Costa Rica Goes 75 Days Powering Itself Using Only Renewable Energy 317
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."
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And now why this can not be done in the USofA (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it is clear that alternative sources of energy not only exist, but will be brought to bear once the easy-peasy carbons are depleted or no longer cost-effective.
What everyone needs to come to grips with is that there is no energy source that meets our current demands without some negative environmental impact.
Re:And now why this can not be done in the USofA (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
On this subject, a realtime (with historical replay) display of domestic solar generation in Germany [www.sma.de]. It's pretty impressive.
Re:And now why this can not be done in the USofA (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
There are lots of people who can do that and all you need is decent credit & the ability to sign your name
http://www.zdnet.com/article/9... [zdnet.com]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/la... [forbes.com]
http://www.forbes.com/sites/uc... [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It's more a problem that pretty much any river in the US that is suitable for a large hydro project, already has large hydro projects built in the 1930s through 1960s.
We weren't afraid of mega-dam projects in the past - look at some of the dams on the Columbia as proof, specifically the Grand Coulee Dam which holds back 9 km^3 of water and produces 6800 MW of power - over 3x what Hoover Dam puts out. And it's one of 14 dams on the Columbia.
Re: (Score:2)
It's more a problem that pretty much any river in the US that is suitable for a large hydro project, already has large hydro projects built in the 1930s through 1960s.
I'm glad one person here gets this. Hydro power in the US is a moot point. Pretty much all of the power we can get from our rivers is already being generated. We can't replace fossil fuel use with new hydro power.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, a big dam is a huge local environmental change, but that happens only once, and eventually wildlife and vegetation re-establish themselves in a new pattern. But thereafter, the dam keeps producing electricity for decades or centuries.
Quebec, for example, built the James Bay project (which covers an area the size of the state of New York) in the 1970s, and it continues to provide Quebec and much of New England with some of the cheapest power in the world. FWIW, Quebec has generated 99.8% of its power
Re: (Score:2)
What everyone needs to come to grips with is that there is no energy source without environmental impact.
Fixed that for you
Re: (Score:3)
"What everyone needs to come to grips with is that there is no energy source without environmental impact."
True, but that doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and stop exercising judgement.
Impacts can be weighed, placed on a relative magnitude and severity of risk/impact scale, and acted on accordingly.
On such a scale, the impacts of for example, solar PV and wind technology are fairly obviously much less than that of continued fossil fuel energy systems.
Re: (Score:2)
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. ... 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.
Because small-scale power generation is inherently less efficient that large-scale. There's a reason why electric cars are better for the environment than internal combustion, even if the electricity is generated in a fossil fuel power plant.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I suppose, a bit. But mostly because you need a lot of rainfall and a lot of height difference to make sense. Compared to wind or solar, there's a lot less room for expansion and to power the needs of the future. And putting small waterfalls in tubes is not very visually appealing either, here in Norway the ones we have left we mostly like to keep for tourism and preserving som of the natural environment. Sure you could put Niagara Falls in a dam, but it wouldn't be pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
Bad example: Niagara falls was the first hydro-electric plant, built by Nicola Tesla and George Westinghouse. The US and Canada both have hydroelectric plants there now. The US also has a pumped hydro storage facility.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. FYI the hydro facility's output is throttled based on time of day to make the falls look pretty at peak tourism times.
I've seen claims that from 50-75% of the river's flow is diverted to hydro depending on time of day and season (more diversion is allowed in winter when there are fewer tourists) - There is not as much need for a dam thanks to consistent flow and the fact that there's a pretty hefty height difference, although there are dams downstream for large pumped-storage facilities (which provide
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't ever been there in person when they're diverting most of the water, but there are pictures on the net. It's impressive.
Winter is by far the prettiest time to visit Niagara falls.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure you could put Niagara Falls in a dam, but it wouldn't be pretty.
They went through a lot of effort to get hydro power from Niagara Falls without ruining the tourist attraction factor. Instead of turning it into a dam, a three square mile reservoir was built and water is diverted from the upper river to this reservoir (mostly) at night. During the day, the dam creates energy by draining the reservoir into the lower river. No part of the power generation system is within a mile of the falls itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Hydroelectric for some reason is never talked about for green energy
Hydroelectric is not usually talked about for the same reason that geothermal is not usually talked about, and that you won't find people talking about wave power in the middle of the Sahara, it's a fantastic technology, if and only if you have the geology to use it.
