Chile Forum

While I am at it, here is another article about daylight savings time:

Does Daylight Savings Time Really Save Energy?
http://enviromedia.statesmanblogs.com/e ... 59009194ec

The above has a link to another article from the wall street journal which documents an Indiana study that says daylight-savings time actually caused consumers to increase energy use:

Daylight Saving Wastes Energy, Study Says

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... 94825.html

The energy-savings numbers often cited by lawmakers and others come from research conducted in the 1970s. Yet a key difference between now and the '70s -- or, for that matter, Ben Franklin's time -- is the prevalence of air conditioning.

Although many homes don't have air conditioning, many of the big stores (Jumbo, etc.) do. Was that a pun I just made?

mlightheart wrote:... the daylight savings time thing, which has caused my computers to not know what time it is here.

Use Brasilia as "Chile time" till 00:00:01 on the 30th where you switch back to Santiago time.

All DST does is screw up my server times. In this day and age of global communication, we should all be forced to use UTC or GMT times, and skip the political clock setting.

This forum gets accessed from just about every time zone in the World every day. we get calls from all over the world day and night from clients in different time zones. All of which causes me to have to recalculate time endlessly. I have a nice little program on all the desktops in our office that shows the conversion with a click, but I should not need that. I should be able to just count off the time zones, and get UTC +6 for instance.

With the emotional load of Patagonia Sin Repressas, and all the clean energy thinking, I wonder if anyone has a clear thought on how, if giant hydro-electric projects go through here in southern Chile, the energy will make it "cost-effectively" to Central and Northern Chile. Let's set aside the fact that Southern Chile will cease to exist as it is now...the world famous rafting rivers will be damed (damned) and fishing for monster trout and salmon will no longer be a tourist draw...people who get their water from the rivers to live will be forced to drill wells they cannot afford...the el campo life will be seriously challenged when people can't farm and need to travel to work, buy gas, food and necessities they previously provided for themselves...How much will it cost Chile to move electric North?

I'm not saying this to be dramatic, but I thought about all the people down here who - aside from buying sugar, flour and salt - rarely consume anything they don't produce. With the promise of hydro, the promise of jobs. To people who will most likely not benefit from any decent paying jobs, maybe only a few low-level, non-technical positions. If the rivers aren't running, or are diminished, their water for crops and drinking is compromised. My neighbors, who are traditional farmers (sheep, a few cows, family garden plot) if they don't have a good water supply, would have to dig a well, something they can't afford. So, then they go to work, if they are lucky, and need to pay to get there and back. They won't be able to farm, as they did before. The young grandmother needs to get a job now and won't be able to help care for the grandchildren while the mother and father work, and who will work on the farm?. She and her husband will be forced to spend more and more on things they produced on their farm, their potatoes, fruit, wood, meat, butter and cheese. The town will not have the seasonal, relatively non-impacting eco-tourist money that enables them to live all year round because the rivers don't run. The tour companies, who have the most to lose, are the least of the affected in this scenerio. It is the lifestyle and heritage of the small towns and communities and people of Southern Chile that will be devastated. It is the thing that draws so many people to Patagonia, and to Chile in general.

An environmental impact study is one thing, I don't know if one has truly been done showing the true economic and environmental impact. But what about the social impact, the impact on the lives of people in Southern Chile? Temporary jobs are probably the most anyone here could ever expect. Not that there aren't talented, educated people in Southern Chile, but because the companies who plan these giant energy projects are highly unlikely to pull from local talent to staff their ventures in the long-term. So benefit to the communities is very little, impact is very high, and at what cost per kilowatt hour to the people who will receive the electricity?

