Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bluewolf71 t1_jdmkql3 wrote

Seems like there are better options for electricity generation that won’t flood properties.

Solar, geothermal, wind….

4

andrewbi t1_jdomk9p wrote

This is exactly what we need to transition to those power sources- the article doesn’t explain how this plant works so I think there’s a lot of confusion on what this plant exactly does. This plant is basically a huge battery- by using excess electricity on the grid to pump water into this reservoir it can release water to power it’s turbines when demand exceeds supply. With solar and wind energy storage solutions like this are absolutely necessary and are basically the best option that we currently have.

4

Socketfusion t1_jdoxmac wrote

I'm not saying this plan is good, but I wanted to add some perspective. So there is an 850 MW solar farm in China. It's one of the largest in the world. It covers 8.9 square miles. One tenth the land usage. The reservoir would be 0.9 square miles. An average on shore wind turbine produces about 2.75 MW so you'd need about 310 of them. That works out to 20-40 square miles. Of course in the case of wind you can use that land for other things, which is good. But York County isn't exactly great place to build wind turbines. I'm not even going to bother to do math on geothermal.

I'm just talking about land usage so far. You also have to consider how you will transmit and distribute that power. You need substations to increase voltage and lower current. You need more lines whether underground or on poles. Distributed generation like on-site solar or small wind turbines with battery banks can work great for lower loads in densely populated areas like homes in cities. It is definitely something we should be doing a whole lot more of. But managing a grid is just insanely complex.

2

dirtyoldman20 t1_jdmokoo wrote

To power NYC only with solar you would have to knock down every tree and cover every blade of grass in the entire state of Pa . Also making solar panels is very verry verry dirty. Probably have to do the same thing with wind. Wind is very very very dirty too. Those comments do not mean i approve of the dam project . Just pointing out none of the "clean " technologies are actually clean.

−6

Gstamsharp t1_jdn4yzp wrote

Sure, but if you put solar on the roof of every new structure, or heck, the roofs of the existing buildings in the city, you wouldn't need to build the destructive supplemental power supplies in the first place.

4

Socketfusion t1_jdoyie5 wrote

>you wouldn't need to build the destructive supplemental power supplies in the first place.

Yes you would, just less of them. A major manufacturing plant isn't going to be able to fully supply it's power with just solar on its roof tops. It would need a massive solar farm plus a lot of battery storage. You might be able to supply, and even oversupply, your house most of the year. And when you are generating more than you need you can help supply your neighbors. But you aren't going to be able move that excess generation very far. Like anything, distance causes losses. That is why we have giant transformers on one end to transmit electricity at high voltage and low current, then switch it back to low voltages and higher current for actual use.

1

dirtyoldman20 t1_jdoiz6m wrote

If we do as planned . Get rid of every gas stove and every home heater and water heater and convert to all electric and convert our cars to full electric , after they put up panels on every roof top in NYC . After Covered every green spot in NYC with solar panels they would still need to cut down every tree and cover ever blade of grass and raise every house in Pennsylvania just to power New York CITY ONLY .alone .. If we covered Pennsylvania in glass not a single watt would be used by Pennsylvania

−3

Fluiddruid4k t1_jdnjemm wrote

True they just need to hurry up with our nuclear fission power plants already. I’m so tired of hearing this clean energy shit

−1