Comment

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.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Cagi@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
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. 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 dobetter than dams and MUST do better than dams.

source
- SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  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: globalnews.ca/…/bc-wildfire-map-2024-live-today/ Are you really arguing a dam has a bigger environmental impact than this?
  
  source
- sonori@beehaw.org ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
  And gobal warming means the rivers will soon be hot enough that about half of all salmon species stroke out in them. Replaceing clean energy with fossil fuels, which is the definitional result of removing clean energy from the grid while any fossil plants remain connected, not only hurts salmon numbers today, but ensures that for hundreds upon hundreds of years into the future there can be no salmon.
  
  There is a reason why despite the no change to the number of dams and thouse same dams getting easier and easier for salmon to cross salmon runs have still tended to decline, and keeping methane plants that would otherwise be shut down today operating for decades to come does not help with that.
  
  Neglecting all the stronger hurricanes, monsoons, floods, elimination of coral reefs, forests, and habitat, we can fertilize trees and reintroduce salmon, we cannot refrigerate the rivers.
  
  source