Costa Rica Has Gone 76 Straight Days Using 100% Renewable Electricity (vox.com) 226
Last year, Costa Rica powered itself using only renewable energy for 75 days. It has topped that feat this year. Vox reports: Costa Rica is pulling off a feat most countries just daydream about: For two straight months, the Central American country hasn't burned any fossil fuels to generate electricity. That's right: 100 percent renewable power. This isn't a blip, either. For 300 total days last year and 150 days so far this year, Costa Rica's electricity has come entirely from renewable sources, mostly hydropower and geothermal. Heavy rains have helped four big hydroelectric dams run above their usual capacity, letting the country turn off its diesel generators. Now, there's a huge, huge caveat here: Costa Rica hasn't eschewed all fossil fuels entirely. The country still has more than 1 million cars running on old-fashioned gasoline, which is why imported oil still supplies over half its total energy needs. The country also has cement plants that burn coal.
gasoline == old fashioned?? (Score:2)
I like new technology, but to consider gasoline to be old fashioned is hybris.
Re: (Score:3)
Also to note Electric Cars are a luxury for the Rich of Americans and Europeans. This isn't old fashioned yet, because there isn't a wide scale replacement.
A flip phone is an old fashioned device, because most of the population have moved over to smartphones. However your iPhone 6 isn't an old fashion phone, just because the 7 just got released.
There are still a lot of gasoline cars being created in the market, with many companies without an all electric plan for their cars in any time in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
An electric car is no more expensive than an ICE car in the long term - an ICE car's fuel and maintenance costs are vastly more expensive while an electric car is more expensive up front (and has the long-term occasional concentrated maintenance cost of a new battery pack). I know Gen. Y'ers who own Nissan Leafs and Kia Soul EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
An electric car is no more expensive than an ICE car in the long term - an ICE car's fuel and maintenance costs are vastly more expensive while an electric car is more expensive up front (and has the long-term occasional concentrated maintenance cost of a new battery pack). I know Gen. Y'ers who own Nissan Leafs and Kia Soul EVs.
I have a 20 year old acura integra with an old fashion ICE... Paid $16K in 1996 (perhaps $27K for something similar today). Only ICE related maintenance (other than changing oil about every 7500 miles and 3 air filter over those 20 years) was a battery and most recently spark plugs (when it diped down below 25mpg). At about 100K miles (mostly commute miles on par with a brave range-limited Leaf class EV), say about $12K in gas (@ $3/gallon) and about a $1000 in twenty oil changes (@ $50/each), and say $100
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't assume the battery will cost the same 10 or 20 years from now as it does now...the price will probably halve or better each decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet lithium batteries have a long history of decreasing in price. I'd suspect that's because lithium batteries can be recycled and because the price of batteries has more to do with manufacturing costs than raw material price. Furthermore, lithium-based batteries might not always be the best - look at dual-carbon batteries for example.
Re: (Score:3)
Lithium only makes up around 2% of the battery. It is not a significant contributor to the price.
Re: (Score:3)
Surely you are joking.
The desert in California is full of the stuff in salt lakes and there is a huge salt lake in Bolivia with enough for centuries of current lithium usage in that lake alone. That Bolivian lake is so big and so flat that it is used by satellites to calibrate their altitude measurements.
Access? It has around a dozen rusty locomotives parked on it. If they could get there then getting the salt out isn't so hard.
Mi
Re: (Score:2)
An electric car is no more expensive than an ICE car in the long term - an ICE car's fuel and maintenance costs are vastly more expensive while an electric car is more expensive up front (and has the long-term occasional concentrated maintenance cost of a new battery pack).
I doubt it. The EV may be missing an engine, but it's hardly ever the engine that gives problems. Engines typically outlast most of the other crap that falls off cars. As an EV owner you'll still have the gearbox, the suspension, the brakes, the hydrualics, the electrical system, the aircon, the heater and most of the other mechanicals present in a non-EV car. With a single exception, my repairs for the last 25 years of driving have been electrical or non-engine mechanical problems.
