3 ms·

Hydro's great, but without a low-end storage for the water, it's a one-way journey, which is an unfortunate exposure. There's also some unsettling calculations

by Jedd 8y ago

Hydro's great, but without a low-end storage for the water, it's a one-way journey, which is an unfortunate exposure. There's also some unsettling calculations around methane generation from flooded flora. Still, long-term undeniably better than fossil or nuclear fission.

DennisP 8y ago
I would dispute your fission claim but I guess I'll refrain from kicking off yet another nuclear discussion in a renewables thread.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
swebs 8y ago
I'm not sure what you're asking for. Do you want hydro stations to pump water upwards when there is an energy surplus? What problems would that solve that a dam wouldn't?
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  That is actually a thing, where surplus infelxible solar/wind/coal power is used to pump water up to a reservoir that can then be used as hydro when it is needed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectric...
Nasrudith 8y ago
Hydro's biggest issue is peak capacity in addition to possible ecosystem issues. Barring tidal generators they tend to be built up. I would question the "how" of being better. Durability I would certainly grant given the Hoover Dam it has worked for 83 years proving cheap power.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Hydro is so great because water is easy to store as a reservoir. There is very little hydro generation that isn’t dammed (and most of that is for small scale local power generation).
cmsmith 8y ago
Hydro doesn't need pumping to provide load balancing. Just build more turbines [1] than you need for average load - then you can flow extra water overnight and less water during the day while keeping the average the same. This is then equal to the superposition of a traditional and PSH dam, but all in one footprint. [1] Yes, extra turbines are expensive. But you'd need to build them anyways for a PSH facility.

by Jedd 8y ago

DennisP 8y ago

I would dispute your fission claim but I guess I'll refrain from kicking off yet another nuclear discussion in a renewables thread.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

swebs 8y ago

I'm not sure what you're asking for. Do you want hydro stations to pump water upwards when there is an energy surplus? What problems would that solve that a dam wouldn't?

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
That is actually a thing, where surplus infelxible solar/wind/coal power is used to pump water up to a reservoir that can then be used as hydro when it is needed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectric...

Nasrudith 8y ago

Hydro's biggest issue is peak capacity in addition to possible ecosystem issues. Barring tidal generators they tend to be built up. I would question the "how" of being better. Durability I would certainly grant given the Hoover Dam it has worked for 83 years proving cheap power.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Hydro is so great because water is easy to store as a reservoir. There is very little hydro generation that isn’t dammed (and most of that is for small scale local power generation).

cmsmith 8y ago

Hydro doesn't need pumping to provide load balancing. Just build more turbines [1] than you need for average load - then you can flow extra water overnight and less water during the day while keeping the average the same. This is then equal to the superposition of a traditional and PSH dam, but all in one footprint. [1] Yes, extra turbines are expensive. But you'd need to build them anyways for a PSH facility.