Chile and the development of clean energy

[hellheaven1987]

Chile has inaugurated its biggest ever wind farm as part of its bid to wean itself off fossil fuels and tap its massive potential for renewable energy.

The El Arrayan farm is located on a coastal hillside 400km (250 miles) north of the capital Santiago.

Built at a cost of $300m (£180m), it consists of 50 giant turbines with an installed capacity of 115 megawatts.

But despite its size, it represents less than 1% of Chile's total electricity generating capacity.

The wind farm is small by the standards of Europe and the US but is one of the biggest in South America, which is only now starting to develop "green energy" in earnest.

Some 70% of the energy the farm generates will be used to power a large copper mine, Los Pelambres, in the Chilean Andes. The rest will be sold on the open market.

Jointly owned by US company Pattern Energy and Chilean mining giant Antofagasta Minerals, El Arrayan will provide Los Pelambres with 20% of its energy needs.

"This farm is a great example of collaboration between our mining industry and a clean-energy company," Chilean President Michelle Bachelet said as she inaugurated the farm on Tuesday.

"I hope this project acts as a powerful stimulus for other companies in the mining sector to start opting for this kind of energy."

Energy is a key issue in Chile.

Unlike almost every other major country in Latin America, the Andean nation produces virtually no oil and gas of its own.

It relies on hydro-electricity for a little over a third of its energy but imports most of the rest as fossil fuels.

In theory, Chile could buy natural gas from Bolivia, but the Bolivians refuse to sell it to Chile owing to a border dispute that dates back to the 19th Century.

For a while, the Chileans imported gas from Argentina through pipelines running through the Andes until the Argentines turned off the taps to feed their own domestic supply.

Chile considered nuclear power but the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan put paid to that idea.

Chile is every bit as prone to earthquakes and tsunamis as Japan.

Faced with these setbacks, the Chileans have turned to liquid natural gas (LNG) as an alternative to coal, building two terminals on their coast that allow them to import gas by sea from around the world.

But LNG is relatively expensive and so, increasingly, Chile is now trying to develop its non-conventional renewable energy sector.

Source

I find this article interesting because it has little to do with environment protection; in fact, the article points out Chile only started to consider clean energy source because all its neighbours acted like dicks politically and refused to sell it energy resource, which forced Chile to consider energy from non-fossil fuel. That makes me wondering, if one day some s (you know, like ISIS or Boko Haram; you can add Russia on that list but that is optional) cut off the oil supply and caused a serious oil shortage in international market, may be the rest of world would be more willing to invest in clean energy? On the other hand that probably also once again proves human beings are lazy, short-sight animals that only act when they got push into wall with no other easy solution.

[Thorn777]

Oil and stuff will more likely be cut off by nature and stuff than ISIS and stuff.

[hellheaven1987]

Oil and stuff will more likely be cut off by nature and stuff than ISIS and stuff.

Yes, but in the theory of "free market" that should happen only 100 years later - may be too late by then. Besides what happens in Chile is similar as what Russia is trying to do to East Europe now; so EU, may be, just may be, it is time to plan an energy strategy without Russia?

[Caligula's_Horse]

Not surprising that Chille only made the switch when it was forced on it. This renewable stuff might make environmentalists happy, but its an order of magnitude more expensive then fossil fuels, or even nuclear.
Its not only about the finance either. Going green is very much prone to the prisoner's dilemma, and the tragedy of the commons. Say I go green today, but non of my neighbors do; I still have to learn to live with global warming, except my economy is also trashed.

Either way, the renewables aren't really competing with oil; its rarely used for electric production due to its use as a motor fuel raising its price. Renewable energy is competing with coal, natural gas and nuclear, all of which are a fair bit cheaper, and tend to come from much more stable countries.
The exception to the rule is hydroelectric and geothermal, which actually are competitive without breaking the bank. They require you strike lucky on geography, however.

In short, get used to fossil fuels, they're not going anywhere.