Engines just don't break
Re: (Score:2)
Ohoho how I wish that were true! I've had to get two engines disassembled for major work in the last few months. One was rebuilt recently, but due to some microscopic imperfection in the reassembly process, it wrecked itself (spun a rod bearing) costing me thousands. And in my experience about 1/4 of automotive problems are directly related to the engine, and about 2/3rd related to the ICE or a system only an ICE would have. I've never had an engine fail from "abuse" though. In fact from what I've seen they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:gasoline == old fashioned?? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Don't be so pedantic, "hubris" comes from Ancient Greek, "hybris", therefore it is perfectly acceptable to write it with a y.
Perfectly acceptable and also unused outside of english lit major parties. But I guess if your goal is to pretend you are smarter than the other humans as opposed to being understood, you have succeeded. Really, ask yourself why you'd use a form of a word that essentially no one knows?
Re:gasoline == old fashioned?? (Score:5, Funny)
sunday
Sunday
SUNDAY!!
WITNESS the BATTLE of the PEDANTS!
No holds barred LANGUAGE ACTION
PROFESSIONAL circumlocution MAYHEM!
Tickets available NOW
(first 20 rows must wear ponchos)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
And in every language not English?
Irrelevant. We're typing in English here.
So what you are saying is that hubris only is used by American rednecks, got it.
I see you are lacking a proper grasp of English grammar as well as vocabulary then.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you drive a hubrid car by any chance?
Re: (Score:2)
Perfectly acceptable to whom? The english word is what it is, its ancient origins don't entitle anyone to misspell it.
Language is only as useful as understanding allows it to be. When you deliberately break it and people misunderstand then you have failed.
Re: (Score:2)
And how is hydroelectric renewable? Can they make it rain?
I have been to Costa Rica. It rains everyday.
Re: (Score:3)
And how is hydroelectric renewable? Can they make it rain? I used 100% renewable money last month, I won the lottery!
Hydro is the most important of the renewables by far, but Greens only count it when they brag about the energy output of rainy countries. At other times, hydro is the energy source they loved to hate the most before nuclear came along.
Not Allowed in the US (Score:5, Informative)
Environmentalists won't allow new dams to built in the US and are actively trying to have old ones torn down.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that have more to do with wildlife and habitat protection than whether hydroelectric is renewable?
Well, renewable so long as the water doesn't dry up anyway.
Here's a whole article on it:
Environmental Impacts of Hydroelectric Power [ucsusa.org]
It seems the environmentalist complaints boil down to 3 things:
* impact on wildlife
* impact on the land (in and around the dam as well as downstream)
* carbon emissions which they say "can also be significant"
But aside from that, it's all good.....as long as the water doesn'
Re:gasoline == old fashioned?? (Score:4, Informative)
So they didn't? (Score:3, Insightful)
"The country also has cement plants that burn coal." So assuming they didn't go offline for 150 days, then they didn't actually go 100% on green energy.
Why did they lie? Oh I see, 'marketing speech'.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I used 100% renewable energy, except for the parts where I didn't. It makes perfect sense
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So they didn't? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And some people forget that fly ash is made by burning coal. It would be interesting to see if they simply wasted the heat from the coal though.
Re:So they didn't? (Score:4, Informative)
Cement production doesn't involve power generation so no electricity is used. Worldwide Cement production uses around 20% of the world energy. You have to heat the mixture (a man made combination of several minerals) to about 2,700 degrees F to get Cement. This tremendous amount of heat (every ounce of mineral has to sustain this temp) requires massive expenditures of energy, sometimes electricity but usually something easy like thermal coal. The resulting klinker is then ball milled into a fine powder and sold as Portland Cement Concrete.
merely a simple matter of engineering... (Score:3)
You have to heat the mixture (a man made combination of several minerals) to about 2,700 degrees F to get Cement.
hey wait, don't they have volcanoes in Costa Rica? So that pesky cement production problem is solvable.
Now to just get everybody switched over to electric cars.