I don't think the deliverance of a bit of juice to Santiago will be cost-effective, not in my humble opinion. And I think that will bear itself out in the end. If you can get all the electric you can ever want, but are paying twice the kilowatt hour - combine that with the devastating effects to the lives of the people of Southern Chile, and it's a losing proposition. And no one can say what it will actually cost, the figures bounce all over the chart, mostly up, up, up in cost. Reminds me of another fiasco, one not involving energy. In Florida, over a decade ago, a Florida Constitutional Amendment was on the ballot to stop mullet fishing with nets. Pictures of dolphins suffocating in nets were shown on TV commercials. People were stunned! Outraged! The amendment passed almost unanimously. The problem was, mullet fisherman didn't catch dolphins in their nets. Commercial purse-seiners did. Mullet fisherman lived in little bay-front homes, paid for. They fished, their wives traded seafood for vegtables with the farmers out east. Their children ran barefoot, safe and happy on the streets of the little village. People took care of each other. Three generations of families thrived and passed on their heritage. The amendment banned the small-time mullet fisherman with nets, and the commercial guys went off-shore with their huge purse-seine nets and continued to kill dolphins. Entire communities lost their way of life, developers moved in, bought up distressed home-owners, old fishing boats and nets became art-deco. Lawns and golf courses were fertilzed and poisened the bays and waterways. Property taxes went up. Cortez, for example, died. It was a disaster, a tipping point (SR. El P.) and an entire culture was destroyed because someone had enough money to launch a media campaign to push their interest through. The people of Cortez didn't have money to fight and make commercials to say, "We don't net dolphins!" And so it goes...

A song from Cortez, Florida in the 1980's went like this....

I had a dream.
All of this was all gone.
No quiet nights, no "pickin" lights
Net's slap full, night breezes blow cool
And my children will say "I wanna fish some day" Ma
I wanna fish someday.
But it's gone.

And the good and honest people
Who for generations have worked the age old art
Of fishing the oceans
Went to work in the factories
And the kicker boats set in back yards
And the nets lay rotting with no purpose
All gone.
All that was left, was a song.

And it was.

So, I guess I'm just saying, Chile has the chance to do not only the right thing, but the RIGHT thing. Economically, Environmentally, and Socially. I'll bet any of you, that on the two E's, damning the rivers of Patagonia is an unwise move.

Due to energy and water issues, I've been having second thoughts about relocating to Chile upon retirement in 2012. However, Chile is still forefront in my mind because of its economic and political stability.

Bri-

Not trying to 'suade you one way nor the other, but in the big scheme of things, depending on where you want to be climate wise, I'd still rather be here, than a host of other places, say Costa Rica....where there is no solid infrastructure, no foundation for water-quality oversight, in Panama, where the infrastructure WAS good, but is crumbling and corruption of the worst kind jeopardizes sustaining any of the foreseeable growth. Here, I'm not worried about access to energy, I'm concerned about energy dependence and cost. In other places I would be concerned about access, and quality. To be sure, it's going to be most countries biggest challenge. Who will be best able to adequately deal with the issue? Didn't we just have a water quality issue in Colorado? And other places in the US has had breeches in water-quality standards.

For us, it's the issue of cost. Right now it's reasonable here in Futa. But what will it be 5 years from now, or two? And how can we reduce our dependence so that if it does hit the roof, it won't bury us? I think it's an issue all over the world. Of course not where people live with no electric, their lives won't change much at all. Poorer nations won't see the effects of an energy crises like the sparkling night-lit cities of Europe and North America.

After starting out here, with a few light sockets and electrical outlets in our new place, we are better placed to deal with an energy crisis. Worst case scenerio, we have water, a way to cook, a way to stay warm. In the meantime we will enjoy a flip of the switch now and then. And stay tuned into how Chile chooses to deal with this issue.

Vicki

Living in Chile is preferable than the US because of impending oil shortages. It is my impression that the residents of Chile are not as dependent on oil for their lifestyle as it is for the citizens of the US:

"The US economy is particularly vulnerable to the coming oil shocks as we consume a greater proportion of the world's oil than any other nation.