[paleologos]

Source

I find this article interesting because it has little to do with environment protection; in fact, the article points out Chile only started to consider clean energy source because all its neighbours acted like dicks politically and refused to sell it energy resource, which forced Chile to consider energy from non-fossil fuel. That makes me wondering, if one day some s (you know, like ISIS or Boko Haram; you can add Russia on that list but that is optional) cut off the oil supply and caused a serious oil shortage in international market, may be the rest of world would be more willing to invest in clean energy? On the other hand that probably also once again proves human beings are lazy, short-sight animals that only act when they got push into wall with no other easy solution.

I don't see how a halt in the energy sales by some countries would be an effective lever of political pressure, with the US having become a net exporter of energy and is currently increasing both it's domestic capacity and it's exports.
Regardless of any environmental reasons (that we ought not to overlook) for the development and tapping of clean and renewable energy (re)sources, the most substantial reasons to do it are the saving of costs, the creation of domestic job opportunities and the reduction of dependence to foreign politics and vurnerability to outside pressures.

In the last department Chile has been rendered a country with nothing to lose (politically speaking), that is usually the case with countries flirting with the notion of weaning themselves off petrol and the seven sisters.

So it would seem not that their arm was "twisted behind their backs" that made them do it but that this form of pressure desisted.

Investing in the development of renewable energy sources is the economically rational and viable thing to do to begin with.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I don't see how a halt in the energy sales by some countries would be an effective lever of political pressure, with the US having become a net exporter of energy and is currently increasing both it's domestic capacity and it's exports.
Regardless of any environmental reasons (that we ought not to overlook) for the development and tapping of clean and renewable energy (re)sources, the most substantial reasons to do it are the saving of costs, the creation of domestic job opportunities and the reduction of dependence to foreign politics and vurnerability to outside pressures.

In the last department Chile has been rendered a country with nothing to lose (politically speaking), that is usually the case with countries flirting with the notion of weaning themselves off petrol and the seven sisters.

So it would seem not that their arm was "twisted behind their backs" that made them do it but that this form of pressure desisted.

Investing in the development of renewable energy sources is the economically rational and viable thing to do to begin with.

If renewable energy was cost efficient, it would have driven out fossil fuels and nuclear altogether already, environment or otherwise.

Truth be told, renewable energy is expensive. Very expensive even. While the exact values vary depending on where you live, coal or gas is usually around 20 times cheaper then wind per energy generated, and nuclear about 5 times cheaper; solar is even worse. While nuclear is hampered by by a high initial investment costs, a public fear of nuclear power and its own special set of political problems, coal and gas plants can be quickly and easily set up anywhere.

Renewables also come with an additional problem involving mother nature controlling the on/off switch. This means that even if you have a renewable infrastructure somehow capable of answering all your needs, you still need to have a fossil fuel backup ready to patch up holes should the sun be behind the clouds or the wind not blowing.

In short, wind and solar are the economic equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. And because your going green doesn't force any of the other countries from going green, you're still stuck with climate change.

[paleologos]

If renewable energy was cost efficient, it would have driven out fossil fuels and nuclear altogether already, environment or otherwise.

Truth be told, renewable energy is expensive. Very expensive even. While the exact values vary depending on where you live, coal or gas is usually around 20 times cheaper then wind per energy generated, and nuclear about 5 times cheaper; solar is even worse. While nuclear is hampered by by a high initial investment costs, a public fear of nuclear power and its own special set of political problems, coal and gas plants can be quickly and easily set up anywhere.

Renewables also come with an additional problem involving mother nature controlling the on/off switch. This means that even if you have a renewable infrastructure somehow capable of answering all your needs, you still need to have a fossil fuel backup ready to patch up holes should the sun be behind the clouds or the wind not blowing.

In short, wind and solar are the economic equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. And because your going green doesn't force any of the other countries from going green, you're still stuck with climate change.

Ok, first off: nuclear power.
The cost stats are misleading as they do not iclude the insurance cost, the necessity of which is alltogether disregarded.
I mean is it legal in your country to drive a car that is not covered by an insurance contract? Not in mine.
Even hospitals are obliged by law to be covered by an insurance contract for the occasion they are sued for malpractice.
Why would it be nominal to have nuclear reactors operating without a contract to compensate the injured in case of a leak?
If you multiply the total sum of reperations payable in case a metropolitan area has to be evacuated (an astronomical number) by the probability of a catastrophic event (a rather small number) you still end up with a financial capacity requirement on behalf of the insurance contractor so large (given that the would have to comensate everyone) that renders the whole preposition practically uninsurable.

