From the University of Copenhagen: Global boom in hydropower expected this decade
An unprecedented boom in hydropower dam construction is underway, primarily in developing countries and emerging economies. While this is expected to double the global electricity production from hydropower, it could reduce the number of our last remaining large free-flowing rivers by about 20 percent and pose a serious threat to freshwater biodiversity. A new database has been developed to support decision making on sustainable modes of electricity production. It is presented today at the international congress Global Challenges: Achieving Sustainability hosted by the University of Copenhagen.
Hydro electric power station.
Photo: Yonezawa-Shi, Yamagata, Japan
The intensified demand for electricity from renewable sources has kick-started the hydropower development into a new era: Following a period of a flattening trend, an unprecedented number of dams for electricity production is currently under construction or planned worldwide. However, the boom occurs primarily in developing countries and emerging economies in South America, Southeast Asia and Africa, that also hold some of the world’s most important sites for freshwater biodiversity.
“Hydropower is an integrated part of transitioning to renewable energy and currently the largest contributor of renewable electricity. However, it is vital that hydropower dams do not create a new problem for the biodiversity in the world’s freshwater systems, due to fragmentation and the expected changes in the flow and sediment regime. That is why we have compiled available data on future expected hydropower dams – to form a key foundation for evaluating where and how to build the dams and how to operate them sustainably”, says Prof. Dr. Christiane Zarfl (now Universität Tübingen) who, together with her colleagues, performed the study at the Leibniz-Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB) in Berlin. She is presenting the database today at the congress Global Challenges: Achieving Sustainability.
Hydropower may double in electricity capacity
Renewables account for 20 percent of the global electricity production today, with hydropower contributing 80 percent of the total share. An expected 3700 major dams may more than double the total electricity capacity of hydropower to 1,700 GW within the next two decades.
Global spatial distribution of future hydropower dams, either under construction (blue dots; 17%) or planned (red dots; 83%). Credit: Aquatic Sciences (DOI: 10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0).Click on picture to download in full resolution.
Given that all planned dams are realized, China will remain the global leader in hydropower dam construction although their share of total future global hydropower production will decline from currently 31 to 25 percent, due to increases in other parts of the world.
The Amazon and La Plata basins in Brazil will have the largest total number of new dams in South America, whereas the Ganges-Brahmaputra basin (mainly India and Nepal) and the Yangtze basin in China will face the highest dam construction in Asia.
“When building new dams, it is important to follow a systematic management approach that considers the ecological, social, and economic consequences of multiple dams within a river basin”, says Prof. Dr. Klement Tockner, head of IGB, who is leading the Institute´s research activities on sustainable hydropower development.
“We expect to launch the database in BioFresh, the platform for global freshwater biodiversity (www.freshwaterbiodiversity.eu) and hope to see our results as a valuable reference basis for scientists and decision makers in supporting sustainable hydropower development”, says Prof. Dr. Christiane Zarfl.
The full study will be published in the renowned international journal Aquatic Sciences: Research across Boundaries.
Reference: Zarfl C, Lumsdon AE, Berlekamp J, Tydecks L, Tockner K, (in press) A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquatic Sciences.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Building hydropower is an excellent method to achieve the EUs renewables targets. I see a huge building boom in the Balkan peninsula. If hydro can grow to deliver 20 % by 2030 then we won’t face grid collapse from the intermittent and hard to control wind and solar.
“All” we lose there are some of the most valuable archaeological sites for the history of mankind. And dams are the jmost ecologically destructive power source we have. They cause extinctions and the life forms killed form methane and carbon dioxide while decomposing. They have been called a climate crime in a You Tube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-IHOEPrKNQ and others
Wind turbines and solar panels require destroying habitats and micro-climates. Not to mention, wildlife. Archaeological sites can be gone over pretty thoroughly in the time it takes to build a dam. And while some habitats may be lost, a lot more are created- and dams don’t create shredded tweet, burst bat lungs or solar streamers.
All that you say is true, but given the need for abundant energy and the hate against coal and nuclear, there aren’t all that many choices out there are there?
Carbon dioxide is plant food, so the formation of carbon dioxide ought to be an argument for the construction of dams. As for archaeological sites, not all dams are planned on archaeological sites. That’s a blanket condemnation of useful and commercially viable power-production technology.
