Huge Megadam planned! not in South America or Asia but in the USA

[auroraglacialis]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...-40-years.html

Later this month, Alaskan authorities will file plans in Washington DC for a 213-metre megadam on one of the country's last remaining wild rivers: the Susitna. If approved, it would be the country's first hydroelectric megadam for 40 years, and its fifth tallest, just 8 metres shy of the Hoover dam.
...
The Susitna dam was first planned in the 1970s, but was dropped on both cost and environmental grounds.
...
In 1995, Daniel Beard, head of the US Bureau of Reclamation, the nation's main constructor of dams, declared the US dam-building era over. He cited growing environmental concerns. Dozens of dams have since been torn down to revive fisheries and reinstate river habitats.
....
Two years ago, then-governor Sarah Palin revived the scheme.

This is triple crazy.
For once - seriously? another megadam even though it is all known that these do not play well with wildlife?
Then - that very project was already declared ecologically disruptive in the 1970ies, a time when environmentalism was just beginning to take hole in government policies and now they just hink it has become benign?
And lastly Sarah Palin? Really? I mean was she not one of those climate change deniers? What made her look into reneables - I guess it must be that they can make a renewable energy project that is just as devastating as coal mining - also probably a lot of $$ signs in the eyes looking at how much heavy industry will come to Alaska to smelter metals and do all the other stuff that take so much electricity.

Anyways - I guess now is the chance for US citizens to get active against this - they dont have to go to Brazil or Asia or Chile and cannot claim that there is little they can do because the problem is happening outside their country. This is in YOUR country, folks.

[Crickett]

So, my first thought was that one episode of the Simpsons where Mr. Burns tried to be an environmentalist with Lisa Simpson and failed utterly.

[Dognik]

Thats the point about Renewavble Energies I meant. It seems to be good, but has sideeffects which cause massive enviromental damage.
And these forms of Energy Supply Systems remind me the most of the scene in Avatar where the giant machines roll and destroy the nature.
Its the same about solar cells, wind turbines in mass.

[Aquaplant]

How does solar power cause massive environmental damage?

[Clarke]

Rare earth mining for all the electronics?

[Dognik]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

How does solar power cause massive environmental damage?

If we talk about replacing nuclear-/gas-powerplants then i mean in case of solar-power-plants areas like the following example

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by Aquaplant

How does solar power cause massive environmental damage?

In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale | Mail Online

It's the daily mail, so obviously there's an agenda as with most papers, but you still can't exaggerate something like that much . It talks primarily about wind, but the same rare earth industry is critical to solar too.

Renewable power is often just as destructive as fossil fuel or more so, and things like this are the only way for people to realise that. More sustainable versions of hydroelectric are necessarily small-scale, especially if it isn't going to interrupt a river's flow. It's possible, but needs a lot more design and engineering for a lot smaller return.

While obviously, ever single thing needs some resources mined, the type varies, as does the degree of processing required - of course, people sometimes just go for the cheapest option when more expensive ones would have a lower impact.

[Theorist]

Originally Posted by Human No More

In China, the true cost of Britain's clean, green wind power experiment: Pollution on a disastrous scale | Mail Online

It's the daily mail, so obviously there's an agenda as with most papers, but you still can't exaggerate something like that much . It talks primarily about wind, but the same rare earth industry is critical to solar too.

Renewable power is often just as destructive as fossil fuel or more so, and things like this are the only way for people to realise that. More sustainable versions of hydroelectric are necessarily small-scale, especially if it isn't going to interrupt a river's flow. It's possible, but needs a lot more design and engineering for a lot smaller return.

While obviously, ever single thing needs some resources mined, the type varies, as does the degree of processing required - of course, people sometimes just go for the cheapest option when more expensive ones would have a lower impact.

That was indeed a very interesting article. Never knew that was going on.

It seems like taking all the bad stuff and hiding it where we don't see it, which is very sad.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by taylorcraftbc65

OK guys, this is coming from an aerospace engineer. There is not one single method of generating power that is totally clean and without side effects.
[...]
They need the power, and they are going to GET the power, one way or the other.
The ONLY way to reduce our footprint, is to DRASTICALLY reduce DEMAND, and the ONLY sure fire way to do that, over several generations, is NEGATIVE POPULATION GROWTH, on a TOTAL Global scale.
[...]
we need to pick the "littlest Demon" and harness it as best we can.

I think the same, that all of these means to "generate" power produce destruction in some way.

