The article lacks a crucial bit of context: particularly in the North and Center of Portugal, the last 8 months have been even rainier than usual (many areas already over 2000mm of rain in this period, instead of the 1000-1500mm that would be normal), favouring of course hydroelectric power generation, which accounts for a huge percentage of the renewable total.
Not to dismiss this great news, but the country is still a long way from being 100% renewable on a continuing basis. There's however a huge untapped potential in solar, so that goal is reachable if the investment happens (and grid storage becomes cheaper).
Portugal, Spain, Italy, France, Greece -- all these countries are advantaged on the renewable front, since they can use both hydro (lots of mountains and streams) and solar, two sources that complement each other very well: droughts generate solar, rains generate hydro.
I would also add that the energy cost in Portugal is one of the highest in europe, and one of the main reasons for its high cost was the investment in PPPs in renewable energy.
Hydroelectric generation is not the major source of energy. Wind is, and I think it was that unusual amount of rain, coupled with stronger winds and the occasional good days of sun that contributed to this milestone.
Besides the sun, I think the ocean will be our safest bet. The technology seems to be lacking though.
The government behave in a very cynical way, although it isn't entirely ideological.
About 5 years ago I worked in wind development. It was common knowledge that the supply of good sites for larger scale (>5MW) production was becoming very limited. I think the government pretended to crack down when the opportunity was drying up naturally.
To build a wind farm you need good wind resource, a grid connection and a site that can get planning permission (not in an AONB etc). Most of the "low hanging fruit" already have planning permission for a scheme and just need to be built. The industry was running out of new sites at exactly the same time that the Government started to cut the subsidy. Without a big change to planning law the number of new sites would have dried up anyway.
This trend is also happening with solar farms. We are simply running out of suitable rural substations that can handle the demand. The government are shifting focus to more industrial sites that tend to have on-site substations with plenty of capacity. They may pretend that it is ideological but I doubt it somehow.
The energy industry is incredibly complex, and it is hard to understand the economics. The Government may actually want energy to be more expensive so that Hinkley C appears better value. The problem with having large amounts of cheap energy (onshore wind) is that it reduces the price of energy! It becomes even more complex when you consider the requirement for peaking generation.
Real-time(-ish) UK consumption details can be found here [1]. At the time of posting (late morning) wind is generating 7.9%, coal 4.1% and nuclear 22.1% of total demand. Unsurprisingly there appear to be no figures for solar.
These cuts have been really damaging and I don't think people realized how "the greenest government ever" was actually all the work of the Lib Dems. The current treasury led agenda is very short term thinking and pandering to NIMBY voters.
There's been a lot of fuss about solar, but the UK isn't really that sunny, especially when we use the most energy. The real tragedy is Carbon Capture and Storage combined with biomass. That was looking really promising before it was scrapped, as it can actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
That's pretty amazing. I'm actually here in Portugal, down in the Algarve & you don't actually see very many solar panels or wind turbines around. Though there is a big geothermal plant not too far from here.
Afaik, mostly relevant sources of geothermal power in Portugal are in the Azores islands (wonderful place to visit, btw). Regarding wind power, the highest locations are on the northern part of the country (above Lisbon), so most wind turbines are there. Same thing for water dams, as it is natural that most rivers and streams are on mountain's valleys.
Only solar power is quite pervasive, as Portugal is known to have a very high average number of days of solar exposure. I live some 3/4 kms of a quite big solar power array that is the source of the majority of electrical power in the nearby houses. And in Alentejo (just north of Algarve), you can find the Amareleja power station which in 2008 was considered the largest solar power array in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moura_Photovoltaic_Power_Stati...).
As others said you'll find more wind and hydro power in the north.
As far as solar power is concerned, there's not so much in Portugal, because it was expensive until some couple of years. Nowadays we have a remuneration scheme that allows you to consume directly from your solar panel, thus not increasing the accumulated tariff debt (it is currently at ~5billion€. Spain is worse at ~27billion€. They invested in solar power too early)
I'm Portuguese but far from knowledgeable in matters of energy. Going north from Lisbon you'll start to see many wind turbines while in the freeway and inner roads.
Curiously enough, this information has not been publicly relayed in the national media. I've only read about it on the international media.. It's indeed a pity that we don't know that sometimes our money is spend in a nice way.. :/
It's not more newsworthy because we already have 50-60% of total electrical energy being produced by renewables so peaking at 100%+ for a few days is getting easier and easier.
It was. On publico.pt and on observador.pt, at least.
On a slightly related note: What our media totally skipped were the SpaceX landings. They were busy discussing the resignation of the minister of Culture because of some FB insults. Humph. Politics: a reality show that is, unfortunately, real.
This is an encouraging story but the headline is very misleading. It would be more accurate to say, "Portugal's ELECTRICITY GENERATION runs for four days straight on renewable energy alone."
In Portugal (as in most Western European countries), electricity accounts for about 20% of energy consumption (source: Eurostat). Transport and heating are still almost totally dependant on non-renewable fossil fuels. So there's a long way to go.
living near the equator, it's hard for me to remember the great amount of energy that more northerly areas use just to keep their home environments liveable. heating is literally a negligible blip in my overall energy equation.
>>Zero emission milestone reached as country is powered by just wind, solar and hydro-generated electricity for 107 hours.
Hydroelectric power isn't the clean renewable it is often made out to be. Its impact is very location-specific. Some dams need constant dredging. Some decimate downriver ecosystems. And the flooding of green forests, carbon sinks, isn't carbon-neutral. Each is different, but imho hydroelectric shouldn't be listed as "zero emission" alongside solar and wind.