I noticed the map doesn’t have a single dot in the US. Kind of reminiscent of the Earth night shot with an almost-completely blacked-out North Korea. Is that the power of the EPA?
Whoops, should have specified “in the contiguous US.”
You say there is a YouTube video that doesn’t like this clean, affordable, renewable, power source that creates drinking water reservoirs and lake recreation opportunities?
It must be true then.
ladylifegrows, you are right but you ignore the fundamental advantage that hydropower has over other renewables.
It works reliably.
It can deliver base load.
All power generation has environmental costs.
Personally I wouldn’t support the Severn Barrage but that’s on the cost of the downsides. Most renewables can be opposed on the lack of upsides.
‘They cause extinctions and the life forms killed form methane and carbon dioxide while decomposing.’
Where are the bodies from extinctions?
Complete BS. Greenpeace has been pushing those lies for decades and reality has completely debunked them. Methane emissions from a mature reservoir are no greater than from a healthy mature forest. If there’s the greatest archealogical site EVAH wherever you plan to build a dam (No matter where you are in the world) why hasn’t anyone heard of it? You would think the next tomb of king Tut in a tukish river would have made the news by now, no?
The truth is, building dams creates enormous social and developmental advantages wherever they’re built. Notions of tragic consequences pushed by alarmist groups are pure fiction. Just look at any country that has invested in hydropower. Brazil, China even the US in the 20th Cenutry. Hydro development always goes along with growth and prosperity in leaps and bounds.
The boon provided by Hydro power plants is as strong and stable as with fossil fuel, but without the onus of mining and shipping fuel (or importing fuel). The only limit to hydro is the avilability of good sites. Unfortunately, the US has pretty much exhausted the good sites, with new sites being far more expensive than historic sites, and are often run-on-river, which is less reliable.
Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) @October 25, 2014 at 5:05 pm
“… dams don’t create shredded tweet, burst bat lungs or solar streamers.”
It is mind-boggling. Here, a recent report on bats and wind turbines (H/T Climate Depot).
Let’s kill off slowly reproducing mammals vital to agriculture and the natural balance instead. What a great idea. Environmentalists in favor of wind farms are not environmentalists.
Far to many posters are giving this ladylifegrows the benefit of the doubt, or are treating their opinion as gospel. A properly designed and constructed dam is far less destructive to the environment the any of the dozens of ways a lake can form naturally on a watercourse. Or are we going to pretend that all natural lakes formed in a way that DIDN’T flood the existing environment?
Yep, we should dismantle every dam in the world. That will make the world a far better place.
OK. I guess then, that we had better kill all the of the beavers [Canada’s symbol]. because all those dams they build are the scourge of mankind, according to you.
Will you, ladylifegrows, join our group to go out into the Canadian wilderness and start blowing up all the beaver dams??
Par for the course: robbing the future for some 100 years of mediocre benefits at best. The economic (and cultural) detriments of dam building have been analyzed at length, and they are not small.
Barchester, each dam is different. Not only because of the topography, but because of the people. The first question has to do with displacing lots of people. Dams in China have caused massive displacement. Dams elsewhere often displace only a few.
Also we have the question of archaeological sites, and the issues of unique species.
However, you need to realize that hydropower is the savior of the poor housewife and the poor farmer. If electricity doesn’t do our slaving for us, then the poor become slaves, with women and farmers leading the way.
So this is not “mediocre benefits at best”. It is removing the yoke of slavery from humans and putting it on electricity.
As a result, many cultures have concluded even after considering all of the above that the benefits outweigh the costs. This is particularly true because of the low running costs, which allow economical operation at a very low cost to the consumer.
Next, there is no magical hundred-year lifespan. The only thing that limits dam lifespan is siltation. Seems to me that since the dam has cheap electricity, it’s merely a technical problem to pump the silt to where it can be used to grow crops …
In all, the cost/benefit analysis is so hugely skewed with benefits to the poor that opposing it is … well … questionable. I’m sorry, but the fate of some unique lizard that only lives on one fifty-yard stretch of some creek is nothing compared to the benefits to the poor.
Finally, benefits to the poor ARE benefits to the environment. The biggest threat to the environment worldwide is the fact that half the planet lives on less than US$3 per day … see Haiti as a prominent example.
w.
