gandalf_der_12te ,
@gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Water is a living space. It harbors all kinds of life. It's not good that we try to industrialize rivers. Not good at all. We should use only wind and solar as renewable energy sources. And batteries for storage.

Wahots ,
@Wahots@pawb.social avatar

You gotta have reliable baseload energy. Traditionally, that has been hydro in blessed regions, coal and gas in other regions, and nuclear if your country has the funds to do so.

The key is to always have baseload power for dark winter months, weeks of bad weather, or heat domes and forest fires, where you may find yourself not having sun or wind for extended periods of time with incredibly high demand on the grid (for AC!).

My two cents is that nuclear energy is worth it for clean, reliable energy that doesn't hose all of your rivers. We will need some hydro for water reserves and power, but a diverse energy mix that doesn't rely on hydrocarbons is the way forward, imo.

Baseload of hydro, nuclear, geothermal. Solar and wind with battery storage, pumped storage, green hydrogen. Rooftop solar. Greenscapes in cities to keep heat down and absorb rainwater so it doesn't mess up combined sewage pipes.

Heat pumps and proper insulation for homes and buildings. Ebikes for short range commutes of 1-45 miles. Puts a lot less strain on the grid than EV cars, too.

CommanderCloon ,

We need hydro power with renewables, even more than we need it with fossil fuels. Hydro allows us to store eenrgy (through pumping water back into the lake as potential energy), which is required when peak usage hours don't match peak production hours. Since we can't control when solar or wind will produce power, energy storage is even more of a necessity for those sources than it is for fossil sources.

speedingcheese ,

Maybe a dumb question but would hydro on top of a large waterfall work without impacting biodiversity? I ask because maybe there isn’t wildlife that goes down large waterfalls, so no impact.

MercurySunrise ,

I don't really think it is especially in comparison to petrochemicals, but hydroelectric dams also isn't my favorite green energy. They displace too much matter while also reducing the wildlife of the project area for me to feel comfortable with it. I think perhaps there's further ways water could be used to make electricity that are underestimated or even unknown. I like "old-school" hydroelectrics, watermills. In my opinion this is an example really of individualistic green energy being a better environmental decision on the whole. Such will reduce the damage of our energy needs. Power to the people.

sabreW4K3 OP ,
@sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al avatar

I just said in another comment that I think there's other ways to harness the power of water that we're unaware of. I think dams are an easy go to and the reality is that they are a nuisance. Hopefully we can make some breakthroughs. Especially now we've started making strides in wave power.

MercurySunrise ,

I get where you're coming from. It's a tandem tech and should stay in that consideration. It's a diversity of tactics in the fight against petrochems. That industry is too big for just one avenue, at least of the ones we currently have.

CommanderCloon ,

Hydro isn't only a source of energy, it's also the most efficient way to store energy. With solar and wind, peak usage hours don't match peak production hours, so we need storage capacity to be even able to use solar & wind. And dams are the absolute best we have for that storage purpose, in terms of cost, efficiency, and environmental impact

MercurySunrise ,

I agree it provides a more regular "stream" of energy. I think perhaps this focus on having regular unlimited energy at all times of night and day is a little unnecessary. People do sleep, and they should sleep during the night for maximum health, based on research. I find energy storage an important aspect of sustainability. We should have storage regardless of the system. I'm not against using it, all I said was it's not my favorite.

FireRetardant ,

This is part of why reducing our total energy usage is as important if not more important than just removing carbon from energy production. Every energy source has some kind of impact, some more than others. We should strive to make the least impactful energy we can and respect that energy by being effecient with it.

gandalf_der_12te ,
@gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Realistically, it's not gonna happen.

Energy usage is going to increase (quite a lot, if you ask me) in the future due to low-cost solar power. But also, I have to say, that's a good thing. Solar power has almost no environmental impact at all, and if you can't cherish that, but still doom into depression, then I would recommend reconsidering your lifestyle and maybe talk to a therapist.

FireRetardant ,

The solar panels in my area are often in empty fields that could have been forests, farms, or houses with panels on the roofs. The panels still contain minerals mined from the earth, which has an impact. Broken panels will still have to be disposed of safely and ideally recycled, either way creating an impact.

If we let the rules of captialism continue to control our mindset of course we will continue to use more and more energy, just like companies expect more and more growth and profits.

I_Has_A_Hat ,

My God, they cut down forests, destroyed farms, and tore down houses to build those solar panels?! Or were the empty fields they were in just empty beforehand? So despite that land being put to good use, you're upset because.... What?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines