Costa Rica boasts 99% renewable energy in 2015

December 18, 2015
View of a wind farm of the National Power and Light Company in Santa Ana, Costa Rica on October 23, 2015
View of a wind farm of the National Power and Light Company in Santa Ana, Costa Rica on October 23, 2015

Almost all of Costa Rica's electricity came from renewable sources this year, making it one of a few countries in the world to eschew fossil fuels in energy generation, the state electricity agency said Friday.

The Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE) said in a statement it achieved "99 percent renewable generation" this year.

It also said for 285 days this year the country managed to power its grid on 100 percent renewable sources.

The path away from and towards clean energy in the small Central American nation is seen as aspirational for other countries wanting to cut fossil-fuel pollution blamed on global warming.

This month, a UN conference held in Paris struck a landmark deal committing countries to cutting their carbon emissions.

Three-quarters of Costa Rica's electricity is generated by hydroelectric plants, taking advantage of the country's abundant river system and heavy tropical rainfalls. The rest comes from geothermal, wind, biomass and solar sources.

ICE said it was ahead of renewable-energy targets it had set despite a year "that had been extremely dry."

Its electricity division chief, Luis Pacheco, boasted that "we are closing 2015 with renewable electricity milestones that have put us in the global spotlight."

He predicted an even better result in 2016 when a new $2.3-billion comes on line.

Explore further: NREL releases the 2013 Renewable Energy Data Book, detailing increases in installed capacity

Related Stories

UN report takes global view of 'green energy choices'

December 2, 2015

Finding the right mix of green energy technologies for generating electricity will be crucial in reducing the global impact of pollution for the next generation, according to a United Nations report co-written by a Yale professor.

Toward a more resilient and flexible power grid

December 15, 2015

"The biggest and most complex machine ever built by humankind." That is how University of Wisconsin–Madison doctoral student of electrical engineering Philip Hart describes the nation's power grid.

Recommended for you

Bank hacks raise fears for financial sector

July 25, 2016

A series of spectacular cyber attacks against banks, resulting in the theft of tens of millions of dollars, has heightened fears for an industry becoming an increasingly attractive target for hackers.

How to build a 1,000mph car (by the scientists behind it)

July 22, 2016

It was a staggering feat, a car that went faster than the speed of sound. On October 15 1997, Andy Green travelled across the Black Rock Desert, Nevada, in the Thrust SSC at 763.035 mph, or Mach 1.02. Two decades on, that ...

54 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
2.4 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2015
Send the Deniers to Costa Rica. We can survive and prosper using renewables.

Local sources combined with waste-free or more efficient processes can do it now for residences.
WillieWard
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2015
Three-quarters of Costa Rica's electricity is generated by hydroelectric plants, taking advantage of the country's abundant river system and heavy tropical rainfalls. The rest comes from geothermal, wind, biomass and solar sources.
"Hydroelectric projects can be disruptive to surrounding aquatic ecosystems"
"power plants in tropical regions produce substantial amounts of methane"
https://en.wikipe...vantages
"release of significant amounts of carbon dioxide at construction and flooding of the reservoir, disruption of aquatic ecosystems and birdlife, adverse impacts on the river environment"
https://en.wikipe...ctricity
Nuclear is safer and much more ecologically friendly than solar, wind and hydro.
death/TWh: Solar 0.44 , Wind 0.15, Hydro 0.10, Nuclear 0.04
http://scienceblo...tricity/
gkam
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2015
Here is something Costa Rica will never have to buy. Make sure you watch until the very end.

What could go wrong?

http://www.scmp.c...unveiled
SuperThunder
4 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2015
Stanford has been on it for some time, and it's looking cool.
50 state roadmap :
https://news.stan...414.html
https://news.stan...815.html

Roadmap for countries and states:
https://web.stanf...ans.html
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2015
Willie
Nuclear is safer and much more ecologically friendly than solar, wind and hydro.


Except that we cannot make this assessment - as the situation is way to complex. Read this quick article on the environmental impact of nuclear - and you will see the complexity of the situation. https://en.wikipe...ar_power
A quote
Billions of marine organisms, such as fish, seals, shellfish, and turtles, essential to the food chain, are sucked into the cooling systems and destroyed.