"Given that any large scale plan to mitigate these problems would need to have been initiated on a global scale at least 20 years ago, it is hard to envision the economy not collapsing as a result of these trends."

Source: http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/SecondPage.html

However, I think I am going to look at some other countries that may be in a better energy position than Chile.

Wise thinking. I have some friends considering a few places, one being New Zealand! I think wow! With energy a concern, isn't that an awful long way from everywhere? They said, not if it's where we want to call home. So, anyway, always a good thing to weigh all your options.

Vicki

However, I think I am going to look at some other countries that may be in a better energy position than Chile.

Try Canada.

Do not write off New Zealand. They have natural gas they are (or were until recently) turning into liquid fuel--methanol--although I believe that is a waste of money. They used to have a synthetic gasoline plant (I had a small part in the design of that plant). Another waste of money, which they finally realised.

Chile also has a large methanol complex down in Puenta Arenas that is still operating, I believe. Don't they get their natural gas from Argentina? My memory fails me.

Living in Chile is preferable than the US because of impending oil shortages. It is my impression that the residents of Chile are not as dependent on oil for their lifestyle as it is for the citizens of the US:

"The US economy is particularly vulnerable to the coming oil shocks as we consume a greater proportion of the world's oil than any other nation.

I suggest that Chile is proportionately much more dependent on oil than the US. Chile uses petroleum for more essential purposes. The US uses petroleum for all kinds of things, often marginal things. If the US cuts back on the use of petroleum, it will do so on the marginal uses. Chile has few marginal uses. It's going to hurt.

Chile used to be a free-market country under Big P. Are Chileans afraid to let prices rise, to let the market work?

I'm beginning to think the "authorities" are not admitting to real capacity problems that have been occurring months before the current debate on energy.

We just had a two and a half hour outage here. This outage happened almost exactly at 9 pm. THIS IS THE FIFTH UNANNOUNCED OUTAGE IN THE PAST FOUR MONTHS. The most memorable was the supposed "car accident" outage on New Year's Eve.

Remember this area houses the most important port of Chile and the workers living here supporting that port.

Call me rumor monger or whatever but something don't smell right here. Tin foli hat activated.

Chile overall does not have a water shortage. The parts of Chile that have the largest populations do have a water shortage.

I have to bite my tongue when I get a call from potential client that says, "I want land in the Patagonia with water". Good luck finding something in the Patagonia that does not have water. In fact most of our clients or properties we know of in the Patagonia have more than one, or at least easy access to one, 100 to 500 foot waterfall that runs year around. Many have more than one. We have lots of clients that either have micro hydro plants on their property, or are currently in the process of installing one. Almost all others have some form of major river or lake, or at least a property with a small creek.

I bought a 2 hectare property last year, and it has two small creeks that could easily be turned in to holding basin sufficient to power a few wats off a home made generator or more. That is exactly what many people in the campo have been doing for years. They use an old truck alternator to make a home made hydro generator to power a few lights, the radio, and so on. They have been doing super green for years.

The migration of Chile is coming sooner, rather than later. People are already starting to migrate south from the dryer central regions to Southern Chile. Pumalin park so far is acting as the great barrier to Chileans. The only people moving there are foreigners. Even Temuco will dry out in the next 10 to 20 years to look more like Santiago now.

We have had 6 months of sun and good weather this year that makes most of southern California look like a rain forest. Water in southern chile is not about the rain you see, it is about the rain in the mountains. Where the mountains meet the see more dramatically, there is more snow and rain dropped.

The great Chilean migration however I do not believe will ever pass Puerto montt. In fact, I think most of it will never pass Temuco.