I'm all in for renewable energy, but it bothers me the lack of critical thinking about it. The words "renewable" and "green" are always viewed as something positive for humanity, but as everything in life, nothing is black or white.
Here is [1] and interesting article about how efficient energy could actually speed up the end of civilization.
If a country spends i.e. 100MW of electricity, how much does it need to be able to produce to be safe when the circumstances aren't favorable for max production?
Or will we always need non-renewable sources for this issue?
[+] [-] jneves|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jon_smark|9 years ago|reply
Not to dismiss this great news, but the country is still a long way from being 100% renewable on a continuing basis. There's however a huge untapped potential in solar, so that goal is reachable if the investment happens (and grid storage becomes cheaper).
[+] [-] toyg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bubuga|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ruipgil|9 years ago|reply
Besides the sun, I think the ocean will be our safest bet. The technology seems to be lacking though.
[+] [-] dbs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anewhnaccount|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 7952|9 years ago|reply
About 5 years ago I worked in wind development. It was common knowledge that the supply of good sites for larger scale (>5MW) production was becoming very limited. I think the government pretended to crack down when the opportunity was drying up naturally.
To build a wind farm you need good wind resource, a grid connection and a site that can get planning permission (not in an AONB etc). Most of the "low hanging fruit" already have planning permission for a scheme and just need to be built. The industry was running out of new sites at exactly the same time that the Government started to cut the subsidy. Without a big change to planning law the number of new sites would have dried up anyway.
This trend is also happening with solar farms. We are simply running out of suitable rural substations that can handle the demand. The government are shifting focus to more industrial sites that tend to have on-site substations with plenty of capacity. They may pretend that it is ideological but I doubt it somehow.
The energy industry is incredibly complex, and it is hard to understand the economics. The Government may actually want energy to be more expensive so that Hinkley C appears better value. The problem with having large amounts of cheap energy (onshore wind) is that it reduces the price of energy! It becomes even more complex when you consider the requirement for peaking generation.
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/14/cameron-w...
[+] [-] toyg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andyjohnson0|9 years ago|reply
[1] http://gridwatch.co.uk/
[+] [-] gaius|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jsingleton|9 years ago|reply
There's been a lot of fuss about solar, but the UK isn't really that sunny, especially when we use the most energy. The real tragedy is Carbon Capture and Storage combined with biomass. That was looking really promising before it was scrapped, as it can actually remove CO2 from the atmosphere.
[+] [-] codecamper|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jventura|9 years ago|reply
Only solar power is quite pervasive, as Portugal is known to have a very high average number of days of solar exposure. I live some 3/4 kms of a quite big solar power array that is the source of the majority of electrical power in the nearby houses. And in Alentejo (just north of Algarve), you can find the Amareleja power station which in 2008 was considered the largest solar power array in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moura_Photovoltaic_Power_Stati...).
[+] [-] joaoaccarvalho|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] griffinheart|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lagadu|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] glaberficken|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ascorbic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nelmaven|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jventura|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zemanel|9 years ago|reply
- soccer
- X murdered Y
- something about the police
- bad thing Z happened on freeways
- how the weather is going to be on the weekend
- world news: the weather in India is apparently very nice today
:-)
[+] [-] pedrocr|9 years ago|reply
http://sicnoticias.sapo.pt/pais/2016-05-15-Consumo-de-eletri...
http://www.jn.pt/nacional/interior/portugal-funcionou-quatro...
http://observador.pt/2016/05/18/portugal-usou-apenas-energia...
It's not more newsworthy because we already have 50-60% of total electrical energy being produced by renewables so peaking at 100%+ for a few days is getting easier and easier.
[+] [-] sergiosgc|9 years ago|reply
On a slightly related note: What our media totally skipped were the SpaceX landings. They were busy discussing the resignation of the minister of Culture because of some FB insults. Humph. Politics: a reality show that is, unfortunately, real.
[+] [-] garethrees|9 years ago|reply
In Portugal (as in most Western European countries), electricity accounts for about 20% of energy consumption (source: Eurostat). Transport and heating are still almost totally dependant on non-renewable fossil fuels. So there's a long way to go.
[+] [-] jobigoud|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knodi123|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|9 years ago|reply
Hydroelectric power isn't the clean renewable it is often made out to be. Its impact is very location-specific. Some dams need constant dredging. Some decimate downriver ecosystems. And the flooding of green forests, carbon sinks, isn't carbon-neutral. Each is different, but imho hydroelectric shouldn't be listed as "zero emission" alongside solar and wind.
[+] [-] astrodust|9 years ago|reply
Do they have any estimates on the carbon footprint?
Nuclear is the same as the cost of extracting fuel is non-zero.
[+] [-] klean92|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ccozan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fasteo|9 years ago|reply
Here is [1] and interesting article about how efficient energy could actually speed up the end of civilization.
[1] http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Jevons_Paradox...
[+] [-] nunobrito|9 years ago|reply
Last time was about 11 hours some three years ago.
This time 4 days.
I'm crossing fingers for next time to reach two weeks.
[+] [-] Chos89|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mipapage|9 years ago|reply
Sure, but the inept Spanish non-government will never do the right thing with this amazing opportunity.
[+] [-] fasteo|9 years ago|reply
How come ? Spain has lots of both solar and wind plants that have been heavily subsidized by the government in the last 15 years.
[+] [-] jkot|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jneves|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]