Uruguay makes dramatic shift to nearly 95% electricity from clean energy

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

4 posts / 0 new

In less than 10 years the country has slashed its carbon footprint and lowered electricity costs, without government subsidies. Delegates at the Paris summit can learn much from its success.

As the world gathers in Paris for the daunting task of switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy, one small country on the other side of the Atlantic is making that transition look childishly simple and affordable.

In less than 10 years, Uruguay has slashed its carbon footprint without government subsidies or higher consumer costs, according to the country’s head of climate change policy, Ramón Méndez.

In fact, he says that now that renewables provide 94.5% of the country’s electricity, prices are lower than in the past relative to inflation. There are also fewer power cuts because a diverse energy mix means greater resilience to droughts.

It was a very different story just 15 years ago. Back at the turn of the century oil accounted for 27% of Uruguay’s imports and a new pipeline was just about to begin supplying gas from Argentina.

Which countries are doing the most to stop dangerous global warming? Read more

Now the biggest item on import balance sheet is wind turbines, which fill the country’s ports on their way to installation.

Biomass and solar power have also been ramped up. Adding to existing hydropower, this means that renewables now account for 55% of the country’s overall energy mix (including transport fuel) compared with a global average share of 12%.

Despite its relatively small population of just 3.4 million, Uruguay has earned a remarkable amount of global kudos in recent years. It enacted groundbreaking marijuana legalisation, pioneered stringent tobacco control, and introduced some of the most liberal policies in Latin America on abortion and same-sex marriage.

Now, it is being recognised for progress on decarbonising its economy. It has been praised by the World Bank and the Economic commission for Latin America and the Caribbean, and the WWF last year named Uruguay among its “Green Energy Leaders”, proclaiming: “The country is defining global trends in renewable energy investment.”

Cementing that reputation, Méndez – formerly the country’s national director of energy – has gone to this week’s UN talks with one of the world’s most ambitious national pledges: an 88% cut in carbon emissions by 2017 compared with the average for 2009-13.

Pinterest Ramón Méndez, Uruguay’s head of climate policy: ‘What we’ve learned is that renewables is just a financial business.’ Photograph: Jeon Heon-Kyun/EPA

There are no technological miracles involved, nuclear power is entirely absent from the mix, and no new hydroelectric power has been added for more than two decades. Instead, he says, the key to success is rather dull but encouragingly replicable: clear decision-making, a supportive regulatory environment and a strong partnership between the public and private sector.

As a result, energy investment – mostly for renewables, but also liquid gas – in Uruguay over the past five years has surged to $7bn, or 15% of the country’s annual GDP. That is five times the average in Latin America and three times the global share recommended by climate economist Nicholas Stern.

“What we’ve learned is that renewables is just a financial business,” Méndez says. “The construction and maintenance costs are low, so as long as you give investors a secure environment, it is a very attractive.”

The effects are apparent on Route 5 from Montevideo to the north. In less than 200 miles, you pass three agroindustrial plants running on biofuel and three windfarms . The biggest of them is the 115MW Peralta plant built and run by the German company, Enercon.

Its huge turbines – each 108 metres tall – tower over grasslands full of cattle and rhea birds .

Along with reliable wind – at an average of about 8mph – the main attraction for foreign investors like Enercon is a fixed price for 20 years that is guaranteed by the state utility. Because maintenance costs are low (just 10 staff) and stable, this guarantees a profit.

Play VideoPlayMute Current Time0:00/Duration Time1:17Loaded: 0% Progress: 0%Fullscreen PinterestA 60-second guide to why the Paris climate summit will succeed

As a result, foreign firms are lining up to secure windfarm contracts. The competition is pushing down bids, cutting electricity generating costs by more than 30% over the past three years. Christian Schaefer, supervising technician at Enercon said his company was hoping to expand and another German company Nordex is already building an even bigger plant further north along route five. Trucks carrying turbines, towers and blades are now a common sight on the country’s roads.

Compared to most other small countries with high proportions of renewables, the mix is diverse. While Paraguay, Bhutan and Lesotho rely almost solely on hydro and Iceland on geothermal, Uruguay has a spread that makes it more resilient to changes in the climate.

Windfarms such as Peralta now feed into hydro power plants so that dams can maintain their reservoirs longer after rainy seasons. According to Méndez, this has reduced vulnerability to drought by 70% – no small benefit considering a dry year used to cost the country nearly 2% of GDP.