My insufferable Greenie Brother was arrested lying in front of a bulldozer in Tasmania to stop the Franklin dam. A good thing in my opinion (stopping the dam not the arrest), but it doesn’t stop me detesting him any less. I wonder whether he’ll speak out against this Hydro boom now? Bet he doesn’t…
Minor typo: “University of Copehagen” should be “University of Copenhagen”.
Ian M
Interesting how some people get worked up over dams, ” it is vital that hydropower dams do not create a new problem for the biodiversity in the world’s freshwater systems,” and are silent on the problems created by wind mills and solar furnaces.
Dams help slow sea level rise! Hooray. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Nasty dangerous stuff, hydro power.
In fact, hydro power is responsible for several orders of magnitude more deaths than nuclear power. Take the Banqiao Dam disaster, for example:
Casualties
According to the Hydrology Department of Henan Province, in the province, approximately 26,000 people died[14] from flooding and another 145,000 died during subsequent epidemics and famine. In addition, about 5,960,000 buildings collapsed, and 11 million residents were affected. Unofficial estimates of the number of people killed by the disaster have run as high as 230,000 people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Or the Sichuan earthquake, perhaps:
BEIJING — Nearly nine months after a devastating earthquake in Sichuan Province, China, left 80,000 people dead or missing, a growing number of American and Chinese scientists are suggesting that the calamity was triggered by a four-year-old reservoir built close to the earthquake’s geological fault line.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06quake.html?pagewanted=all
Maybe they need US or Canadian designers to build them for them. The James Bay project in Quebec is operating smooth as you please and supplies much of New York and eastern Canada’s power. It’s 16GW and realization of the full plan will make it the largest in the world at 27GW. Oh, and big electricity users can get it for 3.8 cents a kWh. What in the world could the University of Copenhagen know about hydro power!! They probably study it so they can protest against it effectively. Fish ladders and other tech for getting the fish up stream are old tech and the fish even get it!! By the way, the fishiing and hunting in the region is spectacular.
The rest of the story:
Banqiao Dam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam
Officially, the dam failure was a natural as opposed to man-made disaster, with government sources placing an emphasis on the amount of rainfall as opposed to poor engineering and construction. The People’s Daily has maintained that the dam was designed to survive a once-in-1000-years flood (300 mm of rainfall per day) but a once-in-2000-years flood occurred in August 1975, following the collision of Typhoon Nina and a cold front. The typhoon was blocked for two days before its direction ultimately changed from northeastward to west.[3] As a result of this near stationary thunderstorm system, more than a year’s rain fell within 24 hours (new records were set, at 189.5 mm rainfall per hour and 1060 mm per day, exceeding the average annual precipitation of about 800 mm),[4] which weather forecasts failed to predict.[
The rest of the story:
Sichuan Province http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/world/asia/06quake.html?pagewanted=all
“The earthquake research community outside and inside China has widely accepted the notion that the May 12 Wenchuan earthquake was a huge natural disaster caused by massive crustal movement, because no reservoir triggered-quake with a magnitude eight has ever occurred in history,” said Pan Jiazheng, an expert in hydroengineering, according to a translation published by Probe International.
Nasty, dangerous Hydro, Dirty and dangerous nuclear, nasty emissions and tremors from fracking, LNG pushing up prices, Shale gas worse than coal…
Gee, this is all starting to sound really orchestrated.
Funnily enough – this is quite interesting to me as I have completed I think 3 or 4 investigations for small hydropower generator plants in the UK over the last year or two. Considering I had never done one before (in the previous 23+ years) that kinda matches with this idea of increased interest! One other thing to note, all of them have been for small archimedes screw type installations next to ‘old’ weirs and mill races.
Ya just can’t win, can ya ?
Like I said damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Here in the Pacific Northwest we are experiencing a burgeoning industry in demolishing hydropower dams. When the geniuses passed laws mandating renewable energy sources their legal definition specifically excluded hydro as renewable. Then the watermelons went ahead with their political agenda, building wind turbines and doubling the minimum wage. Near my house, hardly a week goes by without a Bald Eagle being sliced up by these behemoths, as hydro dams get diced by the wrecking ball. Yet I can still get ten years for posessing a single eagle feather.
