3 ms·

Would never work in the US because hydropower is not considered renewable. "But in general, hydropower is not even considered a renewable energy in most states

• jessaustin 10y ago
  Hydropower is somewhat environmentally questionable, but it's "renewable" by any reasonable definition. Your link confirms this: ...because it is an endless, constantly recharging system, hydropower is defined as a renewable energy by the Environmental Protection Agency.
  • pilom 10y ago
    Unfortunately it isn't exactly endless. Even if you ignore the decreasing amounts of water at many dams due to climate change, eventually dams fill up with sediment. Lake Powell and Lake Mead already have about 10% less capacity than they did when built due to sediment infill.
    • jessaustin 10y ago
      Dams aren't endless, but no human artifact is. It is totally within design parameters to have to drain and excavate (and perhaps patch the cracks in the dam) every hundred years or so. The rain will still fall. Actually one expects that aquatic sediment-removing robots will eventually be created to obviate this basic maintenance task, but that sort of assumes that humans will want dams in future. It's possible that they'll develop cheap energy without the drawbacks inherent in hydropower, and decide that rivers are better than artificial lakes.
• Semiapies 10y ago
  You might RTFA, which points out that it "would never work" because it's already working—the US has already tapped most of its available hydroelectric power.
  • StillBored 10y ago
    And even at 6% it is by far the largest chunk of the renewable energy production in the US.