[Duma]

See here:
http://www.tbve.nl/mello/

[dobbin]

Hmm. Whilst building in an area of natural beauty seems bad, a hydro electric power station is infinitely better than a big smoke belching coal or oil fired one down the road, innit?

I dont think I will sign the petition as I see hydro power as the lesser of two evils. Its like when people whinge about windmills at sea or on a hillside - it does affect the view but thats a small price to pay when you weigh up the alternatives.

[Dr T]

at least they're not planning to flood the valley like the Americans did with the valley "one over" from Yosemite (name escapes me for now..)

[Duma]

yeah, I've nothing really against hydro electricity per se, and whinging about the buildings is a bit weak, but I signed because of the implied damage to the valleys ecosystem by diverting so much of the rivers volume - dehydration etc - I admit I'm no expert in this but it seemed a high price to pay for a realatively small amount of power. (small as compared, for example, to a big belching coal station) Just as an example the Drax power station oop north (the one they had the protests at last month) is rated at 2000MW, and produces that amount of power nearly every day, whereas the Farr windfarm (biggest operating one in the country I think) is rated at 92MW, and produces just under half that on average.

Don't think the Hydro can really be compared to Wind in the way you're impling Dobbin - After their manufacture and installation, the only real impact of a windturbine is visual. On the other hand, whereas generating the (hydro)electricity doesn't create CO2, large hydro schemes almost invariably have a massive (negative) enviromental impact - both upriver (flooding, habitat destruction) and downriver (dehydration, reduced flow levels, lack of flooding resulting in soil degradation and possible desertification) - just look at the colorado river down stream - and the huge chinese one thats just about finished is silting up badly already.

Enough, I'm depressed - off to work it off at the wall.

[Pasty Crimper]

Although Hydro is much better than fossil fuels, this area has a massive geothermal energy potential evidence of which can be seen in the hot springs at Bagni De Masino. A Geothermal project would be much less destructive and have virtually zero environmental impact. This valley is one of the last unspoilt areas in the Italian Alps, once you cannot turn back!

[dobbin]

Geo Thermal sounds another excellent idea. Is it really expensive to put in or something?

Duma, thats a good point. By removing water from the valley there must be an effect of sorts, wildlife and so on and I hadnt considered that. My point wasnt really to compare the two forms of renewable energy generation, but to underline that either are better than fossil fuel generation.

I think they should make massive fields of exercise bikes connected to dynamos. Then I would sentence convicts to go and pedal their days away. That and fat people. There you go, obesity and prison overcrowding sorted in a fell swoop.

Who says I shouldnt be in charge?

[Bonjoy]

 Hydro electric schemes are not good for greenhouse emissions in the short to mid term. Basically trees and other vegetation which are flooded over then decompose in an anaerobic environment and produce lots of Methane which has something like 20 times the heating effect of CO2.

[Bonjoy]

 http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046

[Johnny Brown]

at least they're not planning to flood the valley like the Americans did with the valley "one over" from Yosemite (name escapes me for now..)

Hetch Hetchy. The whole water situation in Cali is a disaster. Too many people, not enough rain. Like south-east england, they're steadliy depleting their reserves without a clue of what to do when they get to the bottom of the well.

Hydro electric schemes are not good for greenhouse emissions in the short to mid term. Basically trees and other vegetation which are flooded over then decompose in an anaerobic environment and produce lots of Methane which has something like 20 times the heating effect of CO2

As it states in the article, this is hugely dependent on location - the research was based in Brazil which is obviously an area with massive biomass. Higher latitudes/ altitudes will be much less affected. Timescales are pretty short too - I'm sure Norway, which gets most of its power from hydro, would have emitted far more gases had it opted for fossil fuels.

The val di mello plant does not appear to incorporate large dammed reservoirs at all. I don't think there is enough info on that site to discern whether this is a good scheme or the type approved by governments to show they are 'doing something'.

After their manufacture and installation, the only real impact of a windturbine is visual.

Not true. Ironically, they might yet be responsible for the extinction of the Californian Condor...
Wind power has its uses, but I don't think large scale plants plugged into the grid are one of them. Unfortunately it seems the government can't see where else to invest at the moment. I think the future for large-scale generation is in tidal turbines (not barrages), geothermal and nuclear. What is really crucial is that this is supplemented by individual homes and businesses supplementing this - both with their own generators (probably solar principally) but more importantly by reducing their demand. Unfortunately in an economy founded on growth this is both the most important factor and the most likely stumbling block.

[Bonjoy]

As it states in the article, this is hugely dependent on location - the research was based in Brazil which is obviously an area with massive biomass. Higher latitudes/ altitudes will be much less affected. Timescales are pretty short too - I'm sure Norway, which gets most of its power from hydro, would have emitted far more gases had it opted for fossil fuels.

The val di mello plant does not appear to incorporate large dammed reservoirs at all. I don't think there is enough info on that site to discern whether this is a good scheme or the type approved by governments to show they are 'doing something'.

True. And Methane breaks down into less harmful gasses like CO2 over about a decade.I hadn't actually read about the specific proposal. The point stands that you should question assumptions regarding supposed green power generation.

[Johnny Brown]

The point stands that you should question assumptions regarding supposed green power generation.

And you should be wary who is funding the publicising of supposed drawbacks of green power generation...

There will never be entirely green power, the only truly 'green' way to approach power is not to use it...