What doesn’t make sense is usually called non-sense. But for some it “feels good”.
They’re building tons of wind turbines near the bald eagle flight areas in NW Iowa, too. Lots of people with jobs making the electrical rates go up. I haven’t heard anything official on eagle impact, but it has to be there.
It is expected that British Columbia, Canada, will start construction of the 1.3 GW Site-C Hydro Dam early next year.
“Yet I can still get ten years for posessing a single eagle feather”
It so tragic that nothing can be done to save them. I often find smaller raptor in almost perfect condition along the roadsides near my home. I’ve tried several times, but there seems to be no way for an individual to get a permit to have them mounted, I hate to see them wasted. We’ll stop to admire their beauty, morn their loss, then leave them for the scavengers.
Oregon’s current governor, when previously governor, favored breaching Snake River dams, if not the bigger ones on the Columbia.
But, then during his first two terms, Kitz did oppose windmills because red diggers (insanely prolific Columbia ground squirrels) might suffer, which is why they went into Washington first. But no more.
Good, Tear it down and build a nuclear plant.
“Good, Tear it down and build a nuclear plant.”
That’s what started the war on CO2 thanks to Margret Thatcher. Bust the coal union and to promote nuclear power.
A strong effort to vote the watermelons out is the answer. IMO.
Note the map shows no “planned construction” dots on the US lower 48 (one under construction in Ca). Lower-48 US hydro-generation capacity was essentially built-out in the 20th Century. Some on the Alaska coast, but any significant hydrodams are being firmly resisted by the environmental groups.
Yes they like the idea of renewables, but it’s always NIMBY. That applies whether it’s unsightly Cape Wind’s off-shore turbines, bird-frying solar thermal in the US Southwest, or fish chomping-spawn blocking hydroelectric projects.
For info on the Alaska hydro project:
http://alaskarenewableenergy.org/tag/hydro/
The project manager for Susitna-Watana Project said his team plans to apply for the dam’s license with FERC in September 2015.
But that has likely been delayed, see:
http://ktna.org/2014/04/15/susitna-watana-clears-one-hurdle-but-could-face-additional-obstacles/
So hydro might be a threat to the three-spotted darter when there are millions of the two-spotted darter in the next stream over.
People and their need to live are such a blight. /sarc
Mods! Messed the end of the blockquote. Sorry.
And the eco-green will be happy…
Not.
It must be frustrating when people listen to you and then do the wrong thing.
“Don’t they know that those reservoirs will cause earthquakes?,” he asked with all the concern of a brainwashed anti-fracker. And then he thought of the added weight and subsidence and totally wet his pants. Maybe they should just burn coal. It’s quite clean and what isn’t, is manageable. Although another few years of drought and they’ll be loving dams and hating the delta smelt
Well is there any possibility that hydro dam systems can be made “self bailing ” ??
silt wise that is.
As part of a water storage system, hydro, might be more eco-friendly. I have often wondered why the river has to run through the hydro lake, rather than have the lake off to the side of the river.
Just wondering.
The river where most of the water is, is in the bigger valley where the volume is. It would be difficult to move that water to a side stream.
If the dam is to be used for flood control or for dry weather stream augmentation there has to be as much volume as possible. Some volume empty, waiting for the next flood. Some full, available for the next dry spell. Even so, the largest of dams can retain only around 1 inch of runoff from their drainage area.
Some hydro projects work like this, Niagra Falls comes to mind.
I’m no expert, but it would be impractical where the dam is needed to create sufficient head of water. The alternative would be to dig a new channel that could be dammed, leaving the existing channel as is, but with reduced water flow. Too expensive in most cases.
Thats exactly what is done in Ethiopia over the whispering falls.
Something is what you say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pellegrini_Lake
Build nuclear, very small footprint compared to other energy sources.
I apologize, how naive of me.
As a civilization, doesn’t it make sense to leave nature to nature, and have our artificial power requirements met by artificial power plants? Yes, we need to dam the rivers to ensure an adequate reservoir for our water requirements, and in many cases they can use the same dams for electricity generation. But for purely electrical power, build small, relatively efficient, and extremely safe nuclear plants.
(Those who don’t believe they’re safe are just not paying attention)
It’s all emotion and politics.