I intended stay away of this thread, but, que diablos, I just drink one liter of Brahma Porter and I feel brave enough to say my unpopular opinion, here I go:

1.-Chile need energy
I remember my childhood and teenager years in the 60s and 70s, when Chile was a poor country socially fractured and all we dreamed to emigrate to Argentina, USA or Europe. Well, then comes the -relative- prosperity and social stability, after several years of economic growth, all this pushed for a increase on energy consumption. In those years Chile was just like is now Bolivia, a very "ecologic" country but an horrible place to live, full of poverty and social unrest. I guess that many of those who now consider Chile as a good place to settle down tend to forget that is the economic grown which underly on many of the good things that now we have. Bolivia has beautiful virgin territories, but is barely a good place to live now because of poverty, starving and social fractures.

2.-We need urgent to become as energy independent as possible
One of the most stupid -or corrupt- choices was tacked during Eduardo Frei Ruiz Tagle ruling, when we signed a contract who made Chile energy dependent on Argentinian gas. This is not possible to stand anymore, if we have any single source of energy we MUST to exploit in our benefit, it is a strategic issue of first priority because we cannot afford to depend of neighbor countries for our supply, specially considering that we compete and have conflict of interest in many fields with those countries.

3.-Any energy source has its costs and environmental undesirables
There are no free lunches, many people scandals about ugly high tension towers of power lines in Patagonia, but what about the alternatives? wind generators are far ugliest, not to mention solar farms or nuclear plants.Moreover "renewable" energy sources are -at this time- economically unrofitables and cannot survive without government subsidies, this is a self delusion because what we are paying in excess for subsidies just incentive the least efficient technologies.

4.-Chile has only two choices: nuclear or hydro
This is reality, there are no place in the world where unconventional energy sources have an important share of total matrix because their low efficiency, in many places in Europe and USA those technologies are heavily subsidied, Chile is not a rich country and, if we have to subsidie, there are thousand of more important places where to put the money, we simply cannot afford to subsidize uneficient technologies. Due the high cost of oil and high contamination of coal there are two choices: nuclear plants or hydroelectric. We still have resources for the latter and it MUST be exploited because there are well known tecnologies and the enviromental impact (who s not zero, nothing have zero impact) is lower than nuclear plants.

5.-Better technologies?
Centrales de paso instead represas? OK is fine to me, provided that there are same or better efficient in economical terms as represas. Anyway there is always a price to pay, there is not free lunch and we must be aware on that, the alternative is famine and social unrest. The country needs energy to continue working as now and we have to pay the cost, in money and environmental damage.

Anyway, I know that I am a "one man party" on that matter, but I think that this is the reality and any protest or action against to exploit the hydroelectric potential of Patagonia will be useless. We need to use this potential, the alternative is nuclear plant and it is worse, more risky, more complicated and will take too long. Hydroelectric is at our hands reach and Chilean government have to exploit as soon as possible. In the best way, looking to minimize impact. Okey, but we must use it. It is the logical and technical choice.

Oh, and "resistive loses" on transmission lines is a nonsense in technical terms. There are a very sophisticated system of "despacho de carga" developed during many, many years to solve ths kind of problems. Transmission for long distances is not a problem since several decades with the modern technologies of electric engineering.

Ahora pueden empezar a apedrearme

Hey Tom. A very thoughtful, and well laid-out post on the energy issue. You are not a "one-man party". It's an issue that is probably very dear to most everyone in Chile. The folks with energy issues, and the folks who will be affected both ways. Let's imagine that Chile decides to place massive solar panels in your area, in the Valle de Luna (is that what it's called). Hundred of miles of solar panels. You might consider that it will be ugly, but what if you don't have to look at it. And what if it doesn't affect the lifestyle of people there, all the reasons where you live is wonderful for the locals. That would be good. But, what if it would change forever, the lives and culture of those people?

I sincerely understand "the greater good" idea. But how do we know if the cost benefits are true? I think we should continue this discussion until we beat it to death, and someday, we can come back and see how it all worked out. In the meantime, your post was extremely informative and thoughtful. Thanks.

Vicki

And I would add that if it were Chilean companies, not foreign companies, I might be more inclined to be swayed by the research and projections Tom. But Endesa? And the others? I suspect....


Vicki