Where are your studies that evaluate all the risks of nukes vs other fuel sources Willie?
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2015
Except that we cannot make this assessment - as the situation is way to complex..
Even so, lowest ecological impact per gigawatt produced due to nuclear energy density; small areas required.
"Nuclear power can be done safely, and with a relatively small environmental footprint"
http://www.indepe...236.html
http://thebreakth...otprints
http://www.indepe...?id=8539
greenonions
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2015
Willie - I just read your three articles. Not one of them could be used to support this statement of yours
Nuclear is safer and much more ecologically friendly than solar, wind and hydro.


None of these articles even attempt to talk about the whole picture of nuclear. The mining of the uranium. The release of radioactive materials into the environment (don't tell me that Fukushima has not done this). The disposal/storage of the radio active waste. The decommissioning of a now contaminated site at the end of the life of the plant. The ecological impact of using rivers and oceans for cooling. I am a supporter of nuclear, as well as of renewable energy. It is dishonest to build your support for something on lies.
WillieWard
2 / 5 (4) Dec 20, 2015
renewable energy. It is dishonest to build your support for something on lies.
Renewable energy builds its support on lies.
"Under the guise of CLEAN ENERGY NOW! the energy corporations have made you a soldier in their CLEAN ENERGY NOW! army."
"What happens when the wind stops blowing, or the sun goes down? The light switch magic stops,"
"The environmental community has become so goal-oriented and dependent on grant money (and where does grant money come from? energy corporations, of course!) that it wants CLEAN ENERGY NOW! at any price."
http://stoppathwv...ies.html
WillieWard
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2015
(don't tell me that Fukushima has not done this).. The ecological impact of using rivers and oceans
Just 1.5 km from the power plant, no meaningful radiation has been detected above the sea.
There is no point in lying because the truth always comes out in the end.
http://ajw.asahi....11100001
Furthermore, oceans are already naturally radioactive since prehistoric times.
"The oceans are estimated to contain 1,000 times as much uranium as is buried in deposits on land"
http://science.en...15-08-a/
"Radionuclides are found naturally in air, water and soil...There is nowhere on Earth that you can not find Natural Radioactivity."
http://www.physic...ural.htm
gkam
2 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2015
I wonder if Willie ever saw a real nuclear powerplant. Ever been in one? The last one I was in had just been shut down by its owners because it was unsafe. Yup, they just ate the cost.

I'd like Willie to debate the technical issues instead of just him acting as a billboard, with the cut-and-paste posts and no appreciable discussion proving he even understands what he posts.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2015
it was unsafe
Even so, it kills less than wind/solar/hydro per unit of energy generated. Unlike gskam, real data and statistics don't lie us.
http://nuclear-ec...8100.jpg
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2015
No lies, Willie. The plant was Rancho Seco, and it was still loaded with fuel,but the owners realized how dangerous it was, and just shut it down. I am not aware of any solar facilities to suddenly remove hundreds of Megawatts from their generation capacity because it could kill too many people.

Would you like to read the history of "The Ranch"? You won't like it.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2015
I guess Costa Rica found out about Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fermi I, Brown's Ferry, Watts Bar, Monju, Windscale, and the hundreds of "incidents" which contaminated land, materials, and people with deadly radiation. The economic costs would ruin that small nation.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2015
Willie -
Renewable energy builds its support on lies.


Nice meaningless statement. People tell lies. You tell lies. Probably some industry people in renewable energy over hype their product. Overall it is fair and honest to say that renewables provide cheap, safe, energy. There are costs to everything - just as there as costs to nuclear power. You will never admit the cost of a Kwh of electricity from a nuke. While I am a supporter of nukes - and hope to see next get modular nukes become part of our energy mix - they are not there yet. Current gen nukes are too expensive. Research Hinkley. You are the liar Willie - that is clear. Here read up - http://enenews.co...ty-video
WillieWard
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2015
..costs to nuclear power..
"belief that nuclear costs continue to rise is false"
"nuclear..highly economic option for reliable 24/7 generation"
http://mzconsulti...m/?p=778
Here read up - http://enenews.co...ty-video
enenews is a biased scaremonger website, that raises senseless fright, heartattacks, abortions and suicides among misinformed population.
kaf
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2015
Well, this isn't exactly a man bites dog story.