Yes!
The Uk isnt see this, and are we beggining to see the end at least this is an investagative piece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2807849/EXPOSED-shadowy-network-funded-foreign-millions-making-household-energy-bills-soar-low-carbon-Britain.html
I was brought up in a country that has only one source of power, Hydro, and the rivers still run, the only reason river would not run, is lack of rain, or lack of snow, in central north island. example the Waikato River in New Zealand, has 8 Dams over 425km’s, and these supply a portion of the power demand for the north island. Also the Lakes behind the Dam walls are open for power boating, fishing, and various sporting activities. You have only to stand at the shore of one of these lakes and observe for yourself the ducks, fish & eels rising to feed, bugs & insects, no different from the natural lake Taupo. (natural lake Taupo – err live Volcano)
Indeed, a submerged volcano and was one of the largest erruptions on earth, several times larger than Kracatoa.
And yet when I drive the Great South Road, I still see the Waikato flowing about the way it looked 60 years ago.
I’m happy to read that you can still find nice eels to catch, instead of all those foreign trash fish from California, and such places.
The same people who are willing to overlook millions of birds getting chopped to death by windmills, get’s their panties in a wad over a dam on a river.
‘Cause fishies are more lovable?
If you want renewable, go with coal, oil and natural gas. Those turn into renewable things like wood when they are burned–and increase the carrying capacity of the Earth in the meantime. They are superrenewable.
Only fossils make more life on Earth.
The scope of hydro power will always be severely limited – because it simply isn’t energy dense enough to make a difference.
Consider the following – how much water does it take to run a 2Kw home heater for 1 day?
Assume your hydro generator is powered by a 100ft drop (30m).
The energy required to run the heater
= power x time
= 2000 watts x 86400 seconds in a day
= 172800000 joules
How much energy does our 30m drop produce?
energy = force x distance = mass x acceleration x distance
We know the energy, acceleration (gravity) and distance, lets solve for mass.
172800000 joules = mass x 9.8 m/s^2 x 30m
mass = 172800000 / (9.8 x 30) = 587,755 kilograms of water.
To power ONE household heater for a day, you to send 587 tons of water through your hydroelectric power generator.
There simply isn’t enough water in all the reservoirs of the world to make a major difference to the world’s energy needs.
However water is very heavy.
Take for example the Niagara river. It has a flow rate of 204,700 cu. ft /sec
At 62 lbs per cu ft. this is 6345 tons per second.
…
And it falls 50 meters instead of 30.
..
That’s enough to power about 1 million of your 2kw heaters
Yes, but there are 7 billion people. Assuming everyone uses a heater worth of electricity, for all their daily needs (including transport), you need to find 7000 Niagara rivers to power the world with hydro power.
Almost 16% of the world’s electricity is generated with hydro power.
3,427 terawatt-hours of electricity production in 2010 can be classified as making a ” major difference to the world’s energy needs.”
…
Not to mention that that it is a growing source.
Mr Worrall….
..
I suggest you read what Mr Philip Bradley has to say regarding a “major difference to the world’s energy needs.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/25/global-boom-in-hydropower-underway-more-expected-this-decade/#comment-1771391
Well said. Hydroelectric has its place, but it’s got limitations.
Ahh Eric ya wet blanket,
You spoiled my planetary hydro power fantasy with all that engineering. Kill joy!
I guess its back to nukes.
Exacrly right.
And it’s an ecologically devastating and wrong headed solution – damming free flowing rivers.
To wit, “In 2012, the “average” nuclear power plant in the United States generated about 11.8 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh). There were 65 nuclear power plants with 104 operating nuclear reactors that generated a total of 769 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh), or 19% of the nation’s electricity.”
Our energy “problems” are political and based on emotion rather than fact, science and enginerring.
Thats not the water power but only gravity. Double the speed and you quadruple the power output. Again a simple known formula. try it Eric.
The initial flow rate is like adding a bit of extra height. After a 30m free fall drop, each kilo of water has 30 x 9.8 = 2940 joules of kinetic energy.
