
Costa Rica Is Now Running on 100% Renewable Electricity - prostoalex
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3044360/costa-rica-is-now-running-on-100-renewable-electricity
======
pluckytree
When a country accomplishes something really great, it’s not because they are
small and the US is big. It’s because they are smart and we are dumb.

We hear this all the time. Portugal legalized drugs and it worked, but they’re
small. Iceland forged their own path after the banking collapse, but they’re
small. The Nordic countries have great education systems that cost less, but
they’re small.

Always a great excuse when you really don’t want to learn from others.

~~~
trynumber9
> The Nordic countries have great education systems that cost less, but
> they’re small.

While there may be much to learn from Nordic schools, they do have the
advantages (in education) of a smaller scale. Studies show that larger school
sizes are less effective[0][1].

[0]: (PDF)
[http://economics.mit.edu/files/9158](http://economics.mit.edu/files/9158)

[1]: (PDF) [http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Egalite...](http://www.uaedreform.org/wp-
content/uploads/2013/03/Egalite-Kisida-13_Impact-of-School-Size-on-Student-
Achievement_wp.pdf)

~~~
ptaipale
In Nordics, the authorities attempt to create larger schools because they
think they are more effective. (I'm suspicious, though, and your references
are interesting).

I think that the reason for better results in Nordic schools is that they have
not as many students who are unable to understand teaching language. The
population is ethnically rather uniform and there is relatively strong social
cohesion.

~~~
dalke
Sweden has taken in a lot of immigrants. 15.9% of the population are
immigrants, compared to 14.3% in the US. Most of these immigrants don't know
Swedish.

[http://ftp.iza.org/dp8032.pdf](http://ftp.iza.org/dp8032.pdf) has commentary
on school sizes in Denmark. They are much smaller than in the US and UK. It
describes some of the reasons that people think larger schools are better:

> Policymakers often appear to prefer large schools due to scale economies
> associated with administrative costs. In addition large schools are
> generally able to offer a broader curriculum and better career prospects for
> teachers. This may attract more experienced and more qualified teachers. The
> students (and teachers) in larger schools typically come from larger
> geographical areas and may have a more diverse social background. To the
> extent that diversity and being exposed to students and teachers with
> different social and demographic background is a positive production factor
> in the human capital production function, this may be an argument for large
> schools. Further, in large schools it may be easier for students and
> teachers to change classrooms or peer groups if, for example, a match
> between a teacher and the students in a given class is not optimal.

------
SideburnsOfDoom
It is worth noting that "Running on 100% Renewable Electricity" most likely
only addresses grid electricity, not other form of fossil fuel use, such as
cars, truck, boats and trains. 100% Renewable Electricity in the grid is a
great milestone, but it's not 100% of _energy_ use as the title might suggest.

~~~
brrt
Then it is also worth noting that electricity generation is the biggest single
source of carbon emissions globally :-). And that transport is actually a
relatively tiny part of global carbon emissions:
[http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html)

In other words, this is a bigger deal than your post seems to suggest.

~~~
de_Selby
I did a summer internship project with our national electricity supplier here
in Ireland when I was a student - the aim was to asses he environmental impact
of their fleet of vehicles.

The management weren't terribly happy with the presentation I gave at the end
of the summer where using a few simple models I showed that even their
smallest power station was polluting on a scale that was orders of magnitude
greater than the impact of their entire fleet.

We have mostly coal and peat powered plants here. Nuclear is completely off
the table for political reasons, but there is a huge untapped wind energy
resource.

This really is great news for Costa Rica. I think we should also be exploring
Nuclear energy more to bridge the gap in most other countries though.

~~~
brrt
We're getting offtopic, but peat powered plants? In this day and age? What the
hell? I do hope that is not being sold as sustainable or renewable?

But yeah, automobile emissions in general are relatively limited in comparison
to other sources.

~~~
Tarang
Don't be mistaken. In many developing nations there is a thirst for power.
Renewables aren't up to it when it comes to the scale and speed required (even
though the countries involved are on the equator).

I don't advocate for the use of coal in generating power but this is what
seems to be going on.

The largest (MW/GW wise) expansion projects in terms of power generation are
all coal projects as far as I'm aware on the entire African continent.

Typically each unit/turbine generates close to 1 GW. It's hard to find
something with the equivalent cost (including the use of a small amount of
space) with renewable energy.

Even the _best_ geothermal well in Kenya, on the rift valley geothermal
reservoir, only gives out near 5 MW.

The renewable scaling issue is something that needs to be faced. Costa Rica
truly has achieved a milestone much larger than it sounds.

It is possible I'm not saying its not. The three gorges dam hydroelectric
plant is able to produce near 22 GW, also the largest power plant in the world
(including non renewable energy)

~~~
toomuchtodo
> Renewables aren't up to it when it comes to the scale and speed required
> (even though the countries involved are on the equator).

