Hydro or Coal?
Posted by: winkyincanada on 10 June 2014
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-27788286
I read this story and am torn. Having been to Patagonia, the preservation that residual wilderness seems very important. But if the alternative is to burn more coal, which is the lesser of two evils?
Interestingly, project proponent is quoted as saying the hydro scheme would have brought development to a remote undeveloped region. He saw this as a positive. The opponents saw exactly the same outcome as a negative.
Who knows the right answer?
I wish some leading statesman or natural leader from the academic community would really attempt to start a debate about the balance of resources and the growth of the human pollution.
I suspect that we shall have to see environmental disasters that take human lives in the tens or even hundreds of millions before the population debate starts for all that.
The more humans there are the less room there is for a natural or even wilderness environment to exist in.
ATB from George
Logan's Run, anyone?
Would "you" be prepared to undam the Columbia River all the way from Kinbasket to Astoria ? or Harrison Lake ? or any other lake in BC ?
If not, then for "you" a hyro scheme seems morally correct.
But as George says, it's the number of people on the planet that's the real issue.
OTOH a nuclear Power Station springs to mind.
The Germans don't want to run Nuclear, and the Japanese cannot run them without catastrophe even in recent times. Russia has proved that Third World Countries have no business trying ...
I think Nuclear has a limited future in Countries that have long since learned from their own lesser mistakes, such as Britain. I don't think Nuclear is the magic bullet. Unless Fusion can be mastered, and the problem with that is Deuterium supply even if it can be made to work in real scale.
ATB from George
The Germans don't want to run Nuclear, and the Japanese cannot run them without catastrophe even in recent times. Russia has proved that Third World Countries have no business trying ...
I think Nuclear has a limited future in Countries that have long since learned from their own lesser mistakes, such as Britain. I don't think Nuclear is the magic bullet. Unless Fusion can be mastered, and the problem with that is Deuterium supply even if it can be made to work in real scale.
ATB from George
Oh George. Nuclear (fission) power is by far the safest power source ever commercially deployed. It affects by far the smallest area in terms of environmental impact per kwh generated.
The total historic fatalities in the US commercial nuclear power generation segment is ZERO (there have been fatalities at scientific facilities). Even counting TMI which killed no people. Constructing wind farms has killed more people.
I'm not aware of any fatalities associated with Japanese nuclear power generation.
Even the Chernobyl incident killed far fewer than the Chinese coal industry kills every year.
You've been conned by the shrieking anti-nuclear lobby.
OTOH a nuclear Power Station springs to mind.
No argument there.
Would "you" be prepared to undam the Columbia River all the way from Kinbasket to Astoria ? or Harrison Lake ? or any other lake in BC ?
If not, then for "you" a hyro scheme seems morally correct.
Excellent point. We certainly don't rate prior wilderness destruction on the same scale as proposed wilderness destruction. As they say, the environmentalist is the guy who built their cabin in the woods last year, whereas the developer is the guy who wants to build it this year!
Un-damming the Columbia River or Harrison Lake wouldn't un-develop the region, though.
Nuclear, whilst 'safe' is storing up a problem for future generations.
The way forward is for environmentalists and economists to work together. A good example is Bhutan where they have abandoned GDP and have begun using Gross National Happiness and the key national measure.
The fixation on growth must stop and oddly it's influencing multi nationals in this regard is most likely to bring about change rather than governments.
J :-)
I wasn't at all surprised that it's the CEO of the Hydro supplying company who is claiming that fossil fuels are the alternative. Chilli should be briefed my someone else.
J
Would "you" be prepared to undam the Columbia River all the way from Kinbasket to Astoria ? or Harrison Lake ? or any other lake in BC ?
If not, then for "you" a hyro scheme seems morally correct.
There is no free lunch. Any method of power production has its benefits and costs, and politics and economics are the driver, not morals.
Beyond "clean" power, the current Pacific Northwest hydro system also has vast implications on agriculture, fisheries, and transportation.
The lowermost Columbia River dam is Bonneville, located 146 river miles upstream of Astoria.
However, this is not separate from morals or values but rather a reflection of it.
The environment is the biggest challenge for the human race, with no silver bullet unless the unpopular decisions about population management and lowering consumption are made.
Technology is only part of a solution as is making things more efficient.
What's left ? Malthus' theories......
Hold on, I need another PSU that needs to left on 24x7 :-))
More radionuclides are emitted from coal fired power stations than from nuclear ones. The problem is the waste production.
The death toll from the particulate emmissions alone is staggering. The fatality rate from coal mining in China, India and eastern Europe dwarfs any dreamt-up nuclear danger.
The waste production and storage issues are are more media-driven, socio-political hysteria than true technical problems. Safe solutions are available, but the NIMBYs won't allow it. "Oh dear, what if something happens? Won't someone think of the children?"
Dear Winki,
You are wrong. I am quite pro Nuclear as a practical way of doing relatively less damage when producing electricity.
I was commenting in the sense that Governments have generally to account for public opinion where Nuclear is concerned.
As far as I am concerned, I'd happily see the UK generating perhaps half its electricity from Nuclear and the other half from renewables.
ATB from George
I am pro-nuclear - in a country where 70 to 80% of the electricity is produced by nuclear power-plants.
But I believe those plants should be phased out whenever and wherever possible, and replaced by renewable forms of energy - nuclear plants rely on finite natural resources too. Germany's mistake was to set a strict deadline, but the initial decision was basically sound.
Dear Winki,
... I am quite pro Nuclear as a practical way of doing relatively less damage when producing electricity.
As far as I am concerned, I'd happily see the UK generating perhaps half its electricity from Nuclear and the other half from renewables.
ATB from George
PS: I would keep a number of gas power station for peak demands and periods of exceptional weather as these can be brought up to full power very quickly and would also cover periods when renewables were not working at high capacity ...
George,
Most of our electrical power generation is fuelled by gas. We are too dependent on gas. Nuclear acounts for only c.15% of our electricity but offers the most secure longtern baseload generating capacity. The government needs to get things moving faster in that direction. It is the small gas fired stations that can be brought on line at a moment's notice, as can the pumped-storage schemes up at Foyers and over in North Wales.
Although we committed to 30% renewable by 2030 (?) that is too costly. nuclear is as renewable a resource as any wind-turbine and between half and two thirds the whole-life cost. Solar panels use up too much agricultural land and wave/tidal power is way too expensive. Hardly any of our electricity is fuelled by oil.
Gas 47% coal 28% nuclear 16% renewables (mainly wind and hydro) 7%, oil 1% and imports 1% - all give-or-take a couple of % points.
But globally, we need fewer people. I think you and I are agreed on that.
Yes I think we can agree that the real problem is the ballooning population.
Even if there is a natural levelling off of this rise by the latter part of the 21st. Century, it will already be too late for the Fate of Billions of human's having either a decent life or that is as long as we expect today. People forget how balanced to the current climate modern industrial agriculture is. With large changes in climate and rainfall patterns, the bread basket grain producing areas of the World may well see significant reductions in productivity rather sooner than the politicians seem to discuss.
You may well call me a Malthusian. It has been said before, and I took no offence.
ATB from George
Very good!
I laugher out loud at that, Wat!
Every day you laugh is a good one!
ATB from George