6 ms·

I got sucked out by the tide in the Atlantic when I was 8 and that too was dangerous. Hydrolic power is the ONLY way humans can survive on this planet after al

by bullen 5y ago

I got sucked out by the tide in the Atlantic when I was 8 and that too was dangerous. Hydrolic power is the ONLY way humans can survive on this planet after all the dead trees are burnt. If fish not being able to reproduce and people drowning is more important you better be prepared to go back to the 17th century for everything else.

bobthepanda 5y ago
Low head dams like these don't generate a whole lot of power. Wikipedia's article says they generally generate <5MW of power; an individual wind turbine these days can deliver an equivalent amount of power. Dams are also becoming less effective as climate change increases drought conditions in areas with dams.
- bullen 5y ago
  Sure, but to saw timber, irrigate and grind seeds to not starve is also worth something. Wind and solar have net negative energy output, meaning the cost of manufacturing the cells/turbine + the electronics, cables and batteries cost more energy than the hardware will generate in it's lifetime. The tree is the best solar panel + battery and nature invented it, it made all the coal, oil and gas! Beyond that only hydro and nuclear can help, and you cannot build, maintain or rescue a nuclear plant without dead trees. So that leaves hydro, even with flooding and drought; it's the only stable "source of progress".
  - Pyramus 5y ago
    The reason you are getting downvoted is the phenomenon discussed here is independent of whether the dam creates energy or not. It has no bearing on whether you are pro or against hydro-electric power generation.
    - bullen 5y ago
      No the reason I'm getting downvoted is that people are toxic, because they don't even have an argument. But it's ok I'm used to it and value karma the other way around; by design on this forum low karma is truth and high karma is toxic! I'm aiming for the lowest karma possible, and I'm going to avoid the high karma people to the largest extent possible and when the HN database leaks everyone can see what's what. They wont stop me from trying to have a discussion with people that actually have something to say.
  - samatman 5y ago
    EROI for solar is between 9 and 35, depending on the details of how much sun it receives. EROI for wind turbines is on the order of 20 to 30. So, no. You're wrong about that.
    - savingsPossible 5y ago
      Surprised by how low that is! What is EROI for hidro/thermo/nuclear?
    - bullen 5y ago
      EROEI is not calculated on the energy required to build and transport all the parts required (mining of the resources and the cat food for the cat of the operator of the truck in the mine etc.) Everything except dead trees and hydro is completely stupid! ERORI on oil has gone from 100/1 to 10/1 in 100 years.
      - dahart 5y ago
        What if the energy used to build and transport were to come from wind, solar and/or hydro? Does it stay stupid in your calculus? Could you post some data and/or resources on where you’re getting your numbers? It sounds surprising and unlikely, because large wind turbines can generate a lot of energy over their lifetimes. Ivanpah solar generates about 850Gwh annually and has been running for 10 years, with many more on the horizon. You are sure 8500 Gwh is less that it took to construct? I’m curious about your claim and willing to hear the research. How are you calculating the energy inputs of manufacture? How are you calculating the lifetime outputs? I tried to Google it and the very first result roundly and soundly counters your claims, and backs it up with real data. https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/ https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/ “A 2010 analysis of fifty separate studies found that the average wind turbine, over the course of its operational life, generated 20 times more energy than it took to produce. This level was “favourable” in comparison to fossil fuels, nuclear and solar power.” And most importantly, is comparing energy in to energy out the right question to ask, and why? If energy in is renewable, then why would it matter how much it takes? With oil, return on investment isn’t even relevant to the question of whether it’s sustainable. We’re using up a non-renewable resource, and when it’s gone, it’s gone. The ratio of energy required to pull oil out of the ground compared to the energy it produces is a red herring. Also what is the part about cat food about? Sorry I don’t get it. Are you suggesting everything needs to be accounted for up to and including cat food? Or is this a joke about over-accounting for things that aren’t directly related?

by bullen 5y ago

bobthepanda 5y ago

Low head dams like these don't generate a whole lot of power. Wikipedia's article says they generally generate <5MW of power; an individual wind turbine these days can deliver an equivalent amount of power. Dams are also becoming less effective as climate change increases drought conditions in areas with dams.

bullen 5y ago
Sure, but to saw timber, irrigate and grind seeds to not starve is also worth something. Wind and solar have net negative energy output, meaning the cost of manufacturing the cells/turbine + the electronics, cables and batteries cost more energy than the hardware will generate in it's lifetime. The tree is the best solar panel + battery and nature invented it, it made all the coal, oil and gas! Beyond that only hydro and nuclear can help, and you cannot build, maintain or rescue a nuclear plant without dead trees. So that leaves hydro, even with flooding and drought; it's the only stable "source of progress".
- Pyramus 5y ago
  The reason you are getting downvoted is the phenomenon discussed here is independent of whether the dam creates energy or not. It has no bearing on whether you are pro or against hydro-electric power generation.
  - bullen 5y ago
    No the reason I'm getting downvoted is that people are toxic, because they don't even have an argument. But it's ok I'm used to it and value karma the other way around; by design on this forum low karma is truth and high karma is toxic! I'm aiming for the lowest karma possible, and I'm going to avoid the high karma people to the largest extent possible and when the HN database leaks everyone can see what's what. They wont stop me from trying to have a discussion with people that actually have something to say.
- samatman 5y ago
  EROI for solar is between 9 and 35, depending on the details of how much sun it receives. EROI for wind turbines is on the order of 20 to 30. So, no. You're wrong about that.
  - savingsPossible 5y ago
    Surprised by how low that is! What is EROI for hidro/thermo/nuclear?
  - bullen 5y ago
    EROEI is not calculated on the energy required to build and transport all the parts required (mining of the resources and the cat food for the cat of the operator of the truck in the mine etc.) Everything except dead trees and hydro is completely stupid! ERORI on oil has gone from 100/1 to 10/1 in 100 years.
    - dahart 5y ago
      What if the energy used to build and transport were to come from wind, solar and/or hydro? Does it stay stupid in your calculus? Could you post some data and/or resources on where you’re getting your numbers? It sounds surprising and unlikely, because large wind turbines can generate a lot of energy over their lifetimes. Ivanpah solar generates about 850Gwh annually and has been running for 10 years, with many more on the horizon. You are sure 8500 Gwh is less that it took to construct? I’m curious about your claim and willing to hear the research. How are you calculating the energy inputs of manufacture? How are you calculating the lifetime outputs? I tried to Google it and the very first result roundly and soundly counters your claims, and backs it up with real data. https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/ https://fullfact.org/online/wind-turbines-energy/ “A 2010 analysis of fifty separate studies found that the average wind turbine, over the course of its operational life, generated 20 times more energy than it took to produce. This level was “favourable” in comparison to fossil fuels, nuclear and solar power.” And most importantly, is comparing energy in to energy out the right question to ask, and why? If energy in is renewable, then why would it matter how much it takes? With oil, return on investment isn’t even relevant to the question of whether it’s sustainable. We’re using up a non-renewable resource, and when it’s gone, it’s gone. The ratio of energy required to pull oil out of the ground compared to the energy it produces is a red herring. Also what is the part about cat food about? Sorry I don’t get it. Are you suggesting everything needs to be accounted for up to and including cat food? Or is this a joke about over-accounting for things that aren’t directly related?