3 ms·

I thought you try to adhere to facts, till I got to "the land is a glowing radioactive mess" thing. If you say so, please too mention the land which is poisonou

by rini17 6y ago

I thought you try to adhere to facts, till I got to "the land is a glowing radioactive mess" thing. If you say so, please too mention the land which is poisonous carcinogenic mess because of coal sludge leaks, tar sand mining and fracking byproducts, heavy metals and pesticides which tend to concentrate in hydropower reservoirs, etc.etc. And some of these actually have longer half-life than nuclear leaks.

dredmorbius 6y ago
I'm not discussing or comparing fossil fuels, but rather renewables, and specifically hydro, with nuclear. Coal sludge, tar sands mining, and fracking have nothing to do with hydropower generation. Those are the activities renewable energy alternatives are specifically intended to replace, and as such, they address any related concerns directly. I'm unaware of any substantial credible literature describing toxic accumulations in hydro projects due to the hydro project itself. "Cancer alleys" along major riverways due to other streamside and watershed activities (e.g., the lower Mississippi river & delta region) are prevalent without any accompanying hydroelectric facilities. Hydro isn't the cause. This seems to be a shifting of the argument on your part.
- rini17 6y ago
  It is, sadly, not in widespread public awareness. But some research is there, such as [1] [2]. If a hydropower dam has been built today on lower Mississippi it would over time fill with a cubic-mile-worth of toxic sediment on the top of currently existing problems. This is not an exaggeration, an additional superfund site with a volume measured in cubic miles, due solely to the hydro project itself I don't see how else can it be construed. [1]https://waterlawjournal.com/sedimentation-in-california-reservoirs-a-long-term-problem-of-immediate-concern/ https://waterlawjournal.com/sedimentation-in-california-rese... [2]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-019-8146-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-019-8146-y
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    First, if. The lower Mississippi has poor hydro potential. And the region is already a cancer alley. Again: hydro does not create that risk or the polutants. This is an extreme reach.
    - rini17 6y ago
      Ah now I get it, when something instead of producing pollution directly, merely concentrates it in a reservoir, we can blithely ignore it. /s

by rini17 6y ago

dredmorbius 6y ago

I'm not discussing or comparing fossil fuels, but rather renewables, and specifically hydro, with nuclear. Coal sludge, tar sands mining, and fracking have nothing to do with hydropower generation. Those are the activities renewable energy alternatives are specifically intended to replace, and as such, they address any related concerns directly. I'm unaware of any substantial credible literature describing toxic accumulations in hydro projects due to the hydro project itself. "Cancer alleys" along major riverways due to other streamside and watershed activities (e.g., the lower Mississippi river & delta region) are prevalent without any accompanying hydroelectric facilities. Hydro isn't the cause. This seems to be a shifting of the argument on your part.

rini17 6y ago
It is, sadly, not in widespread public awareness. But some research is there, such as [1] [2]. If a hydropower dam has been built today on lower Mississippi it would over time fill with a cubic-mile-worth of toxic sediment on the top of currently existing problems. This is not an exaggeration, an additional superfund site with a volume measured in cubic miles, due solely to the hydro project itself I don't see how else can it be construed. [1]https://waterlawjournal.com/sedimentation-in-california-reservoirs-a-long-term-problem-of-immediate-concern/ https://waterlawjournal.com/sedimentation-in-california-rese... [2]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-019-8146-y https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-019-8146-y
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  First, if. The lower Mississippi has poor hydro potential. And the region is already a cancer alley. Again: hydro does not create that risk or the polutants. This is an extreme reach.
  - rini17 6y ago
    Ah now I get it, when something instead of producing pollution directly, merely concentrates it in a reservoir, we can blithely ignore it. /s