Alt energy landfill problems

[RiverRat1]

I'm fine with nuclear in some areas.

But I still say Hydro. Build lots of new lakes all over. Invest Billions in that versus all the other not real alt energy.

Hydro is the only true clean energy.

[SabineHunter]

Let’s go nuclear

Nuclear and hydro and some coal plants coming back online to cover us while building the first two.

[Ætheling]

I'm fine with nuclear in some areas.

But I still say Hydro. Build lots of new lakes all over. Invest Billions in that versus all the other not real alt energy.

Hydro is the only true clean energy.

True but never will meet demand. Not close. Plus this drought is the summer equivalent of what the winter storm did to the windmills and solar panels


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[100%TtId]

I'm fine with nuclear in some areas.

But I still say Hydro. Build lots of new lakes all over. Invest Billions in that versus all the other not real alt energy.

Hydro is the only true clean energy.

Wrong. Geothermal is the only clean energy. And it's the cleanest by far.

Unfortunately, geothermal is limited by our current technology and the fact that only certain places in the US are economically viable for geothermal but we're getting better at it slowly.

There's not enough unused land around rivers and rivers in the right places to make hydro make sense in areas where it's needed most. Canada, however, has plenty of waterways and land so hydro works very well up northwest and northeast. Look at the fight that is going on with the proposed Marvin Nichols project in NE Texas. That's what challenging about building new reservoirs now. We're 30 years too late.

The answer is nuclear for base load, nat gas and coal for everything else and 15% renewable.

[tminc]

This^^^,its good to c someone with a brain these days

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Voodoo]

What needs to happen in addition to hydro is a low power A/C system and more use of geothermal.

[Man]

I havent seen any pics of solar panel graveyards? Not saying there isnt any. The windmill waste is an issue for sure.

[Philip-TX]

texas-wind-turbine-turbine-catches-fire-lightning-strike

[muzzlebrake]

What needs to happen in addition to hydro is a low power A/C system and more use of geothermal.

Lots of folks don't have a clue how and how many ways Geothermal works.
Heck even a house built from 24" thick adobe walls works pretty well for storing thermal retainage for both heat and cooling. Maybe them Navaho people was on to something.

[DUKFVR]

The people who put this junk on their land should have to bury it on their land. Bet we wouldn't see as many of the eyesores as we do then.

[BrandonA]

The people who put this junk on their land should have to bury it on their land. Bet we wouldn't see as many of the eyesores as we do then.

I like this idea

[RiverRat1]

True but never will meet demand. Not close. Plus this drought is the summer equivalent of what the winter storm did to the windmills and solar panels

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not so sure. How much city does Hoover dam run? It's a freaking lot. More than seems possible.
Look how much The dams LCRA runs supplies power to (and water).

Wrong. Geothermal is the only clean energy. And it's the cleanest by far.

Unfortunately, geothermal is limited by our current technology and the fact that only certain places in the US are economically viable for geothermal but we're getting better at it slowly.

There's not enough unused land around rivers and rivers in the right places to make hydro make sense in areas where it's needed most. Canada, however, has plenty of waterways and land so hydro works very well up northwest and northeast. Look at the fight that is going on with the proposed Marvin Nichols project in NE Texas. That's what challenging about building new reservoirs now. We're 30 years too late.

The answer is nuclear for base load, nat gas and coal for everything else and 15% renewable.

If I have to choose between my tax money going to wind turbines and solar (which will never work, ruin views, create toxic waste etc) and people losing land to create lakes....I choose lakes. There would be 100x less people affected. But it would save taxpayers trillions in the long run.

Worse case build transmission lines for hydo. We will have them ALL over for wind anyway.

I know we are late. They/us knew we should have done this 30 years ago. And I 100% promise in another 30 years everyone will say the same thing..again. Only we will be facing real water shortages in 20-30 years also.

[Runnin4D]

Not so sure. How much city does Hoover dam run? It's a freaking lot. More than seems possible.
Look how much The dams LCRA runs supplies power to (and water).




If I have to choose between my tax money going to wind turbines and solar (which will never work, ruin views, create toxic waste etc) and people losing land to create lakes....I choose lakes. There would be 100x less people affected. But it would save taxpayers trillions in the long run.

Worse case build transmission lines for hydo. We will have them ALL over for wind anyway.

I know we are late. They/us knew we should have done this 30 years ago. And I 100% promise in another 30 years everyone will say the same thing..again. Only we will be facing real water shortages in 20-30 years also.

I agree with your posts most of the time but I think maybe YOU should look at what LCRAs hydro generation puts out if you are going to use it as a stake to your claim.
I’ll save you the trouble. It’s only about 8% of their total capacity. ~295MW. That’s nothing. And the Colorado river system/infrastructure they have is pretty darn big. You think in this drought they are even flowing enough water to hit the 295? Doubt it. One unit at Fayette can gen twice that much.
Unless someone can figure out how to move water consistently and economically (like in a recycling fashion?), outside of Mother Nature..hydro is not an option IMO

[RiverRat1]

Show me the landfills full of waste from hydro.

As long as there are stats like this I'd say go with hydro. Show me one set of wind turbines or solar panels that broke even....or heck that are even slated to break even 10 -20 years down the road without subsidies.

"Hoover Dam was built for a cost of $49 million (approximately $760 million adjusted for inflation). The power plant and generators cost an additional $71 million. The sale of electrical power generated by the dam paid back its construction cost, with interest, by 1987"


And saying hydro is at the mercy of nature may be sort of true but if you built enough dams (for electric and flood control) you'd harness more and more flood water further upstream that would be controlled released down through each dam.

Imagine catching just 5-10% of those huge 10 or 20 year floods. That's crazy energy.

What do you guys want to do for water in the next 20 years, pipe in in from a great lake?

[DUKFVR]

I know we are late. They/us knew we should have done this 30 years ago. And I 100% promise in another 30 years everyone will say the same thing..again. Only we will be facing real water shortages in 20-30 years also.[/QUOTE]


Future wars will be over water.