This is not the only benefit for the economy. “For three years we haven’t imported a single kilowatt hour,” Méndez says. “We used to be reliant on electricity imports from Argentina, but now we export to them. Last summer, we sold a third of our power generation to them.”

There is still a lot to do. The transport sector still depends on oil (which accounts for 45% of the total energy mix). But industry – mostly agricultural processing – is now powered predominantly by biomass cogeneration plants.

Pinterest Workers connect wind turbines to the grid. Photograph: Joerg Boethling/Alamy

Méndez attributed Uruguay’s success to three key factors: credibility (a stable democracy that has never defaulted on its debts so it is attractive for long-term investments); helpful natural conditions (good wind, decent solar radiation and lots of biomass from agriculture); and strong public companies (which are a reliable partner for private firms and can work with the state to create an attractive operating environment).

While not every country in the world can replicate this model, he said Uruguay had proved that renewables can reduce generation costs, can meet well over 90% of electricity demand without the back-up of coal or nuclear power plants, and the public and private sectors can work together effectively in this field.

The Paris climate summit at a glance Read more

But, perhaps, the biggest lesson that Uruguay can provide to the delegates in Parisis the importance of strong decision-making. As has been the case at countless UN climate conferences, Uruguay was once paralysed by a seemingly endless and rancorous debate about energy policy.

All that changed when the government finally agreed on a long-term plan that drew cross-party support.

“We had to go through a crisis to reach this point. We spent 15 years in a bad place,” Méndez said. “But in 2008, we launched a long-term energy policy that covered everything … Finally we had clarity.”

That new direction made possible the rapid transition that is now reaping rewards.

Small nations, renewable giants

Uruguay gets 94.5% of its electricity from renewables. In addition to old hydropower plants, a hefty investment in wind, biomass and solar in recent years has raised the share of these sources in the total energy mix to 55%, compared with a global average of 12%, and about 20% in Europe.

Costa Rica went a record 94 consecutive days earlier this year without using fossil fuel for electricity, thanks to a mix of about 78% hydropower, 12% geothermal and 10% wind. The government has set a target of 100% renewable energy by 2021. But transport remains dirty.

Iceland has the advantage of being a nation of volcanoes, which has allowed it to tap geothermal sources of 85% of its heating and – with the assistance of hydropower – 100% of its electricity. This has made it the world’s largest green energy producer per capita.

Paraguay has one huge hydropower dam at Itaipu, which supplies 90% of the country’s electricity.

Lesotho gets 100% of its electricity from a cascade of dams that have enough spare capacity to export power to South Africa.

Bhutan’s abundant hydropower resources generate a surplus of electricity that accounts for more than 40% of the country’s export earnings. But over-reliance on one source can be a problem. In the dry season, it has to import power from India.

• This article was amended on 4 December 2015. An earlier version described Ramón Méndez as Uruguay’s national director of energy; he was formerly, but Olga Otegui now holds that post.

holymoly's picture
holymoly
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Comments

holymoly is looking to beat Obama for the spin-doctor of the year award.

As usual these renewables salesmen follow the same old tactics of deception:

Cherry-Pick a country out of hundreds in the world that:

1) Has a small population density and/or:

2) Is poverty stricken with consequently very low per capita energy consumption and/or:

3) Has very low level of industrialization, so mostly imports high embodied energy goods and/or:

4) Has a large & fortunate natural endowment of the two main renewables - hydro & biomass, that make it easy to be "mostly renewables". And in the one case Iceland has a treasure-trove of easily accessible Geothermal, mostly used for low grade heating applications.

This is nothing new, has happened for a century or more, everyone knows conventional hydro is practical & cost-effective, it just is severely limited by geographical location. Just look at world energy supply going back long before the promote-renewables craze started:

https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/WORLD5.pdf

As you see going back to 1971 to present hydro & biomass were always the world's primary renewable supply, and that has increased slowly in total quantity but not in toal proportion of the World Energy supply. As you see the new scalable renewables Wind & Solar are almost non-existent and wiped out by the only scalable clean energy supply, namely nuclear energy.

https://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/WORLD4.pdf

So no progress here, world primary energy still 31% oil, 29% coal, 21% NG, 10.2% Biomass (& fossil waste), 4.8% Nuclear, 2.4% Hydro, 1.2% combined Geothermal/Solar & Wind.