About the renewables I cannot be authoritative. Surely the initial cost is very high and there is a consistency problem that cannot be overlooked but there are countries and areas within countries where the wind and/or solar potential are very lucrative. The UK, Denmark and Norway are not countries noted for their propensity to waste and they are investing heavily on wind power. Germany and Switzerland are not noted for their sunshine but they still invest in solar energy. Is it their hobby or is it the long term economic viability?

[Caligula's_Horse]

Ok, first off: nuclear power.
The cost stats are misleading as they do not iclude the insurance cost, the necessity of which is alltogether disregarded.
I mean is it legal in your country to drive a car that is not covered by an insurance contract? Not in mine.
Even hospitals are obliged by law to be covered by an insurance contract for the occasion they are sued for malpractice.
Why would it be nominal to have nuclear reactors operating without a contract to compensate the injured in case of a leak?
If you multiply the total sum of reperations payable in case a metropolitan area has to be evacuated (an astronomical number) by the probability of a catastrophic event (a rather small number) you still end up with a financial capacity requirement on behalf of the insurance contractor so large (given that the would have to comensate everyone) that renders the whole preposition practically uninsurable.

About the renewables I cannot be authoritative. Surely the initial cost is very high and there is a consistency problem that cannot be overlooked but there are countries and areas within countries where the wind and/or solar potential are very lucrative. The UK, Denmark and Norway are not countries noted for their propensity to waste and they are investing heavily on wind power. Germany and Switzerland are not noted for their sunshine but they still invest in solar energy. Is it their hobby or is it the long term economic viability?

Pretty sure no one would ever sell you melt down insurance...
Either way, even with the risk of a Chernobyl or Fukushima like event, nuclear is still statistically speaking one of the safest forms of power. If you factor in everyone killed either directly by or as direct result of the various forms of power generation, you'll actually find that coal is in the lead through massive air pollution, and nothing else is in its league.
Nuclear is actually ahead of solar. Apparently the process used to produce the panels is pretty toxic. Radiation leaks cause much more panic then hard casualties, and are pretty rare all in all. Newer reactors are also pretty much meltdown proof, as opposed to the badly designed Fukushima reactor complex and that piece of Soviet garbage in Chernobyl.

But back to cost effectiveness, the numbers I brought up are based purely on cost per unit of energy. This factors in running costs--fuel, maintenance and staffing for the most part. Initial setup cost isn't factored in.
So after you set up your infrastructure, wind is still about 20 times more expensive then coal and gas under the best of circumstances, going offshore hurts more then helps (steadier output more then offset by more expensive and more frequent maintenance, plus losses in efficiency for the distance to the mainland), and solar is even worse. What you save up on fuel you loose on maintenance and the fact that solar and wind have comparatively speaking very low outputs and even worse reliability.

If renewable energy was actually cheaper, it would have surpassed fossil fuels and nuclear energy no matter what. You could argue that it can be worked indefinitely as opposed to until the fuel runs out on the planet, but that argument doesn't hold much sway either.
Only oil is in real risk of running out, and even that's it a matter of decades; not that its used for much electric generation anyway. Gas and coal are both plentiful enough to last for centuries (or to phrase things differently, stay cheap for centuries), and nuclear fuel for millennia.

[Caelifer_1991]

...and nuclear fuel for millennia.

Are you sure? I seem to recall that if the entire world supply of energy was to be provided by nuclear, that our deposits of uranium would be spent within 40-45 years. Again I've forgotten the source, and my memory may be hazy, so I am open to being corrected if I am wrong.

[Denny Crane!]

I've always said it would take an economic incentive rather than good feelings to really create momentum behind green energy. Unfortunately for Chile we still have little technology to deal with the variability in supply and demand that relying on green energy takes. With their vast supply of hydro electricity they could possibly use some form of hydro battery solution that has been suggested but it is not very efficient.

[Denny Crane!]

