Interesting. I suppose it makes sense, in a way: solar power captures solar energy directly, whereas hydro captures solar energy only indirectly, through the wa

Interesting. I suppose it makes sense, in a way: solar power captures solar energy directly, whereas hydro captures solar energy only indirectly, through the water cycle. Do you have any ballpark ideas about how the cost of producing the dam (most concrete, I guess) compares to the cost of producing 120 km^2 of solar panels + 'enough' battery capacity, in terms of some kind of ecological footprint? My intuition is that the ecological capital costs of solar panels greatly exceed the capital costs of the dam, but I have little faith in my intuition....