[HN Gopher] 'Energy independent' Uruguay runs on 100% renewables...
___________________________________________________________________
'Energy independent' Uruguay runs on 100% renewables for four
straight months
Author : locallost
Score : 333 points
Date : 2023-11-17 09:52 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (theprogressplaybook.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (theprogressplaybook.com)
| vfclists wrote:
| How much heavy industry is there in Uruguay?
| artyom wrote:
| Close to none. Most of the heavy industry products (e.g. cars)
| are imported from either Brazil or Argentina.
|
| There's a lot of agriculture tho.
| filmor wrote:
| Yet, the per capita energy usage is much higher in Uruguay,
| according to these:
|
| https://www.worlddata.info/america/uruguay/energy-
| consumptio... (3.4 MWh)
| https://www.worlddata.info/america/brazil/energy-
| consumption... (2.5 MWh)
| https://www.worlddata.info/america/argentina/energy-
| consumpt... (2.6 MWh)
| phtrivier wrote:
| Which makes the title "Energy independent" and "100%
| renewables" all the more infuriating. (To the point where i'm
| wondering if it's not bait for people who have a clue about
| the topic.)
|
| If you have lots of mountains and lots of space to put solar
| panels / windmills, you can get a lot of your electricity
| from renewables sources, which is great for a lot of
| applications. (If you can have nuclear power, it's not
| "renewable" per se, but it's very low on carbon, which is
| useful in itself, whith the usual caveats.)
|
| But the "small" issue is that tractors in the fields and
| trucks moving fertilizers and chemicals and produces around
| are, at the moment, mostly relying on oil.
|
| So, at the moment, being "100% energy independent with
| renewables" means you have to make the small compromise of
| "not eat food."
|
| Where is the "Tesla of tractors" ? Which EV company is
| seriously addressing "freight" ?
| mcv wrote:
| Every country has "lots of space to put solar panels".
| Except maybe city states that are all skyscrapers. But for
| now there's no shortage of space where you could put solar
| panels without them being in anyone's way. Put them on
| every roof, over every parking lot (where they help keep
| cars cool in summer), over ever bike path (where they help
| keep cyclists dry in the rain).
| hef19898 wrote:
| That what interconnected grids are there for... No need
| to stop an electricity grid at a border.
| Retric wrote:
| If you want to consider the energy balance of food
| production then every country runs 99% on renewable energy
| as plants collect solar power at a scale that absolutely
| dwarfs everything else. Even a very low estimate of
| 1,549,600 km2 of crops * 1% efficiency from photosynthesis
| * 15% capacity factor is ~2,000,000 TWh / year vs 27,000 TW
| from electricity. Add in forests providing lumber, grass
| feeding cattle, and plankton feeding fish etc and the
| numbers get much larger.
|
| As such total energy balance isn't a particularly useful
| metric. Instead we use subsets of total energy such as the
| electric grid and 100% renewable is perfectly valid in that
| context.
| phtrivier wrote:
| Of course, I agree that "total energy balance isn't a
| particularly useful metric", given the impact of solar
| energy ; but picking the right subset is important.
|
| I would argue that:
|
| * excluding "the energy coming from the sun" is fair
| game, given that we as a society have very little impact
| on it
|
| * excluding "the energy not transferred as electricity"
| is not fair, and misleading, given that it represent a
| minority of the energy for which the society has a
| choice.
|
| If [1] gives roughly the correct numbers, Urugay is using
| ~200TJ/y, and ~40TJ comes from electricity. Not
| insignificant, and it's the right strategy to replace as
| much of the remaining 80% by renewables through
| electricity.
|
| But as long as 20% !== 100%, and as long as people will
| mis-title articles for no good reason, people will have
| to correct headlines.
|
| [1] https://www.iea.org/countries/uruguay
| Retric wrote:
| Where are you getting 200Tj total and 40Tj for
| electricity? The chart lists 2020 as Hydro 14,738 TJ,
| biofuels and waste 93,709 TJ, Oil 87,756, Solar/Wind/etc
| 21,375 TJ, Natural gas 2,504 TJ.
|
| So renewables are (14,738 + 93,709 + 21,375 )/ (14,738 +
| 93,709 + 87,756 + 21,375 + 2,504) = 59% of total energy.
|
| However that rather overstates energy from oil. ICE
| engines are only like 25% efficient but hydro is only
| counting the fraction of potential energy actually
| converted to electricity. And even before that refineries
| waste a lot of energy that's in oil when producing
| gasoline.
|
| PS: Sanity check electricity consumption is listed as
| 11.83 TWh * 60m/h * 60s/m * 1j/s = 42,588 TJ/year
| phtrivier wrote:
| Correct, I messed up my units, and miss-interpreted
| "biofuels and waste". Sorry. Graph is for:
|
| Topic: "Energy supply"
|
| Indiator: "Total Energy supply (TES) by source".
|
| Looking at the stacked chart, for 2020, the sum is above
| 200 000 TJ (not 200 TJ as I wrote mistakenly). It's
| propably about 210 000 TJ.
|
| Then, for electricity, I summed "Wind, Solar, etc..." (21
| 375 TJ) and "Hydro" (14 738 TJ). I assumed that "Biofuels
| and Waste" (93 709 TJ) was used mostly for heating as
| opposed to electricity generation, and neglected it.
|
| It's not entirely the case, though ; in the "Electricity
| Generation by source", you can see that 2 752 GWh where
| produced using "biofuels and waste" out of the 811 + 2752
| + 4094 + 5476 + 462 = 13595 GWh of electriciy (~20%.)
|
| So I guess that we should add ~20% of those 93 709 TJ,
| and say that roughly (again, I'm doing ballpark
| computations here) 60 000TJ out of more than 210 000 TJ.
|
| Still, 28% !== 100%, isn't it ;) ?
|
| ---
|
| PS: Out of curiosity, from
| https://www.iea.org/countries/france, my home country
| would be at around 4% renewables, and 40% "non fossil"
| (given the share of nuclear in electricity), but as
| usual, we're outliers...
| Retric wrote:
| Ok, but again don't forget about efficiency for biofuels.
|
| If their Waste power plants are 30% efficient and produce
| 2.752 TWh that took / 0.3 * 60 * 60 ~= 33,000 Tj of fuel
| + 42,000 Tj of electricity from other sources. So, (33 PJ
| + 42 PJ) / 210 PJ = 36% of total primary energy supply
| used for electricity.
|
| Which again shows why comparing pre conversion efficiency
| numbers to post conversion efficiency numbers gives
| rather silly results.
| hkt wrote:
| > ...nuclear power, it's not "renewable" per se, but it's
| very low on carbon...
|
| Sorry, but no. The whole life carbon emissions (WLCE) of
| nuclear are deeply contested and estimates from academic
| studies tend to be much higher than those of governmental
| bodies like the UK's committee on climate change and the
| IPCC's estimates.
|
| For more information that can dispel this myth, see: https:
| //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03062...
| phtrivier wrote:
| I wrote "very low on carbon" precisely to not write "zero
| carbon", so I'm not so sure we really disagree here.
|
| From the abstract:
|
| > Results for the process-based, input-output, and hybrid
| methods range between 16.55-17.69, 18.82-35.15, and
| 24.61-32.74 gCO2e/kWh,
|
| That's in the ballpark of what you can get from other
| sources [1]. And it's still:
|
| * an order of magnitude lower than coal
|
| * almost an order of magnitude lower than gas
|
| * in the same order of magnitude as the other renewables
| (PV / Wind / hydro.)
