Whats the "Greenest" way to produce electricity?

[macdoc]

More unsupported chatter from 3b - oh nuclear workers die suddenly..
no statistics, nothing just more bafflegab which is ALL we are seeing from you lately - odd for an apologist from the power industry.

You TALK about insider status and assume authority from that and do absolutely nothing to support that notion in a science forum.
If anything - talking about anecdotes from colleagues simply confirms self interest bias on their part and yours. Oh let's not be hasty - might affect our pensions.
••

Umm affected area is exactly WHY hydro electric is a problem. Yes it's desirable power, yes it has it's own set of problems.

The point of the exercise ( which was done in a journal ) was to point out how much water area/depth would be needed to supplant nuclear in Ontario with hydro and how ridiculous it is to think it is achievable.
They actually used ALL of Ontario at a 3 metre depth to make the point.

There are very very few sites left with any large hydro potential and ALL will impact millions of hectares.
There are a few in the north but then the cost of transmission needs to be factored in.

and then in certain areas there is this problem

Colorado River crisis looming, report says

By Mike Lee
STAFF WRITERand Michael Gardner
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

February 13, 2008
Colorado River reservoirs that serve 20 million people in the Southwest could essentially run out of water in 13 years based on current climate and water-use trends, researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography said yesterday.
That would jolt San Diego County, which relies heavily on the Lake Powell-Lake Mead system for water. Several million people across the Southwest also get hydroelectric power from the reservoir's dams, which the scientists said may suffer an “abrupt drop” in production in about 10 years if reservoir levels continue to fall

and the same occurred in the Po valley in Italy.

During the "annus horribilis" -- as the 2003 summer is known in Italy -- record heat caused electricity blackouts, huge losses for farmers, and an appalling death count across Europe, with thousands dead in Italy alone. Climate experts are predicting that temperatures in Italy this summer will be about one degree higher than average, which will likely create similar -- if not hotter -- conditions to 2003.
The Coldiretti farmer's association told AP that one-third of the country's agricultural exports rely on resources from the Po River. Livestock like pigs and cows, and crops such as tomatoes, sugar and rice, all need large quantities of water.
Electricity supplies are also threatened, as hydro-electric plants struggle to cope with lower water levels. Experts fear that the country may be hit by power outages, as happened during the summer of 2003.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,479625,00.html

and Australia, China and India all face hydro power reductions due to changes in hydrology.
Don't know of any reduction in nuclear output as a result of a warm spell.

 

[Trakar]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Allow me to offer some definitions to assist in your comprehension:

Citation/Cite: the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent. a passage cited; quotation. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context.

Reference : a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, etc. a book, passage, etc., to which one is directed.

Support:to corroborate (a statement, opinion, etc.): confirm: establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts. documentation: documentary validation. support with evidence or authority or make more certain or confirm

If you are having a hard time understanding, please do not hesitate to ask, I will do my best to help you learn that which you do not comprehend.

 

[Furcifer]

Please support your assertions with something other than additional assertions.

No. My assertions stand, not because they are mine, but because I am in a better position to assert than you will most likely ever be to "cite". This is a discussion not a trial, you can't render a verdict.

But if you ever get a chance to sit down with some people who actually run some of the largest electricity generating plants in the world and talk about making energy I'd love to hear about it.

 

[Furcifer]

More unsupported chatter from 3b - oh nuclear workers die suddenly..
no statistics, nothing just more bafflegab which is ALL we are seeing from you lately - odd for an apologist from the power industry.

You TALK about insider status and assume authority from that and do absolutely nothing to support that notion in a science forum.
If anything - talking about anecdotes from colleagues simply confirms self interest bias on their part and yours. Oh let's not be hasty - might affect our pensions.
••

Umm affected area is exactly WHY hydro electric is a problem. Yes it's desirable power, yes it has it's own set of problems.

The point of the exercise ( which was done in a journal ) was to point out how much water area/depth would be needed to supplant nuclear in Ontario with hydro and how ridiculous it is to think it is achievable.
They actually used ALL of Ontario at a 3 metre depth to make the point.

There are very very few sites left with any large hydro potential and ALL will impact millions of hectares.
There are a few in the north but then the cost of transmission needs to be factored in.

and then in certain areas there is this problem



and the same occurred in the Po valley in Italy.


http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,479625,00.html

and Australia, China and India all face hydro power reductions due to changes in hydrology.
Don't know of any reduction in nuclear output as a result of a warm spell.

Um that's my point, why would you create a resevoir with such small head? 3m is nothing, and most of Ontario is closer to 100m above sea level (if memory serves me Huron and Superior are 72m or so above sea level or was it feet???)

To use 3m as a talking point about hydroelectric is ridiculous. There's no point. I could very well say nuclear is dirty by restricting it to a closed loop coolng system.

