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.