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-
| cycle_greenhouse_gas_emis...
| hef19898 wrote:
| Freight transport using electricity? Trains. Followed by
| trucks from Renault, Volvo, Scania...
| repelsteeltje wrote:
| I think there is considerable paper industry (which is
| notoriously energy hungry). Also growing software industry,
| so data centers might weigh in? Cement maybe?
| Someone wrote:
| As usual with this kind of reporting, it's not really running
| 100% on renewables. "In the three months to end-September 2023,
| the South American nation generated all _of its electricity_ from
| renewable sources".
|
| = Good result, but not there yet.
| CalRobert wrote:
| Is that not implied?
| phh wrote:
| It is indeed implied, BUT making it not explicit is IMO a big
| problem. Many people are reading these articles' title as
| "we're almost there with carbon neutral". Even the quotation
| is playing on this ambiguity ""You become independent of all
| these kinds of wars or other geopolitical events," Mendez
| Galain said."
|
| I personally felt for it for quite some time: as a French we
| say our electricity is nuclear, so we're much much better
| than our eco-friendly neighbour Germany wrt carbon. But
| that's completely missing the point. (I'm not saying we're
| actually worse than them, but we all have still much to
| improve)
|
| I fall in the area of people who think journalists' job is
| not just to report fact, but to properly phrase them to
| understand the implications, you might disagree with that.
| cies wrote:
| > Renewables alone have powered the Uruguayan economy for
| nearly four straight months.
|
| Not even the title is misleading, the first sentence of the
| article as well.
|
| "the Uruguayan economy" includes mobility (cars, planes),
| industry, heating of homes.
|
| If this is the way we want to promote renewables, by straight
| up lying, we are merely deceiving ourselves.
| lynx23 wrote:
| Fact is, everyone is subtly (and sometimes not so subtly)
| lying. The right is lying to the left, and the left is lying
| to the right. If I learnt anything from COVID-19, nobody can
| be trusted, no matter where they stand.
| boxed wrote:
| Seems like you chose a weird thing to learn.
| cies wrote:
| This is not subtly. This is blatant, repeated, in the face
| misrepresenting.
| mrangle wrote:
| It's self-deceptive to think that significant renewable use
| can be anything except lies.
|
| The only question is what end of the conversational spectrum
| are the lies offloaded?
|
| Potential for energy supply parity with non-renewables?
| Population life support (the third rail)?. True carbon math
| vs the feel-good type? Or like you note, actual renewable
| energy implementation in contrast with what is purported?
| Expect a shuffle, with a multi-agenda authoritarian streak
| under all.
|
| When "save group x" loses its political appeal generally,
| toward justifying politics, then "save the Earth" is an
| emotionally attractive and infinitely "renewable" excuse for
| acting anti-democratically.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| So untill humans and livestock can eat batteries the energy
| trabsition is not complete?
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| If you eat renewable things, like fruit and veg, I hear it
| can be quite healthy.
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Avoid things grown from synthetic fertilizer though.
| defrost wrote:
| More sensibly, avoid sythetic fertilizers made using
| hydrogen from natural gas, ammonia from hydrogen from
| natural gas, and energy from new renewable resources.
|
| Look to the expansion of actually green hydrogen to power
| and drive the fertilizer trade and look to reducing
| transport costs for Phosporus, Potossium, and the final
| end product while electrifying the mining industry.
| sshine wrote:
| Are cows renewable?
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| I guess they could be. They existed before we started
| extracting fossil fuels.
| coldtea wrote:
| No, it would be enough if factories, cars, heating, public
| infrastructure, etc, was too.
|
| And, and it's a big "and", if those renewables themselves
| weren't just feasible because of subsidies (like how, in non-
| renewables, nuclear is also uncompetitive when considering
| the whole course of life of a factory and not just the bare
| production) or built/maintained/etc through ample use of
| fossil fuels.
| nicoburns wrote:
| > if those renewables themselves weren't just feasible
| because of subsidies
|
| They would also be feasible if fossil fuels were paying for
| their environmental costs.
| coldtea wrote:
| Sure, and I'm all for it.
|
| But probably the "current way of life" and fixation of
| "growth" wouldn't be feasible then - with or without
| renewables on the side.
|
| Which I'm also all for it - for degrowth to be exact.
| coldtea wrote:
| What else you expected them to run on renewable sources?
|
| Run their gas-powered cars and factories from renewable gas?
| boxed wrote:
| I assume the comment meant cars.
| coldtea wrote:
| I took it to assume electricity based on the "renewable"
| part of the title.
|
| That said, the "Energy independent Uruguay" oversells it,
| because if one doesn't understand that renewables can't
| obviously power non-electric cars and other non-compatible
| infrastructure, they might think it means Uruguay is
| totally energy independent and powered on renewables alone.
| JCharante wrote:
| In the US, people often argue against electric cars saying
| that the cars will still get their electricity from coal
| plants. I've always held the view that even if they get their
| electricity from coal plants, there are reduced particulates
| in the air & in case the grid ever migrates to a better power
| supply, then cars are compatible and take advantage. Seems
| like Uruguay would be in a good position to have electric
| vehicles go mainstream since there wouldn't be that arguement
| against them available.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| Well, biogas exists. I mean, someone could try to turn waste
| into biogas at scale. AFAIK Germany is the country that
| produces more biogas and they are far from having it cheap or
| at scale. In fact sometimes they just turn crops into
| energy...
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Because the state couldn't fund a massive energy programme
| alone, it ran a series of clean power auctions, where it offered
| project developers 20-year contracts to sell electricity into the
| national grid at guaranteed rates.
|
| This is a carbon copy of what Germany did prior to the infamous
| "Altmaier-Knick" and "Gabriel-Tief [1], both named after the
| utterly incompetent ministers responsible for cutting back on
| these programs. Prior to that, our solar industry was world
| leading in competence and production capacity, it all shifted to
| China afterwards.
|
| [1] https://www.fraunhofer.de/de/forschung/aktuelles-aus-der-
| for...
| CalRobert wrote:
| Your car industry will be headed there next it seems.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| That's not due to incompetent politicians for once. The
| crisis of the German car industry is entirely of its own
| doing - they completely ignored electric power for years, and
| instead focused on lobbying to get rid of emission limits,
| which obviously left them stranded in a ditch after
| Dieselgate. On top of that, everyone but Volkswagen was/is
| focused on high-margin SUVs and luxury vehicles, which aren't
| really a thing outside of corporate "luxury" for upper level
| management and new-rich in China, and Volkswagen completely
| dropped the ball in software quality.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| It's a disgrace that we're not able to buy cheap and light
| cars in the EU anymore. I just want a ~2010 Fiat Panda :(
| V__ wrote:
| Renaults Zoe also seems great, I see quite a lot of them
| on German streets.
| archi42 wrote:
| The Zoe is EOL and IIRC replaced by the Clio E-Tech.
| Also, Renault is french?
|
| (Not to talk badly about the specific car or the move to
| BEV in general - I applaud that and am at the same time
| disappointed how our [German] manufacturers ignored the
| shift)
| CalRobert wrote:
| The Zoe has pretty horrendous crash ratings, sadly.
| hkt wrote:
| There are cute little things like the Citroen Ami:
| https://www.citroen.co.uk/ami
|
| They're nearly compelling enough for me to learn to
| drive. Nearly..!
| la_oveja wrote:
| just fyi, a citroen ami (2020+) is not a car is a
| quadricycle; it does not need a driving license, is like
| a electric bike.
|
| id not want to use it to stay in traffic tho, crashing
| that does not seem safe
| CalRobert wrote:
| Even in Europe cars are becoming bloated and shoving
| everyone else off the streets. The Economist had a piece
| about the death of small cars in Europe a few months ago.
| https://archive.ph/KxzUK
|
| There's really no escape, it seems.
| cpursley wrote:
| That's only part of it (China is eating and will continue
| Germany's EV's lunch), the other part is energy prices.
| Like it or not, cheap natural gas from a certain country
| was the backbone of a competitive German industrial
| economy. Can't make an Bosch appliance or VW with solar
| power that can compete with Korea's LG or Chinese brands.
| Energy is EVERYTHING.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Thenonly EV lunch Chinese OEMs aren't eating is Hyundais.
| cpursley wrote:
| Hopefully not, really looking to the competition!
| RandomLensman wrote:
| Germany could have cheap own energy, but usually any new
| infrastructure or whatever attracts huge opposition.
| cracrecry wrote:
| As a Spaniard myself that have lived in several cities in
| Germany like Hamburg, I will tell you a secret: There is no sun
| in Germany. My eyes have to adapt to the luminosity change
| every time I go to southern Europe or north of Africa.
|
| I have always believed that putting solar panels in Germany was
| a wrong solution.
|
| I have also lived in Argentina and travelled to Uruguay. Those
| countries have a massive amount of natural resources compared
| with Germany for a population that is much smaller.
| blkhawk wrote:
| yes, but panels can be made cheap enough and there is plenty
| of surfaces you can plaster them on. To just put them on
| roofs was very much the right choice compared to say
| Desertec.
|
| When you look into it then Desertec would have been a huge
| waste of resources. The issue at this point is not generation
| - its storage and to a lesser degree transport.
| audunw wrote:
| Your personal impression doesn't really matter though. What
| matters is the statistics.
|
| Of course there is sun in Germany. Yes, there's less. But
| then it's also cooler which makes the solar panels more
| efficient. What matters is if it's economical to use solar
| panels there, which it is. In summer, where some areas will
| use quite a bit of AC, there's more daylight hours than
| regions further south. In winter, if you have vertically
| mounted panels, a nice effect you can get is that the snow
| reflects extra sunlight from the ground to the solar panel.