If Canadians decided it was too risky to use our fresh water to cool nuclear, and they were restricted to using induced draft and cooling towers the shear size would probably make it unfeasible. That's not to mention the chemicals for treating the water.

I'm sorry but you seem to be talking from a very limited knowledge of what's really involved here.

 

[akama1]

That said we will need all of hydro, nuclear and renewables to get to carbon neutral civilization and preserve a reasonable atmospheric energy balance.

Agree 100%, It will take a combination of all of these technologies to get to where we want to be

 

[Furcifer]

Allow me to offer some definitions to assist in your comprehension:

Citation/Cite: the act of citing or quoting a reference to an authority or a precedent. a passage cited; quotation. a quotation showing a particular word or phrase in context.

Reference : a direction in a book or writing to some other book, passage, etc. a book, passage, etc., to which one is directed.

Support:to corroborate (a statement, opinion, etc.): confirm: establish or strengthen as with new evidence or facts. documentation: documentary validation. support with evidence or authority or make more certain or confirm

If you are having a hard time understanding, please do not hesitate to ask, I will do my best to help you learn that which you do not comprehend.

Yes, I CITED several AUTHORITIES supporting hydroelectric as the "greenest" and "cheapest" ways to make electroicity.

I also REFERENCED several trade magazines that made similar statements. The names elude me, I believe they had typical trade publication names like "Cogen Monthly" or "Power Generating Today". One came from the IESO all the time and I believe that was the one I'm thinking of.

Of course this is pointless, and you are just being silly. None of them are online publications, and as far as I know they only exist in printed form. Even if I could remember the exact magazine, on the exact month, on the exact page and the exact article I couldn't really "reference" them now could I? I suppose a lesser person could look up the magazine name and cite a phony article or something just to appease you, but that's not how I roll.

You need to come to terms with the fact despite the wonders of the internet, you don't have all the information I have. And you probably never will. I doubt you will ever have lunch with 2 plant managers and a VP, or be in on a conference call with 20. Not only that but you will never see a 1/100th of the literature published on this subject, or even access to 1/10th.

Trying to make it seem like it doesn't exist because you can't Google it seems a little weak don't you think?

So I'll say it once again, in my limited experience hydroelectric is regarded as the "greenest" source of energy for baseload. Obviously I don't know everyone, and everyone I know doesn't know everything, but the few that I do know who I've happened to talk about clean energy with have suggested this to me. This doesn't make it so, but it does lend some creedence to my argument. I've also read this in power generating related magazines. I never really thought to note this because frankly I didn't think this was even up for debate. I thought this was taken for granted. In the industry I think it is, I think it's just a few confused internet posters that think otherwise.

But I could be wrong. And if I am wrong I can assure you it will take more than a linky from someone who has never even synced a generator to the grid or started up a GT

 

[Roboramma]

No. My assertions stand, not because they are mine, but because I am in a better position to assert than you will most likely ever be to "cite". This is a discussion not a trial, you can't render a verdict.

Your assertions are nothing more than assertions to the rest of us until we can check them ourselves. And since you're unwilling to give any actually references to the facts that you say are true, how are we supposed to check them?

 

[Furcifer]

Agree 100%, It will take a combination of all of these technologies to get to where we want to be

Indeed. I'm playing devil's advocate here because I realize what macdoc and Tshaitanaku are getting at here and I tend to agree. In terms of meeting even our current energy needs, let alone the future, when done right nuclear is very "green".

Short of making mountains and changing precipitation patterns to fill the newly created valleys, hydroelectric isn't going meet our needs.

That doesn't mean I'm going to roll over an admit to something that I don't believe is true. The inconvenience of relocating people, the CO2 from rotting vegetation and concrete, the loss of salmon streams and any other problems with hydro the world over all pale in comparison to the problems of waste disposal and Chernobyl. That pales again many times over when comparing the "potential" hazzards associated with a failure at a hydro station and a failure nuke plant.

It concerns me however when I see people pushing for something not because of the facts, but based on an ideology. I see a lot of people trying to push nuclear because of global warming and that tends to make me cringe. I understand the need for more nuclear, but not because if we don't the planet will melt and civilization as we know it will collapse.

This ideology maintains that the only way to save the planet is by building nuclear reactors. They tend to downplay the problems associated with nuclear by comparing it to the problems of not acting now to decrease CO2. While the effects of continued CO2 output are up for debate, the effects of a meltdown or a release of radiation into the environment are very well known.

So when I hear AGW proponents pushing nuclear in the face of an obviously "greener" technology like hydroelectric, not because it's right, but because they are totally unwilling to admit anything that doesn't fit their agenda, I have to take time out to play the Devil's Advocate. They're right only in the sense nuclear "will" be the greenest, not that it currently is.