We are investing heavily on wind at the taxpayers expense it is absolutely not competitive even remotely with any kind of power at all. In fact it is subject to huge amounts of criticism based off this.

Furthermore for every GW of power of wind you need the equivalent in fast start up Gas or Coal (mainly gas as the ramp up time is to big with coal) to act as a back up. This is why I was talking about variability and storage as a problem. At present there are no real solutions to this.

So not only is it expensive it is also inefficient and doesn't really work. There are solutions to these problems coming they just are not here yet.

[SLN445]

Solar panels on houses has proven to be a fairly good investment, so at the very least that source of renewable energy is worth it
Wind energy seems to work in a fair amount of countries as Paleologos has stated, even down in Aus we have had to reduce our renewable energy target because it was causing too much competition with the fossil fuel market.

[Denny Crane!]

In the UK they are only a viable investment because the government pays you for it I'm sure if I was in Spain or Australia then I'd be seeing a bigger bang for my buck (especially aircon during the day being ran). My main concern with them is they still seem damned pricey to put in, I mean like £10k for a decent system is one huge ass investment.

In the same vein the better systems up this end of the world are GSHP's or ASHP's as heating is a bigger portion of our bill than electricity but again the initial investment of £15k seems to high for the ROI.

[paleologos]

In the UK they are only a viable investment because the government pays you for it I'm sure if I was in Spain or Australia then I'd be seeing a bigger bang for my buck (especially aircon during the day being ran). My main concern with them is they still seem damned pricey to put in, I mean like £10k for a decent system is one huge ass investment.

In the same vein the better systems up this end of the world are GSHP's or ASHP's as heating is a bigger portion of our bill than electricity but again the initial investment of £15k seems to high for the ROI.

Aren't you offered a contract to return power to the grid (for a fee of course) in case you are producing more than your consumption?

Edit: Then again you are not the sunniest of countries...

[Denny Crane!]

Aren't you offered a contract to return power to the grid (for a fee of course) in case you are producing more than your consumption?

Edit: Then again you are not the sunniest of countries...

Yes but on top of that payment is a government subsidy x5 of the actual worth, that investment or subsidy in green developments has been slashed recently causing a virtual collapse of attached industries because they more or less existed on subsidy. The majority of our peak demand is at night as well.

I'm a big fan of green energy, I want it to work, I eagerly research the new developments. I had great hopes for CIGS based solar and a number of other ideas. But while things are moving apace we are just not quite there yet. I'm at a stage now where we could potentially invest in some personally but domestically a 2% return in potential savings is not worth a £10k investment.

[paleologos]

Yes but on top of that payment is a government subsidy x5 of the actual worth, that investment or subsidy in green developments has been slashed recently causing a virtual collapse of attached industries because they more or less existed on subsidy.

I sort of had guessed your resentment of big gov would be related to ill conceived and/or inconsistently executed subsidized projects. Can't blame you, not a fan of those myself.

I'm a big fan of green energy, I want it to work, I eagerly research the new developments. I had great hopes for CIGS based solar and a number of other ideas. But while things are moving apace we are just not quite there yet.

I bet if the sun could be privatized we would be there as of yesteryear.

...domestically a 2% return in potential savings is not worth a £10k investment.

True, true, though if you had 310 sunny days a year the numbers would be more palatable, yes?

[Caelifer_1991]

Aren't you offered a contract to return power to the grid (for a fee of course) in case you are producing more than your consumption?

Edit: Then again you are not the sunniest of countries...

I seem to recall a paper that stated that on average, the roof area available for a house was only suitable to provide one fifth of its energy needs with current technology. I say current, I believe the paper was written in 2005 so things may have moved on a bit, but if they haven't (and quite substantially), then selling energy back into the grid seems quite an unlikely situation - that is, unless the property is left vacant for some reason of course. Generally speaking, the ROI is indeed rather low, as Denny says, and without further improvements in technology it will continue to require subsidisation, and even then, can only really be considered competitive if the people investing in it aren't investing in any of the myriad other things that will yield a good return, such as on the stock market, renovating property, buying to let, etc. Hell, last time I checked, putting the money in an ISA would yield better returns. Like Denny, I too am in favour of the expansion of renewable energy including solar, but I also agree that the technology is some way off from being able to stand on its own in a free market.

