HydroElectricity - THE BOTTOM LINE

[Khayembii Communique]

Can you quote me saying that ?

No I can't, as you have not said it. That is why I was asking you if you do or not.

It means a lake is a lake. Since no one finds existant lakes to be an environmental crisis that needs to be solved, then future lakes, made by man, are no crisis either.

You're now avoiding my point entirely. If the same number of lakes were created due to natural issues in the same time period we would see a lot of the same negative environmental impacts. But we don't. Hence, your argument is senseless.

 

[Voidwar]

You're now avoiding my point entirely.

You don't have one.

If the same number of lakes were created due to natural issues in the same time period we would see a lot of the same negative environmental impacts. But we don't. Hence, your argument is senseless.

The parts in red, are speculatory opinion.

If lakes have a "negative" impact, then I take it you are proposing we fill existant lakes in ?

( the above is sarcasm, and I know you have not stated such, however, consider the question begged )

 

[Khayembii Communique]

So in your opinion the blocking of a few hundred waterways over the course of millions of years is the exact same thing as blocking 75,000 waterways in the course of 200 years??

 

[Voidwar]

So in your opinion the blocking of a few hundred waterways over the course of millions of years is the exact same thing as blocking 75,000 waterways in the course of 200 years??

Can you find a quote of me saying that ?

While you are looking, you can adress your own tactic thrown back in your face with less subtlety . . .

If lakes have a "negative" impact, then I take it you are proposing we fill existant lakes in ?

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Can you find a quote of me saying that ?

Do you know what a question is?

While you are looking, you can adress your own tactic thrown back in your face with less subtlety . . .

If lakes have a "negative" impact, then I take it you are proposing we fill existant lakes in ?

Granted, you are correct in the fact that natural dams are created and riverways blocked, but the difference is that because these are in such a low quantity, they are comparatively insignificant in terms of altering the environment. Which is what my entire point was in the first place.

 

[Voidwar]

Granted, you are correct in the fact that natural dams are created and riverways blocked, but the difference is that because these are in such a low quantity, they are comparatively insignificant in terms of altering the environment. Which is what my entire point was in the first place

You are not going to get it both ways.

Either lakes are significant, or they are not.

You are not going to assume natural lakes have an impact of zero, and then get me to believe that man made lakes have an impact.

Either lakes have an impact or they don't.

If we humans choose to make more lakes . . . what of it ?

Are you going to speculate about your opinion that more lakes is bad ?

Who told you Earth had the perfect number of lakes right now ?

Prove to me that earth is not currently woefully underlaked.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

You are not going to get it both ways.

Either lakes are significant, or they are not.

You are not going to assume natural lakes have an impact of zero, and then get me to believe that man made lakes have an impact.

Uh, I never made that argument. I made the argument that the blocking of waterways to an extent that we have seen with damming has a significant impact on the environment, and that the natural blocking of waterways is comparatively insignificant as it happens on a much smaller extent.

 

[Voidwar]

Uh, I never made that argument. I made the argument that the blocking of waterways to an extent that we have seen with damming has a significant impact on the environment, and that the natural blocking of waterways is comparatively insignificant as it happens on a much smaller extent.

Prove significant = negative.

Prove to me that the earth currently has the perfect number of creeks and streams and ponds and lakes.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Prove significant = negative.

You never answered my earlier question and it's pretty appropriate given your assertions in this thread. Do you deny that humans are a contributor to climate change?

 

[Voidwar]

You never answered my earlier question and it's pretty appropriate given your assertions in this thread.

This is not the proof I requested of you. Until you can prove that significant = negative, you haven't got a point.

Do you deny that humans are a contributor to climate change?

I don't know, is it climate change we can believe in ? :roll:

I don't care if they contribute or not, I damn well KNOW they better contribute, because we are not going to allow the next Ice Age to occur, now ARE WE ? I don't care if we change it or not, as you cannot prove that the current settings are anything other than current settings. You have no proof that the current conditions are optimal, anymore than you have proof that the earth currently has the "perfect" number of lakes.

You know natural climate cycles include Ice Ages right ?

Do you think Mankind will allow the next one to occur ?

Just for the sake of "naturalness" ?

As I said at the very beginning, Grow Up.

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Ah, you should have just started out with that so I would have known to ignore you. :2wave:

 

[Voidwar]

Yaaaawwwwn

Why would anyone take you seriously ? What is the negative environmental effect of a spring-fed freshwater lake again ? ? ?

 

[UtahBill]

Conservation is fekking stupid. The chinese will use what you don't, so "saving energy" is a fool's errand. Generating more is the ONLY way to continue to meet a growing demand.

Let the chinese pollute their air and water....
Coal needs to go eventually.

Lakes are nice, but flowing rivers are nicer. The share of our power mix that hydro supplies will never be more than it is....

For now and the next 50 years, nuclear is the only viable "alternative"....