|
| Fun fact, even the airport in Longyearbyen in Svalbard,
| Norway - an island close to the north pole - has solar
| panels. They're mounted vertically on the walls, since the
| sun is never very high in the sky. There's no sun at all in
| winter, but in summer there's sun 24/7.
|
| https://sunpower.maxeon.com/int/case-study/energy-arctic-
| cir...
|
| It's surprising how much production they get even that far
| north: "the PV system produces as much as 70 percent of what
| is typically produced in Germany"
|
| So please don't use your subjective impression about how
| bright you feel it is to gauge the viability of solar. I can
| tell you from personal experience, it's not very bright in
| Svalbard even in summer.
|
| BTW, much of the energy need in winter in northern climates
| is for heating. It's surprisingly effective to store thermal
| energy over several months. So it's actually viable to dump
| heat from excess solar in a thermal reservoir in summer, and
| use that heat in winter.
| rolisz wrote:
| > It's surprisingly effective to store thermal energy over
| several months.
|
| Do tell more.
| nimeni wrote:
| For example, this project [1] in Finland will provide 200
| MW of district heating and can store 90 GWh. Cost
| estimate was 109M EUR in 2021 [2].
|
| [1]: https://www.vantaanenergia.fi/en/we/carbon-
| negativity-2030/h... [2]:
| https://tem.fi/paatos?decisionId=0900908f8077a0e8
| rolisz wrote:
| Interesting. We'll see in 2026 when it's finished how
| much it actually costs and how well it actually works :)
| AnonymousPlanet wrote:
| Cool, so you would only need about 120 of those to
| compensate Germany's current wind and solar power in the
| gaps without wind and sun. That's just 1.3 billion Euros.
| That's better than the last time I checked out heat
| storage. Then it was 100MWh for roughly a football
| stadium sized area with subterranean sand.
| AnonymousPlanet wrote:
| > It's surprisingly effective to store thermal energy over
| several months.
|
| And how much would you need? Have you done the maths on
| this? I did. There are plenty of times in e.g. November
| when neither wind nor solar are good for much (production
| drops to like 1-2% of the average). That goes on for weeks.
| Just trying to compensate those losses for two weeks for
| the current amount of wind and solar Germany has, takes >
| 10 TWh of storage. How much thermal storage do you think
| would we need to build to get that?
|
| I made those calculations to get an idea how much storage
| we would need to be able to finally shut down power
| stations running on coal or gas. I was quite shocked about
| the number.
|
| Whenever someone points out the realities of things some
| people are quick to counter with some utopian ideas, but
| usually they don't do the math on it. I encourage you to
| always make a calculation, at least on a napkin, to get an
| idea of the magnitude of what would be required.
|
| Your comment reads like it would be as easy as the flick of
| a wrist because something "is surprisingly effective". It's
| not. It takes the amount of many, many Stuttgart 21s in
| dedication, costs and time.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > There are plenty of times in e.g. November when neither
| wind nor solar are good for much (production drops to
| like 1-2% of the average). That goes on for weeks.
|
| So what. Either overbuild solar and wind to a degree that
| even with reduced generation capacity needs can still be
| met and use the over-generation in summer to produce
| hydrogen, e-fuels for air and maritime or whatever, or
| run the capacity of the storage until it's depleted and
| use gas peakers for the 2-4 weeks in the year where
| nothing else can fill the demand.
| cbmuser wrote:
| Overbuilding doesn't help when there is zero wind or
| solar generation.
|
| Wind is usually tied across the continent and low wind in
| Germany usually conincides with low wind in the rest of
| Europe.
| AnonymousPlanet wrote:
| Please have a thorough look at https://www.smard.de and
| download their data to do some statistics on it. This
| should give you an impression of what, when and how long
| is missing. Hint: It's not just two to three weeks _per
| year_. There are many such gaps. And they 're not just a
| couple of days long.
|
| All your ideas hinge on storage that somehow magically
| comes to existence. I told you the numbers and you then
| argue with science fiction. No one knows how to build a
| reliable hydrogen network of the size that would be
| necessary. The efficiencies for generation are abysmal,
| especially if you try to generate just from water and
| electricity and not from natural gas. I don't believe you
| even remotely grasp the magnitude of the challenges
| ahead.
|
| Again, I would like to encourage the use of real data and
| math. Less science fiction and wishful thinking.
| cbmuser wrote:
| Germany had to return 19 coal-fired power plants with a
| total capacity of 7.3 GW to the electricity market simply
| because neither wind nor solar provide dispatchable power
| and hence can never replace conventional power plants. They
| just help saving fuel.
|
| https://www.smard.de/home/rueckkehr-von-kohlekraftwerken-
| an-...
| olddustytrail wrote:
| No, they brought them in because of the issue of gas
| supplies after Russia invaded Ukraine. Didn't you hear
| about this? It _was_ in the news...
| Marvin_Martian wrote:
| Germany was facing the cutoff from russian gas, which had
| provided more than half of its gas imports, and was also
| in the process of shutting down its last nuclear
| reactors.
|
| To suggest that the return of those coal power plants was
| due to renewables underdelivering, seems to be misleading
| at best.
|
| Personally, that whole fiasco served as a reminder of the
| dangers of fossil fuel imports from undemocratic states.
| pydry wrote:
| You can kind of tell when it's sunny or windy in European
| countries.
|
| If it's windy renewables skeptics will tell you how little
| power is being generated right now by solar panels.
|
| If it's sunny renewables skeptics will tell you how little
| power is generated by wind turbines right now.
|
| This is partly because skeptics are gonna skeptic but also
| it's also because sun and wind anticorrelate way more than
| most people think, reducing storage requirements down to
| quite reasonable levels (such that pumped storage/hydrogen
| can economically satisfy most grids).
|
| citation: https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-
| renewables-g...
| closewith wrote:
| Citation needed for that last claim, as it's patently
| absurd.
| pydry wrote:
| https://reneweconomy.com.au/a-near-100-per-cent-
| renewables-g...
|
| You can remove your downvote now.
| abduhl wrote:
| I have no horse in this race but just wanted to point out
| the absurdity of this methodology:
|
| "The generation data for wind, rooftop and utility solar
| data was rescaled to supply ~60%, 25% and 20% of demand
| respectively over the year. For example, over the last
| year utility solar generation has met 5% of demand. The
| target for utility solar was 20%, so I rescaled the last
| 7 days of utility solar data by 4x (ie, 20% divided by
| 5%)."
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| That's a perfectly sensible methodology, do you have a
| specific problem with it?
|
| "Wind and Solar are fine as long as they're only X% of
| the grid, but you'd need <silly amount> of storage for
| lulls in wind and sun once they get close to 100%" is the
| question it's answering.
| closewith wrote:
| As the other commenter pointed out, that source is more
| absurd than your initial claim, but I didn't down vote
| your comment.
| pydry wrote:
| He threw shade on it but without a good reason as the
| reply to him points out.
|
| Rescaling existing production is _exactly_ how to
| demonstrate whether the peaks and lulls of solar and wind
| would sufficiently line up in a 100% solar /wind/pumped
| storage/hydrogen storage grid. Real data > hypothesized
| data.
|
| What's absurd is the fossil fuel/nuclear lobby's "for
| public consumption" models that assume that the sun and
| wind both go out for 4 weeks at a time every winter and
| that the only way to store energy is with lithium
| batteries from 2012.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| I live in the UK.
|
| It rains here.
|
| however with a 5kw array, and a 13kwh battery, we are self
| sufficient for at least 6 months of the year (as in 0kw from
| grid) and at worst 40% in the midst of winter. Today I have
| generated 10kwhr and its only 14:00.
|
| Germany should have no real issues with solar production. I
| mean its not great, but its not anywhere near as bad as you
| imply.
| Izkata wrote:
| > I live in the UK.
|
| > It rains here.
|
| Funny thought popped into my head: Rain-based water wheel.
| thworp wrote:
| Yes, if your only concerns are the %age of renewables in the
| electricity mix and the health of an industry that could only
| continue to exist with direct subsidies it was incompetent.
|
| Personally, I think the Energiewende is one of the most
| expensive failures ever. It cost about EUR500 billion in direct
| subsidies and indirect damage in the trillions due to lower
| economic growth. Not to mention the waste that was the
| installation of solar panels and wind turbines that were less
| efficient and became uneconomical to even upkeep.
|
| And what was gained by this sacrifice? Today solar is the
| cheapest form of energy generation to build (even with storage
| and even in Sweden) and we got exactly nothing for being first.
|
| Imagine if the Energiewende was a framework of laws and some
| light subsidies that allowed for an actually _decentralized_
| energy market. You sell your 10kW solar installation 's power
| to your local farmer while you're at work and he sells you the
| power from his combo natgas and biogas reactor at night. All
| proceeds from this tax-free with no bureaucratic BS and
| guaranteed access to your local grid. Pretty soon there would
| have been small towns that were net exporters and the system
| would be extremely resilient.
|
| Instead, because of lobbying by the privatized monopoly
| companies but mainly because politicians are allergic to self-
| orgazing and self-regulating systems (they cannot imagine them
| and they resent that they don't need their involvement) we got
| high prices, centralized and fragile generation, communities
| opposed to wind turbines because they did not see any benefits.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Wow, the Energiewende caused lower econic growth... Strong
| claims require strong evidence, especially if the come with
| specific numbers.
| thworp wrote:
| Strong claims? So you want proof that an increase in the
| price of energy, which is an input into absolutely every
| good and service, causes less goods and services to be
| produced? I don't think we have a basis for discussion
| here.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Unless you bring studies from actual economist making the
| same claim I agree, we don't have a basis.
|
| Posted from the freezing, deindustrialzed, immigrant over
| run Germany.
| cbmuser wrote:
| >>This is a carbon copy of what Germany did prior to the
| infamous "Altmaier-Knick" and "Gabriel-Tief [1], both named
| after the utterly incompetent ministers responsible for cutting
| back on these programs.<<
|
| Germany installed more wind and solar capacity per capita than
| any other country in the western world.
|
| Besides that, if an economic program heavily relies on
| subsidies, it's not sustainable in the first place.
| the_why_of_y wrote:
| Would you say fossil fuels are not sustainable, given they
| are subsidized with trillions of dollars every year?
|
| https://www.statista.com/chart/31016/volume-of-global-
| fossil...
| wholien wrote:
| for another POV on Uruguay, here's Doomberg's recent article on
| Uruguay: https://doomberg.substack.com/p/false-utopia
| rs_rs_rs_rs_rs wrote:
| paywalled
| kranke155 wrote:
| I used to read him but soon find it tiring. His perspective is
| always "im right and everyone else is wrong".
| RALaBarge wrote:
| Sounds like he is one of us then!
| gruppe_sechs wrote:
| As opposed to other writers whose perspective is "I'm wrong"?
| subtra3t wrote:
| Some writers acknowledge the possibility that they may be
| wrong and others are right, or that both views can be
| considered to be right.
| culi wrote:
| "I'm right" doesn't have to imply "everyone else is wrong"
| pydry wrote:
| The article asks for money at exactly the point where it was
| going to tell you what the problems were.
|
| I have some suspicions.
| kieranmaine wrote:
| I'm going to comment on the post the doomberg article links to:
|
| https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2023-2-8-we-must-de...
|
| It states:
|
| > Jacobson goes on with endless mumbo jumbo about how his
| fantasy system can deliver electricity at low cost. Excerpt:
|
| > When combined with electricity storage, heat storage, cold
| storage and hydrogen storage; techniques to encourage people to
| shift the time of their electricity use (demand response); a
| well-interconnected electrical transmission system; and nifty
| and efficient electrical appliances, such as heat pumps,
| induction cooktops, electric vehicles and electric furnaces for
| industry, WWS can solve the ginormous problems associated with
| climate change at low cost worldwide.
|
| > Is there any such thing as a demonstration project on any
| scale -- small, medium, or large -- to vindicate these claims
| that such a future system would be "low cost"? Absolutely not.
|
| I can't speak about anything except:
|
| "techniques to encourage people to shift the time of their
| electricity use (demand response)"
|
| This is happening in the UK and is lowering the cost of EV
| charging. The following tariff will control when your EV is
| charged for the price of 7p/kWh (see
| https://www.ovoenergy.com/electric-cars/charge-anytime).
|
| I just got a quote from Octopus energy (UK energy supplier) and
| the day rate is 35.37p/kWh and night rate is 14.84p /kWh.
| locallost wrote:
| I don't who that is, but looking around there is an obvious
| bias that also is not based in reality.
| jurgenaut23 wrote:
| I don't even need to read the article to know that this is BS.
| They ran on renewables for their electricity, which is likely
| less than 50% of their _energy_ consumption. As long as
| journalists don't know the difference, we won't be in a good
| place.
|
| The real challenge isn't quite to produce clean electricity
| (nuclear plants have excellent co2 footprints per kWh over their
| lifecycle if you don't mind the very cumbersome and lethal waste
| they produce). The challenge is to reduce our global footprint,
| _including_ non-energy components such as biodiversity, soil and
| ocean preservation, forest and wilderness conservation, and all
| other planetary limits.
| boxed wrote:
| I mean.. getting politicians to start taking the tech seriously
| and investing in solar/hydro/wind/nuclear is a HUGE challenge.
| It looks pretty grim in fact.
| dhoe wrote:
| I don't have numbers, but huge parts of Montevideo must be
| relying on wood burning for heating. The effect is very
| noticeable in the air quality in winter (I've lived there for
| three years recently).
| woodisgood wrote:
| Is wood not a renewable resource? Closed loop of carbon.
| pxeger1 wrote:
| That's no good if replanting is slower than consumption.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| No, it isn't, but people who run a forestry business
| obviously plant enough trees to make sure they have enough
| timber to keep going.
| Angostura wrote:
| It is - but particulates are a massive health issue.
| JR1427 wrote:
| I totally agree.
|
| In the UK, many (often well off) people in towns and cities
| want to have an open fire or wood stove for fun. It makes
| no sense for this to be legal in densely-populated areas,
| that can afford cleaner alternatives.
| maccard wrote:
| We moved into a house during COVID and it came with a
| stove - it was significantly cheaper to run the stove
| than our gas boiler - PS3 roughly for an evening compared
| to probably PS12-15 to heat with the boiler. Across 3-4
| months of winter that's an enormous saving
| dazzawazza wrote:
| Cheaper for you but if you live anywhere near others the
| cost to the communities health is a lot more. London's
| air is often terrible thanks to wood burning and bloody
| fireworks! Why we allow this I will never know.
| Ntrails wrote:
| I'm gonna stick a "citation needed" here. I have
| discerned no obvious difference in air quality from wood
| burners in the winter so unless London has a lot of folks
| burning wood in the summer I find it unlikely. As for
| Fireworks, their usage is so infrequent that I find the
| idea of "often" slightly confusing _.
|
| Disclosure, my family had open fires and then log burners
| for as long as I've been alive. Not in London where I now
| live. I love a proper fire, it's great, one of the things
| I enjoy about visiting family in the countryside.
|
| _I am, however, ambivalent about the things and wouldn't
| resent them being banned.
| fullstop wrote:
| > As for Fireworks, their usage is so infrequent that I
| find the idea of "often" slightly confusing.
|
| Not in the context of London, but I live near an
| amusement park and they launch fireworks every weekend
| while the park is in season. I don't smell or notice any
| difference in air quality except for after the 4th of
| July when they launch a lot more of them.
| hermitdev wrote:
| You're probably not noticing any odors from your local
| municipal fireworks because they launch them quite a bit
| higher into the air than your typical neighbor is going
| to be sending their firecrackers and bottle rockets,
| making it someone else's problem. The reason industrial
| smoke stacks are as tall as they are is to get the smoke
| away from the immediate vicinity/surface.
| fullstop wrote:
| That absolutely makes sense.
| cvak wrote:
| lol at citation needed, just go out in a village that has
| more then 10 people running wood/coal stoves and try to
| breathe...
|
| _Disclosure I also have open fire pit in a garden, and
| love occasional fire_
| Ntrails wrote:
| I mean, I grew up in environments like that and I and
| there is no noticeable difference as I walk out and back
| again (order miles).
|
| I will say that if folks are having proper bonfires -
| that absolutely makes a difference. Largely because they
| are not burning dry wood.
| maccard wrote:
| I'm the person with a city center wood burner - They're
| terrible for air quality [0].
|
| [0]
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/30/home-
| woo...
| paiute wrote:
| And not all particulates are the same. If i recall, wood
| burning yields rather large particulates which are less
| bad then something like diesel fumes, which are smaller.
| I find some of the comments here strange... complaining
| about lack of insulation and use of wood. While the
| alternative is over insulation with inevitable mold in
| the walls from vapor.
| jmopp wrote:
| That makes me wonder: Can you take a car's catalytic
| converter and fit it onto a fireplace's stovepipe? It
| seems like it should be a simple fix for lowering the
| amount of soot that gets out
| dmurray wrote:
| Not sure why you're downvoted, but yes! Modern wood
| burning stoves can come with catalytic converters [0],
| which can make the stove burn more efficiently as well as
| lowering emissions.