A country that has no oil or coal, but lots of rain, gets its power from hydro. Who could have seen that coming?

greenonions
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2015
Willie
"belief that nuclear costs continue to rise is false"
Where did I say that? What you wont ever talk about is what the cost of nuclear actually is.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 20, 2015
kaf
A country that has no oil or coal, but lots of rain, gets its power from hydro. Who could have seen that coming?
75% hydro - and 25% other renewables. Quite an achievement. But it will never be good enough for some. We will be running our whole world on renewables one day - and you will be looking for the one person heating their home with candles - and thinking you have made a point.
kaf
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2015
greenonions

Well, sure, I encourage you to go ahead and set your lifestyle up on renewables so you can get a head start on the rest of us. Then you can report back on how that's working out for you.

As for me, I've become attached to the lights coming on when I flip the switch.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
kaf, I am one of those who made the lights come on when you fingered your switch. I also now have an electric car, the PV panels go up any time now, and have made my house efficient with condensing furnace and instantaneous waterheater. having been a Senior Engineer for a utility lets me see the real truth and not just the rantings and propaganda.

Keep on polluting and buying more fuel to waste. My car needs no gas, no oil, no tuneups, no lines at the stations. It costs me two cents/mile for transportation. Keep on using your old stinker. We will all laugh at you - at first.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2015
My car needs no gas, no oil, no tuneups, no lines at the stations.
Yabba dabba doo! It can run day/night, cloudy/sunny.
gkam
2.1 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
Yeah, it can, since power is available everywhere, including my dual-fuel generator and the PV systems.

Look up ChargePoint and PlugShare.
greenonions
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2015
Kaf - We currently own 1 EV, and 1 gasmobile. I am set up to use 100% wind power (an option here in Oklahoma). We use the EV as primary vehicle - putting maybe 2,000 miles a year on the civic. Highly insulated home - keeps power bills very low ($70 a month averaged). Next step will be solar panels. The point that the anti progress people seem to not get - is that this is a transition. It is going to take many decades - perhaps 100 years. Switching to renewables does not mean grid reliability is compromised - see German example. Our world will be much better with the new technologies.
kaf
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2015
greenonions
Look, I get it on everything you're talking about. What I don't get is what you do when the wind doesn't blow or the sun doesn't shine. You, personally, can have a big ol' bank of batteries in your basement, of course, but that's not a particularly feasible solution for a utility company. Or an apartment dweller, for that matter.

And what do you think the chances are the Germans have to have their CO2-spewing power plants running all the time anyway, just in case the wind quits blowing or a cloud blows through?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2015
And what do you think the chances are the Germans have to have their CO2-spewing power plants running all the time anyway, just in case the wind quits blowing or a cloud blows through?

It's not as black and white as all that.
Sunshine and wind isn't completely random. There are such things as weather forecasts and they are very good on a day-to-day basis. Coal powerplants have a ramp-up time that is well below the variability in weather forecasts. So you might have to run them at standby because full shutdown/mothball/reactivation times are higher, but you can run them in minimum mode which produces very little CO2 and ramp them up when needed.

This does produce some CO2 constantly, but vastly less than if one were to run them in full backup/production mode.

Now this would already be a viable modus operandi IF germany weren't part of the european power grid. But in such a large power grid variability is a lot lower - so even such backup measures are hardly needed.
greenonions
3 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2015
Kaf - sorry - but you clearly don't 'get it' Again - this transition is going to take many decades . There are many ways to handle the issue of intermittency, and it is a very well researched subject at this point. You can read about how Denmark, Germany, Portugal, Costa Rica - and many other countries are dealing with the issue. The eventual system will have a mixture of storage, transmission, multiple sources, demand control etc. There is plenty on the web - just one example - http://blogs.scie...unities/
kaf
3 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2015
greenonions/antialias

I'll have to confess--I DON'T get it. I guess I can't buy the whole premise that global warming is a coming catastrophe. If it really is so vital that we change our lifestyles why does Al Gore live in a 10k sq ft home? Why does the President jet off to play golf and burn 2k gal/hr? Rich guys don't care how much energy costs; it's poor people who'll suffer from these policies.