Surely you must be joking. Nuclear plants take years, if not a decade to
build. Coal must be trucked in. Wind and solar deployment speed is limited to
only your logistical supply chain to get the parts to the generation site and
your on-site installation talent.

If the first world wanted to help the third world, they'd give them renewable
generation equipment free or at cost.

[http://www.earth-
policy.org/data_highlights/2015/highlights5...](http://www.earth-
policy.org/data_highlights/2015/highlights50)

"China, the country that is building more nuclear reactors than any other,
continued to get more electricity from the wind than from nuclear power plants
in 2014. This came despite below-average wind speeds for the year. The
electricity generated by China’s wind farms in 2014—16 percent more than the
year before—could power more than 110 million Chinese homes."

"China added a world record 23 gigawatts of new wind power capacity in 2014,
for a cumulative installed capacity of nearly 115 gigawatts (1 gigawatt =
1,000 megawatts). Some 84 percent of this total—or 96 gigawatts—is connected
to the grid, sending carbon-free electricity to consumers."

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
What kind of land do we need to make wind turbines generate more power then a
nuclear plant?

~~~
toomuchtodo
Are we counting off-shore turbines that consume no usable land? And are we
taking into account that we still don't dispose of nuclear waste in an
acceptable way and won't ever agree to recycle it?

~~~
2muchcoffeeman
Good point, but does sea based cost the same and is available to everyone?
What's the average case?

------
vidyesh
This article misses a vital point. Its now been more than 85 straight days
without using fossil fuel for power.[1]

[1][http://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-
with-100-rene...](http://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-
with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days)

~~~
boulos
It also doesn't do as good of a job as this Guardian article:
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/truth-b...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/truth-
behind-costa-rica-renewable-energy-reservoirs-climate-change)

at pointing out that this is a temporary blip caused by record rainfall
following a record drought.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Worth noting that this is a "comment is free" article, which is basically the
Guardian's sanctioned area for trolling their right-on readership.

"Green energy is only possible for tiny countries that suffer from global
warming and even then not really" is a fine bit of trolling and I salute the
author's skill in this game.

~~~
amelius
(I'm still waiting for the W3C spec and full browser support that will allow
me to comment on just any url.)

~~~
lkbm
The W3C has Annotea, but they never got widespread browser support. I know I
actually downloaded Amaya at one point, presumably in hopes of trying Annotea.

------
jussij
> So to prepare for drier weather that's likely to come with climate change.

I don't understand why do so many people equate climate change and global
warming with drought?

If only it was only that simple?

One of the most noticeable, measurable effects of climate change is the
warming of the oceans.

That warming adds energy to the oceans and that energy then causes big changes
to barometric pressure, resulting in wind directional changes.

The warming oceans warm the air above them and that causing the air to rise.
That rising warm air sucks in colder surrounding air. That air movement
changes the prevailing wind patterns.

It is those changes to local wind patterns that cause the changes to local
weather. If suddenly you’re country is seeing more onshore winds, you’ll be
seeing more drought. But if you’re seeing more offshore winds you’ll see more
flooding.

The climate models are so complex it’s impossible to predict how these changes
will pan out at a local level.

But as someone living here in Oz, it's clear that over the last few years the
local wind patterns have changed and those changes have caused changes to
local weather.

Some areas are seeing warming, others are seeing cooling, some areas are in
drought, others are in constant flooding, but in the end it just depends on
how the the prevailing winds have changed.

~~~
lars512
The models may well have changed, but a quick Google for "climate change
impact Costa Rica" brought up a 2008 study, saying:

> Regional climate models predict that the area will become warmer and drier
> as climate change accelerates.

Give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they are talking specifically
about the best current models for Costa Rica, instead of suggesting every
place will have drought.

Although the models are complex and may change, there's no reason not to run
with the best current models, changing your plans only when these long-term
forecasts change.

------
primroot
Forget about the rights of indigenous people, agricultural productivity, water
evaporation, environmental impact, the subsidies, the malls, Jevons paradox,
Plan Puebla Panamá, etc. Let's talk about greenhouse gases.