|
| Generally the stoves are designed specially for this. The
| stove burns hotter and may have a second combustion
| chamber. DIYers welding in the catalytic converter from a
| car is not the norm and not expected to be safe, but I
| bet there are some hackers who have made it work.
|
| [0] https://ambassadorfireplaces.com/the-difference-
| between-cata...
| maccard wrote:
| > Cheaper for you but if you live anywhere near others
| the cost to the communities health is a lot more.
|
| I live in the middle of a city centre. My next door
| neighbour burns coal in an open fire too, it's shocking.
|
| I don't disagree with you, but when I'm looking at saving
| PS250/month on top of all my other costs skyrocketing, it
| becomes an attractive thing to use.
| ljf wrote:
| Wow, either your boiler is inefficient, or your house is
| huge! We live in a 4 bed semi, victorian and could do
| with more insulation for sure - and (according to my
| smart meter) it is a very rare day that we spend PS10 on
| gas for heating and hot water plus cooking.
|
| Don't you still need to heat the rest of your house?
| maccard wrote:
| Inefficient boiler, yep. A medium-sized house, I would
| say.
|
| I live in Edinburgh in a tenemant house with 12ft
| ceilings. Combine that with spiking gas prices last
| winter, it's a recipe for disaster.
| ljf wrote:
| Ouch! I can only imagine - then. I grew up in a stone
| built farmhouse with open coal fire in the living room
| and an Aga in the kitchen. Those two rooms were lovely
| and warm, the rest of the house not so much!
| t-3 wrote:
| You can burn wood cleanly and very efficiently, so why
| not just ban inefficient stoves rather than wood burning
| in general? A TLUD isn't going to be any worse for your
| health than a gas-burning stove or furnace.
| ZeroGravitas wrote:
| We should be (and are) banning those as well though,
| because they're bad for your health and bad for the wider
| communities health.
| brtkdotse wrote:
| Our neighbour has a modern, top-of-the-line, highly
| efficient wood boiler. Still makes the area smell like a
| parking garage for a couple of hours each day during
| winter.
| scott_siskind wrote:
| It's not just about the stove. It's also about the state
| of the wood you're burning (humidity mostly). Very dry
| wood burns much more cleanly than less dry wood.
| adrianN wrote:
| Depends on where the word comes from I would say
| esteth wrote:
| If we cultivate trees, then remove them from the earth and
| atomize them into the air, then plant more trees, they're a
| renewable resource but it's still causing climate change.
| suoduandao2 wrote:
| I don't understand. There's no net increase or decrease of
| atmospheric carbon in the scenario you describe
| yakubin wrote:
| CO2 doesn't disappear from the atmosphere the moment you
| plant trees. In fact, burning wood is worse than burning
| coal here, because, for the same amount of energy
| provided, burning wood is going to emit more CO2 than
| burning coal.
| ponector wrote:
| Is it? Energy output is directly related to carbon
| content. More energy density from coal mean more co2.
|
| But coal is much much worse due to toxic pm2.5
| yakubin wrote:
| _> Energy output is directly related to carbon content.
| More energy density from coal mean more co2._
|
| No. It means you need to burn a larger volume of wood to
| get the same amount of energy. And when you increase the
| volume, you increase the emissions. The first sentence of
| this quote may be true, if we are talking about absolute
| amounts, but then in the second sentence density is a
| ratio (energy to volume), which is why it's not true.
|
| I don't know all that much about relative PM2.5
| emissions, but a brief search shows a paper, which argues
| that PM2.5 emissions depend more on combustion conditions
| than fuel type[1].
|
| [1]: <https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31340411/>
| ponector wrote:
| A ton of coal will create much more co2 than ton of wood,
| isn't it?
|
| For the same amount of energy the result should be
| similar amount of co2.
|
| Coal is worse for people because burning it creates many
| unhealthy chemical components. Sulfur, heavy metals, etc
| yakubin wrote:
| _> A ton of coal will create much more co2 than ton of
| wood, isn 't it?_
|
| Yes. But that hardly matters.
|
| _> For the same amount of energy the result should be
| similar amount of co2._
|
| No. Apparently, wood is estimated to emit 30% more CO2
| than coal for the same amount of energy[1].
|
| _> Coal is worse for people because burning it creates
| many unhealthy chemical components. Sulfur, heavy metals,
| etc_
|
| Is it more than when you burn wood though? I'm not
| knowleadgable enough to answer this question. I found one
| link about it[2], but currently I don't have time to read
| it. In any case, the fact that it produces more CO2 than
| coal is a good argument against wood in my eyes. My
| argument is against wood, not in favour of coal. Coal is
| just a benchmark to measure against.
|
| [1]:
| <https://ecosystems.psu.edu/research/centers/private-
| forests/...>
|
| [2]: <https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/18644>
| CorrectHorseBat wrote:
| And wood is even worse in that regard
| ponector wrote:
| That is not true. Check out chemical components of coal
| ash.
|
| I live in the region where people use coal for private
| heating. It is much worse than wood.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| Not from a carbon perspective. Forestry isn't cutting
| down ancient forests and then randomly thinking it would
| be nice to plant some new ones. Trees are a crop. They
| are planted, left to grow, and then harvested, in a
| cycle.
| yakubin wrote:
| It's going to take time for a new tree to consume the CO2
| produced by burning a tree. If instead you leave a tree
| standing and burn coal, you will produce less CO2, so
| it's going to take less time to consume it (and the older
| tree is going to do it faster than a young one).
|
| Moreover, it's not only a question of net emissions. It's
| also a question of location. People burn wood and coal in
| their homes and that affects the air most near them the
| most. It is the worst near cities, where you can't plant
| a new forest. Instead just think about how the local air
| is going to be affected if people burn there 1MWh of wood
| vs coal. Because trees are not going to help here, if
| they're planted far away.
|
| And, when trees die naturally, they don't emit CO2 at the
| speed that they do when they're burnt. It happens much
| slower, so it's not that much of a problem.
|
| Mind you I'm not advocating for burning coal. I'm
| advocating against burning wood.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| > I'm advocating against burning wood.
|
| Ok, there are many rural properties in the world
| populated with trees. These trees naturally fall and
| contribute brush. Firefighters and forest management will
| tell you to clean up the brush by burning, otherwise it
| will decompose (still co2) and eventually lead to a
| natural wildfire (same effect). Better to burn it for
| heat than outside for nothing. What would you do instead?
| yakubin wrote:
| In this instance I'll say burn it if you want. Although
| it leading to a natural wildfire is highly dependent on
| local climate. Where I live, for most of the year it's
| too cold and humid for anything like this to happen,
| except during maybe 2 months a year. But I appreciate
| that in places like California or Australia it may be
| different.
| tyre wrote:
| The effects of climate change are not instantly
| reversible. Imagine shifting weather patterns dry up a
| wetlands. Removing carbon from the atmosphere does not
| recreate that biome
| manc_lad wrote:
| Using the same logic, you could say coal is renewable
| depending on your time horizon, no?
| suoduandao2 wrote:
| No, fungi evolved that can digest lignin now ;).
|
| On a less facetious note, Solar needs time to renew the
| energy it made the day before as well. Time scale is very
| important to questions of renewables, and people have been
| sustainably burning wood for a long time. Unsustainably
| too, but I would bet that's not the case here if it's being
| included in a census of sustainable sources.
| skrause wrote:
| Technically coal is also a closed loop of carbon because the
| CO2 once came from the atmosphere.
|
| Which brings us to the problem: The CO2 shouldn't be in the
| atmosphere _right now_ : If you burn wood today and the CO2
| gets removed again by new plants within the next 100 years,
| that's still a problem.
| ajuc wrote:
| Coal is not a renewable resource because bacteria and fungi
| evolved to decompose wood before it turns into coal. That's
| why almost all coal comes from (nomen omen) Carboniferous
| Period.
| skrause wrote:
| That's kind of missing my point. I obviously know that
| coal is not renewable.
|
| The point was: When you burn wood today the atmosphere
| isn't going to be like "oh, but _that_ CO2 was absorbed
| out of the atmosphere during the last 100 years, so that
| CO2 shouldn 't contribute to global warming".
|
| As long as we haven't solved climate change _any_ CO2
| released into the atmosphere should be avoided. It 's
| okay to burn wood that would have rotted anyway.
|
| But if you cut down a healthy forest, burn it and say
| "but it will be reabsorbed when the forst grows back,
| it's a closed loop" that's technically correct, but it
| still contributes to global warming because we now have
| additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Simply because it takes
| time for a forest to grow.
|
| The closed loop argument is only really valid long term
| and when we've already solved climate change.
| Emma_Goldman wrote:
| A fun theory, but it's wrong. The likely explanation is
| tectonic:
|
| https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/how-
| ancient-fo...
| jiehong wrote:
| Isn't coal the result of a massive accumulation of plant
| matter that couldn't be digested by any organism?
|
| But then, once the current mushrooms and bacteria manage to
| digest it, there is no way for it to accumulate again like
| that.
|
| Petrol might be a different story, coming from the plankton
| falling at the bottom of the sea instead.
| fjni wrote:
| I don't understand why you're being downvoted.
|
| Your point is absolutely correct and as far as I can tell
| you pointed it out genuinely, not facetiously. Edit: read
| other later posts here: didn't know about the bacteria
| part. Learned something today!
|
| This is absolutely not my area of expertise but intuitively
| there are two categories of energy sources: one which
| releases co2 (or other climate change impacting gases) and
| one which doesn't. Wood, oil, gas, coal falls into the
| former. It's just a question of time as you say until the
| loop closes. Solar, wind, thermal, etc would fall into the
| latter as far as I can tell.
| nroets wrote:
| He gets downvoted because the real question is if burning
| wood causes climate change. Instead, he prefers to debate
| the exact meaning of closed loop.
|
| Wood burning does not cause climate change provided it's
| matched by reforestation efforts.
|
| As others point out, the real problem with wood burning
| is it's effects on air quality.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Most wood burning happens in more rural areas where
| people are harvesting the renewing resource on their own
| land, like fallen trees in winter. Many times, areas need
| to do controlled burns to prevent uncontrolled wild
| fires, and it's better to manage that burning for a
| purpose, useful heat, that lessens the heat needed from
| other energy sources that aren't renewable.
| cardiffspaceman wrote:
| In California's mountains (Sierra Nevada range and
| similar) people who want to burn wood legally have to use
| pellets. The stoves that burn them are meant to comply
| with pollution regulations. People kinda don't like them
| but they use them.
|
| Montevideo didn't seem like a place where suburbanites
| were burning wood of any form, but I was there in the
| summer, just for a day.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Got any sources? I know many people, including a
| firefighter and sherrif, that burn wood on the many burn
| days, and use it as wood stoves.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Got any sources? I know many people, including a
| firefighter and sheriff, that burn wood on the many burn
| days, and use it as wood stoves.
| pragmar wrote:
| The CO2 is going back into the atmosphere regardless, if
| the wood is not burned, it will decompose.
| kelnos wrote:
| Sure, but the CO2 from burning wood goes into the
| atmosphere _right now_. The CO2 from decomposing wood
| goes into the atmosphere over time, sometimes even over
| the span of years, depending on environmental conditions.
|
| And, regardless, it's not like we only burn wood that's
| starting to decompose. Quite the contrary.
| yCombLinks wrote:
| Coal is possibly a closed loop on a geologic scale, while
| trees are a closed loop on a human lifetime scale. If a cut
| 100 acres, and burn it, replant it, I'm net neutral. If I
| burn the same amount of coal, I don't have the 100 acres to
| plant. Coal adds net carbon to our system on the timeline
| we care about.
| naasking wrote:
| > Technically coal is also a closed loop of carbon because
| the CO2 once came from the atmosphere.
|
| As you say, the loop has to close on a timeline shorter
| than the greenhouse gas effect's impact on climate. That
| can be true of wood but not coal.
| cultureswitch wrote:
| It's a renewable resource but burning wood for energy causes
| much worse environmental issues than climate change.
| notachatbot123 wrote:
| Theoretically maybe (ignoring all the other effects of
| burning wood and the time spans one has to consider), but
| globally we have a massive deforestation and loss of trees so
| it is sadly not a reasonable option.
| t-3 wrote:
| How do you expect to prevent deforestation if there is no
| economic value to keeping the forests? People, in general,
| don't object to deforestation because it's 'productive' -
| it's building things, making jobs, making money. If
| deforestation was destroying a valuable resource that
| provides heat and energy for your community, you would
| absolutely not allow it, and definitely not support it.
| hardlianotion wrote:
| In the long run, perhaps. Depending on the rate of tree
| replacement of those used as fuel.
| infecto wrote:
| yeahhhhh....it is but I think when framing energy
| independence and renewables its a good call out to note if
| homes are heating with electricity or burning fuels.
| pohl wrote:
| There's probably not a simple yes/no answer, but rather a
| function of the rates of both planting and harvesting trees,
| unless one is pedantic about the distinction between able-to-
| be renewed and actually renewed, which is useless in the
| context of our climate issues.
| Mrdarknezz wrote:
| Yes but it's not sustainable, kinda defeats the purpose
| gen220 wrote:
| It is, and can be done sustainably. But only in conjunction
| with (1) good harvesting / forestry practices (2) good wood
| "processing" [i.e. drying] practices (3) good insulation in
| the homes that use wood for heat (4) good wood-burning stoves
| and filters.
|
| The Nordics, perhaps unsurprisingly, are the lead innovators
| in this space.
| forinti wrote:
| Montevideo in the 80s and 90s had really old Leyland diesel
| buses that polluted like hell. The buildings on 18 de Julio
| were black with soot.
|
| It is much much better now.
| z_killemall wrote:
| Actually using fireplaces for heating has became more of a
| luxury than a need in Montevideo during the late years, as
| firewood costs have skyrocketed as well as air conditioning has
| quickly became by far the cheapest way of heating.
| dhoe wrote:
| Wood is the main source with a margin:
| https://www.ambito.com/uruguay/con-el-precio-la-lena-
| aumento...
| kelnos wrote:
| I assume you mean heat pumps? "Air conditioning" usually
| refers to cooling, not heating (even though the words don't
| actually need to mean that).
| leonheld wrote:
| Hey, I have a question for you (I'm assuming you know
| Europe/US): are the houses in Uruguay built to the same
| insulation standards as houses in northern/central Europe, for
| example?
|
| I live in southern Brazil and I have yet to realize why we
| don't give a shit about proper insulation/modern heating
| techniques. Burning wood for heat in badly insulated homes
| drives me in-sa-ne during the winter months, terrible for my
| asthma.
| FredPret wrote:
| Insulation is expensive and it's hard to be the first
| homeowner to install it - because when you sell your house,
| the next buyer has to pay a premium for your insulated house,
| which means they have to be convinced of the merits of
| insulation and be able to pay for it.
|
| Countries that have both the money and the investment-
| friendly culture to insulate their houses tend to be the rich
| ones.
| kelnos wrote:
| Isn't it worthwhile enough to the current owner, in the
| form of a lower utility bill during the winter?
| FredPret wrote:
| It depends on the pay-off period. This is determined by
| heating costs, the insulation costs, and the interest
| rate. It could take many years to pay for some kinds of
| insulation.
| Trufa wrote:
| I'm Uruguayan and have lived in Europe (Austria) for many
| years, no, the isolation standards are not even close but you
| don't quite need them as much.
|
| Wood burning is becoming a rare thing here tho.
| ggambetta wrote:
| The coldest winters of my life were growing up in Uruguay,
| where it rarely gets to 0 degrees in winter. And I say this
| having lived in London and currently living in Switzerland.
| That says a lot about the quality of insulation in Uruguay :(
| dep_b wrote:
| If it's anywhere the same as in Argentina, it's horrible.
| Single pane glass, walls made out of a single file of large,
| hollow bricks, maybe some insulation on the roof but not that
| much.
| ptero wrote:
| This is a bit misleading. While the achievement is impressive, it
| talks about electric utility generation. Uruguay, with heavily
| agrarian economy, uses a lot of field machinery, which is not
| covered by this.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Love it how people are rediscovering primary and secondary
| energy, and the difference between those two...
| lm28469 wrote:
| Alternative title:
|
| Small country with lot of sun, low population, no industry and a
| kwh/capita 4 times lower than the US can run on renewable during
| summer.
| regularjack wrote:
| Still quite an achievment in my book.
| jurgenaut23 wrote:
| Well, it shows also how crazy difficult that is.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| So far in this thread nobody wants to believe the
| headline/article, and these are the leading reasons:
|
| 1. Citizens must be relying on wood instead and that's bad for
| the air
|
| 2. This doesn't cover ALL possible energy use, including
| petroleum powered vehicles (despite the fact that this wasn't in
| question)
|
| 3. Germany tried this and failed
|
| Lets look at the claims from the article:
|
| "In the three months to end-September 2023, the South American
| nation generated all of its electricity from renewable sources"
|
| Note that it says "electricity" not "power"
|
| Wood Burning and Petroleum Burning, for home heating and
| agriculture respectively are unrelated to "electricity
| generation" in this context so this article and the do not cover
| all possible forms of heat exchange and power generation
|
| It is unambiguously good that Uruguay has shown it can replace
| the use of fossil fuel in it's core energy infrastructure with
| non-imported, low carbon energy production.
|
| This is an unambiguously good news story, there's no reason to
| try and prove this wrong and doing so only makes you come off as
| an acerbic pedant, who doesn't want progress unless its perfect
| and all at once.
| adolph wrote:
| Agreed. What Uruguay is doing is interesting and worthy of
| further study. The linked podcast with transcript linked below
| goes into more detail about how long it took to build up the
| program, private/public partnerships, how expected consumer
| savings are partly negated by expanded usage. There are a lot
| of moving pieces.
|
| _In 2008 Ramon Mendez Galain, a particle physicist with no
| experience in government, was appointed Director of Energy for
| Uruguay and proceeded to reimagine the country's electricity
| grid. In less than a decade, Mendez's energy transition plan
| succeeded in freeing the country's power sector from its
| growing reliance on imported oil, and achieved energy
| independence through a diverse electricity mix, approaching
| 100% renewables._
|
| https://kleinmanenergy.upenn.edu/podcast/how-uruguay-went-al...