Backing out velocity
E = 1/2 m v^2
So
V = (E x 2) ^ 0.5
= 77m / s
= 170 miles / hour
You would need a pretty impressive initial flow rate to make much difference to that figure. And I’m not making any allowance for efficiency losses.
v = sqrt(2*g*y) = 24 m/s = 54 mph
You missed a decimal place. 30 X 9.8 ~= 30 X 10 = 300
That is only 6.7 l/s, which is barely a trickle in most streams. However you forgot efficiency losses. I got 7.3 l/s for a kw average output. Maybe that is average for USA. In NZ it is 1.4 kW average and there are many countires that are less than that.
Example 5: Calculate the K.E. of a 2000.-kg car that is moving (a) at 10.0m/s, (b) 20.0 m/s, and (c) 30.0 m/s.
Solution: (a) (K.E.)1 = (1/2)(2000.kg)(10.0m/s)2 = 100,000 (kg m/s2)m = 100,000 J (3 sig. fig.)
(b) (K.E.)2 = (1/2)(2000.kg)(20.0m/s)2 = 400,000 (kg m/s2)m = 400,000 J (3 sig. fig.)
(c) (K.E.)3 = (1/2)(2000.kg)(30.0m/s)2 = 900,000 (kg m/s2)m = 900,000 J (3 sig. fig.)
As can be seen, the car’s kinetic energy varies with the square of velocity (v2).
You forgot the losses….
100 feet head @ur momisugly 100 gpm (10 garden hoses) gives conservatively one KwHr on a small scale.
Regardless, hydro power goes along with flood control and water storage for irrigation, so why not take advantage of the all the benefits?
Cost/benefit … the definitions change very fast when there is a direct individual impact to those who interpret the costs and benefits. We may have to wait until the power goes out to get past this crap.
This must be like whack-a-mole for the greenies. They’re against nuclear, so energy production turns to coal. They’re against coal, so energy production considers hydro-electric. They’re against hydro-electric so … . What’s the solution? Oh, right; there is a final solution …
What’s the solution?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nuclear, hands down and tightly regulated.
Hydro and wind are an enviromental nightmare as are solar farms. Coal is often not so great, eg. mountaintop removal in my neck of the woods.
“Nuclear, hands down and tightly regulated.”
Hmmm. let see. First you have mine it, process it, then do something with the waste. There is a place in Utah to store the waste, but it sits empty. Since I have helped pay for it, through higher rates, Why does it sit empty?
Old construction worker, How much waste do you think there will be? All the nuclear waste in the United States so far would occupy on football field to a nine foot height, the long term waste would occupy one yard of the hundred. To top that off we have reactor technology that would dramatically reduce that waste, unfortunately Carter cancel the breeder reactor program and Clinton canceler IFR project, When IFR runs that reactor produced virtually no waste. The sad reality the best place to place any nuclear waste is in a salt mine, Water is the enemy in any long term storage plan and salt mine exist do to a lack of water and if they are breached the self heal. Uranium mines are low impact definitely not like copper or iron. As far as coal mine go i could take multiple pictures of the North Dakota farmland and you would be hard press to tell me what had been mined and what had not.
The more Warmists scream about global warming the more they get of what they don’t want. See Germany nuclear, solar, wind and coal headaches.
Canada will be adding about 14.5 mega watts of hydro power in the next decade or so.
Ur, 14,500 megawatts.
Math is hard.
I think 16 GW of nuke too.
I get the feeling from some comments that the greens are NOT happy tonight.
I like watching water fall in carefully planned cascades.
Almost OT, but am I the only person to chuckle over a report about expanding hydropower from Copenhagen? The whole country of Denmark averages only 100 feet above sea level. A bit like a global ski report from Kuwait.
Maybe tidal turbine tubes in the Skagerrak & Kattegat?
Not much tidal flow there.
Don’t forget that the only reason danish wind-power works is that they can use Swedish and Norwegian hydropower as backup. This is something danish greenies keep very mum about.
Thank you. The first and only time I passed through Copenhagen I saw all those windmills standing idle and I wondered what the back-up was. Now, I know.
Gosh, I love hydro power… natures gift to mankind.
Cool, for every dam built or mountaintop removed we build a wind or solar farm, or nuclear power plant in your back yard.
Very true. Without backup no wind or solar farms, and hydropower is the best backup there is. Very reliable, very fast reacting, highly controllable and power can be stored until needed (=dam).