Discussion Forums > Technology
End of Nuclear Power Generation
Bob2004:
--- Quote from: Burkingam on June 13, 2011, 05:34:12 PM ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
That is true; it was a more serious example. I don't really know of many big hydroelectric dams (since there isn't really anywhere suited to building one in the UK), so my choice of examples was limited.
That said, in order to provide enough power to make hydroelectric a viable means of providing anywhere near the same amount of power as other sources, dams need to be built on the scale as Three Gorges; smaller dams, while still cheap and efficient, cannot provide enough power to become a viable substitute for nuclear or fossil fuels. And even then, they might not be reliable enough to act as a nation's main source of electricity.
Burkingam:
--- Quote from: Bob2004 on June 13, 2011, 06:26:50 PM ---
--- Quote from: Burkingam on June 13, 2011, 05:34:12 PM ---
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
That is true; it was a more serious example. I don't really know of many big hydroelectric dams (since there isn't really anywhere suited to building one in the UK), so my choice of examples was limited.
That said, in order to provide enough power to make hydroelectric a viable means of providing anywhere near the same amount of power as other sources, dams need to be built on the scale as Three Gorges; smaller dams, while still cheap and efficient, cannot provide enough power to become a viable substitute for nuclear or fossil fuels. And even then, they might not be reliable enough to act as a nation's main source of electricity.
--- End quote ---
There are a few nations that use hydro has their main energy source, including mine(Canada), but also Brazil, the Philippines and probably a few others I don't know. The only power failure I have ever had in why life where caused by a cut line. It's definitely reliable enough when it's available.
Bob2004:
By reliable, I was referring mainly to how the amount of power it can generate depends on environmental factors. It's very highly dependent on climate and the weather; as a result, the amount of power that it generates in winter is significantly less than what it generates in summer. Using the Three Gorges dam as an example again, this graph shows what I mean:
You either need to build enough dams that the minimum amount generated in winter is enough to power everything, which then leaves you with a huge surplus in summer, or rely on other sources to take up the huge amount of slack during the winter months.
mgz:
--- 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 ---
but thats china those basically arent even real people
Burkingam:
@Bob2004 I thought the reservoir's capacity was large enough to stockpile water during summer and use it during winter. But after looking at the graph and making a few calculations I see it's not as simple. Ok, point granted.
If we want it or not, we will eventually have to switch for renewable energy though. Nuclear fusion which would be renewable is far from ready and might and up a lot costlier than what we have right now. The induced seismicity from enhanced geothermal might be a deal breaker. Uranium, coal and most of gas aren't renewable. Any non-renewable energy sources use fuel which will tend to become more expensive with time. Wind, hydro and geothermal basically use free fuel. On the long run they are safer bets. A hydro-dam can easily stay operational for 50-100 years. You can't say that for a nuclear plant(or anything else). At the end, there is no perfect energy. Every sources have their disadvantages.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version