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| He also did a TED talk.
|
| https://www.ted.com/talks/ramon_mendez_galain_this_country_r.
| .. ("TED: This country runs on 98 percent renewable
| electricity")
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/UY?wind=false&solar=fal...
| (ElectricityMaps: Uruguay)
|
| Tangentially, Paraguay runs entirely on hydropower from the
| Itaipu dam, which also provides a substantial amount of power
| to Brazil.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Paraguay
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itaipu_Dam
|
| (if you know someone at the org who runs the Itaipu dam
| [https://www.itaipu.gov.br/], please have them reach out to
| ElectricityMaps to get that generation data on the map with a
| data source that can be parsed; last time I checked, they just
| had a broken PHP page that stopped counting total lifetime
| generation [https://www.itaipu.gov.br/sites/default/files/dado_
| op/dadosi...])
| akjshdfkjhs wrote:
| Itaipu is mostly considered a brazillian infrastructure.
| Brazil paid for most of the construction, which is why they
| negotiated very good deals on the agreement with paraguay,
| which is the size of a brazillian municipality. They pay like
| $20 per Kw instead of the $400 the market would pay.
|
| the deal is up now btw, so the media is covering paraguay
| attempt to renegotiate it.
| cesarb wrote:
| > Paraguay, which is the size of a brazillian municipality.
|
| That's understating that country's size a lot; it's the
| size of a Brazilian state, not a Brazilian municipality
| (even if you consider the huge municipalities in the Amazon
| region).
| skellington wrote:
| He's talking about population, not physical size.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| There exists this page:
|
| https://www.itaipu.gov.br/energia/geracao
|
| But they don't seem to publish anything on the Brazilian data
| portal (that's bad), nor they seem to publish anything
| parseable on their site.
|
| I also couldn't find any breakdown of the energy sold to each
| country. The Brazilian electric system operator (ONS) has the
| Brazilian numbers, but I don't know where to get the other
| ones.
| masklinn wrote:
| > Tangentially, Paraguay runs entirely on hydropower from the
| Itaipu dam
|
| Which is hardly incidental, having access to ungodly amounts
| of hydro power is the easiest way to run on 100% renewables.
| Iceland has similarly been 100% (or near enough) renewables
| for decades, despite _more than 70% of its electricity going
| to aluminum smelters_.
|
| Norway similarly runs on 100% renewable electricity because
| it has enough hydro for pretty much all of it (Norway is the
| 213th country by population, but something like top 10 hydro
| producer)
| alwa wrote:
| I'd always lazily imagined Iceland's renewable production
| to involve mainly their geothermal resources. I was
| surprised to learn that a phenomenal amount of hydro came
| online in a pretty quick period in the '00s [0].
|
| A casual shufti suggests this was part of a broad policy
| push, but that it was mainly to do with a series of
| purpose-built hydro projects specifically to support
| Alcoa's smelting facility. [1]
|
| It smells like there's a story of a few strong
| personalities with ambitious visions somewhere in the mix
| here. Would any of this crowd know where I might turn to
| find that story?
|
| [0] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/energy-consumption-
| by-sou...
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karahnjukar_Hydropower_
| Plant... (with a fair bit of Wikipedian NIMBY-ish color
| commentary in the mix there)
| kuhewa wrote:
| Tasmania has long produced more than enough power from
| hydro.
| mandmandam wrote:
| > there's no reason to try and prove this wrong
|
| Well, there is _one_ reason: If Uruguay can do it, then it
| clearly demonstrates how blitheringly incompetent Western
| leaders are.
|
| It shows how horrifically pointless our oil wars have been
| (outside of making the instigators even wealthier), and
| nullifies each and every bullshit argument of the fossil fuel
| industry completely.
|
| Some numbers: Uruguay has $20k GDP per capita, compared to the
| US' $76k - basically a quarter of the wealth.
| paiute wrote:
| Hydro power... it's like 50% of their power. Then wind, then
| biomass, then solar.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| China has deployed more wind power this year than the UK's
| total aggregate generation capacity, and double US total
| aggregate solar generation. Yes, South America has a
| substantial amount of existing hydro power, but this is no
| excuse for developed world laggards. It is a choice to
| prioritize oil, gas, and other fossil fuel subsidies and
| infra support, but it is hopeless with global EV and
| renewables manufacturing flywheels coming up to speed
| (China is selling ~1 million EVs per month as of 2023Q4,
| solar PV manufacturing will reach 1TW next year). Just as
| Tesla (and BYD in China, credit where credit due) was the
| underdog and "David" until they rocketed passed legacy auto
| and became "Goliath", the same will happen to clean energy
| vs fossil tech. Like a recession, you're not going to be
| able to call it until looking back at trailing indicators.
|
| https://www.iea.org/reports/renewable-energy-market-
| update-j...
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/nov/13/chinas-
| carb...
|
| > The most striking growth has been in solar power,
| according to Myllyvirta. Solar installations increased by
| 210 gigawatts (GW) this year alone, which is twice the
| total solar capacity of the US and four times what China
| added in 2020.
|
| > The analysis, which is based on official figures and
| commercial data, found that China installed 70GW of wind
| power this year - more than the entire power generation
| capacity of the UK. It is also expected to add 7GW of hydro
| power and 3GW of nuclear power capacity this year, said the
| report.
|
| https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-
| to...
|
| > China's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are set to fall in
| 2024 and could be facing structural decline, due to record
| growth in the installation of new low-carbon energy
| sources.
|
| (my note: pedal to the floor, no one ever said "we have too
| much clean energy!")
| zdragnar wrote:
| When you have the benefit of being able to move millions
| of people by force to build a dam, and get to produce
| solar panels with slave labor, it's way easier.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Those are very bad things, no doubt whatsoever, but the
| data shows it is unnecessary for success. US solar and
| battery/storage manufacturing is exploding due to
| Inflation Reduction Act incentives, for example. Those
| bad things are not an excuse to not push scaling harder
| faster. Automation is a substantial component of solar
| and battery manufacturing, and you can build that
| automation with willing labor earning fair compensation.
|
| https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2023/08/14/over-155-gw-of-u-
| s-so...
|
| https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-
| insights...
|
| https://www.utilitydive.com/spons/ira-sets-the-stage-for-
| us-...
| mandmandam wrote:
| 1 in 6 American workers stay in unwanted jobs just to
| keep their healthcare [0]. Is that so different?
| Americans will tell you with a straight face that giving
| people free college will affect the numbers joining the
| military - is that so different?
|
| Also, seems to me that the 8 trillion, with a t, dollars
| that were spent creating terror in the middle east would
| have bought a few panels. To compare directly, the
| highest estimate for transitioning the US to 100%
| renewable electricity is 5.7 trillion dollars [1].
|
| So, if we'd just killed about 600,000 fewer civilians we
| could afford the change. Pointing fingers at China is
| easier than accepting our own actions, but you know,
| there's a lot to be said for taking responsibility for
| what one can actually change.
|
| 0 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/349094/workers-stay-
| unwanted-jo...
|
| 1 - https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/
| cost-of...
| lost_tourist wrote:
| You first point: that's not even close to being enslaved
| or forced to do whatever your government tells you to do
| under threat of imprisonment. Yes, it is very, very
| different.
| manonthewall wrote:
| You first point: that's not even close to being enslaved
| or forced to do whatever your government tells you to do
| under threat of imprisonment. Yes, it is very, very
| different.
