Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 397 posts

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#131

Post by zdragnar »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #89
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need storage and pumped storage is the only practical way to get there with current supply chains and technology. This really cannot be enphasised enough - this is the only game in town. The solutions are needed yesterday, and must be built on a massive scale - there is no time for a 20 year R&D to production cycle of a miracle technology. Only hydro does not require any new minerals and mining. The only other c…

> Only hydro does not require any new minerals and mining. Why is mining a major obstacle, provided it is economical and the environmental costs are some orders of magnitude less than those of climate change?

New mining permits in the US are magnets for environmental review lawsuits.

Depending on the type of mine, getting a new one up and running can take 7-17 years, counting planning, permitting and the inevitable lawsuits.

Copper and nickel mine runoff can be extremely toxic, especially to aquatic wildlife and wetlands. Remediation isn't really feasible once the damage is done, so plenty of groups would rather outright ban certain rich deposits from being mined at all than take the risk.

How sensitive environments elsewhere in the world fare under mines that aren't subject to safety precautions in the US is apparently an "other people" problem.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#132

Post by brookst »

roamerz wrote: post #122
Gwypaas wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you're not disrupting a river's flow and natural ecosystem, you only utilize the watershed some more during the initial filling period. After that, it's a closed system separate from the river ecosystem where only evaporation causes leakage.

That ship has already sailed as most power producing dams have been around for long time. Removing them would destroy the (now natural) ecosystem they have created. Plus dams have way more benefits to us than the extremely clean energy they produce - not just store.

This is the first time I've seen a claim that dams create ecosystems that we should worry about destroying. As far as I know, they disrupt fish and animal migrations, reduce natural carbon sinks, reduce biodiversity, and block sediment from providing nutrients downstream.

Is there any source saying dams create healthy natural ecosystems? A necessary evil I can kind of see, but a net positive for ecosystems? That seems doubtful.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#133

Post by jmclnx »

idiotsecant wrote: post #37

Obviously hydroelectricity is massively damaging to ecosystems. My day job includes designing hydroelectric control systems and even I can admit that. That's a big part of the reason that hydro is a non-starter in much of the western world, which is probably a reasonably good thing (although there are certainly some exceptions where hydro development seems like a no-brainer to me but I digress) What's not so clear to…

In my region of the US, hydro use to power a lot of manufacturing until electricity came in. Canals were built for power, leaving the rivers flow naturally. But these canals are in dis-repair. To me, why not refurb these canals to provide power. There is plenty of water and plenty of places like this in the area.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#134

Post by hypertele-Xii »

jhoechtl wrote: post #110
bpodgursky wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the Yosemite valley has significant hydro potential.

Germany is anecdotally facing an Energy crisis Nuclear power:no. Wind energy: off shore out of sight yes, but not on my mountain. Russian gas: no (more). Coal instead? No! So eveyone will install mini PV systems and become self-sufficient? First this wont work during the cold season and how incredible inneficient is this going to be? I think we must stop to outsource providing cheap energy to poor countries and tap o…

There is no lithium to mine around your corner. Half of all known deposits on Earth are in Bolivia and Argentina.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#135

Post by nicoburns »

arcticbull wrote: post #103
nicoburns wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think Chernobyl has a much bigger influence on nuclear policy than Bangqiao on hydro despite the latter causing two orders of magnitude more deaths. IMO thats entirely rational. Dying is not what I'm scared of when it comes to a Chernobyl-like accident. Dying slowly and painfully of radiation poisoning is. It's hard to imagine a worse fate. Drowning in a huge flood, while unfortunate, is something I'd be much mor…

> IMO thats entirely rational. Dying is not what I'm scared of when it comes to a Chernobyl-like accident. Dying slowly and painfully of radiation poisoning is. It's hard to imagine a worse fate. The good news is that really didn't happen. About 40 or 50 people died of acute radiation poisoning (that's a bad way to go). Many were displaced. The most common form of cancer that occurred as a result of Chernobyl was thy…

It's true that there haven't been too many deaths from existing nuclear accidents, but that seems to be more by luck than judgement. If we got a chernobyl-like accident near a major city then the impact would be off the scale. I live in London, and I don't even to think about what it would mean if London ended up in an exclusion zone (and there are plenty of nuclear power plants near to London that could cause this if things went south and the wind was blowing in the wrong direction).

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#136

Post by cwkoss »

philipkglass wrote: post #118
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need storage and pumped storage is the only practical way to get there with current supply chains and technology. This really cannot be enphasised enough - this is the only game in town. The solutions are needed yesterday, and must be built on a massive scale - there is no time for a 20 year R&D to production cycle of a miracle technology. Only hydro does not require any new minerals and mining. The only other c…

The only other contender that is even worth mentioning is compressed gas, but it seems to have neither the capacity nor the efficiency of a large hydro deployment. The largest pumped storage station in the US has a storage capacity of 24,000 MWh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_County_Pumped_Storage_Sta... There's an underground hydrogen storage project underway in Delta, Utah with a capacity of 300,000 MWh: https…

How does the energy in underground hydrogen get utilized? Is the capacity the combustive energy, or only the energy from the gas pressure?

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#137

Post by sydd »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #89
ClumsyPilot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We need storage and pumped storage is the only practical way to get there with current supply chains and technology. This really cannot be enphasised enough - this is the only game in town. The solutions are needed yesterday, and must be built on a massive scale - there is no time for a 20 year R&D to production cycle of a miracle technology. Only hydro does not require any new minerals and mining. The only other c…

> Only hydro does not require any new minerals and mining. Why is mining a major obstacle, provided it is economical and the environmental costs are some orders of magnitude less than those of climate change?

Because lots of mined metals come either from 3rd world countries like Congo with no environmental protection laws or are mined in few places like Russia where a trade war can lead to shortages.

Hydro requires the most common mayerials like steel or concrete.

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#138

Post by cwkoss »

jhoechtl wrote: post #112
adrian_b wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A typical example for the disadvantages mentioned by you is the dam on the Danube, where the island of Ada Kaleh and a few villages have gone under water, forcing the relocation of thousands of people. Moreover, that dam has been a major contributor to the great reduction in the number of sturgeons in the Black Sea.

Does the damage overweight the benefit? Would nuclear have been better? Do you want your bread toasted or light your room with candles?

How can you quantify that? How many gigawatt hours is halving an ecosystem's biodiversity worth?

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#139

Post by [deleted] »

BurningFrog wrote: post #115
jhoechtl wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference in meters? If not much, the effort of building will not be counterweighted by the energy storage capacity. AFAIK salton sea is pretty much at sea level?

It's 72 meters below, but it's not very big, and once it's full you'll have to wait for the water to evaporate away, I assume? If it could be made a permanent bay of the ocean, that might make the area less of a disaster. But it seems real hard...

[deleted]

Re: Why is hydroelectricity unfashionable?

#140

Post by api »

BurningFrog wrote: post #115
jhoechtl wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the difference in meters? If not much, the effort of building will not be counterweighted by the energy storage capacity. AFAIK salton sea is pretty much at sea level?

It's 72 meters below, but it's not very big, and once it's full you'll have to wait for the water to evaporate away, I assume? If it could be made a permanent bay of the ocean, that might make the area less of a disaster. But it seems real hard...

If it's below then the answer is no, so that answers my question. :) I was assuming it would be above sea level since it's inland.
Post reply on HN