3 ms·

I'd rather have nuclear than hydro. Hydro requires a fairly drastic alteration of a large amount of land and probably uses about the same if not more concrete t

I'd rather have nuclear than hydro. Hydro requires a fairly drastic alteration of a large amount of land and probably uses about the same if not more concrete than a nuclear power plant. You can't put hydro just anywhere, it comes with risks to downstream people and infrastructure, the reserve of water is not directly controllable, they're usually quite remote which requires miles of high voltage transmission lines be built across sometimes otherwise pristine land, the dams themselves can seriously impact rivers and the wildlife that live in and around them. That's just what I could rattle off in a few minutes, I'm sure there are more reasons why they're not ideal.

b112 4y ago
Paper arguments. All that happens with a dam, is one ecosystem is replaced with another. Some animals die off, others replace them. Literally, a dam isn't replacing the tiniest part of an ecosystem in Quebec. Trillions of acres, upon trillions, and only thousands for dams. Meanwhile, there are far more deadly things with nuclear plants. I think I'm lucky in Quebec, as such dams can be located away from people, thus reducing danger of a dam breaking. The biggest mistake environmentalists ever made, was to fight dams. You cannot even remotely compare burning coal, or gas, or oil for power, with a dam. Yet environmentalists fought dams, and nuclear in the 70s, the 60s, and look where we are now. Still spewing CO2 like mad. How about we jump up and down for joy, at a dam, or a nuclear plant instead of naysaying either? Priorities...
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  Ok so two points somewhat mollified depending on geography and ecology, if you happen to live somewhere with trillions of acres of land with ample rivers then you're A-OK but if you instead are somewhere with only a few major rivers and higher population density you're up the creek so to speak. What about the rest?
  - b112 4y ago
    This is why I said not for Germany. I don't see the rest as major issues. Again, power lines through a tiny tiny tiny fraction of nature are not a biggie. I just always have to compare... coal? Weird plans to pump CO2 underground, as if it'll never escape? I prefer dams over nuclear. Beavers cause more change on rivers than our dams. But I am not against nuclear!

b112 4y ago

Paper arguments. All that happens with a dam, is one ecosystem is replaced with another. Some animals die off, others replace them. Literally, a dam isn't replacing the tiniest part of an ecosystem in Quebec. Trillions of acres, upon trillions, and only thousands for dams. Meanwhile, there are far more deadly things with nuclear plants. I think I'm lucky in Quebec, as such dams can be located away from people, thus reducing danger of a dam breaking. The biggest mistake environmentalists ever made, was to fight dams. You cannot even remotely compare burning coal, or gas, or oil for power, with a dam. Yet environmentalists fought dams, and nuclear in the 70s, the 60s, and look where we are now. Still spewing CO2 like mad. How about we jump up and down for joy, at a dam, or a nuclear plant instead of naysaying either? Priorities...

throwaway4aday 4y ago
Ok so two points somewhat mollified depending on geography and ecology, if you happen to live somewhere with trillions of acres of land with ample rivers then you're A-OK but if you instead are somewhere with only a few major rivers and higher population density you're up the creek so to speak. What about the rest?
- b112 4y ago
  This is why I said not for Germany. I don't see the rest as major issues. Again, power lines through a tiny tiny tiny fraction of nature are not a biggie. I just always have to compare... coal? Weird plans to pump CO2 underground, as if it'll never escape? I prefer dams over nuclear. Beavers cause more change on rivers than our dams. But I am not against nuclear!