 

[Furcifer]

Your assertions are nothing more than assertions to the rest of us until we can check them ourselves. And since you're unwilling to give any actually references to the facts that you say are true, how are we supposed to check them?

Absolutely. They are mine and mine alone. I don't expect you to "believe" me. In fact my point is you shouldn't "believe" anyone, especially because they have a link.
What I expect is if someone is truly curious about the true answer to talk to people. Discuss the question. Read more than just links on the internet before coming to a conclusion.
This idea the a cite on the web is enough to make a valid conclusion is nonsense. So is trying to shut down a discussion for the lack therein. There's certainly a lot more than just Google. I think we tend to forget that.
I'm not an authority. I have perhaps a little more experience than most, and a lot less than some when it comes to these matters. All I can do is be honest. As long as I remain honest and present the facts as I see them and as I think others see them I can share my limitied experience with others. That's all I'm trying to do.
There's no real answer. There's no "right" answer. All I can say is from the few people I've met, and a few things I've read, hydro is held in pretty high regards. For all I know the right answer might be gasoline. I doubt it, but I'll admit I don't know everything and I'll stay open to anything as long it seems reasonable. Hydroelectric is certainly a reasonable guess IMHO.

 

[Roboramma]

Absolutely. They are mine and mine alone. I don't expect you to "believe" me. In fact my point is you shouldn't "believe" anyone, especially because they have a link.
What I expect is if someone is truly curious about the true answer to talk to people. Discuss the question. Read more than just links on the internet before coming to a conclusion.
This idea the a cite on the web is enough to make a valid conclusion is nonsense. So is trying to shut down a discussion for the lack therein. There's certainly a lot more than just Google. I think we tend to forget that.
I'm not an authority. I have perhaps a little more experience than most, and a lot less than some when it comes to these matters. All I can do is be honest. As long as I remain honest and present the facts as I see them and as I think others see them I can share my limitied experience with others. That's all I'm trying to do.
There's no real answer. There's no "right" answer. All I can say is from the few people I've met, and a few things I've read, hydro is held in pretty high regards. For all I know the right answer might be gasoline. I doubt it, but I'll admit I don't know everything and I'll stay open to anything as long it seems reasonable. Hydroelectric is certainly a reasonable guess IMHO.

Sure, but no one is asking for a link that resolves the debate, that can't be found is it's silly to expect that it exists.

Rather, what's asked for is that when you make specific claims, for instance that biodiversity tends to increase rather than decrease due to dams, that you provide some sort of a link to a reputable source for that fact. Those sorts of sources are online, though it may take some digging to find them. If you dig and still can't find such a source perhaps you can point that out and that direct others toward some offline source, or at least say specifically what offline source you yourself used to find it.

The point isn't that you're not providing sources for your conclusions: none of us here require an authority to have made a pronouncement on the subject, but that that you're not providing sources for your facts, which I think it's entirely reasonable to request in this sort of a discussion.

 

[macdoc]

+1

 

[pipelineaudio]

Not always. Granted, most of the "easy" stuff has been exploited, but in terms of "green" hydro has everything beat hands down. Even the worst of the worst doesn't harm the environment as much as nuke. It's simplicity in motion, it's such a beautiful thing hydro. Even tidal, while not conventional "hydro" is still a form of hydroelectric. Awesome.

Let's see, in AZ:

Palo Verde nuclear plant. Takes up a couple acres, has a protected zone around it with the only truly pristine desert biomes in Maricopa county

Hoover Dam: flooded hundreds of miles of habitat upstream, completely dried up dozens if not hundreds of streams, thousands of square miles of riverfront, turned giant areas of beautiful mojave into dustbowls

So far, I'll take the nukes

 

[macdoc]

Add 3 Gorges and a horror show in the Amazon to name a couple as well as billions of pissed off fish at every dam trying to spawn.
Dams have BIG consequences upstream and down stream. The big dam in Egypt had huge consequences down river as well of course flooding immense areas upstream.

Good article - apologies if I posted it before

Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed

• 14:29 24 February 2005

Contrary to popular belief, hydroelectric power can seriously damage the climate. Proposed changes to the way countries' climate budgets are calculated aim to take greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower reservoirs into account, but some experts worry that they will not go far enough.
The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, says Éric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Everyone thinks hydro is very clean, but this is not the case," he says.

I'm not against hydro - it's just not as pristine as people think nor is nuclear anywhere near as problematic from a green and environment standpoint.

ALL technology has plus and minus - coal is cheap. plentiful and a killer as well as climate altering substance of note. Nuclear is the ONLY option to replace it in near term and then add in all the renewables private money can buy.
What pisses me off is public money going to inefficient renewables.

I PAY a premium for windpower so I can have carbon neutral and I offset it by having biz and home together and managing use.
Europe has has high power prices for decades...North American's are spoiled rotten.