 

[Khayembii Communique]

Let the chinese pollute their air and water....

The issue is that putting environmental regulations in the US is largely irrelevant in combating global climate change as most of the factories that do the real pollution are in countries that don't have such laws (such as China), so any real environmental change on the national level is meaningless in comparison.

But that's another issue, obviously.

For now and the next 50 years, nuclear is the only viable "alternative"....

I definitely agree with this. We are able to sufficiently produce enough clean energy with nuclear power to replace all power plants in the entire country with nuclear. The waste can be stored and dealt with at a later date (as we have done with the negative effects of fossil fuel).

I think the best option would be to build several regional nuclear plants augmented primarily by solar energy (which is efficient and affordable enough to be supplied by state and local governments) and secondarily by wind power.

Obviously this is just a fantasy, though.

 

[Voidwar]

Let the chinese pollute their air and water....
Coal needs to go eventually.

The coal will ALL get burnt. That is how it is going to "go".

Where do you think China's Air goes ?

Lakes are nice, but flowing rivers are nicer.

Sez You. Do we really want the Atchafalaya "flowing" ?

The share of our power mix that hydro supplies will never be more than it is....

Perhaps true, but that doesn't mean the raw size of that share won't or can't grow.

For now and the next 50 years, nuclear is the only viable "alternative"....

I agree completely. I just won't tolerate someone trying to make bogeymen out of manmade lakes. Hoover Damn is a fabulous investment, and if there was a good place to make another one, I would squash Khayembii into a rectangle and use him as the first brick.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Hoover Damn is a fabulous investment, and if there was a good place to make another one, I would squash Khayembii into a rectangle and use him as the first brick.

Moderator's Warning:

No need for this personal attack. Cease this behavior.

 

[Mach]

Anyone from Switzerland or know their story?

They appear to be preternaturally happy and prosperous, and have no issues with clean(er) energy. Are they just really lucky geographically?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland]Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Electricity generated in Switzerland is 56% from hydroelectricity and 39% from nuclear power, with 5% of the electricity generated from conventional power sources resulting in a nearly CO2-free electricity-generating network.


-Mach

 

[presluc]

Let the chinese pollute their air and water....
Coal needs to go eventually.

Lakes are nice, but flowing rivers are nicer. The share of our power mix that hydro supplies will never be more than it is....

For now and the next 50 years, nuclear is the only viable "alternative"....

I disagree I think Hydrogen can be a viable "alternitive" fuel source.

With more research I think there is a way to retrieve hydrogen from water withour massive fuel sources.

 

[UtahBill]

I disagree I think Hydrogen can be a viable "alternitive" fuel source.

With more research I think there is a way to retrieve hydrogen from water withour massive fuel sources.

More research doesn't necessarily mean results will happen any sooner. It will take some kind of breakthrough, for sure.

 

[presluc]

More research doesn't necessarily mean results will happen any sooner. It will take some kind of breakthrough, for sure.

This world is useing oil faster than it can be reproduced.

I don't see any nuculear powered cars out here.

I have seen a car pwered by Hydrogen and a building and even hydrogen fuel cells.

 

[UtahBill]

This world is useing oil faster than it can be reproduced.

I don't see any nuculear powered cars out here.

I have seen a car pwered by Hydrogen and a building and even hydrogen fuel cells.

True about the oil....
I hope we never see nuclear powered cars.
Hydrogen will be dangerous enough in the hands of poorly educated drivers.

 

[presluc]

True about the oil....
I hope we never see nuclear powered cars.
Hydrogen will be dangerous enough in the hands of poorly educated drivers.

Hell, gasoline is dangerous, and 3 mile island or teronoble {spelling} hasn't been that far in the past.

Besides whats life without risk?

 

[UtahBill]

Hell, gasoline is dangerous, and 3 mile island or teronoble {spelling} hasn't been that far in the past.

Besides whats life without risk?

TMI was an accident that didn't have to happen. If the operators had believed their instruments and left the safety systems alone, it would never have made the news. They shut the safety systems off.....
Chernobyl had no containment like USA reactors. And their operators screwed up even worse than those at TMI....

In either case, they were trained operators. Automobile drivers get their licenses far too easily....

 

[presluc]

TMI was an accident that didn't have to happen. If the operators had believed their instruments and left the safety systems alone, it would never have made the news. They shut the safety systems off.....
Chernobyl had no containment like USA reactors. And their operators screwed up even worse than those at TMI....

In either case, they were trained operators. Automobile drivers get their licenses far too easily....

Any "accident" that has human involvement don't have to happen.

As far as Automobile drivers getting their licence too early?

I don't think that will be high on the list or priority when this planet runs out of oil.
Especialy if we wait till the last thousand gallons to start really looking for an alternitive fuel.

At present we are more or less passing the buck to the next generation to find an alternitive fuel.
If we wait too long history will not be kind to this generation of the 21st century.