3 ms·
Yeah, hydro should really not be considered renewable, not just because it's invasive, but also because it's not renewable: dams fill up with silt and have to b
by carlob 9y ago
Yeah, hydro should really not be considered renewable, not just because it's invasive, but also because it's not renewable: dams fill up with silt and have to be either abandoned, removed or desilted.
Go read Cadillac Desert, it's been written a few decades ago, but it's a real eye opener on the history of water management in the (west) US.
- cesarb 9y ago> but also because it's not renewable: dams fill up with silt and have to be either abandoned, removed or desilted If you consider wear and tear on the infrastructure, then nothing is renewable. Wind turbines don't last forever, solar panels slowly produce less power, etc.
- carlob 9y agoYeah but there are only so many places where you can build a dam. And also the usual equation renewable = safe for the environment and humans doesn't quite work: as many other commenters have pointed out dams are very bad for the environment, and they sometimes kill a bunch of people too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam
- sergiosgc 9y agoCalling a dam destructive to the environment is way too loaded. Dams do destroy ecosystems, but they create new ones. It's not like they tear down tropical forest to build a parking lot. If the destruction affects endangered species, I may land on the no-dam side. Otherwise, it's a preference question. Do you prefer changing an healthy ecosystem into another healthy ecosystem or do you prefer building a thermal/nuclear power plant? I prefer the renewable one.