Renewable Energy has many parts, and some of them can do jobs that others cannot do. It is important to work together to bring the best renewable Energy to the world that we can hope to achieve.
This diagram represents a short overview over different elements of a renewable energy network, and what the different parts can do, and what not.
For example, Hydropower can be both an energy source (flowing water through a turbine) but also a means of energy storage (by keeping the water behind the dam). Renewable Biomass can be stored well, but can also be turned into a renewable source of energy. Batteries can store energy well, but cannot produce energy.
Thoughts, comments, likes :-)
Hydro requires massive destruction of nature. We can do way better than hydro. I live in BC where all my power is hydro. I, and the endangered, keystone species of our local ecosystem would be very happy to see every dam demolished on favour of other actually planet friendly methods.
So this is a question that's been in the back of my mind for awhile while seeing celebrations of dams being removed, no worries if you don't want to be the one to answer it.
I think I understand the extent of the damage caused by the implementation of dams, but I guess my impression had been that that damage was done, and there wasn't much of a timeline on fixing it. Like, after eighty years or so, are there fish still trying to get past it?
At the same time, we're struggling (failing?) globally to get away from fossil fuels quickly enough to avoid the worst of climate collapse. It seems like hydro is one of the more reliable green power sources, and is compatible with old grid infrastructure that counts on fairly consistent power so there's less than has to be overhauled in order to just keep using hydro for awhile longer.
So at first glance, it seems like new solar and wind etc production would be better prioritized in replacing oil, coal, natural gas. Prioritizing replacing hydro feels like letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I haven't seen that discussion anywhere, so I genuinely expect I'm wrong about that, but I'm wondering why.
There are forms of hydroelectric generation that aren't damaging to the environment. We just need to actually be aware of the consequences and perform an environmental risk assessment. I think this is a requirement for new installations in the US, but I could be wrong.
Nothing significant. Hydro works on the principal of massive quantities of water are cheap. Massive quantities will always need a lot of space.
They also often have a lifespan, even if it is generally a long one. The US is beginning to have to decommission a lot of dams across the country, because they have become a danger to towns downstream from them. And it's both not cheap and not usually viewed as necessary until one bursts and does a lot of damage.
Most dams in the US were built for flood control near towns, not power generation, so these old dams beginning to show faults is especially dangerous to people.
Here's my favourite Practical Enginerring on the failure of the Orville Dam spillway: https://youtu.be/jxNM4DGBRMU?si=O6T91xjCgxH7demP
Very interesting. Thank you.
Minor mitigations at best. Those environmental impact studies aren't about finding a way to cause no interruption to nature, they are about acceptable losses determined by pro-dam lobbyists if any regulations exist at all. But these are the exact kind of laws both Democrats and Republicans have been gutting for decades in favour of small government.
Turning a river into a lake is not good for river dependant life. Blocking half of it behind a wall is terrible. Fish ladders are not a replacement for open river, it will only save an "acceptable" fraction of some species like salmon, not allow full passage of all life in the ecosystem.
As the image above indicates, hydro is not only an energy source, it can be used for energy storage. Run pumps to pump more water over the dam when you have an excess of power and let the water flow through the turbines when you need power.
So it's like a giant battery. Except unlike most batteries there's no toxic chemicals involved.
Given that most renewable energy doesn't generate consistent energy (it's not windy every day, it's not sunny every day, it's never sunny at night) there will be a huge need for energy storage. While we could spend a lot of money of making giant batteries with toxic materials to solve this, we need to also need to consider the environmental impact of that kind of technology. Also consider the time it would take to make these massive banks of batteries. The materials may be better used in replacing gasoline engines, so it may be awhile before we have the materials needed to make the energy storage needed for renewable energy to work, and that's only if we want to make giant chemical batteries someday.
Sorry, but given the importance of hydro in a renewable energy grid, I don't think it's going away for a very long time. Consider the environmental impact of having forests that burn down every year. Gonna have to make some compromises so that doesn't continue to happen forever.
The forests wouldn't exist were it not for pre-colonial salmon numbers. Their rotting carcasses are responsible for almost a quarter of the nitrogen in all the soil in the British Columbian and Tlingit forests (that goes up to 70% in riparian zones). The environmental impact of dams is no more forests as they die of malnutrition. So in a way you're right, no more forest fires if there's no forest. We can do better than dams and MUST do better than dams.
I'm pretty sure forests exist where there aren't salmon. You hate dams, but I hate coal power more than that. And I hate these endless forest fires caused by global warming more than you hate the relatively small area around a dam being affected by the dam.
"Somebody find a better way" doesn't help. We gotta get past this NIMBYism and learn to accept that it's not just the guys rolling coal in their F-350s that are going to need to compromise. You need to make compromises too. Global warming can't just be used as tool to get whatever you want. The guy in the F-350 is gonna have to get an electric car and you're gonna have to accept there's going to be a dam in your forest.
Please try to look past the trees in your immediate surroundings to see the entire forest. It's currently burning. And it's not because of a dam it's because there's too many coal plants and not enough dams. You're using a device right now that runs on electricity. That electricity comes from somewhere. Where that power is currently coming from is causing this: https://globalnews.ca/news/10574072/bc-wildfire-map-2024-live-today/ Are you really arguing a dam has a bigger environmental impact than this?
Industrial scale power requires massive destruction of nature. That's the nature of trying to light and heat millions of homes, especially in the winter. The question must become what is the least harmful most effective thing to do. It isn't as simple as "solar farms and wind farms" since you have to heat and light those homes when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. "Batteries!" Sure but the environmental devastation from having to build battery banks that large would be overwhelming, not to mention having to size your solar and wind to provide all the province's power while the sun shines and wind blows meaning there'd be way more than you expect, and then after 30 years you'd have to do it all over again because the batteries, windmills, and solar panels would all have to be replaced.
Water looks nice when it's at a scale that can't power anything too. In fact, even small enough scale fossil fuels don't look that bad. The problem is when you make it big enough to actually provide all the energy you need. One big reason why "reduce" is the most important thing we can do.