| dmoy wrote:
| Yea but like parts of the PNW are >50% hydro too (Seattle
| is >80%), but they still haven't ever closed the gap to
| 100% for any significant length of time.
| iamawacko wrote:
| Seattle City Light, according to a 2016 report (and its
| definitely improved since), was 88% Hydro, 5% nuclear,
| and 4% wind.
|
| https://app.electricitymaps.com/map reports Seattle City
| Light as 100% hydro, fwiw.
| lytfyre wrote:
| BC Hydro (British Columbia electric power utility,
| government owned) was 98% renewable sources in 2022, ~91%
| of that hydro[1] - for the entire province.
|
| that last 2% is going to take a lot of work to replace,
| but I'd be surprised to see it backslide.
|
| [1] https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/BCHydro/customer-
| portal/...
| flavius29663 wrote:
| When you have 50% of your electricity made using hydro-power,
| it's really easy to integrate as much renewable energy as
| you'd like. This is not even the best story, there are
| countries with close to 100% clean electricity, like Norway
| or Austria. It just doesn't scale that well for large
| countries where hydro can't amount to more than 10-20%.
| mandmandam wrote:
| There's no reason to speculate, much less pronounce the
| transition impossible. Smart people have down the math.
|
| Transitioning the US to 100% clean power would cost - at
| most - $5.7 trillion.
|
| We spent $8 trillion fucking up the middle east for oil.
|
| Think about that - take all the time you need. Because if
| you still think this is about hydro access, and not
| leadership, you're holding up the change that is necessary.
| gwright wrote:
| I'd like to see some specifics in where you get the $5.7
| trillion.
|
| More specifically how was the problem of intermittent
| power solved? I'm not aware of any grid-scale solution to
| this problem _unless_ you include vast amounts of hydro
| to provide power when there is no wind or no sun or both.
| flavius29663 wrote:
| > Because if you still think this is about hydro access,
| and not leadership
|
| I looked up the McKenzie report[1] where I think the 5.7
| trillion comes from. In short, the renewable energy would
| be 1.5 trillion, and batteries 2.5 trillion (transmission
| is the rest). If you have 50% hydro, then you don't need
| batteries, so the cost for the US would drop by
| 2.5trillion. Having hydro is a big reason why some
| countries can do it easier than others. It's not a white
| and black situation, after-all, the US is already
| investing a lot in renewable energy.
|
| Second, the report says it provisioned for 900
| "gigawatts" of batteries. If they mean GW rather than GWh
| (Which I think they do), that is not nearly enough, that
| is just 2000 GWh at today's prices. The US needs 500GWh
| on average each hour, so you only get batteries for 4
| hours. You need to either build much more PV, or buy many
| more batteries. Also, 2000GWh is about 2 years worth of
| current global battery manufacturing. It's just not the
| same building out a small country or a large country
| electrical grid.
|
| https://e360.yale.edu/digest/shifting-u-s-to-100-percent-
| ren...
|
| That being said, it will happen, we'll soon switch to PV
| production, and it will happen faster than people think.
| It will be a disruption previously only seen in software.
| By 2030 we'll probably be pretty much powered by PV
| panels.
| timmaxw wrote:
| If Uruguay can run on 100% renewable energy, the unstated
| implication is "The US could do it too, we just lack the
| political will". (As opposed to the idea that "Renewable energy
| is a genuinely hard problem that will take time, effort, and
| technological advances to solve.") The implication that "we
| just lack the political will" can feel like a criticism of
| anyone who's not maximally-environmentalist. I think that's why
| people are getting defensive about it.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| At no point in the article is that claim made.
| aoeusnth1 wrote:
| Everything you just said may be true, but it's also true that
| the US does lack the political will.
| taylodl wrote:
| It's impossible to solve difficult problems without the
| will to do so.
| aftbit wrote:
| I think the problem is that the headline claims they are
| "Energy Independent", but when you drill down, it's only
| electricity that is being affected. Energy independence usually
| refers to other kinds of energy as well, including petroleum
| powered vehicles.
|
| Well and of course people love to hate on renewables.
|
| Will this be 12 months in a year? Or are they returning to
| power generation via petroleum?
| locallost wrote:
| That's fair, but electrification is the stated goal of all of
| the world. The article states they reduced their production
| costs by half, and although I didn't see actual numbers I
| tend to believe it. So it looks to me that Uruguay has people
| in charge that get it, and also now have results. There is no
| going back for them and they'll make progress very fast.
| People underestimate the long term effect of cheap renewables
| - you invest in them and save money long term, which you
| again invest in renewables. It's basically like compound
| interest.
| cesarvarela wrote:
| Uruguayan here.
|
| Point 1 is wrong. The average Uruguayan house doesn't have the
| means to heat using wood.
|
| I think we can do it because we have a small population, almost
| no industry, and neither summers nor winters get to extreme
| temperatures.
| dhoe wrote:
| 45% percent of households use wood as the main source of
| heating, electricity is 24%.
| https://www.ambito.com/uruguay/con-el-precio-la-lena-
| aumento...
|
| And obviously this reduces the consumption of electricity,
| making it easier to cover the electricity needed with
| renewables.
|
| Doesn't take anything away from it, it's still great that
| this is happening.
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| That doesn't make it any less impressive. If a small
| industrial base can builds its own renewable infrastructure,
| then a larger, proportionally richer base should have less
| trouble doing it.
| kuhewa wrote:
| In terms of ease and industrial base required it seems to
| me much will come down to how much of the renewable
| generation is hydro (and how much is possible given an
| area's hydrology) since that is so much 'easier' than
| modern renewables _. That 's largely orthogonal to
| wealth/population/industrial capacity. Although I suppose
| greater industrialisation and wealth would increase energy
| demand per capita. In the US it is 6%. For Uruguay
| electricity is 37% hydro. It is still impressive though.
|
| _ I reckon biomass is 'easy' as well but it is only so
| scalable.
| atypicaluser wrote:
| > _nobody wants to believe the headline /article_
|
| Look at the headline--
|
| "'Energy independent' Uruguay runs on 100% renewables for four
| straight months"
|
| and the article's very first sentence--
|
| "Renewables alone have powered the Uruguayan economy for nearly
| four straight months."
|
| versus the quote you use (the second sentence of the article)--
|
| "In the three months to end-September 2023, the South American
| nation generated all of its electricity from renewable sources"
|
| Both the headline and the first sentence are misleading. The
| writer did this on purpose. My guess is it's because he (Nick
| Hedley) likely knows that many (most?) people reading the
| headline won't go past that first sentence and will come away
| with a false sense of what really happened. Couldn't he have
| instead spread the good news with "Energy independent Uruguay
| runs its electrical grid on 100% renewables for four straight
| months"?
|
| How is asking for upfront honesty being an _acerbic pedant_?
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| Proving OP's point in 3....2....1....
| atypicaluser wrote:
| It appears I have to explain myself better.
|
| You've heard the phrase "read the room"? The OP added this
| article to HN, a site known for its detail-oriented minds
| (programmers, engineers, technicians, etc.) or, if you
| prefer another insult, "rules lawyers".
|
| And then someone complains that these same detail-oriented
| folks find that some of the details in the article are
| lacking? And tries shaming them into giving up their
| detail-oriented ways?
|
| Odd flex.
| kristopolous wrote:
| The issue is some people are quick to dismiss progress
| especially on technologies with political salience.
| regularjack wrote:
| It's a clickbaity headline. That's it.
| ineptech wrote:
| And,
|
| > In just five years, $6 billion was invested in renewable
| energy -- the equivalent of 12% of Uruguay's GDP.
|
| Any country that invests 12% of its GDP in something over five
| years is probably going to produce some impressive results!
| Archelaos wrote:
| [delayed]
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Inhabitants of Atacama Desert are also 100% CO2 neutral
| billbrown wrote:
| I didn't read the OP because I looked into Uruguay's previously-
| touted "98% renewable" last month and I doubt anything's
| changed.[1] I read a great study from 2022[2] and figured out the
| accounting trickery behind the claims.
|
| Basically, the windmills are overbuilt past the demand, which is
| supplied by mostly hydroelectric and enough natgas. The wind
| energy is exported to neighboring Brazil and Argentina through
| interconnects.
|
| [1] https://twitter.com/billbrown/status/1714311001569693749
|
| [2]
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030142152...
| baseline-shift wrote:
| California runs on 100% renewables for 4.8 months each year in a
| sense too.
|
| It has 40% renewables last time I checked I think in 2019.
|
| If you assign that to what percent of the annual use, that is the
| equivalent of everything from Jan 1st-April 24ish California is
| runing on 100% renewables.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-17 23:01 UTC)