And since someone inevitably brought up the energy storage with problem with renewables -- Costa Rica is also pretty close to the equator. Just run mass up the space elevator when the wind is blowing / Sun is shining. Then run mass down the elevator when you need more baseload power. Good grief, I can't believe I have to spell everything out for
Re:merely a simple matter of engineering... (Score:4, Funny)
hey wait, don't they have volcanoes in Costa Rica? So that pesky cement production problem is solvable.
Better yet, why even use cement? Just ladle out some lava into your form, let it cool, and BAM - natural stone buildings!
Unlimited plan (Score:2)
And the crowd goes mild!!! (Score:4, Informative)
"The downside to hydropower is that it requires consistent rainfall. Though the dams in Costa Rica are now full, just months ago the country was suffering one of the worst droughts in its history. This forced Costa Rican utility companies to burn fuel to generate power, releasing greenhouse gases and causing rate rises. Even if Costa Rica were able to sustain 100% clean electricity production, the country still relies on petroleum for transportation, and emissions from this sector are the largest hurdle the country faces in reaching its carbon neutrality goal. The environment ministry reports that fuel burned by cars, buses and trains accounted for almost 70% of the country’s carbon emissions in 2014. According to customs there are only 200 or so hybrid cars in Costa Rica to take advantage of the energy produced by renewables on the grid.
The fact that even a country like Costa Rica, which has made major investments to produce clean energy, still struggles with these obstacles, shows just how difficult it would be for larger, more industrialised nations to follow in its footsteps.
With a population under 5 million and no major industry, Costa Rica uses much less power than most developed countries, and its geography of tightly packed volcanoes, rivers and mountains is more suited to producing clean power than most."
sauce: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/truth-behind-costa-rica-renewable-energy-reservoirs-climate-change
Re:And the crowd goes mild!!! (Score:5, Informative)
The Canary Islands are far ahead of Costa Rica.... They use Solar farms, solar on practically every building, and wind farms...
http://www.npr.org/sections/pa... [npr.org]
Re:And the crowd goes mild!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Solar is great but it is not a base load. Without a massive, MASSIVE, bank of batteries solar has no effective buffering - it generates full power when the sun is out, less when cloudy, and nothing at night and so cannot be depended on as a single source of power. Likewise for wind.
They are best served supplementing renewable base loads such as hydro, so when there is plenty of sunlight/wind the hydro use, and thus depletion of the water level, is reduced.
Of course, there may be better base loads in the w
Re: (Score:3)
If you've got an Aluminium smelter or 24/7 production lines then a lot of base load is ideal, but in a lot of places it does not really matter apart from a little bit needed for lighting and residential use at night.
There are plenty of storage methods out there, even m
Re:Because Lead is a fertilizer.. (Score:4, Informative)
Along with lots and lots of primarily lead acid batteries for storage.
You want to know where a good proportion of that lead ends up when batteries reach end of life?
You want to know what lead does to the environment? The Wildlife? The People?
Ah, but no, its all pure shiny pretty warn nice solar power! Ignore the realities.
Did you ignore the link in thread you were replying to? Here it is again: http://www.npr.org/sections/pa... [npr.org]
"The plant consists of five big industrial windmills and two lakes. On windy days — and there are plenty — the windmills harness the Canary Islands' Atlantic gusts. When production exceeds demand, such as at night, excess energy is used to pump water from a sea-level lake up into a natural volcanic crater half a mile uphill. When the wind dies down, the water is released down through a pipe connecting the two lakes. On its way, it passes through turbines, which generate hydro-power. Everything is connected with sensors so that within five seconds of the wind dying down, the hydro portion of the plant kicks in. For island residents, the lights don't even flicker."
I don't think the lake is made out of lead acid batteries...
Re: (Score:2)
Even if Costa Rica were able to sustain 100% clean electricity production, the country still relies on petroleum for transportation
If only there were a company building electric cars with the goal to eventually make them affordable.
Re: (Score:2)
"The downside to hydropower is that it requires consistent rainfall.
That depends on what is meant by "consistent". Hydro power that harness waterfalls won't stop producing electricity unless the river dries up. For most rivers, that is just not going to happen, even if there's a drought. Especially not rivers that get some of their water from glacier melt-offs.
At worst, you will produce less electricity in dry years than in wet ones, but it doesn't require consistent rainfall - inconsistent works fine.
Re: (Score:2)
For years, decades even, people have been saying that you can't run an economy on renewable* sources of electricity but Costa Rica is showing that it can be done. Some countries in Europe have a high percentage of the electrical generation from renewable sources at times but nothing close to 100% for 76 days.
Sure they are using fossil fuels for transportation and other uses but they are way ahead of other countries. When Canada, the US, Australia, or even some other country like New Zealand powers their e
Re: And the crowd goes mild!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The current model (capitalism) has already solved the problem, therefore.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Renewables are already cheaper than nuclear and on their way to surpassing coal in the next decade. It's just a matter of time and how quickly we want it to happen.
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK, onshore wind is already significantly cheaper than nuclear. The proposed Hinkley Point C plant will be paid about 30% more than onshore wind for every watt it produces, and that's not even counting the other massive subsidies it will attract.
Fortunately it's looking like the government might cancel it, partly because the insane cost necessitated Chinese investment.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of an industry that has such wild changes in capital investments and wild contractions of the same assets.
When oil was $140+ shale and old wells were very profitable and built or started back up en mass.
Now at sub $50, all of that investment is shut down. It's still mostly available later, but the investments are expensive (and companies pay much higher interest rates than the government).
Coal companies are bankrupting as well, and they have always provided the fuel for the cheapest energy (n
Re: (Score:2)
Fossil fuels are profitable only because we've collectively decided that they should be profitable, not due to the invisible hand of the market.
Oh really? We just "decided" they were profitable. Imagine if we just "decided" they weren't profitable tomorrow, what would happen then? I'll tell you. A lot of children would not get to school because they could not ride a bus. A lot of people would die of seemingly minor injuries because we could not drive an ambulance to them and/or the medicines we produce, transport, refrigerate, and sterilize with fossil fuels would disappear. No more airplanes for travel and communication. No more container s
Re: (Score:2)
My rough guess as to why a country like Costa Rica is having better success at this than we in the U.S. are is simply due to a much smaller population, and therefore considerably fewer superinfluential sociopaths trying to cockblock anything that looks like Human progress.
Re: (Score:3)
We know how to build hydro-electric stations. - Think of the fish!
We know how to build geo-thermal stations. - Think of the fish!
We know how to build solar stations. - Think of the birds!
Each form of renewable energy comes with it's own impact to the environment. As long as that's the case and any environmentalist with a microphone can shut down progress, the US will never be able to cut ties with fossil fuels. The one big advantage fossil fuels have
Re: (Score:2)
Geothermal stations don't have an impact on fish or other wildlife, except maybe during any drilling.
Re: (Score:2)
They are supposed to increase the incidence of earthquakes. At least the ones that inject water underground. Google "basel hydraulic rock".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I recall the solar PV panels have a color and/or reflective properties that are not seen in nature. The birds are confused by the panels and run into them in flight, which injures and kills them.
One theory is that they are confusing them with water, and instead of a pleasant "plop" into a puddle they have a hard landing and break their little legs. Another theory is that the dark flat color looks like a hole or cave to them, so instead of flying into shade they fly into a hard surface. Another theory
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, yes, it's the environmentalists keeping renewables down.
In the UK we are looking to build tidal lagoon power stations. Environmental groups support it because while there will be some change and damage, it's way better than the alternatives (coal, fracked gas or nuclear).
The opposition comes from anti-environmentalists, mostly gas and coal shills.
Keep in mind (Score:2, Insightful)
When they trot out these "feel good" stories about renewable energy, that this is a developing nation with an extremely temperate climate. Also remember this is the model for the United States and the rest of the modern first-world/western nations under globalism/leftism: reducing them to third-world status.
Re: (Score:3)
It's hysterical watching people desperately downplaying Costa Rica's accomplishment so their own country doesn't come off looking as much like a dinosaur mired in a tar pit.
Re: (Score:2)
That means they also accomplished their goal with very little money. Since we are proportionally better off here, we should be able to do a similar job but to our standard of living.
Re: (Score:2)
The guy sort of has a point. A lot of people in Costa Rica don't have a connection to the grid, so they have to run their own generators for electricity. That's not counted in the 100% renewable figures.
Re: (Score:2)
Portability doesn't give fossil fuels any advantage in remote areas, it gives them an advantage on vehicles that have to travel long distances before refuelling. Don't forget that fossil fuels require heavy industry to produce, so unless you have crude oil pumps and a refinery on site it needs to be shipped in, from a long distance since it's a remote area. In remote areas on-site energy production is an advantage. The arctic and antarctic regions get a solid 6 months of sun per year and don't seem to have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you think they use oil from other countries? in 2015 they imported as much as they produced. Half of what they product ended up being exported.
So their consumption is 2/3 from imports and only 1/3 of their own oil.
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:5, Informative)
With the exception of a few isolated communities (and the occasional voltage support from Burrard Thermal in Vancouver), British Columbia has run on hydro power for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
mostly hydro, but thermal is also important (11%):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
So part 2: Iceland (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Iceland generates almost all of it's power from geothermal, to the point where most of the world's bauxite smelting is done there, and there's enough power left over for most citizens to pay a flat rate for electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes... all 330,000 people.
Re: (Score:2)
They also have a lot of Hydro.
I guess the lesson is Solar and Wind are not good for energy generation. Costa Rica used next to none.
100% if... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How long can you country survive with 100% renewal electricity? I bet less than a week.
100% renewable electricity is a remarkable step. Electric cars will allow to reduce fossil fuels even further from that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Mine.... probably quite a while.
New Zealand is 80 - 90% renewable. If the aluminium smelter was shut down, that would probably tip the scale, seeing as how it consumes 15% of our electricity production.
Re: (Score:2)
Wake me up when you shut down that plant and ran for more than a week on renewable electricity only.
Also this is from 2012 but it lists New Zealand as only 72% renewable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
According to the MBIE it was 75.1% in 2013 and 79.9% in 2014
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-s... [mbie.govt.nz]
June 2015 quarter and all the quaters after that have been above 81%
Our generation capacity is increasing, with decreases in non-renewable
http://www.mbie.govt.nz/info-s... [mbie.govt.nz]
Re: 100% if... (Score:2)
Not remarkable at all, Costa Rica is mostly ghetto.
Orly? (Score:4, Funny)
You mean they all just don't swing from vine to vine to get around? Who knew?
Re: (Score:2)
They aren't even wired throughout (Score:5, Informative)
In our trip to the country, we stayed in a semi-permanent camp on the Pacific shore, which was not wired. In fact, there was no proper road to it either — the only way to get there was by (small) plane.
The camp had a generator, of course — a noisy affair, which they fired for a few hours each day to power up/recharge the radio and phones. But, hey, there are still places in the world, where even those evil devices — made from poisonous materials by exploited workers toiling in polluting factories — aren't known...
Some times the spurning of civilization is explained simply by absence of civilization...
Industrial Capacity of Costa Rica? (Score:4, Insightful)
Costa Rica doesn't have an army (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That depends on whether you consider filibustering, invading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Personally I consider it an invasion.
Demographics (Score:2)
Costa Rica population has doubled within the last 35 years and is up 500% since 1950. [wikipedia.org]. I'd say this level of population growth will cause long-term problems no matter how the countries energy is produced.
I'd be real happy if the U.S. got the same way (Score:2)
No ridiculous subsidies for renewables
let people build hydro when and where they can
Stop getting in the way of coal
Good for Costa Rica! (Score:2)
Unfortunately, in the US, we're past peak Hydro here due to environmental impacts and the corresponding legislation. Additionally, Costa Rica had to stop hydro generation because of water shortages..
Geothermal has some applications, but they've geographically limited. Costa Rica's got it fairly good. But the US doesn't really have the same distribution of available sites that are useful for utility-grade geothermal.
Now, that's not to say other forms of geothermal might not help out on smaller scales. Bu
daydream? (Score:2, Insightful)
Costa Rica's per capita GDP is 1/3 of that of the US, making it a fairly poor country. And if you want to find other countries that use little fossil fuel energy, just keep going down the list and look at the countries that are even poorer than Costa Rica.
Every country in the world was run on pretty much 100% renewable energy sources until the industrial revolution. That's neither something to brag about or something to aspire to.
Re: (Score:2)
Every country in the world was run on pretty much 100% renewable energy sources until the industrial revolution. That's neither something to brag about or something to aspire to.
Renewable energy sources produce less pollution and are more sustainable than fossil fuels, why wouldn't they be something to aspire to?
A lot of people use generators in Central America (Score:4, Interesting)
When I ruminated about how a candle is probably a worse polluter than a 60W light bulb powered by a coal power plant, the crunchy ex-pat owner got pretty upset with me. I goolged it when we got home and sure enough, candles horrible for air pollution compared to light bulbs.
Paraguay has been doing this for 40 years (Score:5, Informative)
My country (Paraguay) went 100% renewable after 1973, when the Acaray dam went operational and covered 100% of the energy needs of the country. In 1983 the world's largest operational dam (Itaipú) began to serve energy and we own 50% of it (with Brazil). We also own 50% of another large dam (Yacyreta). Now, and save for biomass-burning usines used in the Mennonite colonies at the far north, isolated Chaco area, we still are 100% covered by hydropower. There are plans to convert these biomass plants either to solar power or to lay down wires so they could use power from Itaipu. So, I would say that covering large energy needs with renewable power is totally possible, and we are proof of it since 1973.
Re: (Score:2)
So what you're saying is that it's sort of like a Third World version of the US?
A few problems (Score:2)
From the Guardian last year:
"The downside to hydropower is that it requires consistent rainfall. Though the dams in Costa Rica are now full, just months ago the country was suffering one of the worst droughts in its history. This forced Costa Rican utility companies to burn fuel to generate power, releasing greenhouse gases and causing rate rises."
https://www.theguardian.com/co... [theguardian.com]
Costa Rica Sized Economy? (Score:2)
So if you have a Costa Rica sized economy (and accompanying lifestyles) it is possible to (barely) run it on renewable's.
I'm sure that tells us a lot about what a first world economy can do.
Nice going dudes!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The energy to make them is paid back in 2-4 years, and they last 30 years. That's in Australia, which is roughly the same distance from the Equator as Sri Lanka.
http://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/news/solar-energy-myth-buster-1-they-take-more-energy-to-manufacture-then-they-will-ever-generate-161209/
You're welcome. No charge. I educate idiots every day.
Re:Double standard with renewable classification. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, those people in the states are wrong. Hydro is renewable, like it or not. Renewable doesn't mean no impact on the population and ecosystems. All power sources have an impact.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
In reality, hydro is great for those countries that have the option, but its not a production growth capable technology as it gets harder and harder to get approvals to seques
Re:Double standard with renewable classification. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with hydro is that it's impossible to build more dams in countries with environmental regulations, water rights laws and lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously the best rivers have been used first. What is left is not as interesting. It's still renewable, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously because hydro is old news that everybody should have heard about before they grew up.
Re: (Score:2)
Either your are a nitpicker or don't understand the issue. On a human time frame oil and gas are not renewable. That's why when having a sane discussion, we separate renewable sources (wind/solar/hydro/...) and non-renewable sources (oil, gas, coal, nuclear fission, ...).
Technically, I agree hydro isn't renewable either if you empty a reservoir that took 20 years to fill in one month. But it is clearly renewable if you keep the reservoir at a more or less constant level every year (after a cycle of all seas
Re: (Score:3)
We couldn't care less about your personal tastes. We will end up making you pay for your pollution, like it or not.
And also fuck you.
-the rest of the world
Re: Not Giving Up My Gasoline Car (Score:2)
That's not how this world works. The rest of the world wants the tech and industry products. Takes energy to make those, and even in Costa Rica half the energy used comes from fossil despite misleading headline