eggnogwithextranog t1_ixdnu26 wrote
Reply to comment by flow_man in U.S. regulators approved a plan to demolish four dams on the lower Klamath River and open hundreds of miles of salmon habitat in the largest dam-removal and river-restoration project in the world. by doginasweater39
Dams require upkeep as well, you seem to be ignoring that. More importantly, how many billions of dollars in ecosystem services have been lost in the decades that the dams have been up? If you're really worried about clean, consistent energy output, you would be a proponent of nuclear over hydroelectric. Or you'd be advocating for increased funding into innovation in large scale battery storage technology so we can store extra energy generated by wind and solar in times of high production. Why argue for dams?
flow_man t1_ixdqbp9 wrote
>both of these systems is individually is more than the hydro dam
This is not ignoring. This is directly relating them and saying one is more than the other.
Nuclear power is GREAT. It is the one non oil and gas power source which can generate the power in great supply and usability that rivals Hydro. There is no need to be a proponent of one over the other. They BOTH are the best ways to generate cleaner energy. The funny thing about all large scale battery storage solutions currently is they all make a DAM and pump water to the top of it. Wind is at the ebb and flow of the wind, solar produces during the day when power is not needed as much as it is in the Evening.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments