would generate a ton of energy.
droithomme 13y ago
For those interested in the numbers: $200,000,000 to install 12,500 PV arrays, at a expected cost of $16,000 per array all inclusive. The 12,500 arrays will power 500,000 households consisting of 2 million people. Therefore 160 people will be using each $16,000 array.
- LAMike 13y ago
  Free electricity for life for only $100 per head? Sounds like a good deal to me
  - aleem 13y ago
    Not free for life. The energy is stored in a battery which needs to be replaced every few years. The batteries aren't cheap either.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      From personal experience, they last well. Until at 10 years old, in pretty much perfect health according to the installer and maintainer, the house sitter runs them completely flat. Then continues to use them each time they charge 1%, flattening them again and again. Then they are no longer any good. That was a $10-20k NZ exercise
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
brianbreslin 13y ago
What this is really doing is showing Peru making a bet on DISTRIBUTED energy generation or decentralized power generation because due to the terrain in many areas running a grid there is prohibitive (not cost, but maintenance and repair, and distances are great). Would love to see them get wireless access as well to get phone/internet in there too if they can at the same time as the solar cells/capacitors.

52 points by dayaz36 13y ago

Shame about the last dumb statement, since it is a interesting project that they seem to not understand. "If Peru can do this for its people, it makes you wonder why more prosperous countries can’t do the same." Which purely takes away from the whole concept of helping remote, poor people who a little electricity can mean a lot. As compared with the different issue of mass producing energy for high use, rich consumers in a efficient and environment friendly way.

Lazare 13y ago
Looks like the link has already been changed to a neutral newspaper article. You're quite right, the initial story was stupid. "Peru deploying modern technology to electrify remote villages who aren't on the grid!" "Why can't more prosperous countries do this?" Answer: They did...a hundred years ago.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- D9u 13y ago
  I live in the USA, in a rural agricultural community, and there is still no electricity on my part of the road. Apparently the funds from the "Rural Electrification Program" were spent elsewhere. We got phone lines in during the 1990's but no power, yet my neighbors right up the road from me have had electricity for years.

umsm 13y ago

Is it true that many nations could afford to provide unlimited renewable energy, but choose not to? http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/24/cost-of-war-spent-on-solar-power-instead/ http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/24/cost-of-war-spent-on-sol...

ZirconCode 13y ago
Not to speak of education, or gasp preventing famine. The military budget of the US alone ($+1trillion [1]) would eradicate world hunger ($44 billion [2]) more than 20 times over and still have money left to build them housing. I know it's not a realistic example but it's purpose is simply to add some perspectives. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S... [2] http://www.deliveringdata.com/2010/11/how-much-money-is-needed-to-eradicate.html http://www.deliveringdata.com/2010/11/how-much-money-is-need... (UN-FAO)
Lazare 13y ago
> Is it true that many nations could afford to provide unlimited renewable energy, but choose not to? No. What your link suggests is that roughly $2.5 trillion would be enough to, maybe, with some optimistic assumptions, shift the amount of renewable electricity in the US from 13% to maybe 25%. Give or take. It couldn't be further from "unlimited renewable energy"; we're talking about installing around 467 MWh/yr of solar panels in a country that consumes ten times that. (And mostly consumes that in different places and at different times than the solar panels would be functioning; a brief skim of the article indicates that they're being wildly optimistic about the actual net impact of the solar panel installation...) The problem is that the US does not have $2.5 trillion lying around to do this with. They didn't have $2.5 trillion for the GWoT either, but the money was scrounged up anyhow. But while there was an interest in aggressively fighting terror, nobody (not voters, not Congress) has any real interest in installing a zillion solar panels. So...it's not really clear if, any any meaningful sense, the US could have "chosen" to do this. And while we're on the subject, we're discussing spending $2.5 trillion to get 466,989 GWh/yr of clean energy. Which is...fine. But it's worth noting that one single nuclear installation in Japan generates 33,317 GWh/yr of clean energy. The last reactor built there had install costs of...um...around $3k per kW, which means the whole thing would cost maybe $23 billion to replace. Fifteen of them would cost $340 billion, and generate slightly more power than the solar panels. Or for $2.5 trillion you could build 110 of the stupid things, generating, roughly, ten times more power than the solar panels would, and roughly as much power as the US currently consumes. Even with operating and decommissioning costs, that would be pretty huge. (Let's not even start on what you could do with a similar investment in thorium power...) TL;DR: You cannot generate unlimited energy. Spending very large amount on solar would generate a fair amount of energy. Spending similar sums on nuclear would generate a ton of energy.

droithomme 13y ago

For those interested in the numbers: $200,000,000 to install 12,500 PV arrays, at a expected cost of $16,000 per array all inclusive. The 12,500 arrays will power 500,000 households consisting of 2 million people. Therefore 160 people will be using each $16,000 array.

LAMike 13y ago
Free electricity for life for only $100 per head? Sounds like a good deal to me
- aleem 13y ago
  Not free for life. The energy is stored in a battery which needs to be replaced every few years. The batteries aren't cheap either.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    From personal experience, they last well. Until at 10 years old, in pretty much perfect health according to the installer and maintainer, the house sitter runs them completely flat. Then continues to use them each time they charge 1%, flattening them again and again. Then they are no longer any good. That was a $10-20k NZ exercise
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

brianbreslin 13y ago

What this is really doing is showing Peru making a bet on DISTRIBUTED energy generation or decentralized power generation because due to the terrain in many areas running a grid there is prohibitive (not cost, but maintenance and repair, and distances are great). Would love to see them get wireless access as well to get phone/internet in there too if they can at the same time as the solar cells/capacitors.