Should Hydropower Replace Nuclear Power, Post-Japan?

I'd like to see more discussions of geothermal energy.

It seems to me that more work should be done to tap into the energy stored in the Earth; it's the same energy that gets released (anyway) during earthquakes and volcanoes, so why not put it to good use. I seem to recall an article recently that stated that all of the energy released during the Japan earthquake amounted to more energy than the U.S. had used in over 200 years.

I suppose it can't be easy or more places would do it (like Iceland). But instead of wasting all those billions of dollars turning food into automobile fuel (ethanol), which is doubly stupid, use those billions to solve the problems with geothermal.

Geothermal has its own set of engineering problems. Getting it from down in the earth and up to where we can convert it into more usable energy forms is difficult and the associated mechanical systems relatively expensive. The exception is places like Iceland where the earth brings the energy to the surface. Many of those places are a bit too uncontrollable to invite investment in actual facilities.

There is a lot of hydropower on our planet in the form of river and tidal flows as well as wind driven waves. Generally the energy densities are low meaning that extraction facilities are relatively expensive. There is a lot of pilot level r&d being done in this area of energy development.

High head situations where rivers drop through significant vertical distances are an old and excellent power source. Unexploited new sources of this type are either geographically remote from population centers or subject to present day environmental concerns. Perhaps at some point the demand and price of energy will go so high that the environmental concerns will be cast aside and transmission lines from remote places worth the up front investment. But we are not there yet.

There are numerous potential hydroelectric sites in coastal Northern British Columbia and southern Alaska that are too far from populations to be commercially developable. They are well known in the energy business and are just waiting for the numbers to crunch. Perhaps in the 2nd half of this century global warming effects will draw agriculture and material shortages encourage further mineral resource development to the region along with the resultant population increases. Then the dams, hydropower stations and transmission lines will be cheaper than hauling in coal from Wyoming.

Ed Weldon

Not only Hydropower,since the Ocean is right there but( Alabama could use this info),

Soliel Plants use Mirrored panels and steam sent through pipes to provide Electricity

in the Desert in CA. and there is one in Israel.I was hoping research might prove that

contaminated water could be recycled through the pipes and provide an affordable

cleansing technique.ds

I happen to live in an area where your electric utility bill is referred to as a "hydro" bill. Anyone who thinks there is not an environmental cost to building huge hydro electric dams is dreaming in technicolor. Once a hydroelectric dam has been approved and land has been acquired form the real owners by many unfair methods (a big social impact), the building of the dam creates many major environmental problems. The last big dams were built in Northern Quebec and displaced native people and interrupted migratory paths of caribou. The resulting flooded land released more methane into the environment and removed from the earth a substantial amount of the boreal forest. The Great Whale project resulted in the flooding of 172,000 sq kilometers of land (that is one huge footprint). The direction and flow of tributary rivers were altered and upset the ecology systems for many migratory fish and wildlife. The drowned boreal forest released much of the methyl mercury which is a bio-accumulator and regarded as a serious toxin. The full impact of the dam has not yet been evaluated.

The dam is not without its own perils in geotechnical issues. The weight of the water on the land has resulted in tremors of up to 5 on the earthquake Richter scale. The risks are real and the environmental impact of this one dam is greater than the politicians led us to believe.

Nuclear has its problems and we seem to struggle but we can deal with them. Perhaps building nuclear plants in Japan is not such a great idea considering the potential for massive earthquakes and resulting tsunamis. I would hope that we can all learn how to deal much more safely with nuclear plants and can install better safe guards. Nuclear will be around for a long time and is a far sight better to deal with than the installation of massive hydro electric dams. Don't let anyone tell you that hydro electric is "green".

...Once a hydroelectric dam has been approved and land has been acquired form the real owners by many unfair methods...

Yes. I've seen where that has happened a number of times. Land that has been in some families for generations is taken and the owners are forced to accept payment from the government that is a tiny fraction of the land's value.

(And by corollary, the politicians who had inside information about the lake that was going to be created by the dam, bought the adjacent land cheap and made huge profits when this land became 'lakefront property'.)