Besides which, why is colder better? We've had glaciers in St. Louis and I'm thinking life's better now.

It all looks like a giant scam designed to separate me from the contents of my wallet.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Dec 21, 2015
I guess I can't buy the whole premise that global warming is a coming catastrophe.

You don't need to buy that. All you need to understand is that if we don't deal with it now it's going to cost us (and that includes you and me personally as taxpayers) a whole lot more money than if we spend a little now to clean up our act. An ounce of prevention and all that...

And we get a lot of stuff like clean air, water, food security and independence from foreign regimes for our power (read: safety from terrorism because we no longer have to go there and grab what we need by force) thrown in for free.

There's no need to be a treehugger to see that any or all of those are really good reasons to go the renewable way.

If you're a treehugger who goes in for stuff like "ensuring the future survival of the species" then that works as well, but being a completely selfish bastard is totally sufficient to understand this.
greenonions
3.7 / 5 (6) Dec 21, 2015
kaf
Rich guys don't care how much energy costs; it's poor people who'll suffer from these policies.

Well - a complex set of issues. I don't think any knows if global warming is a 'catastrophe. The scientists studying the issue tell us that the chances are very high that the consequences will be bad. I don't see the point in rolling that dice - if we can find win win solutions - like cheaper - cleaner renewable energy. I support the use of nuclear - although current gen nukes are far more expensive than wind/solar/hydro. You talk about cost - my Nissan Leaf costs about 2 cents per mile in the winter - and 1 cent per mile in the summer (different rate structure) - as well as reduced maintenance costs. For me - this is as much about progress, and better technologies. Invoking Al Gore really gives you away as someone who want to talk about politics, rather than looking at the science.

AGreatWhopper
not rated yet Dec 21, 2015
These cranks need to be culled. They are dangerous and will not ever see reason, no matter how dramatic the evidence. NB: http://www.thegua...ar-farms
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
it was unsafe
Even so, it kills less than wind/solar/hydro per unit of energy generated. Unlike gskam, real data and statistics don't lie us.
http://nuclear-ec...8100.jpg
Fake statistics. Slipping off a roof is not caused by solar technology
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 22, 2015
"Workers in the solar energy industry are potentially exposed to a variety of serious hazards, such as arc flashes (which include arc flash burn and blast hazards), electric shock, falls, and thermal burn hazards that can cause injury and death."
https://www.osha....lar.html
"Death Panels: Why Firefighters Are Scared of Solar Rooftops"
http://www.mother...f-access
"Crews tackle fire in school roof"
http://www.itv.co...rkshire/
http://www.firege...m-blaze/
brominated flame retardant is carcinogenic
http://www.txses....end-life
nlpc.org/stories/2013/02/28/abound-solars-toxic-waste-highlights-enviro-hypocrisy-pollution
greenonions
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2015
So it is news to Willie that industry is dangerous. Where you been all your life Willie. I will put solar panels on roofs any day - before I would go down a coal mine, or become a rough neck. Here is the osha sheet on drilling for oil and gas. Read it and weep Willie - https://www.osha....rds.html Now read this article wilie - http://www.thegua...-amnesty and find me something equivalent regarding wind or solar. If you can do that - we can move on to coal and uranium mining accidents - I bet I can find some good articles. And how about those earth quakes from fracking....
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Dec 22, 2015
oil and gas. Read it and weep
"Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than BP Oil Spill"
http://dailycalle...l-spill/
http://www.eenews...60017406
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Dec 22, 2015
oil and gas. Read it and weep
"Wind Turbines Kill More Birds Than BP Oil Spill"
http://dailycalle...l-spill/
More abortions would disproportionately disrupt the population of conservative board trolls. See, I can add irrelevant statistics to the thread as well!
greenonions
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 22, 2015
Oh but Willie - you forgot to mention the dolphins, sea turtles, fish, recreation etc. etc. that were caused by this ONE oil spill - http://www.nwf.or...ife.aspx