[http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/hydro_tremb...](http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissues/energy/op/hydro_tremblaypaper.pdf)

------
barking
Always wondered how Costa Rica seems able to do so well in a region that seems
otherwise to be stuck in never-ending poverty, environmental degradation and
conflict.

~~~
melling
They got rid of their military:
[http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/15/opinion/la-oe-
barash...](http://articles.latimes.com/2013/dec/15/opinion/la-oe-barash-costa-
rica-demilitarization-20131208)

~~~
_nedR
Wow. That is truly amazing. What is almost as shocking to me is that I have
never heard of this before. I have heard that Costa rica was a model for its
healthcare sytem but i never heard that it didn't have a military.

This story should be told more often and Costa rica should be a model for the
world in this regard.

~~~
coob
It's a lot easier when your national security is underwritten by the world's
largest military force.

~~~
jasonwocky
That's true insofar as dealing with the Eastern Hemisphere. I don't know of
any doctrine that would compel us to aid them in the event of invasion from
e.g. anywhere else in Latin America.

~~~
bsilvereagle
The borders of Costa Rica are really close to the Panama Canal. If Nicaragua
started to invade Costa Rica, I think America would put a stop to it really
quickly to protect the Canal.

------
riffraff
for the record, Norway has had something like 98% of it's energy from
renewables for a long time.

~~~
zurn
If this is said about Europe's largest oil producer (between Nigeria and
Kuwait in world stats), there's something wrong with energy production
accounting.

~~~
ende
If you're fortunate to have a ton of renewables and petros, the renewables
typically don't travel well so you use those domestically and sell the petros
on the global market.

~~~
zurn
Actually Norway is a big exporter of hydro electricity too.

~~~
digi_owl
And then imports it again when autumn is "unsusually" dry...

------
dirtyaura
It should be noted that this is mostly hydro power. If I recall right, hydro
is up to 90% of the electricity generation in Costa Rica and if there is a
drought in the country, they will burn coal to support their base load power
generation.

Nevertheless, great achievement.

~~~
jn1234
Except hydro isn't really that great of a power source, when the environmental
impacts are taken into account. In the US, the most recent trend has been
toward removals.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dam_removal)

------
samstav
A UT geosciences professor made a fantastic and enlightening documentary on
global energy called Switch that is certainly worth a watch if you're
interested in this topic.

From wikipedia:

"... he asks the central question of the film: what will the energy transition
look like for the rest of us? ...travels the world to find out.

The expertise of the interviewees and the access to restricted energy sites is
unparalleled in other energy films. After his journey, he assembles his
findings to map out the likely energy future. While coal and oil will continue
to play a large role especially in developing countries, a global transition
to where their alternatives become dominant will happen in about 50 years.
Renewables see by far the largest growth rate, while natural gas makes up the
largest portion of the replacement, with nuclear approximately equal in share
to renewables."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch_%282012_film%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switch_%282012_film%29)

[http://www.switchenergyproject.com/](http://www.switchenergyproject.com/)

------
johnchristopher
It popped up in my Facebook stream yesterday and one comment caught my
attention: "Okay, but what about the hectares of forest (with actual
indigenous people, animals and plants) and farm lands they are destroying
every year with dams ?".

~~~
1971genocide
The damage caused by hydro-electrical plants is always blown out of
proportion.

Dams create huge reservoir of water, which flood a lot of land upstream,
causing the river lines to expand.

however people forget to mention that gravity is a zero-sum game. every area
that is being rendered unusable upstream results in creation of new area
downstream. More often than not these areas are near large cities which are
usually located downstream.

Also it opens up new fertile river bed for agriculture.

Now coming back to your question. Sometimes government do not properly
compensate the people that are being displaced or take care of the animals
etc. But that is a fault of the government and not the science behind hydro-
electrical.

~~~
hueving
>however people forget to mention that gravity is a zero-sum game. every area
that is being rendered unusable upstream results in creation of new area
downstream.

That's not right. Once the lake is created, nearly the same amount of water
will be flowing downstream.

~~~
Dwolb
Not necessarily true bc that assumes constant rain. Depending in the
inconsistency of rainfall, the water flow downstream will be lumpier due to
the resevoir requiring a certain level of water.

~~~
ptaipale
The other way round: the reservoir catches excess rainwater and feeds it
downstream through dams and power plants, often aiming to catch water to the
reservoir and keep constant flow, at least not exceeding the generation
capacity (trying to avoid bypass discharge). The reservoir is where the
"lumps" are caught and level of water can change considerably.

The absence of lumps, i.e. floods downstream, is of course not always good for
nature of the water systems, as in many places the river system ecology is
based on having some floods. And specific arrangements need to be made for
fish to pass dams and power plants.