Many dams are used for drinking water where you don't want to run out turbines, those that aren't already have turbines. It's not a very good green technology compared to say wind or solar which can be used practically anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydro is certainly one of the things that works better on a large scale: large dams are much more efficient than small ones. Solar thermal as well. Wind too, though less so. Photovoltaics work fine on small scales.
Re: (Score:2)
However Efficiency is one of these numbers used to explain the lack of common sense. Sometimes the best method isn't the most efficient one. How much extra power and wasted disk space are you actually using in your RAID 5 Systems? It is more efficient to have everyone live and work in one building.
But efficiency is only part of the issue. Having a lot of small power generation, while say wasting twice as much power generation, means no wide scale power outages. Also easy to heal environmental wounds.
Re: (Score:2)
Relying on "common sense" is a far worse source of lack of sensible decisions.
I was in New York during hurricane Sandy. The house I was staying was without power for about ten days. The Starbucks down the street didn't ever lose power. The long distance transmission wasn't the problem, it was distribution within the neighbourhood. Unless everyone had their own electricity generation capability, even neighbourhood level generation wouldn't really alleviate power outages much. Things like pruning trees a
Re: (Score:3)
"Small energy" with a "big energy" grid spanning timezones and increasing amounts of HVDC to sharply reduce transmission losses can give a very nice "big picture". The wind is always blowing somewhere (although some idiot here argued for ages about frequent continent wide calms that never happen), rain/snow is going to end up somewhere on a continent, and that solar in Texas is going to be kicking out the watts before Califo
Re:And now why this can not be done in the USofA (Score:5, Interesting)
and others are near running water.
In Sweden at the moment (where we have about 50% hydro, give or take), we're busy tearing down all the small dams and generation facilities in the south, since what puny amounts of power they generate doesn't outweigh the loss of fish habitat and migration routes.
Truth be told, small scale anything sucks (with the possible exception of solar panels on your roof for AC and possibly charging your electric vehicle.) Wind and hydro electrics in particular work better the bigger they are. And when it comes to hydro electrics it's better to royally screw up a large river or two and get your moneys worth of electricity and to hell with the fishies, than piss about and destroy every little stream with not much to show for it. And no fish whatsoever, anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked in a building right next to a small hydro plant built into a waterfall. A large manufacturing facility nearby also had its own power plant that supplied some of the local houses. During the northeast US blackout of 2003 I rode home after dark and didn't realize the power was out until I got beyond those facilities. Small scale can work.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes of course it can "work", in the sense that it can deliver electricity. No-one is questioning that. However, they destroy a lot more waterway than what they deliver electricity, so since we actually want fish (to eat), on the whole, small scale hydro is a net loss and that's why we're decommissioning them.
As a comparison there are about 2000 hydro electric power stations in Sweden, 10% (200) of those produce 94% of the energy... So there's clearly room for clearing out a lot of small plants without affec
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? You're not making any sense.
"Because of the Hoover dam image" - what the heck do you mean here?
Yes, hydro is not talked about, and yes, the Hoover Dam (along with the various other hydroelectric dams in this country) is a major reason why - Because it has ALREADY BEEN BUILT AND DEPLOYED FOR DECADES AND IT ISN'T MEETING OUR NEEDS.
We simply don't have enough rivers to dam that we haven't ALREADY dammed. The USA's hydro resources are tapped out - and many of them are encountering severe problems due to
Re: (Score:2)
To US Energy Dept. estimated, in 2012, that there is ~12GW worth of power that could be tapped from existing, non-power-producing dams [energy.gov]. That's handily 10% more hydro than what we've got now.
That same report estimates a potential for 65GW of new hydro power installations (85GW if you allow trampling of federal protected lands).
The reason hydro isn't talked about is because of uninformed people like you who think there's no additional capacity.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
To US Energy Dept. estimated, in 2012, that there is ~12GW worth of power that could be tapped from existing, non-power-producing dams [energy.gov]. That's handily 10% more hydro than what we've got now.
10%? Check your math.
One dam on the Columbia [wikipedia.org] puts out 6.8GW by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is in america, we are still stuck on the idea of Big Energy large grids covering the nation.
There is a reaso behind that; 81% [wikipedia.org] of the US polulation lives in urban/suburban environments. Small communities make up a very small proportion of the US population.
