
Costa Rica has gone 76 days using 100% renewable electricity - denzil_correa
http://www.vox.com/2016/9/8/12847160/costa-rica-renewable-electricity
======
jfaucett
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. 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.

~~~
dec0dedab0de
_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.

~~~
sabertoothed
Especially "_human_ flourishing and happiness".

Why only human? Why not the well-being of all conscious creatures?

~~~
noir_lord
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.

~~~
skizm
Not great, but the best we have at the moment:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test)

~~~
droidist2
I don't understand how my cat reacts to a mirror. He notices me in a mirror,
but how come he doesn't react to seeing himself, either "hey that's me" or
"what's that other cat doing here!?!"

------
JoeAltmaier
" 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.

~~~
DenisM
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.

~~~
wstrange
The same could be said for Hydro Dams. When they fail it is catastrophic.

~~~
pilom
Totally agree. Teton Dam failure in the US killed 11 people:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdOGPBnfoKE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdOGPBnfoKE)

~~~
wstrange
How about 171,000 people

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam)

------
pnw_hazor
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...](http://www.governing.com/topics/transportation-
infrastructure/gov-hydropower-renewable-energy.html)

~~~
jessaustin
Hydropower 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
Unfortunately 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
_Dams_ 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.

------
jbrun
Quebec has gone about 50 years.

~~~
hjnilsson
As 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
Well, 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.

------
eggy
Costa 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
>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
It'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.

~~~
eggy
I think you are discounting their dependence on the US and other countries to
protect them; they didn't decide without these assurances in place. The US
forgave a lot of their debt in 2007 in exchange for protecting their
rainforests. The US is their largest trading partner.

Mess with Costa Rica, and the US Armed Forces 'will most likely' stand against
you.

The US Coast Guard can operate off their shores because of the Drug War and an
agreement with Costa Rica.

It's never simple.

~~~
benologist
The decision to disband their army came in 1948 after a civil war -

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Costa_Rica](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_Costa_Rica)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rican_Civil_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rican_Civil_War)

------
edpichler
Very 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
I prefer changing landscapes over wasting landscapes, Fukushima-style. There
are always tradeoffs, but some are better than the others.

~~~
nkoren
While 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.

~~~
masklinn
> 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
I 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)

~~~
masklinn
Wildlife does thrive in the exclusion zone, but again that's not because
wildlife is somehow immune to radiations[0] it's because radiation-induced
morbidity is lower than humanity-induced morbidity.

[0] they're not, though r-strategist will tend to be pretty resilient

~~~
csydas
Well, no, I agree, and I don't think I suggested that at all.

In fact, though you said it much more intelligently with terminology I was
unaware of, I was more suggesting that nature is more resilient in the face of
nuclear waste/damage than one might expect, and I think that's what the parent
is suggesting as well.

No more, no less. We should still be very cautious because there is
undoubtedly a limit (perhaps even known?) as to how much punishment an
environment can take. But Chernobyl's ecosystem does seem to show that when
you take humans out of the equation, Nature can be pretty darn tough.

~~~
trhway
>I was more suggesting that nature is more resilient in the face of nuclear
waste/damage than one might expect

you're talking about the whole nature instead of the individuals. Place a
bunch of humans near Chernobyl for several generations (30 years for wolves
would be like 200 years for humans) and enforce the rule of quickly killing
off any ill individual - natural thing in nature - and 200 years later you'll
have a thriving human population there, and some alien would naturally
conclude that humans "is more resilient in the face of nuclear waste/damage
than one might expect".

------
m_mueller
If 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_AN8Eg4Ov3z7p...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16K4gNhy_AN8Eg4Ov3z7pF_dgON1oObkHQ8Px5I73Hvc/pubhtml)

~~~
pmyjavec
This is awesome, thank you!

------
ChuckMcM
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.

------
sickbeard
Same story every month. Can't wait for the 100 day update

~~~
taneq
Future 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
> _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
I 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.

------
fuddle
In some places in Costa Rica the electricity can be sporadic, when it goes out
people use petrol powered generators.

------
mbloom1915
As 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

------
jefurii
Feels 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."

~~~
DasIch
It 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.

------
taneq
Objection: Geothermal technically isn't renewable.

~~~
amorphid
Geothermal 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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power#Environmental_impact)

~~~
awqrre
Maybe 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-w...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-07/oklahoma-
wastewater-well-closures-increase-as-quake-upgraded)

------
gjolund
Every fucking day I see this posted. Can we just update when they aren't using
100% renewable energy again.

------
pritianka
Nothing important to say here, except, I just LOVE Costa Rica!