[athanaric]

Guys, I hate to bust your bubble, but wind farms aren't "clean" by any means, and neither are solar tower plants.
In fact, the environment is probably better off with nuclear power plants. Although I'd advise against installing those in Chile specifically, because of the high risk of earthquakes there.

[Denny Crane!]

Well the likes of CIGS companies, first solar and nano solar were privately funded silicon valley projects but the fact is the other structural technological developments aren't there for Solar and they got hit by multiple factors within the Solar PV industry that hurt them badly along with the endless supply of cheap money drying up in private equity and investment markets thanks to the recession. The development of renewable technologies isn't slowed by some kind of private/public dichotomy. It is just something that hasn't been developed fully yet. We'll get there when we do. In the meantime the public investments in wind turbines well it isn't sensible and certainly isn't economical but then again I mean money flowing into the industry is not going to hurt the industry, we might see some positive developments because of it. We just shouldn't make the mistake of thinking that A. It can power the UK, or Germany, they can't. and B. They are sound economic investments. That isn't the whole argument, might still be a good thing but its a difficult case to make.

Each country is a different case, Iceland produces more power than it uses thanks to its unique geology it can actually be a renewable exporter of Hydrogen and power itself without importing fossil fuels. Chile is also fairly well set up with a huge hydroelectric capacity already in use. It should be an interesting experiment. They've got about 1500MW under construction and another 8000MW approved on a national grid of 13000MW.

Nuclear while being expensive provides a huge amount of power that is consistent in its supply. I've been a huge opponent of Nuclear in the past (had some huge long debates on here about it) but as the years go on with the national security issues in terms of our energy supply I now suppose Hinkley point and other investments are not a bad idea but they are hugely expensive.

On a personal note I'm not sure of the exact economics but I feel certain the financial case for a personal investment would change based on more sun, the times of the higher use of electricity changing and the differences in energy consumption (electric air con vs gas heating).

[caratacus]

I agree with the posters here, Chile probably wouldn't pick wind power if it didn't need to because it is just so much more expensive compared with conventional energy sources. Germany has invested heavily in wind generation but electricity prices there are a lot higher than the rest of Europe.

However I think that it would have been rather better for them to have developed wave power, as the coastal waters off the Chile coast are the most dynamic in the world. The Humboldt Current is the principle influence upon the weather systems of the western coastline of the Americas and feeds the wind these turbines are being built for. Problem is again cost and the technology isn't quite there yet to undertake a truly large project.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Current

Chile is the country with the highest wave energy potential in the world, the British engineering consultant Baird & Associates reported last week. According to company officials, wave energy along Chile’s coast can satisfy up to 24 percent of the country’s energy demand in summer and 26 percent in winter.

Company officials estimate that the construction of underwater turbines along Chile’s 4,200 kilometer coast could generate up to 3,800 megawatts (MW) of energy. The company placed England in second place behind Chile in terms of wave energy potential.

“Chile is top in the world in terms of this type of energy. If the country installed the technology necessary to hasten this type of energy, then it would generate great amounts of electricity with a low environmental impact,” affirmed Andrés Enriquez, the head of the Navy’s Oceanography Department.

In spite of Chile’s privileged geographical position, Enriquez noted that the country is still years away from developing the capital needed for such projects.

“Carrying out a large-scale study would require lots of new technology and significant investments,” he said.

According to recent government statistics, Chile consumes roughly 13,000 megawatts (MW) of energy every year, a figure which officials say will rise between 6 and 8 percent annually. Of those 13,000 MW, only 2.4 percent came from clean energy sources, such as waves, wind, and solar, in 2007.

Many experts, such as Universidad Católica physicist Ulrich Volkmann, believe that Chile has the potential to be a leader on the alternative energy front. Given the country’s long coastline, Volkmann recently estimated that Chile could produce some 50,000 MW of wind power alone (ST, Feb. 28).

SOURCE: LA TERCERA
http://www.oceanenergycouncil.com/ch...tential-world/