The main reason larger installations are used is called economy of scale. As things get bigger they generally get cheaper. Sure one could run a lot of smaller installations but they would be more expensive and less reliable. Why do we have such a big grid? Reliability. As one plant goes down for immanence there is always another to take up the sl
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Perhaps because we no longer live in small town agricultural communities? Unless you're talking about New York being a "small community".
Re: (Score:2)
In the end its not the power generation that is the issue, we can do that, its the storage of that energy for when its not abundant, such as Night time in the winter months. Wind isn't consistent enough to guarantee this, so figure out the storage issu
Re:And now why this can not be done in the USofA (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now their religion supports solar and wind power, and solar and wind power ONLY.
http://www.greenpeace.org/inte... [greenpeace.org]
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Throwing all environmentalists into the same bucket isn't helping you look any more rational than the environmental extremists you seem to hate so much.
It would help you massively if you actually read what these particular groups are complaining about, instead of reading what other people tell you they are complaining about. Seriously. You are hurting progress by spouting this drivel.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind and Solar. All other energy generation is blasphemy to the environmentalist religion.
Not really. Look at some of the offshore wind farm projects in Massachusetts and New York that were shut down by "environmentalists" who just didn't want their million dollar views disturbed. That "religion" is for sale.
And the habitat restoration originally envisioned with the dismantling of the Elwha Dam [wikipedia.org] is getting environmentalists' panties in a bunch as well. The speed at which migratory fish are repopulating the new habitat is undermining the theory that unique species or families of salmon must retur
Re: (Score:3)
Hoover: flooded 100 miles, 0.01% of energy needed (Score:3)
You said "look at Hoover Dam". Okay, I'm looking. I see it's situated in a nice canyon, flooded 100 square miles, and provides less than 1/10,000th of our energy needs. If you go find another 10,000 nice deep canyons, we can flood 1,000,000 miles of land and be okay, until there's a drought.
Since we don't actually have 10,000 canyons, you end up needing to flood basically the entire area between the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachians - I've done the math.
Costa Rica has a population of a few million -
Re: (Score:3)
mountains, canyons, droughts. Combination yes (Score:3)
>. So why do I not see an article where it says that Houston and it Suburbs are 100% green over a 3 month period.
Houston doesn't happen to be located beneath a mountain range, where it would get a nice flow of water coming in during the rainy season. Houston also chooses to have affordable electricity available year round. Steady, affordable energy is directly related to all the jobs which Californians are moving to Houston for.
Houston also doesn't happen to have the volcanic fault line that Costa Rica
Re: (Score:2)
Hate to break it to you but California is not the only geothermal site within the US, there are MANY. Hell if you just include the ring of fire we've got, Cali, Oregon, Washinton and Alaska. Throw in the other sources and you add hawaii, utah, wyoming, idaho, montana and many many others. There are lots of spots where there is enough thermal energy close to the surface to make geothermal energy not only economical but cheap and clean. The magma ball under yellowstone is so large that it alone could probably
Re: (Score:2)
Houston is the mecca for the entire North American ENERGY industry.
FTFY
Houston learned it's lesson after the oil bust of the 80's. The city has diversified to encompass all aspects of energy and technology. Most of the big energy companies have large plays in every possible renewable out there trying to be the first to make that breakthrough that'll bring cost parity to fossils.
As to the OP I suspect Houstonians use significantly more electricity than Costa Ricans as over 90% of the homes have some form of A/C while I suspect that average for Costa Rico to be somewhat
Re: (Score:2)
As to your other assertion. Pffft Most of those other places are run from offices in Houston. Nice find on the Chronicle article. Fun fact, I'm looking out the window at their offices as I type this.
Re: (Score:2)
Heavy enough for tropical jungle and growing sugar cane is pretty heavy dude.
Re: (Score:2)
think Houston and it's suburbs.
Okay, I'm thinking about Houston and it's suburbs. Can we flood it and use it for power generation?
Re: (Score:2)
And yet money is being invested. How do you account for that?
Re:And now why this can not be done in the USofA (Score:4, Informative)
"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."
Ahh... No.
1. There is not enough hydro resources in the US. The US has actually exploited a lot of them already. They US already gets 7% from hydro and has been using it for decades.
2. "And there is dessert enough available to put a LOT of sun collectors." And no effective way to store it for use at night and the evenings. Solar only produces power for around 8 hours a day. Less in the winter. Storage is now and has been a problem forever. Lots of money is being out into battery tech but nothing is shipping yet. Solar production also does not match peak demand. It comes close in summer but still drops to near zero while peak hours are still in effect. Also most desserts in the US are in the south. They have shorter days than areas in the north of the US in summer and much higher temperatures which means lots of AC.
Even Germany which people like to show as Solar working is really not a working system. They are going to massive coal plants for base load.
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
Costa Rica is a small mountainous nation that has huge amounts of rain forests. Frankly it was dumb for them to ever use fossil fuels for electricity except as a back up. In many ways they are like Iceland in that regard. The US has a lot of hydro resources and is using them but it is not enough to power the entire US.
Re: (Score:2)
> And no effective way to store it for use at night and the evenings.
I guess you haven't heard of solar thermal with storage. You concentrate sunlight with curved troughs or steerable mirrors. This is used to heat a storage material such as thermal oil or rocks. In the off-hours you use the heat to boil water, and the steam runs through a tubine-generator set like in conventional fossil plants. There haven't been a lot of thermal storage units built yet *because we don't need them yet*. For example,
Re: (Score:2)
electricity only (Score:5, Interesting)
or did they go all electric cars and boats too and start cooking on electric? they had a good rainfall.
with this reasoning norway has been 100%+ renewables for a loong time(they generate more renewable energy than they use, and export the rest). sure, they do export fossil fuels too..
Re: (Score:2)
the difference is that costa rica is not considered to be a first world country, it's part of the emerging markets. also, all the other examples given (USA, Canada) are still using non-clean energy sources. the story is that this is an *entire country* running on *renewable energy*, 100%. that's a big hairy deal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly, Norway is the reason Denmark is one of the few countries to achieve more than 20-25% grid penetration for wind/solar - Denmark's neighbor to the north has EXCELLENT energy storage facilities due to their geography.
(When the wind is blowing/sun shining, Denmark sells surplus power to Norway. When it isn't, they buy it back. Note that they're usually paying far more than what they sold it for due to supply/demand economics.)
Re: (Score:2)
I know, but it's spinning it differently. quite a lot of fossils getting burnt over there.
furthermore, as I pointed it out, there are places that are full hydro already, it's not really news to manage that feat if your country is in a place that allows for it.
Electric pumps for when it's not raining (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Electric pumps for when it's not raining (Score:5, Informative)
Now, they only need to install electric pumps for when it's not raining, and they're 100% renewable forever!
The jokes on you as the US already does this. The Bath County Pumped Storage Station [wikipedia.org] at a capacity of 3GW is the largest pumped storage station in the world.
Big Deal (Score:5, Informative)
That is about 9500 days Iceland has Powered Itself Using Only Renewable Energy.
Re: (Score:2)
You can easily get in on the deal. You just have to set up with some associates and buy the right public servants. Except that the other guy, with his associates, might meet you in a dark parking lot some night and express his displeasure. Or just have your restaurant firebombed.
Quebec already sells a lot of electricity to the US, New York included. There may be actual reasons to keep a nuke plant unused, but more likely it traces it's way back to corruption somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever thought about not paying them to not produce energy instead? How do I get in on this, I'd like to be paid to not produce electricity too. I think I'd be quite good at it.
Seriously though, let me guess, public sector contract with penalty clauses? that why? the usual story? Can they really not sell the electricity to anyone instead, like you know, that whopping great City to the South; New York. Or do the Americans not trust immigrant electricity or something?
Our ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents have a hard time screening every single electron that comes across the border. Too few of the electrons are willing to pay for the prescreen pass that allows them to pass freely through border stations with only cursory inspections.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because the electrons aren't actually allowed to pass over the border - they end up just getting agitated and wait in line. Like I do at the airport.
(Joke is meant for AC interties only.)
Norway more or less does that too (Score:5, Informative)
A bit over 99% of the electricity generated in Norway is from hydro plants, because it has a ton of hydro resources.
Meh (Score:5, Informative)
Quebec, with 8.2 million people, goes 365 days on hydro all the time.
Re:Meh (Score:4, Informative)
Right, you guys use hydro 365 days of the year. But not exclusively hydro generated electricity. There are several fossil fuel power plants, several dozen off-grid diesel plans, more than few wind farms, and a couple of biomass.
We should stop using the word renewable (Score:4, Interesting)
We should stop using the word renewable for energy like solar wind and hydro. Its not theoretically renewable, but thats not the point. The point is that they don't emit CO2 into the atmosphere, and thats the thing that is going to screw up the climate.
So we should be using the term Non-Carbon-Emitting energy sources. We could even use the acronym NCE but its probably already in use in some other field.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And the people who favour solar, wind, and hydro often have a pathological fear of nuclear....
Re: (Score:2)
Well, to be honest, if you look at energy sources, they're all non-renewable, if you are looking at the extreme long term. At some point, there is the heat death of the universe. Sooner than that, the sun is going to bloat up into a red giant and engulf the Earth, rendering the energy argument moot for our current habitat.
In the sense that it will be a constant source that we'll have for the next billion or two years, energy sources that rely on current solar radiation are renewable. Not infinite, but re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then there is a case to be made for Hydro electricity not being NCE. First the huge amounts of concrete involved that take lots of emissions [wikipedia.org] and the area that used to be covered with foliage that is now under water and no longer sequestering CO2. Then there is the fact that many dams silt up [waterpowermagazine.com] and have reduced capacity or do not work after a number of decades,
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 generation isn't an impossible challenge. Since the concrete production is centralized, it can be sequestered on site, and concrete naturally re-absorbs that carbon over the decades. Even if you don't address the immediate emissions, since concrete production is a mere 1% or so of total CO2 output by the US and the entire lifecycle emissions (including construction, operation and decommissioning) for hydro is a tenth that of natural gas, you're still coming out way ahead [ucsusa.org].
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Burning wood is far better for the environment than burning coal or oil. Planting new trees will pull the carbon out of the air to make the tree grow, and trees replenish many orders of magnitude faster than coal or oil. It also doesn't release nearly the chemical filth that burning oil and coal does.
Wood may not be as energetic as oil or coal, but not exactly "bad."
Oi vey. Applicability? (Score:2)
Costa Rica is roughly 20,000 Square Miles.
That's about half again the size of the NYC metropolitan area.
Rewrite it to read "Tiny country you can walk across in a couple days...."
Second, they're down on/near the equator. Long days. Mostly great weather. Now compare to Chicago, with roughly 30 days of snowfall a year (mostly in a period of 8 months)
Third, they got helped by high (even for them) rains, allowing their hydro resources to run at a higher capacity.
And, as others have noted, funny that eco-nuts
Niagra Falls (Score:2)
At night, a substantial fraction (600,000 US gallons (2,300 m3) per second) of the water in the Niagara River is diverted to the forebay by two 700-foot (210 m) tunnels. Electricity generated in the Moses plant is used to power the pumps to push water into the upper reservoir behind the Lewiston Dam. The water is pumped at night because the demand for electricity is much lower than during the day. In addition to the lower demand for electricity at night, less water can be diverted from the river during the day because of the desire to preserve the appearance of the falls. During the following day, when electrical demand is high, water is released from the upper reservoir through the pump-generators in the Lewiston Dam. The water then flows into the forebay, where it falls through the turbines of the Moses plant. Some would say that the water is "used twice".
Re:Good / Bad (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
In the U.S. the supreme court allows mandatory checkpoints only because they are pre-published where the driver has the ability to be informed and can take a different route.
There is also the fact that the US government defines the "border" as including 100 mile in from the physical border and can pretty well do what it likes in that zone. This "border" conveniently includes where the majority of the population lives. Are You Living in the Government's "Border" Zone? [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget, that 100 mile zone also surrounds international airports.
Re: (Score:2)
I honestly can't see how having my car searched would ever tarnish the surrounding countryside.
Well, unless they start unpacking my luggage and begin hanging my underwear on the trees or something. That might do it. Is this what they're doing?
Re: (Score:2)
I have been living in Costa Rica for over five years now and have never had problems with the cops. The few times I've been pulled over (for legitimate reasons) I was able to bribe my way out of it. To speak of 'intrusions' shows your lack of experience here. I have never felt more free than in this country and I grew up in the United States.
Re:Good / Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Yep, for example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Costa Rica is #1 on the Happy Planet Index.
"Development" isn't everything.
Re:What a stupid piece. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Costa Rica (Score:5, Informative)
I lived in Costa Rica for a couple years, most recently about eight months ago. They have a phrase, "pura vida" which could maybe be translated as "the good life", but it's used as a greeting and farewell phrase as well. It's also used as an answer to, "How are you doing?" On the one hand, it seems remarkable that they would be happier than anyone else; broadly speaking I expect people to have the same general experiences anywhere. On the other hand, I spent a few months in Panama and then returned to CR for a holiday, and when I picked up a pizza that I had ordered, the guy said "Have a nice day," that is, "pura vida". And he meant it sincerely. At that moment, the difference in attitude was shocking; I had been used to Panamanians (although I prefer the sobriquet Panamaniacs :P) basically looking at me as a business opportunity at best.
The average Costa Rican does not have a computer, although cell phones are relatively common. Computers are quite expensive, enough to make an import business profitable, but very few people can afford one. There is a 100% import duty on cars, so those are expensive too. They also do a license plate restriction on driving, at least in San Jose. Most have electricity and relatively clean water, although they do have an issue with dumping raw sewage into almost all of the rivers. I wish I could more effectively describe the impoverished living conditions; if you have any specific questions please feel free to ask.
On the other hand, people sure don't care about working hard there. My friends in San Jose tell me that the weekend starts on Thursday, and everyone including the boss is late on Fridays and Mondays. There were as I recall a couple clubs where you paid a $10 cover and drinks were free. If there was paperwork that needed to be processed by the government, let's just say the Vogons would be proud of the Tico bureaucracy. If you needed to have your car repaired by a certain date, the Ticos will of course be delighted to tell you that it will be ready then, but no amount of inducement or cajoling will actually make it ready by a given date. Things happen when they happen, and no one is in a hurry to get anything done or to go anywhere — they call it operating on "Tico time".
However, all that said, I'm a little skeptical of the article. Most of Costa Rica is really rural, and I would be surprised if the national power grid actually extended to all corners of the country. I don't think that the average Tico really cares about environmentalism; to some degree it's a first world problem. The Costa Rican government on the other hand knows that the country basically has no industries; the farming isn't great and I believe tourism is the biggest part of the economy. Costa Rica doesn't have all that much to tour, either: there are no mayan or aztec ruins, and almost nothing in the way of indigenous culture. I heard something about painted oxcarts being a thing, but never saw one. Contrast with Panama's amazing diablo rojos (the buses or the costumes [staticflickr.com]). So some while back they hit upon the idea to market themselves as a destination for "eco-tourism", which involves convincing the rest of the world that they have some sort of unique level of biodiversity. It may even be true. However, they really need to promote the image of being green and eco-friendly regardless of the truth.
If I could make a decent living there it'd be hard not to go back, even though the world is full of things I have never seen before. Whether or not the Ticos are the happiest people, I think that I can safely say that happiness for me is two-for-one mango daiquiris at the Lazy Mon. Pura Vida!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:What a stupid piece. (Score:5, Informative)
You can still deplete your supply of renewables by using more than the refill rate - at least temporarily.
Re: (Score:3)
Fossil fuels are also a renewable energy source by that logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's true to some extent but not on human time scales. Much of the coal was laid down at a time when microorganisms hadn't yet figured out how to break down cellulose so it wasn't decaying to something that wouldn't become coal. That is no longer true.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty certain that's redundant, as all "renewable" sources have "unpredictable" problems, except tidal.
- Hydro - dry spell, loss of snow pack
- Solar (PV & other) - oops clouds
- Wind - still day
"unpredictable" is the nature of renewable sources, which is why other baseline or backup sources (such as safer nuclear) remain vital as we figure out how to move away from fossils
Re: (Score:2)
It's always sunny somewhere, it's always blowing wind somewhere. And often when it's not sunny it's windy and vice-versa.
The solution to renewable power fluctuation is an interconnected grid at to make it feasible and profitable to time shift power. That's it. Germany is proving very effectively that solar and wind don't need huge backup generation capacity. Renewables can provide all the energy we need and the energy companies hate that idea (it will mean dramatically less profits) so they spend a lot of t
Re: (Score:3)
There's a reason why we have both the words "renewable" and "sustainable" - they do not mean the same thing.
Costa Rica will get more rain, which will "renew" the reservoirs behind the hydro dams. It's not raining 100% of the time, and the hydro dams release more volume of water than the rain provides in the same unit time, so it's not completely sustainable. But it is still a renewable resource.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Renewable" means no finite resource was expended to generate the energy in question
The second law of thermodynamics begs to differ.
/pedantry
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, GP doesn't really get the second law of thermodynamics.
Re:What a stupid piece. (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Ya...I don't think that many people, especially the environmentalists, think "hydro" when someone mentions renewable. Not that it isn't but the term has been hijacked by Wind and Solar mostly with a smattering of tide, wave, etc. technologies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, I'm certain that given the average demand for Slashdotter's emissions, the Earth probably has more than enough supply until the Sun expands into a red giant.