I do however keep saying that the statement "they/we NEED the power" is wrong. The power "we/they need" is actually a lot less, the majority is power that "we/they" WANT. This may not look like an important difference, but it is one. Of course people seem to be willing to defend their perceived need to power as much as if it would be a real need, defend their "right" to have TVs and electric light and icecream machines and air conditioning as much as if it would be about food, water or warmth.
Which leads to the next point on how to DRASTICALLY reduce energy demand. Your option of negative global population growth is a possible one, but it will happen only over many decades while action is required now. Also population is not really the issue but consumption is - population of course drives consumption but even if we'd cut the world population in half by tomorrow, the demand for energy would rise way beyond what happens now - because of the inertia of population and technologcal assimilation.
But I agree that we need to drasically reduce energy demand. But we cannot afford to wait for population decline to solve this. We can cut down demand very rapidly, because as I said, most of it is a WANT and not a NEED. So in the end it is not about needing the energy but to wanting all the stuff - and people will only consider the options that reduce demand but do not affect their lifestyles in the slightest. That is impossible.
I do not want to choose the "lesser evil" - I think we cannot afford even the lesser evil because that lesser demons also will eat our souls in the end. So this is not really an option.

People keep asking me about this issue in particular - asking me if I am against nuclear I have to be for coal and if I am also against coal I have to be for wind and solar (but they cannot work, right?). The assumption of all of these options is that energy output has to increase or at least be stable whatever happens. That is the limitation in the degrees of freedom of this social system - the fence that this culture put down and from that it cannot move away. So if you are on a road that leads into disaster in both directions you can travel, maybe its time to leave the road and find a new path....

[Aquaplant]

I wouldn't exactly call that massive, unless you are Dustin, terrible terrible damage, Browder.

[Moco Loco]

Wind is cheapy cheap and easy. If maintenance is the worst of the issues, I still vote wind

[auroraglacialis]

Mining is used for ALL energy technologies. Thats a given - if you want electricity you need mining and space. This is why I think we need to radically reduce energy demand.
But about solar energy - I made a calculation here a while ago about solar power space needs and came to about a 3-4m diameter circle for each person including industrial energy needs (in Europe weather conditions). Here is now a study showing how it is for New York. It seems that by using just the rooftops, they could fill 1/6 to 1/2 their energy needs. And that is of course a city with plenty of skyscrapers - cities with lower population density could have 100%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/sc..._r=1&ref=earth

One constant is always that people put these megaprojects somewhere distant - on someone elses ground - where the lives of those who profit will not be impacted directly.

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

Mining is used for ALL energy technologies. Thats a given - if you want electricity you need mining and space. This is why I think we need to radically reduce energy demand.

You don't think, you know it's the only viable option, but that's easier said than done, as you probably already know.

But about solar energy - I made a calculation here a while ago about solar power space needs and came to about a 3-4m diameter circle for each person including industrial energy needs (in Europe weather conditions). Here is now a study showing how it is for New York. It seems that by using just the rooftops, they could fill half their energy needs. And that is of course a city with plenty of skyscrapers - cities with lower population density could have 100%.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/sc..._r=1&ref=earth

One constant is always that people put these megaprojects somewhere distant - on someone elses ground - where the lives of those who profit will not be impacted directly.

Why is it that people never seem to understand this option?

[mikkowilson]

Hydro can also of course be done very ecologically.

The town I live in (Juneau), in Alaska, runs on 100% Hydro. But instead of dams; our main hydro plants are run from "tapped lakes" .. that's natural lakes where they have drilled a tunnel up into the bottom of (like a bath drain). The lake acts as a natural reservoir, though the water level does of course fluctuate. But they are deep lakes with a small footprint in harsh mountains and have very little environmental impact.

One of the backups if a partially tapped creek that has some water captured for hyrdo before returning to the ocean next to where the rest of the (un-captured) stream empties.

The other backup hyrdo is from a small dam; that again is a deep water, small-footprint, dam up in the mountains that is also used to supply drinking water for the city locally without long-distance pumping.


If all that lot fails, then we use Diesel generators for backup. But they run only very rarely.


The hydro power even supplies local mines; and in the summer cruise ships when they are docked so they don't have to keep their engines running.


Hydro can be done "right", responsibly. And building huge dams and flooding massive areas isn't the best way.

- Mikko

[Dognik]

Today I got a NEW book from the library, I mean its from 2010 and from a Professor Doctor and established Renewable Energies Expert, and you know the funny thing that I saw when i watched some pages was a picture of the "itaipu dam" and a lot of praisings about how its good for the environment.
HAHAHA!!
Just look what they talk about