It is obvious that the Uruguay model could be successfully used in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia, given their hydro resources. What is missing is the general understanding that hydro complements wind, solar and batteries so well.
Agreed as a PNW resident, I want this! I was just blown away at the idea of just treating hydro as a battery to manage the intermittency of wind/solar. 98% renewables? Yes please.
YES! Don't freak out about reaching 100% "clean." Allow fossil "insurance." It seems if what exists is coal, that needs to be replaced by gas or other fuel combustion with fast start/stop and ramping. Evolve the system. No need to wait for and debate about "clean, firm!"
Anyway, recently Uruguay has been in the international EV news for the "China Zorrilla" ferry currently being transported across the Pacific on a carrier from the shipyard in Tasmania. It will do a 40 mile run over to Argentina. It carries 200 vehicles, 2000 people using 40 MWh (250 tons) of batteries. Not a hybrid, pure electric. Eat your heart out, Puget Sound.
On the question the episode leaves open — why nobody has followed in 7 years — how much of the answer is about what the reservoir actually does ?
Uruguayan hydro is a store of energy: hold water back when the wind blows, release it when the wind drops, over days and seasons.
The substitute everyone assumes is a battery, but batteries get sized in power while the hydro reservoir does its work in energy, and those two do not scale together.
ERCOT (Texas) entered 2026 with 13.9 GW of grid-scale storage against 22.9 GWh — 1.65 hours at full output. That clears an evening ramp but not cover two windless days.
So a country without that kind of hydro cannot buy Uruguay's flexibility off the shelf: it either keeps thermal capacity for the residual, or it has to procure power firmness as a contract — imports, capacity payments, demand response. Which suggests the exportable half of Galain's playbook is the institutional one the episode focuses on, and the physical half mostly isn't.
He actually recommends "leaving thermal capacity for the residual." He recommends oversizing wind and solar and not freaking out about "curtailment."
At high variable renewable fractions, the thermal backup ("insurance" he calls it) works best if it can stop and start quickly, so generally not coal, and if the capacity factors are low, turbines or recips not gas combined cycle.
I assume one other good characteristic of hydro is that it provides "spinning reserve" or "system strength" that otherwise currently requires idling thermal plants. But the need for that is being reduced by, and may be supplanted by, inverter-based resources with grid-forming inverters. In some cases and places pumped hydro energy storage is an option too. But outside of China, implementation has been slow and sometimes expensive.
While Uruguay's characteristics allowed 98% or whatever, lot's of places can probably reduce fossil supply to 10-25% before needing too much storage. Around here an obsession with 100% "clean" by whenever has led to all kinds distractions from just adding wind and solar and solar and local transmission and a variety of storage, and, eeek, some gas backup/insurance to replace existing inflexible coal with excessive standby costs.
This response is months late, but the issues raised here are still very topical . . . It is indeed a fool's game to debate the future ideal range of 80 and 100 percent clean energy on the grid. I would qualify the last remark above about obsession with the goal of 100 percent clean energy, though. The fundamental political problem is the power of the gas industry and the role utilities and state commissions have played in ensuring a very strong future for purveyors of natural gas. Again and again, fossil fuel interests maintain their control of the business model and the policy environment. What you might be hearing is frustration with hegemony rather than a purist obsession with 100-percent clean energy on the grid.
Ramon For US President! I loved this interview!
I really did too! David has been talking about setting this one up for a long time, so its great to see it come together.
It is obvious that the Uruguay model could be successfully used in the Pacific Northwest and British Columbia, given their hydro resources. What is missing is the general understanding that hydro complements wind, solar and batteries so well.
Agreed as a PNW resident, I want this! I was just blown away at the idea of just treating hydro as a battery to manage the intermittency of wind/solar. 98% renewables? Yes please.
If the global south can do this, why not Alaska and Hawaii (which also have expensive fossil fuels)
here a proud uruguayan, thank you Sir
YES! Don't freak out about reaching 100% "clean." Allow fossil "insurance." It seems if what exists is coal, that needs to be replaced by gas or other fuel combustion with fast start/stop and ramping. Evolve the system. No need to wait for and debate about "clean, firm!"
Anyway, recently Uruguay has been in the international EV news for the "China Zorrilla" ferry currently being transported across the Pacific on a carrier from the shipyard in Tasmania. It will do a 40 mile run over to Argentina. It carries 200 vehicles, 2000 people using 40 MWh (250 tons) of batteries. Not a hybrid, pure electric. Eat your heart out, Puget Sound.
On the question the episode leaves open — why nobody has followed in 7 years — how much of the answer is about what the reservoir actually does ?
Uruguayan hydro is a store of energy: hold water back when the wind blows, release it when the wind drops, over days and seasons.
The substitute everyone assumes is a battery, but batteries get sized in power while the hydro reservoir does its work in energy, and those two do not scale together.
ERCOT (Texas) entered 2026 with 13.9 GW of grid-scale storage against 22.9 GWh — 1.65 hours at full output. That clears an evening ramp but not cover two windless days.
So a country without that kind of hydro cannot buy Uruguay's flexibility off the shelf: it either keeps thermal capacity for the residual, or it has to procure power firmness as a contract — imports, capacity payments, demand response. Which suggests the exportable half of Galain's playbook is the institutional one the episode focuses on, and the physical half mostly isn't.
He actually recommends "leaving thermal capacity for the residual." He recommends oversizing wind and solar and not freaking out about "curtailment."
At high variable renewable fractions, the thermal backup ("insurance" he calls it) works best if it can stop and start quickly, so generally not coal, and if the capacity factors are low, turbines or recips not gas combined cycle.
I assume one other good characteristic of hydro is that it provides "spinning reserve" or "system strength" that otherwise currently requires idling thermal plants. But the need for that is being reduced by, and may be supplanted by, inverter-based resources with grid-forming inverters. In some cases and places pumped hydro energy storage is an option too. But outside of China, implementation has been slow and sometimes expensive.
While Uruguay's characteristics allowed 98% or whatever, lot's of places can probably reduce fossil supply to 10-25% before needing too much storage. Around here an obsession with 100% "clean" by whenever has led to all kinds distractions from just adding wind and solar and solar and local transmission and a variety of storage, and, eeek, some gas backup/insurance to replace existing inflexible coal with excessive standby costs.
This response is months late, but the issues raised here are still very topical . . . It is indeed a fool's game to debate the future ideal range of 80 and 100 percent clean energy on the grid. I would qualify the last remark above about obsession with the goal of 100 percent clean energy, though. The fundamental political problem is the power of the gas industry and the role utilities and state commissions have played in ensuring a very strong future for purveyors of natural gas. Again and again, fossil fuel interests maintain their control of the business model and the policy environment. What you might be hearing is frustration with hegemony rather than a purist obsession with 100-percent clean energy on the grid.