Maybe you could read the article I gave you on the environmental destruction going on in Nigeria as a result of oil. I am still waiting for the equivalent article regarding wind or solar.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
Here is one recent equivalent article regarding nuclear technology:

http://enenews.co...et-video
WillieWard
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2015
recent equivalent article regarding nuclear technology
enenews has no scientific credibility, their "anti-science public relations campaign against nuclear power is more myth than data".
gskam is always using his anti-science campaign against nuclear energy. He loves websites like Enenews to collect his scare-mongering misinformations. Most of the people became ill in ways that had nothing to do with radiation; but it does not matter he always put in charge of Chernobyl and Fukushima.
But he never admits an upsetting truth: that, even taking into account Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear has caused fewer fatalities and less environmental impact than wind/solar per unit of energy generated.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2015
enenews has no scientific credibility,


But the Daily Caller (your source) does? I do not dispute that nuclear has caused fewer fatalities than wind or solar. But all the sources we have looked at agree - that nuclear, wind and solar are very low - in terms of fatalities. That is not the only metric is it? If we replace oil and gas with wind and solar - we get a win/win/win that we don't with nuclear. That is CHEAPER/cleaner/safer power. But you will never talk about cost - because you know you lose. In truth - the safest/cheapest/cleanest/most environmental source is going to be roof top solar - because it does not take up space, no radioactivity, centralized toxic issue - which can be handled best. But we are just on the first rung of the long ladder. If cheaper/better nukes can be developed - have at it. If not - that's OK. cont.
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2015
cont. You rattle on about safety - but something you will never discuss is cost - which actually relates well to safety. Many on this board (Eikka, MR166, shootist et al) often accuse renewables of killing billions of poor people - because they are going to raise the cost of electricity - and poor people will die of the cold. But now wind and solar are the cheapest - they have to move on to different arguments (read rationalizations). But surely that argument does apply to nukes - because nukes are more expensive than wind and solar. Nukes are also centralized - and therefore don't have the same potential for cost savings through competition in the future as a distributed source such as solar. So hang on to your hat Willie - and we will keep pointing out your lies.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
I am not ready to assume anything we get from Willie is accurate. What about the reactor that blew up from a fast fission, killing three workers? It is not carried as a nuclear accident, but a "steam explosion", when the reactor got out of control and exploded.

The same analysts probably had the Kennedy Assassination as "a collision with flying metal".

Nukes have a "good" record because it is covered up.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2015
roof top solar - because it does not take up space
If so, why is being promoted solar farms that cover lakes, seas and dams, and stating that it causes zero ecological impact, even knowing that photosynthesis is essential for phytoplankton, which is the base for aquatic chain food, and solar panels block it? Blatant "green" hypocrisy!
http://www.wired....nt-japan
http://www.thehin...8556.ece
Nukes are also centralized
Nuclear power is more centralized, more energy dense, and does spread hazardous/carcinogenic chemicals as wind/solar does, thereby nuclear power produces fewer environmental impacts.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
three workers? It is not carried as a nuclear accident, but a "steam explosion", when the reactor got out of control and exploded.
"On 10 March 2015, a Japanese National Police Agency report confirmed 15,891 deaths, 6,152 injured, and 2,584 people missing across twenty prefectures..."
"No one has died from radiation at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant complex."
Just one debatable case of leukemia, while wind/solar owns several linked cases of leukemia/cancer.
http://en.wikiped..._tsunami
http://en.wikiped...erations
Even so, unscrupulous scaremongers, like gskam, insist in putting million deaths into account of Fukushima.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
Costa Rica will never go through this:

"Mass panic as radioactive cloud pours from nuclear plant — Radiation levels reportedly spike near reactor after emergency shutdown — Traffic jams as people evacuate area — "Everyone got very worried and rushed to get iodine""
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
"Mass panic as radioactive cloud pours from nuclear plant — Radiation levels reportedly spike near reactor after emergency shutdown — Traffic jams as people evacuate area — "Everyone got very worried and rushed to get iodine""
Sensationalist mass media and scaremongers have induced more deaths(abortions, anxieties/heart attacks, suicides) than radiation.
"In Chernobyl, as many as 100,000 unnecessary abortions may have been performed due to fears of radiation's impact."
http://www.nytime...isk.html
http://www.thegua...ma-risks
http://www.indepe...096.html
https://en.wikipe...bortions
http://thebulleti...ants8817
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Dec 23, 2015
If this technology is so dangerous and frightens The People so much, and costs so much, why are we still using it?

