22 ms·

It's absolutely an achievement. It takes a desire to actually build hydroelectric power and the will to put it into place. Washington state could be hydro powe

It's absolutely an achievement. It takes a desire to actually build hydroelectric power and the will to put it into place. Washington state could be hydro powered, but it's only 70%, with 20% non-renewable. Quebec is 97% hydro, but 3% nuclear due to a historical political horse-trade. Illinois, despite having the mighty Mississippi River, has 3 total dams and is less than 1% of its energy mix, with more than 50% being non-renewable. So Costa Rica and Tasmania do enjoy some advantages, but so do lots of other places that haven't accomplished the same.

joecool1029 6y ago
>Quebec is 97% hydro, but 3% nuclear due to a historical political horse-trade. This? https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2015/market-snapshot-quebec-ontario-power-sharing-agreement-supports-nuclear-refurbishments.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/ma... Couldn't imagine wanting to import nuclear instead of moving trains full of oil to burn during winter had anything to do with the decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
newyankee 6y ago
Hydropower when in form of pumped hydro could play and important part in renewable future. Quebec and Canada can actually become a battery for New England offshore wind power.
wh1t3n01s3 6y ago
Hydro cannot be the future due to excessive damage to the environment
- fhennig 6y ago
  It's true that hydro has a huge impact on the environment, but it is good for the climate. I think it can be worth it to build some hydro power to replace coal. If we don't, and the climate is fucked, then not having built the dam isn't helping the environment either.
  - v77 6y ago
    If you pre-destory the environment you are trying to save I'm not sure what you've accomplished. If climate change is envirionmental problem 1a) then habitat destruction is certainly 1b) and low-density renewable energy sources are a huge problem here as are riparian-destorying damns.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      The environment we're trying to save is large swaths of arable zones for human habitation. Fish are nice, but we need to be able to grow wheat.

joecool1029 6y ago

>Quebec is 97% hydro, but 3% nuclear due to a historical political horse-trade. This? https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-snapshots/2015/market-snapshot-quebec-ontario-power-sharing-agreement-supports-nuclear-refurbishments.html https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/ma... Couldn't imagine wanting to import nuclear instead of moving trains full of oil to burn during winter had anything to do with the decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

newyankee 6y ago

Hydropower when in form of pumped hydro could play and important part in renewable future. Quebec and Canada can actually become a battery for New England offshore wind power.

wh1t3n01s3 6y ago

Hydro cannot be the future due to excessive damage to the environment

fhennig 6y ago
It's true that hydro has a huge impact on the environment, but it is good for the climate. I think it can be worth it to build some hydro power to replace coal. If we don't, and the climate is fucked, then not having built the dam isn't helping the environment either.
- v77 6y ago
  If you pre-destory the environment you are trying to save I'm not sure what you've accomplished. If climate change is envirionmental problem 1a) then habitat destruction is certainly 1b) and low-density renewable energy sources are a huge problem here as are riparian-destorying damns.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    The environment we're trying to save is large swaths of arable zones for human habitation. Fish are nice, but we need to be able to grow wheat.