So Uruguay:

http://www.iea.org/stats/WebGraphs/uruguay2.pdf

Like other excellent Hydro areas gets almost all its electricity from hydro, 2nd highest is oil, 3rd is Biomass and lowest is a tidbit of Wind & Solar. Note Hydro fluctuates wildly with rainfall - drought has actually reduced their Hydro from its high ~2001-2003.

And Uruguay still relies on Oil for 51% of its total energy supply, Biomass for 32%, Hydro 15%, the much hyped up wind & solar only 0.3%.

And per capita energy consumption for Uruguay is 1.2 MToe/yr vs USA @ 7.2 MToe/yr, so their "success" is really not applicable to a modern industrialized nation with social welfare. The renewable resources are fixed by geography whereas standard of living & population increases demand dramatically. It is not feasible economically or technologically for renewables to expand in proportion to that. Just the low EROI (Energy Return on Invested) of the new renewables, Wind & Solar, make it impossible for them to displace fossil fuels. Nuclear energy is the only energy source capable of that feat.

And the same reality applies to all of holymoly's hyped up country examples.

This is the real world, no hype:

https://edmhdotme.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/screen-shot-2015-04-03-at-...

You see the incredibly rapid rise in CO2 emissions aka Fossil Fuel consumption for each of :

a) China

b) India

c) Korea, Iran, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Indonesia & Taiwan

d) all other nations combined except for the already industrialized nations

Holymoly's entire list of select piss-pot sized nations pale into insignificance compared to the above.

I would also add that the two significant renewables are also big greenhouse gas emitters, biomass is 230 gms/kwh vs nuclear is 12 gms/kwh.

And most Hydro expansion is in developing countries where vast areas of beautiful, productive ecosystems, are being decimated by giant hydro reservoirs. The huge reservoirs destroy enormous stores of vegetation and soil, causing massive releases of methane through rotting biomass, which makes the hydro almost as bad as fossil fuels in terms of GHG emissions. And large populations dispaced by the land destruction. Some reservoirs as much as 7000 sq.km. producing as much power as Fukushima did, but even counting all the temporarily radioisotope contaminated land near Fuku was 400 sq.km., which still remains a wildlife paradise & natural ecosystem, that has <1/10th the radiation level of a popular beach in Brazil.

Hydro using some 1200X more land than Nuclear power. And climate change causes draught leading to low hydro output. And one Hydro dam failure in China killed ~200 thousand people.

A near hydro dam collapse in Colorado in 1983 was one inch from being the worst natural disaster in US history:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/28/363471/-A-Tale-of-Two-Centimete...

Compared to that Fukushima plus Chernobyl look like a bad rainy day.

Biomass is not sustainable and it most certainly is not Green.

Worse Than Fossil Fuels? Why Bioenergy Is Not Green
An Interview with Princeton Research Scholar Tim Searchinger:

http://thebreakthrough.org/issues/energy/worse-than-fossil-fuels-why-bio...

Destroying a complex tropical ecosystem, that has survived for 50 million years, with ten's of thousands of living species, a web of life, just so that all the biomass can be stupidly burned for heat & power. Outrageous destruction. Causing soil erosion, pollution, massive releases of greenhouse gases, soil mineral depletion, in fact, biomass burning is often a worse climate change agent than Coal and certainly pollutes just as bad, if not worse. The WHO has calculated biomass burning kills 3.5 million people every year

Instant-RunOff-...
Joined:
Jun. 17, 2015 11:41 am

/international living uruguay/ is a possible retirement country for anyone considering an expat path. It is beautiful and cheap, I've been there many times and enjoyed it. They legalized pot in the last decade, so they are a civilized, less developed (thus less corrupt and less environmental crimes than the big neighbor north).

It's summer down there now if anyone wants a beach vacation.

45.4 mps is the average peak time broadband connection speed, the fastest of all the Americas.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

/international living uruguay/ is a possible retirement country for anyone considering an expat path. It is beautiful and cheap, I've been there many times and enjoyed it. They legalized pot in the last decade, so they are a civilized, less developed (thus less corrupt and less environmental crimes than the big neighbor north).

It's summer down there now if anyone wants a beach vacation.

45.4 mps is the average peak time broadband connection speed, the fastest of all the Americas.

So a country where europeans eradicated the native population is a good place to live? Duly noted.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

America: Meet Your Overlord Rupert Murdoch...

Thom plus logo The main lesson that we've learned so far from the impeachment hearings is that if Richard Nixon had had a billionaire like Rupert Murdoch with a television network like Fox News behind him, he never would've resigned and America would have continued to be presided over by a criminal.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system