BIG MONEY.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
If this technology is so dangerous and frightens The People so much
It is the fear-mongers and paid mass media that frightens the people so much.
GREEN MONEY.

"its the money that drives their anti-nuclear dogma"
"the leaders of "Big Green" are driven by the same motivations as politicians — Power. Power is increased by raising more money every year. That is their goal. It is that simple."
"rich and famous NGOs: Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, National Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, and so forth."
http://seekerblog...r-dogma/
greenonions
3 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2015
Willie
If so, why is being promoted solar farms that cover lakes


Why don't you learn to read Willie - I said "roof top solar". That is different than large scale centralized solar. I am arguing that from an environmental standpoint - roof top solar is a great option. In my view it beats nukes in a number of ways - but I am very happy to see nukes developed alongside wind and solar. Just happy to keep pointing out your lies Willie - kind of interesting to try to understand why you would need to do that - but oh well....
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Dec 23, 2015
Willie, we do not want algae to bloom in the waters which hold PV collectors, or anywhere else in our waters.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
I am not ready to assume anything we get from Willie is accurate. What about the reactor that blew up from a fast fission, killing three workers? It is not carried as a nuclear accident, but a "steam explosion", when the reactor got out of control and exploded
I am not ready to assume anything 'we' get from a lying posturing psychopath is accurate, including his assertion that fallout is the major cause of lung cancer.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2015
"The story seems to reinforce the fact that every time you vote against nuclear power you are voting in favor of fossil fuels, and this is true even in a country aggressively committed to renewables."
"Germany still imports cheap nuclear-generated electricity from France. In addition, the Germans have had to switch to coal to compensate.."
"Three Mile Island that killed exactly zero individuals"
"toxic metals - substances which unlike radioactive isotopes have an infinite half-life - that the solar power industry generates. Wind power also has similar deep-seated issues, including usage of vast tracts of land and destruction of bird life."
"A 1,000-MWe solar electric plant would generate 6,850 tonnes of hazardous waste from metals processing alone over a 30-year lifetime."
http://blogs.scie...dy-bear/
greenonions
3 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
Willie
Germany still imports cheap nuclear-generated electricity from France


Well - it is nice of you to make the job of showing your lies as lies. Here read this Willie http://energytran...r-power/

A relevant quote -
It is a physical impossibility for Germany to import nuclear power from foreign reactors already running full blast anyway, yet the claim that Germany is relying on foreign nuclear continues to rear its ugly head.


This is because people who don't know what they are talking about (read Willie) continue to post rubbish in attempts at manipulation.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 23, 2015
It is a physical impossibility for Germany to import nuclear power from foreign reactors
It explains why "Germany is still burning a lot of coal"
http://www.dw.com...18439936
http://www.englis...be-heard
"The German Energiewende has not resulted in less dependence on the burning of coal to generate electricity and will not do so anytime soon."
http://judithcurr...misstep/
http://dailycalle...issions/
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Dec 23, 2015
It explains why "Germany is still burning a lot of coal"

You're missing part of the story here

- We had the nuclear phaseout which was accelerated since 2011
- Even with coal having to take up some of that slack: in 2014 coal use has already dropped below the 2009 levels (in 2009 there was a recession and coal use was at an all time low. Now we have a full boom phase AND low coal usage)
- The new coal powerplants replacing old ones support lower minimum power outputs (40% ...with reductions being planned to 20%). So the flexibility for using them as a backup, that is just ramped up when needed, is increasing drastically.

Yes, it's hard to get rid of nukes and coal at the same time. But all the numbers say it's working.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.