Whilst on the subject, a mate of mine recently had solar water heating installed in his roof. The stats are pretty remarkable; at present its by far the best way for the individual to generate their own power.

[Bonjoy]

 I'm not questioning the importance of renewable energy generation. I just mean that we should be careful not to do more harm than good e.g. cover Lewis in wind turbines. There are always lots of factors to take into consideration and no option is without some environmental cost, it's a question of which option is the least bad. Yes, this is made even harder to do when you can't trust the science coming out of bodies who may be funded by a lobby group for all you know.
 You do wonder whether we aren't arguing over wether to stop the train with a tennis racket or an elastic band when you consider the seemingly unstoppable effects of rapidly industrializing India and China, coupled with the feedback effects of shrinking icecaps and the release of 70 billion tonnes of methane from Siberian permafrost. A defeatist argument which will no doubt be increasingly used by the bad guys as climate change becomes more undeniable i'm sure, but still....

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

Slightly off topic but did anyone else notice the irony of the leaflets enclosed in Summit? Greenpeace leaflet = highly pro-wind farms, and John Muir trust = anti-wind farms. Personally after going to an incredible but hugely frightening Chernobyl exhibition I think anything is better than nuclear power. Tidal/Solar/Wind/Hydro, none of these have a risk of creating a situation like... 'Whats behind that fence?' 'Oh that was Scotland/lake District/Wales/Cornwall etc (delete as necessary), but we can't go there for another 10,000 years.'

[Rice Boy]

I was gutted to learn that the Hydro scheme in Snowdonia uses nuclear fuel to recharge the top aquifer. Apparently the pipes are only filled at 8.00pm when the big surge (eastenders, corrie, cooking etc.) comes.

[Nibile]

im still very pissed with val di melloers.

after the pig fat issue, the president of the local villagers association, said in an interview that he completely approved the behaviour because the climbers spoilt the fields. obviously he didnt notice that the climbers are those who pack away other people's garbage. the fields are spoilt by the masses of fat milaneses that pic nic all day long over miles and miles of blankets on the grass.

and now, they ask for help wherever they can. especially referring to climbers. its a bit too easy like this, uh?

[squeek]

Personally after going to an incredible but hugely frightening Chernobyl exhibition I think anything is better than nuclear power.

Chernobyl was a kind of reactor that can go into melt down, there are ones where it's physically impossible to do this.  Apparently they were doing a lot of other dodgy stuff with Nuclear technology and testing at that time too.  It's not that they had a Nuclear reactor and it just blew up, I think Nuclear reactors are a good thing, and if people hadn't have been so short sighted to shut ones several years ago, or stop the plans to allow existing reactors to use newer fuels then we wouldn't be facing as much of an energy problem as we are.

[Johnny Brown]

Agreed - all technology has come on a huge way since the likes of Chernobyl were designed. I think you have to accept it as the only large-scale carbon-neutral option. The french generate something like 90% of their power from nuclear - we even buy some of their surplus - yet I don't remember hearing of any accidents. (Apart from them intentionally nuking polynesian atolls, of course,  )

The british reactors are all getting old now. I'd rather they built some new, modern ones than more fossil-fired ones, or covered Lewis in a windfarm that will contribute fuck-all to the grid.

Slightly off topic but did anyone else notice the irony of the leaflets enclosed in Summit? Greenpeace leaflet = highly pro-wind farms, and John Muir trust = anti-wind farms.

Not massively ironic, greenpeace are a group with very wide-ranging policies and interests, JMT are a small organisation dedicated to preserving the last tracts of wild land in the UK.

'Whats behind that fence?' 'Oh that was Scotland..'

...now its just an underperforming windfarm.

One of the most fascinating aspects of Chernobyl is how nature has continued to thrive in the highly radioactive zone. It seems to kill slowly enough that fairly normal reproductive cycles can continue. Ecologically it doesn't appear to be a total disaster...

[Dr T]

were doing a lot of other dodgy stuff with Nuclear technology and testing at that time too

i.e. seeing how long they could keep the cooling rods out for before the core went into melt down .i.e. melted meaning the cooling rods would no longer slip into the holes in the core
of course they had to turn off all the safety over-rides, which would have automatically dropped in the rods cooled the core and stopped the disaster

[Johnny Brown]

the irony of the leaflets enclosed in Summit? Greenpeace leaflet = highly pro-wind farms, and John Muir trust = anti-wind farms.

Just had a quick check and they're not actually taking opposing stances at all - both the photos and text in the greenpeace leaflet refer specifically to offshore wind farms.

[Paz]

Hetch Hetchy. The whole water situation in Cali is a disaster. Too many people, not enough rain. Like south-east england, they're steadliy depleting their reserves without a clue of what to do when they get to the bottom of the well.

Water's basically conserved.  Has anyone invented one of those suits from Dune that let's you survive in the desert by drinking
your own piss?  It's just a matter of a colostomy bag, one of those water purifiers from Blacks and a Platypus.  I thought Londoners do this already - the old london water's been cleaned by 7 pairs of kidneys anecdote.  Why can't they just connect the outflow pipe to the cleaning plant and the outflow from that to the supply?  Filters optional.  If they did this they should put a meter on your outflow, calibrate it for water only somehow, and charge people the difference. The cost would be footed by gardeners, people with water retention and those who go to the toilet at the crag.