5 ms·

Quebec has them both beat. Hydro rules! https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/CA-QC/5y/yearly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/CA-QC/5y/yearly (To

Quebec has them both beat. Hydro rules! https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/CA-QC/5y/yearly https://app.electricitymaps.com/map/zone/CA-QC/5y/yearly (To be transparent, there's controversy around calling hydroelectric renewable.)

foobarian 1y ago
Hydro does rule. Top 8 power stations are hydro right now. And the top power station has been a hydro for over a hundred years now. Very cool! Three Gorges has capacity of 22.5 GW.
- zdragnar 1y ago
  I really hope nothing bad happens at the three gorges dam. There's nearly half a billion people that would have to be evacuated, and tens of millions who likely wouldn't be able to evacuate in time due to proximity. I'd rather live near a modern nuclear plant myself.
  - Yeul 1y ago
    Dutch people live under sea level but everyone trusts in the engineering.
idiotsecant 1y ago
I am a bit biased, as an engineer who works exclusively in hydro powerplants, but i think they're awesome too. With that said, it's becoming more apparent that in addition to the biosphere issues they cause, they also cause a pretty significant amount of methane to be released. https://www.hydropower.org/blog/new-study-sheds-light-on-reservoir-emissions-over-a-long-time-period https://www.hydropower.org/blog/new-study-sheds-light-on-res... It would put me out of a job but I'd still rather see a surge in nuke generation and solar with storage, at least until we get fusion figured out.
- throwaway2037 1y ago
  > I'd still rather see a surge in nuke generation and solar with storage How about wind?
  - idiotsecant 1y ago
    Wind is good too!
    - gacklesschlong 1y ago
      [flagged]
- oezi 1y ago
  The linked article doesn't put these emissions in relation to anything. It is hard to imagine it to be a relevant amount of emissions, right?
ziotom78 1y ago
What strikes me is the fact that nuclear power has received an incredible amount of backslash after the Chernobyl incident (a few thousands deaths) and the Fukushima incident (one disputed death), but hydroelectric power is considered a "good" source of energy despite a few incredibly deadly incidents: - Banquiao (China, 1975): between 26.000 and 240.000 [1] - Derna (Lybia, 2023): between 6000 and 20.000 deaths [2] - Machchu (India, 1979): 5000 deaths [3] - Vajont (Italy, 1963): 2000 deaths [4] - Möhne dam (Germany, 1943): 1500 deaths [5] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Derna_dam_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Derna_dam_collapse [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morvi_dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morvi_dam_failure [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6hne_Reservoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6hne_Reservoir
- rkomorn 1y ago
  And the environmental impact up and downstream (both for failure cases and regular operation).
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  I think this line of thinking comes from a westernized world where all water is controlled. Many dams have been built around the world not for power generation, but to control flooding. The power generation is a secondary concern. In aggregate dams have saved far more lives, by managing flood waters. The great thing in 2025 is that we don’t need either the dam or nuclear risk for our electricity needs. Just build renewables and storage and the risk for the general public is as close to zero as we can get. The only people involved in accidents are those that chose to work in the industry installing and maintaining the gear. We should of course continue to focus on work place safety but for the general public the risk of a life changing evacuation, radiation exposure or flood from dam failure does not exist.
  - madaxe_again 1y ago
    As you say, dams are a net positive, and while failures do happen, these days we tend to be wiser about where we put PHES in particular. I guess I’m surprised it isn’t more of an option for California - the U.K. uses Snowdonia as a giant battery, and afaik there’s been one failure of a dam that wiped half of trefriw off the map a century ago - which wasn’t hard as it’s a speck of a place. Since then the lakes have pretty reliably and safely provided somewhere to stick excess energy, and now are largely pumped by the offshore wind arrays nearby. California has big mountains, but I’m not sure if the geology or terrain is right for PHES.

foobarian 1y ago

Hydro does rule. Top 8 power stations are hydro right now. And the top power station has been a hydro for over a hundred years now. Very cool! Three Gorges has capacity of 22.5 GW.

zdragnar 1y ago
I really hope nothing bad happens at the three gorges dam. There's nearly half a billion people that would have to be evacuated, and tens of millions who likely wouldn't be able to evacuate in time due to proximity. I'd rather live near a modern nuclear plant myself.
- Yeul 1y ago
  Dutch people live under sea level but everyone trusts in the engineering.

idiotsecant 1y ago

I am a bit biased, as an engineer who works exclusively in hydro powerplants, but i think they're awesome too. With that said, it's becoming more apparent that in addition to the biosphere issues they cause, they also cause a pretty significant amount of methane to be released. https://www.hydropower.org/blog/new-study-sheds-light-on-reservoir-emissions-over-a-long-time-period https://www.hydropower.org/blog/new-study-sheds-light-on-res... It would put me out of a job but I'd still rather see a surge in nuke generation and solar with storage, at least until we get fusion figured out.

throwaway2037 1y ago
> I'd still rather see a surge in nuke generation and solar with storage How about wind?
- idiotsecant 1y ago
  Wind is good too!
  - gacklesschlong 1y ago
    [flagged]
oezi 1y ago
The linked article doesn't put these emissions in relation to anything. It is hard to imagine it to be a relevant amount of emissions, right?

ziotom78 1y ago

What strikes me is the fact that nuclear power has received an incredible amount of backslash after the Chernobyl incident (a few thousands deaths) and the Fukushima incident (one disputed death), but hydroelectric power is considered a "good" source of energy despite a few incredibly deadly incidents: - Banquiao (China, 1975): between 26.000 and 240.000 [1] - Derna (Lybia, 2023): between 6000 and 20.000 deaths [2] - Machchu (India, 1979): 5000 deaths [3] - Vajont (Italy, 1963): 2000 deaths [4] - Möhne dam (Germany, 1943): 1500 deaths [5] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Banqiao_Dam_failure [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Derna_dam_collapse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Derna_dam_collapse [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morvi_dam_failure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morvi_dam_failure [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6hne_Reservoir https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6hne_Reservoir

rkomorn 1y ago
And the environmental impact up and downstream (both for failure cases and regular operation).
ViewTrick1002 1y ago
I think this line of thinking comes from a westernized world where all water is controlled. Many dams have been built around the world not for power generation, but to control flooding. The power generation is a secondary concern. In aggregate dams have saved far more lives, by managing flood waters. The great thing in 2025 is that we don’t need either the dam or nuclear risk for our electricity needs. Just build renewables and storage and the risk for the general public is as close to zero as we can get. The only people involved in accidents are those that chose to work in the industry installing and maintaining the gear. We should of course continue to focus on work place safety but for the general public the risk of a life changing evacuation, radiation exposure or flood from dam failure does not exist.
- madaxe_again 1y ago
  As you say, dams are a net positive, and while failures do happen, these days we tend to be wiser about where we put PHES in particular. I guess I’m surprised it isn’t more of an option for California - the U.K. uses Snowdonia as a giant battery, and afaik there’s been one failure of a dam that wiped half of trefriw off the map a century ago - which wasn’t hard as it’s a speck of a place. Since then the lakes have pretty reliably and safely provided somewhere to stick excess energy, and now are largely pumped by the offshore wind arrays nearby. California has big mountains, but I’m not sure if the geology or terrain is right for PHES.