Discussion Forums > Technology
End of Nuclear Power Generation
Burkingam:
Yea basically if hydro is available, it should almost always be favoured over nuclear and fossil. The benefits are just too great. It lasts forever too. The hover dam was built in the 30s ans is still perfectly functional. But if it's not available, it's useless to ask.
per:
--- Quote from: Burkingam on June 13, 2011, 06:16:25 AM ---7 of the 10 most powerful power stations in the world are hydro (rank 4,6 and 9 are nuclear). World wide, Hydro accounts for 20% of all energy produced. This is not small.
I agree that is less flexible as of where we can build it but nuclear doesn't beat any fuel plants in this regard. And when it comes to producing only when needed, nothing beats hydro. This has already be stated, read the last few pages for more details.
--- End quote ---
Most usable hydro power in the developed countries is actually already used (at least in Europe this is the case).
There is a rather hard limit on how much you can get from hydro. If there is no river, or no height difference, there is not much that can be done.
Also, environmentalists often stop hydro power plants since they have a tendency to put large areas under water.
Burkingam:
There are always some environmentalists who want to block any form of development. If you consider the ratio of land used/energy output, hydro can be compared with pretty much anything(except geothermal that beats anything else hands down in that regard. Very little land taken.). You also have to consider the mines for nuclear and fossils plants.
Bob2004:
--- Quote from: Burkingam on June 13, 2011, 04:57:30 PM ---There are always some environmentalists who want to block any form of development. If you consider the ratio of land used/energy output, hydro can be compared with pretty much anything(except geothermal that beats anything else hands down in that regard. Very little land taken.). You also have to consider the mines for nuclear and fossils plants.
--- End quote ---
A big hydroelectric dam usually requires totally flooding an entire valley. Which means, potentially, several square miles of natural habitats are totally destroyed, and wildlife killed. Not to mention that everyone living there will lose their homes - 1.3 million people were displaced by the three gorges dam in China, for example.
Sure, hydroelectric is possibly the cheapest and most efficient form of power generation, but it comes with significant costs in other areas which make it undesirable in a lot of situations.
Burkingam:
--- Quote from: Bob2004 on June 13, 2011, 05:02:10 PM ---
--- Quote from: Burkingam on June 13, 2011, 04:57:30 PM ---There are always some environmentalists who want to block any form of development. If you consider the ratio of land used/energy output, hydro can be compared with pretty much anything(except geothermal that beats anything else hands down in that regard. Very little land taken.). You also have to consider the mines for nuclear and fossils plants.
--- End quote ---
A big hydroelectric dam usually requires totally flooding an entire valley. Which means, potentially, several square miles of natural habitats are totally destroyed, and wildlife killed. Not to mention that everyone living there will lose their homes - 1.3 million people were displaced by the three gorges dam in China, for example.
Sure, hydroelectric is possibly the cheapest and most efficient form of power generation, but it comes with significant costs in other areas which make it undesirable in a lot of situations.
--- End quote ---
The relocalization of the valley's inhabitants is usually the deal breaker. Be carefull though. Your example isn't representative of what usually hapens. the three gorges dam holds the record of the most peoples localized and by far. Also consider that the three gorges dam is the most powerful plant of any type in the world.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version