7 ms·

In terms of renewables, i think Norway and Brazil are higher up there, with 85% and 95% of their energy coming from renewable sources such as hydroelectic plan

In terms of renewables, i think Norway and Brazil are higher up there, with 85% and 95% of their energy coming from renewable sources such as hydroelectic plants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Brazil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway

nattofriends 14y ago
Hydroelectric power is not something all countries are lucky enough to have.
- exDM69 14y ago
  Hydroelectric power is not very environmentally friendly either. Like the giant dams of China that destroy the whole ecosystem near the power plant.
  - nosse 14y ago
    Norwegian hydroelectric plants usually don't destroy a ecosystem, just some nice looking waterfall. They have so long and steep falls that ecosystem would be naturally separated by it anyway.
    - avar 14y ago
      That's not the only damage hydroelectric does. The damns normalize naturally occurring floods with a view to maximizing electricity production, and material that would have been carried to sea gets trapped behind the dam.
      - rprasad 14y ago
        In a traditional hydroelectric generator, yes. Norway has the advantage of numerous, steep cliffs and waterfalls. It is my understanding that the Norwegian HEG's are placed in the middle of the waterfalls, so that no dam is necessary...
        noselasd 14y ago
        That's hardly ever the case, and would be quite inefficient unless the waterfall provides the same amount of water all year. Most hydroelectric power in Norway are generated with the help of a reservoir, usually a natural lake that's been regulated with the help of a relatively small dam, but there are some wholly artificial ones as well, the biggest one being 84 square km. That said, yes - the environmental impact is small. It also helps that the Norwegian population is very small.
  - zokier 14y ago
    The damage of hydro is fairly localized afaik, both spatially and temporally. Fossil fuels cause damage globally (in addition to the local damage of oil fields/coal mines, and the power plants), and the damage is much more long lasting. Also the damage of hydro does not accumulate over time afaik.
    - maxerickson 14y ago
      Hydro plants have huge impacts on stream and river ecosystems. A good case study would be the impact on salmon in the pacific northwest of the U.S.
- maigret 14y ago
  And in the future, lucky enough to keep. Glaciers melting due to global warming will probably harm many countries in South America and elsewhere.
tjoff 14y ago
In terms of production, Norway has over 99%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway
- zerostar07 14y ago
  Thanks i corrected my comment
ZoFreX 14y ago
95% of energy production is hydro or nuclear in Switzerland, which depending on your views on nuclear either makes them very progressive or terrible.
- zerostar07 14y ago
  How is nuclear renewable?
  - jules 14y ago
    It depends on the kind of nuclear. For example thorium, while finite, is quite abundant. Note that the sun's energy is finite as well, so "renewable" is not black and white.
  - dredmorbius 14y ago
    It's not renewable, but it is essentially zero-impact as far as atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are concerned. I'm hedging only because someone will come along and cite fossil-fuel based ancillary activities related to nuclear fuel mining, processing, transport, and disposal if I say "zero". But for all intents, zero. There are breeder reactor designs which convert far more abundant non-fissile isotopes to fuel-grade fissible isotopes, usually starting with U-238 or Th-232. While not technically "renewable", these do off a theoretically sustainable energy supply, with projections suggesting over 5 billion years' supply at forseable energy consumption rates (that's long enough for solar stability to be the principle limiting factor). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
    - danielharan 14y ago
      Yes, all the things you mentioned, plus building the actual plant. As far as new breeder designs, it's a bit too late. Nuclear promised us "energy too cheap to meter" and construction and maintenance costs have kept going down. Meanwhile solar and wind have been regularly going down in price with each doubling of production. The case against nuclear isn't environmental; it's economic.
joseflavio 14y ago
It is interesting to note that Brazil uses renewable energy sources in the majority of the cars/trucks. So it is not only because of being luck of having hydroelectric power, it was a society/government decision/strategy to use bi-fuel cars.
d99kris 14y ago
I assume you are referring to electrical energy, and not energy usage in general?

nattofriends 14y ago

Hydroelectric power is not something all countries are lucky enough to have.

exDM69 14y ago
Hydroelectric power is not very environmentally friendly either. Like the giant dams of China that destroy the whole ecosystem near the power plant.
- nosse 14y ago
  Norwegian hydroelectric plants usually don't destroy a ecosystem, just some nice looking waterfall. They have so long and steep falls that ecosystem would be naturally separated by it anyway.
  - avar 14y ago
    That's not the only damage hydroelectric does. The damns normalize naturally occurring floods with a view to maximizing electricity production, and material that would have been carried to sea gets trapped behind the dam.
    - rprasad 14y ago
      In a traditional hydroelectric generator, yes. Norway has the advantage of numerous, steep cliffs and waterfalls. It is my understanding that the Norwegian HEG's are placed in the middle of the waterfalls, so that no dam is necessary...
      - noselasd 14y ago
        That's hardly ever the case, and would be quite inefficient unless the waterfall provides the same amount of water all year. Most hydroelectric power in Norway are generated with the help of a reservoir, usually a natural lake that's been regulated with the help of a relatively small dam, but there are some wholly artificial ones as well, the biggest one being 84 square km. That said, yes - the environmental impact is small. It also helps that the Norwegian population is very small.
- zokier 14y ago
  The damage of hydro is fairly localized afaik, both spatially and temporally. Fossil fuels cause damage globally (in addition to the local damage of oil fields/coal mines, and the power plants), and the damage is much more long lasting. Also the damage of hydro does not accumulate over time afaik.
  - maxerickson 14y ago
    Hydro plants have huge impacts on stream and river ecosystems. A good case study would be the impact on salmon in the pacific northwest of the U.S.
maigret 14y ago
And in the future, lucky enough to keep. Glaciers melting due to global warming will probably harm many countries in South America and elsewhere.

tjoff 14y ago

In terms of production, Norway has over 99%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Norway

zerostar07 14y ago
Thanks i corrected my comment

ZoFreX 14y ago

95% of energy production is hydro or nuclear in Switzerland, which depending on your views on nuclear either makes them very progressive or terrible.

zerostar07 14y ago
How is nuclear renewable?
- jules 14y ago
  It depends on the kind of nuclear. For example thorium, while finite, is quite abundant. Note that the sun's energy is finite as well, so "renewable" is not black and white.
- dredmorbius 14y ago
  It's not renewable, but it is essentially zero-impact as far as atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are concerned. I'm hedging only because someone will come along and cite fossil-fuel based ancillary activities related to nuclear fuel mining, processing, transport, and disposal if I say "zero". But for all intents, zero. There are breeder reactor designs which convert far more abundant non-fissile isotopes to fuel-grade fissible isotopes, usually starting with U-238 or Th-232. While not technically "renewable", these do off a theoretically sustainable energy supply, with projections suggesting over 5 billion years' supply at forseable energy consumption rates (that's long enough for solar stability to be the principle limiting factor). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
  - danielharan 14y ago
    Yes, all the things you mentioned, plus building the actual plant. As far as new breeder designs, it's a bit too late. Nuclear promised us "energy too cheap to meter" and construction and maintenance costs have kept going down. Meanwhile solar and wind have been regularly going down in price with each doubling of production. The case against nuclear isn't environmental; it's economic.

joseflavio 14y ago

It is interesting to note that Brazil uses renewable energy sources in the majority of the cars/trucks. So it is not only because of being luck of having hydroelectric power, it was a society/government decision/strategy to use bi-fuel cars.

d99kris 14y ago

I assume you are referring to electrical energy, and not energy usage in general?