Costa Rica Goes 75 Days Powering Itself Using Only Renewable Energy

An anonymous reader writes with news about an impressive renewable energy accomplishment in Costa Rica. Costa Rica has achieved a clean energy milestone by using 100 per cent renewable energy for a record 75 days in a row. The feat was achieved thanks to heavy rainfall, which powered four hydroelectric plants in the first three months of the year, the state-run Costa Rican Electricity Institute said. No fossil fuels have been burnt to generate electricity since December 2014, in the state which is renowned for its clean energy policies."

Comments

And now why this can not be done in the USofA

[houghi]

I will sit back and see how this is not possible in the USofA.
OTOH Renewable energy is not something new. Look at the Hooverdam. And there is dessert enough available to put a LOT of sun collectors.

The real issue is that this will require investment in research and that means not making a profit in the next 3 years, which is about the duration of how far a CXO looks.

Re:And now why this can not be done in the USofA

[jellomizer]

Hydroelectric for some reason is never talked about for green energy. Because of the Hoover dam image. A large structure that completely changes the local environment. The problem is in america, we are still stuck on the idea of Big Energy large grids covering the nation. We don't think in terms of small energy, having a small community powered by modest green sources. And every community can have different sources to meet their needs. Solar is good. But some of us live in areas where there is a lot of tree cover (and cutting trees isn't really the green option), Other areas have a decent wind, and others are near running water. These smaller sections will in agragate may take up more space, their impact is actually a lot less, as a smaller plot of land can heal a lot faster then say plowing down hundred acres.

Re:And now why this can not be done in the USofA

[Trepidity]

I think in the U.S.'s current situation it's hard to find things that even more moderate people would accept that are still big enough to produce a significant change in energy. A big hydro installation is really big, and typically requires flooding an absolutely massive area. China can pull off something like the Three Gorges project because it's heavily central planned and controls dissent, but I don't think you could get that to fly in the U.S., even if the major environmental groups disappeared tomorrow. Heck even something the size of the Hoover Dam is not that palatable to many people anymore.

Maybe if it were really in the middle of nowhere, like damming up a river in Alaska, than the average person would be fine with it, and you'd have only environmentalists opposing it. But energy transmission is expensive, so damming rivers in Alaska isn't very cost-effective.

Re:And now why this can not be done in the USofA

[AmiMoJo]

Right now their religion supports solar and wind power, and solar and wind power ONLY.

http://www.greenpeace.org/inte...

Note how even Greenpeace, one of the most hard line environmental movements, clearly states that there will need to be a mix of energy sources that includes wind and solar but also many others. For the time being fossil fuel is necessary, as is nuclear, but in the long term purely renewable sources (including hydo, geothermal, tidal and various non-PV types of solar) is possible. By long term they are stating around 2050 if the world makes a massive, concerted effort, which is obviously quite unlikely.

Your argument is a straw man. No major organization is arguing for just solar PV and wind.

Re:And now why this can not be done in the USofA

[MrL0G1C]

How hugely ironic that you choose to spout prejudiced BS about environmentalists only liking solar + wind, and then you go on to ignore geothermal, wave, tidal, bio-waste, energy efficiency, and plenty of other ways to create, store and reduce energy usage in a less destructive manner.

Nuclear is clearly your religion.

Re:And now why this can not be done in the USofA

[Simon Brooke]

Five square metres of solar panel on every single domestic roof in the USA would produce a very significant energy change. 125 million houses * 5Kw is 625 gigawatts. Germany has 23 gigawatts of domestic solar panels, which, on a sunny day, is sufficient to power the whole country. Yes, obviously, it doesn't work twenty-four hours a day, or in bad weather. Yes, obviously, you need to find some way of storing energy, such as compressed air, hydrogen hydrolysis, pumped storage or whatever. None of this is rocket science.

Bottom line: the USA could power its whole economy, including road vehicles, on domestic solar panels alone.

Re:What a stupid piece.

[popo]

Well to be fair, there is a certain irony about calling the energy "renewable" when it couldn't be sustained.

Still, it's an impressive accomplishment that they pulled it off as long as they did. It should be noted though that:

1) It's not replicable everywhere at any time.
2) Costa Rica doesn't have particularly demanding energy needs (as the "stupid" guy above pointed out).

Re:Good / Bad

[OzPeter]

Unfortunately, Costa Rica still allows their police to search all cars at a checkpoint in the middle of the country so any feeling of freedom or closeness with nature is quickly soured.

Gee, that sounds familiar, sort of like what the US currently does with its border checkpoints that are in the interior of the country, and not on the border.

Re:What a stupid piece.

[GoddersUK]

"Renewable" means no finite resource was expended to generate the energy in question

The second law of thermodynamics begs to differ.

/pedantry

Re:What a stupid piece.

[Applehu Akbar]

Notice how the largest renewable source, hydro, counts as green energy when it suits the enviros, but is anathema the rest of the time.

Re:What a stupid piece.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure the people of Costa Rica would much rather be number 1 on the happy planet index than 1 on the development index. Not.

Oh wait a second. Greens and environmentalists don't give a shit about Human well-being do they. They're explicitly against any economic growth.

Re:We should stop using the word renewable

[CrimsonAvenger]

The problem being that nuclear power is also Non-Carbon-Emitting.

And the people who favour solar, wind, and hydro often have a pathological fear of nuclear....

Re:What a stupid piece.

[Jax Omen]

Being good friends with a couple guys from Costa Rica... they're some of the happiest people I know online.

And they're developed *enough*... They have nice computers and phones, they eat well, they make enough money to get by.

Happiness really is everything.