Costa Rica: No Fossil Fuels for 76 Consecutive Days
Here’s another article that reminds us of a funny dichotomy: there are those that don’t think renewable energy can scale to provide most if not all of a country’s needs, and there are those who are making it happen, right in front of our eyes.
This is the story of how the folks in Costa Rica generate the 305 MW of electricity they use. For more than two months now, the country hasn’t burned a molecule of hydrocarbons.
We need to admit that, yes, Costa Rica has a lot of intrinsic advantages that enable this to work smoothly, including a huge hydro resource and relatively low demand (less than 1/300th of the US). Yet by all accounts, this is pretty impressive stuff.
Pictured above: my family and I from our 2008 visit to this eco-tourist haven, standing in front of Arenal, an active volcano. Though it might appear that my hair is graying, what you see here is ash from the volcano. Yeah, right.
I do not believe that wind and solar power can adequately provide for the power requirements of most countries. It does not in Puerto Rico. Instead, in Puerto Rico, it complements hydro power. If a country has considerable hydro but which is insufficient to meet the needs because of lack of sufficient water, then wind and / or solar power can be used when available thereby reducing the water used by the hydro system. Then, when wind and solar are not available, there may be sufficient water to permit the hydro system to provide all the power required. I have pointed that out before. There are countries where that combination can work well. However, that combination will work only in places where their is considerable hydro power available, or perhaps considerable geothermal power available.
I am not aware of even one prosperous country, of any size, for which a combination of wind and solar power alone has ever been demonstrated to provide adequate power. I see it as an exceedingly serious mistake to implement any program on a large scale, whether it is education, social welfare, health, or energy, until it has been demonstrated to work well on a smaller scale. The fact that renewables have provided for 100% of energy requirements for a very limited period of time proves nothing.
Craig that was good
Costa Rica is on the right pathway and with the new Hydro capacity they may stay all Renewable.
Time for some pay as you go solar and they w be home Free – Free of carbon energy .
Craig,
Good grief, this is just getting silly !
Costa Rica is in many ways an admirable little nation, but it’s hardly industrial. It’s primary industries are tourism and agriculture, and it’s 4 million people enjoy a per capita income of about $10,000.
Like many small mountainous nations it has a lot of Hydro-electric capacity, but a small, underdeveloped grid. 98% of Costa Rica’s renewable energy comes from Hydro-or Geo-thermal power. Demand is low in comparison to more highly developed societies.
Power generated by privately owned diesel generators is not counted.
I recently posted the conclusion of a 10 year study by the highly respected UK Independent Office of Audit. The study was very critical of large scale Wind and Solar.
It was no surprise to note this extremely well researched analysis elicited no comment or response. That would appear to indicate advocates such as yourself have as much interest in objective analysis at the loyal supporters of a football team !
There are lots of reports that are critical of large-scale wind and solar (though they constitute a small minority opinion).
If you look hard enough, you can find a report that says essentially anything you want.
Craig,
I see, so you should just ignore any reports, especially independent studies, that don’t agree with what you are advocating?
Wind and Solar advocates have been at the forefront of holding up Portugal and Costa Rica as triumphs of newly developed “renewable energy”. In truth, both are example of Hydro-electric generation built at considerable environmental sacrifice. In Costa Rica’s case Wind and Solar are almost insignificant.
By discounting the fact that 44% of Costa Rican’s are even connected to the grid, and fudging other factors, the Government is able to claim a triumph (and an increase in foreign aid).
This isn’t developing new technology, just helping to build another hugely expensive myth.
Come on, be fair. You know that I don’t ignore reports that conflict with my thinking, although I DO have to confess that I “ignore” reports in the sense that I don’t read everything I could. I’m really employing my entire intellectual integrity to try to figure this out objectively; I think you know that.
Btw, it’s absolutely true that some people in the renewable energy world dishonestly take credit for things that have nothing to do with actual accomplishments, but, sadly, that happens pretty much everywhere.
Craig,
I think I am being more than fair. I’m not doubting your integrity, but your faith and desire for Wind and Solar to succeed seems to detract from your objectivity.
For nearly twenty years I have been a directors and principal financier of an company EV manufacturing/converting/marketing and servicing specialist EV’s.