------
christudor
Electricity supply has to exactly match electricity demand at all times, which
is why (in my opinion) 100% renewable energy doesn't make sense. There has to
be /some/ source of electricity that a country can turn to if the wind stops
blowing, the sun goes behind a cloud, or - indeed - demand for electricity
suddenly spikes.

The only way you could do this with renewable energy is if you had a way of
'storing' electricity, which could be used to meet demand if there was a
shortfall in supply -- and this becomes incredibly expensive very quickly.

The most efficient approach to the electricty supply is to have a base-load of
electricity being supplied by something which is 'always on', e.g. fossil
fuels or nuclear energy, and then having renewables top up the rest.

[All this is just my opinion, by the way, but didn't want to litter the whole
post with "in my opinion..."! You get the idea!]

~~~
throwaway344
Some renewables are "baseload" sources of power. Things both proven, like
geothermal and hydro, or more experimental like OTEC. They can work 24/7/365.

~~~
ptaipale
Hydro is sort of wasted as "baseload" source, because it's so readily
adjustable, i.e. it is good as "dispatchable" source.

Nuclear is the typical baseload source, as adjusting output is not that fast.

But of course, if your hydro is really plentiful, then it doesn't matter.

Take the case of Norway and Denmark: Denmark has wind energy, which is very
erratic. Norway has lots of hydro power which is perfectly dispatchable. When
there's wind and not much consumption, Norway can buy wind electricity cheaply
from Denmark (in fact the price may be negative because the excess production
has to be sunk somewhere). The hydro plants are stopped. When there's no wind
and there's a lot of consumption, Norway can sell electricity at a very good
price to Denmark.

So, capacity is not the only thing that matters, dispatchability is important,
and Norway clearly has the upper hand here because its wattage capacity is of
a better kind.

------
dataker
I'm not convinced renewable energy is always a good idea. Many times, people
wanna save the environment at the cost of the poorest.

In Brazil, a lot has been discussed about Belo Monte
Dam([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belo_Monte_Dam#Social_effects](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belo_Monte_Dam#Social_effects))
as it's bringing serious social and economical issues to native residents.

~~~
primroot
> Many times, people wanna save the environment at the cost of the poorest.
> Not quite, they want to keep/increase "their" wealth at the expense of the
> poorest. So old story here.

~~~
mikeash
The costs of environmental problems are disproportionately borne by the
poorest as well.

~~~
primroot
I completely agree. My point is that this is part of a bigger pattern of
"power dynamics." For example the urban middle class engages in a kind of
self-congratulatory mode by observing such rituals as Earth Hour, while at the
same time condemning the intransigence of poor communities who refuse to be
displaced for the sake of the country, the planet, etc. No one dare even
suggest that the economic rewards of cheaper energy be allocated in further
promotion of environmental protection measures, or God forbid, compensation
for the displaced, instead of fueling an imminent manifestation of Jevons
Paradox, which would obliterate the thinly argued benefits of e.g. a
hydropower project. As we say in Spanish "la cadena se rompe por el eslabón
más débil." [1] The case of environmental problems is filled with nasty
expressions of this saying [2]. David Graeber is one who has written about
this pattern beyond this case.

[1] The chain breaks on the weakest link.

[2] Take the case of the WWF [http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/wwf-
helps-industry...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/wwf-helps-
industry-more-than-environment-a-835712.html) . Or this case of a hydropower
project in my country Panama [https://intercontinentalcry.org/un-registered-
barro-blanco-h...](https://intercontinentalcry.org/un-registered-barro-blanco-
hydroelectric-dam-temporarily-suspended-non-compliance-environmental-impact-
assessment/) which our local breed of "pragmatic environmentalists" dared not
to object.

------
webXL
> And the country's economy relies on tourism and agriculture, not energy-
> sucking industries like manufacturing.

As it relates to the topic, it should say "not electricity-sucking
industries". This is an important point however. The U.S. uses 7.3x as much
electricity per capita.[1] It would be extremely difficult and costly to build
the renewable infrastructure to replace what we have now. Sure, if you're in a
warm climate and not used to consuming so much electricity, then renewables
are great, but insisting that all developing economies use renewables, or
imposing that cost on workers who haven't seen much wage growth in a while,
you're asking for trouble. Solve the nuclear waste issue and we can really
improve living conditions all over the world, while helping to prevent CAGW.

1)
[http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?order=...](http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC?order=wbapi_data_value_2011+wbapi_data_value+wbapi_data_value-
last&sort=desc)

------
phkahler
Most of it comes from hydro which is considered environmentally unfriendly.
Its still very interesting even if the "greenness" is somewhat debatable.