Now if we could tap the Gulf Stream...

 

[Furcifer]

Sure, but no one is asking for a link that resolves the debate, that can't be found is it's silly to expect that it exists.

Rather, what's asked for is that when you make specific claims, for instance that biodiversity tends to increase rather than decrease due to dams, that you provide some sort of a link to a reputable source for that fact. Those sorts of sources are online, though it may take some digging to find them. If you dig and still can't find such a source perhaps you can point that out and that direct others toward some offline source, or at least say specifically what offline source you yourself used to find it.

The point isn't that you're not providing sources for your conclusions: none of us here require an authority to have made a pronouncement on the subject, but that that you're not providing sources for your facts, which I think it's entirely reasonable to request in this sort of a discussion.

Well with hydroelectric come dams, with dams come large bodies of water and with large bodies of water (especially fresh) come life that needs that water to survive.

It's a discussion board, so I think it's about discussing things myself. People don't want to discuss stuff though, they want to read what someone elese has read. Seems a little lazy to me. How do I know you've even processed what you are citing? Maybe you just Googled it and copied the link?

If someone presented something far fetched, yah they need to support it. But when someone says water brings with it life?

In that case the far fetched notion is that water and lakes don't support more life than valleys or rivers.

So what if the vegetation rots as the lakes fill. They are replaced by seaweeds and other auquatic life. The last I heard the limiting factor on things growing was sun and water.

Take for instance the Hover Dam. Isn't the Hover what makes Las Vegas possible? Maybe it wasn't the Hover, but dams have made the south western US inhabitable isn't it? I thought this was common knowledge.

As for the discussing disscussions, I'm sorry but I'm a social person. I like to talk with people about what they know, or what they think they know and then assimilate that into my own repetoire. I find it unusual that disscussing disscussions is frowned upon here. Gorforbid you have a meaningful discussion outside this forum and what to relate it to other members. Oh no, where's the evidence, where's the citations? Do you have that recorded? Oh no, then you're a liar and it didn't happen.

 

[bit_pattern]

Well with hydroelectric come dams, with dams come large bodies of water and with large bodies of water (especially fresh) come life that needs that water to survive.

Not down stream. Dams are death for rivers - erosion, salinity, dramatic reduction in water flows, reduced water quality as much colder water are released into the rivers from the bottom of the dams, loss of biodiversity that goes all the way up the food chain, endangerment of species due to fragmented habitats - hydroelectricity has caused huge problems here in Australia, and it becomes pretty useless when it compromises the very river systems it relies on.

 

[Furcifer]

Not down stream. Dams are death for rivers - erosion, salinity, dramatic reduction in water flows, reduced water quality as much colder water are released into the rivers from the bottom of the dams, loss of biodiversity that goes all the way up the food chain, endangerment of species due to fragmented habitats - hydroelectricity has caused huge problems here in Australia, and it becomes pretty useless when it compromises the very river systems it relies on.

For sure. But let's face it, hydro is one of the few sources that actually creates habitat, although through a modified way. The land used for nuclear is lost, there's no "natural habitat" on that property. That land is gone, and I don't know, but it's gone for some time after decomissioning.

You crack a dam open, and you return it to its natural state very quickly with very little effort. That's much more "green"

So yah, downstream can lose some habitat But It's still no more serious than being down stream from a nuclear plant at the best of times. At the worst of times? I'm not sure which is greener. Ask people what they think, would they prefer to live downstream from a dam or a nuclear plant then go from there.

 

[bit_pattern]

For sure. But let's face it, hydro is one of the few sources that actually creates habitat, although through a modified way. The land used for nuclear is lost, there's no "natural habitat" on that property. That land is gone, and I don't know, but it's gone for some time after decomissioning.

You crack a dam open, and you return it to its natural state very quickly with very little effort. That's much more "green"

So yah, downstream can lose some habitat But It's still no more serious than being down stream from a nuclear plant at the best of times. At the worst of times? I'm not sure which is greener. Ask people what they think, would they prefer to live downstream from a dam or a nuclear plant then go from there.

Well, personally, considering the calamitous state of the river systems in SE Australia (a result of dams, but more for irrigation than hydroelectricity), our coastal dwelling population with easy access to the large volume of water needed close to population centres, our large reserves of uranium, I'd say a nuclear power plant. That might not be so everywhere but Australia has a very unique and fragile environment, it is a very old and very dry continent that is very sensitive to change. Over the last couple of years I've come to the opinion that nuclear would probably be a vastly more sustainable option for Australia than coal or even hydroelectricity if we want to have any hope of sustaining a population here for any period of time beyond the short to medium term. Then again, I'd prefer to fully explore our solar and geothermal potential long before building a nuke plant.