I have collected a sizable number of historic EV’s (hopefully get around to creating a museum).
Despite my commitment and enthusiasm for EV technology, I must concede that but for considerable taxpayer support, the industry would struggle to exist, certainly to develop.
The problem for EV’s is ESD technology. Hopefully, with more R&D this problem can be overcome.
The problem for Solar and Wind is the problem can’t be overcome. There are so many not just technical problems, but logistical problems as well.
It’s a question of economic rationale. Why bother to invest in inadequate technology, with inherent inefficiencies and some environmental downsides, when a superior, more economic and environmentally beneficial solutions are able to be developed?
Just as steam powered transport once looked so promising, so too did large scale Wind and Solar show potential. The problem is that once the taxpayer/consumer subsidies are removed and a realistic measure is adopted, both technologies display their inherent weaknesses.
Cheering, even cheering really, really loudly, can’t help !
You write: “…when a superior, more economic and environmentally beneficial solutions are able to be developed?” What are you referring to? Nuclear? That would be nice, but it’s happening very slowly.
Of course nuclear is happening very slowly, at least here in the U.S. and in some other places of the world as well. However in some other places, they are trying to expand nuclear as quickly as possible and doing R & D to develop better nuclear technologies.
Saying that nuclear is happening very slowly is actually the fulfillment of a self-fulfilling prophesy. Naturally continual condemnations of nuclear power greatly inhibit its implementation and improvements. Anti-nuclear organizations have done all they can do to inhibit the expansion of nuclear power. In that, they have been very successful to the detriment everyone.
A few decades ago, the U.S. government decided to stop funding nuclear R & D, the justification being that it was unnecessary because we already had a nuclear technology which worked. Yes, it works, and surely is better than global warming, but it has problems which could be avoided with better nuclear technologies. Here are some of the problems.
Our pressurized water thermal reactors will not operate on natural uranium. The natural uranium, which is about 0.7% U235 and 99.3% U238, has to be enriched, by throwing away most of the U238, to get fuel which is 3% to 5% U235. Obviously that is very wasteful. Reactors which will operate on natural uranium have been demonstrated but it will take considerable R & D to ready them for prime time.
Our pressurized water thermal reactors are able to utilize only about 1% of the energy in their enriched fuel after which the fuel is treated as waste. Reactors which will operate on our current “waste” have been demonstrated. Probably we should not be calling it waste.
Our pressurized water reactors operate at a pressure of about 1500 PSI and therefore require a very expensive forged steel pressure vessel and a containment structure for protection in case the reactor vessel or pipes burst. PWRs are safe only as a result of layers of very costly safety precautions. Reactors which will operate at much lower pressures, or even at atmospheric pressure, have been demonstrated.
Most likely, if nuclear reactor R & D government funding had not been halted, we would already be using more economical, more efficient, and safer nuclear technologies.
The funds spend to subsidize wind and solar power would be better spent on nuclear reactor R & D. Failure to do so is greatly increasing the consequences of global warming.
As I have previously pointed out, I once greatly favored renewables and had strong reservations about nuclear. It was after seeing many wind farms with stationary blades that I belatedly began to wonder whether the intermittent nature of renewables (excluding hydro and geothermal) had been adequately considered. After spending countless hours ingesting information from various sources, I decided that although renewables have an important niche rôle to play, which should be acknowledged, most of the world’s energy must come from uranium and / or thorium nuclear reactors.
Nuclear power should be considered to be green.
Craig,
Unfortunately, there is now such a hugely funded and powerful lobby group and a massive industry been created around large scale wind and solar, that the vested interests involved ranging from the industry itself to politicians, advocates, supporters will spend massive sums to retard other technologies, and maintain the myth.
Germany is a good example of how the political ‘greens’ are now fighting far more determinedly than ever, despite the obvious failure of “Energiewende”.
If I could find the time, I’d like to compile a proper analysis of the various technologies. ( Curiously no one has done a comprehensive independent, accurate, comparison).
The reason there is no compendium of technologies is that there are no technologies; they fail to exist. Advanced nuclear has great promise, but it will require a huge amount of time and money if it is to come to fruition.