Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It's not very green at all. It's known to kill large swaths of the ecosystem.

The true green yet unfashionable energy source is nuclear fission.



That's pretty much it. The environmental objections to nuclear fission are in the same genre as objections to hydroelectric dams, but hard to compare. You pay the environmental impact of the dam upfront, in the form of ecosystem disruption by the reservoir. I'm not sure that nuclear fuel mining is worse than building a reservoir in a desert (e.g. Lake Mead), long term, to say nothing of nuclear waste storage/disposal. To be sure, power production by a wind or solar facility is at least proportional to acreage, but either of those don't entirely remove habitat.

This feels more like a hit piece that amounts to "your 'green' energy sources aren't so green, hypocrites". Specifically:

"This ennoblement is strange, given that wind projects require enormous quantities of embodied energy in the form of steel for towers, plastics for blades, and concrete for foundations. The manufacture of solar panels involves the environmental costs from mining, waste disposal, and carbon emissions."

As if the earthworks and concrete of major dams, the steel and plastic of the generation stations didn't count.

The author also ignores the justification for building megastructures on rivers in the western US (or Africa, or China, or ...): they are in deserts, so the flow (and therefore the power generation) are especially sensitive to the natural drought cycle. Build a small dam on a small river, then deal with the consequences of no power when the river runs dry every fall. Or, dam a big river, which requires a big reservoir, and only deal with drought-driven power outages when you hit the 50 or 100 year drought.


Usage of the word "green" seems to be increasingly synonymous with "carbon neutral/efficient" while ignoring other environmental costs. I suppose carbon is the most pressing issue, but I remember reading about how dams destroy natural habitats way back in grade school so this shouldn't be news.


I'm glad more people are coming around. I just wish it was 30 years ago and we'd actually be seeing some benefits for it by now. Now it's at least 20 years out.


Nuclear is very expensive and even increasing in price.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: