Editing Talk:2710: Hydropower Breakthrough

:Top KWh:$ producers sure, by which statistics? The effectivity of different kinds of power plants varies widely both with specific location, cost of input and the method used, but usually the hydroelectric damns build in good terrain would take a lead, especially considering that they can work for more than century. Which wind or solar power plant can hope for that? There is sure lot of research still necessary to make fusion power plants reality, but long term it can easily pay itself, and it can work anywhere, while damns need to be build on river, wind onshore (offshore are MUCH less effective and no research will change that) and solar, well, not too far from equator and somewhere with sunny weather, it wouldn't work when raining. Or, well, in space. Fission might also get good value from research if the research actually will be happening. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

:Top KWh:$ producers sure, by which statistics? The effectivity of different kinds of power plants varies widely both with specific location, cost of input and the method used, but usually the hydroelectric damns build in good terrain would take a lead, especially considering that they can work for more than century. Which wind or solar power plant can hope for that? There is sure lot of research still necessary to make fusion power plants reality, but long term it can easily pay itself, and it can work anywhere, while damns need to be build on river, wind onshore (offshore are MUCH less effective and no research will change that) and solar, well, not too far from equator and somewhere with sunny weather, it wouldn't work when raining. Or, well, in space. Fission might also get good value from research if the research actually will be happening. -- [[User:Hkmaly|Hkmaly]] ([[User talk:Hkmaly|talk]]) 23:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

::Dams are far from maintenance free & damage local ecologies in ways which can't yet be solved (a fish run lessens only one of these issues & only ''partially''), plus they cost ''way'' more per watt-hour to deploy. Also, the turbines they rely on, require periodic service similar to those used with wind. More importantly though, dams & solar & wind are ''already'' a viable method of public energy production, & research into improving solar & wind return far more improvement in watt-hours per dollar, than nuclear does. Since we're already in the midst of a growing ecological crisis & need cleaner energy ''now'', it makes more sense to research solar & wind, than nuclear. Sure, nuclear energy research ''may'' pay off eventually, but we need society to survive long enough to benefit; solar & wind make money ''and'' energy, right now, & research money spent on solar & wind power has returned far more Watt-hours per dollar, than research into nuclear power. Also, it's very incorrect to presume that solar only works well at low latitudes: Solar is used extensively in nordic regions, & even the energy-per-meter landing at the Earth's ''poles'' is still quite significant; there's so much energy in solar power, that it's almost ridiculous to go looking elsewhere. I agree that some forms of nuclear energy deserve more research funding than they've received so far (US-funded research is so obsessed with highly-fissile materials, that even nuclear energy "experts" are often ignorant of other methods), but at this point ''future'' technologies like fusion & hydrogen power, are effectively siphoning money from tech that ''would help now'' in favor of speculation on tech that ''could'' help ''someday''. Money spent researching fusion isn't necessarily ''wasted'', but spending that money to research solar or wind, helps more people sooner, while we have increasingly little time left to do so.  

::Dams are far from maintenance free & damage local ecologies in ways which can't yet be solved (a fish run lessens only one of these issues & only ''partially''), plus they cost ''way'' more per watt-hour to deploy. Also, the turbines they rely on, require periodic service similar to those used with wind. More importantly though, dams & solar & wind are ''already'' a viable method of public energy production, & research into improving solar & wind return far more improvement in watt-hours per dollar, than nuclear does. Since we're already in the midst of a growing ecological crisis & need cleaner energy ''now'', it makes more sense to research solar & wind, than nuclear. Sure, nuclear energy research ''may'' pay off eventually, but we need society to survive long enough to benefit; solar & wind make money ''and'' energy, right now, & research money spent on solar & wind power has returned far more Watt-hours per dollar, than research into nuclear power. Also, it's very incorrect to presume that solar only works well at low latitudes: Solar is used extensively in nordic regions, & even the energy-per-meter landing at the Earth's ''poles'' is still quite significant; there's so much energy in solar power, that it's almost ridiculous to go looking elsewhere. I agree that some forms of nuclear energy deserve more research funding than they've received so far (US-funded research is so obsessed with highly-fissile materials, that even nuclear energy "experts" are often ignorant of other methods), but at this point ''future'' technologies like fusion & hydrogen power, are effectively siphoning money from tech that ''would help now'' in favor of speculation on tech that ''could'' help ''someday''. Money spent researching fusion isn't necessarily ''wasted'', but spending that money to research solar or wind, helps more people sooner, while we have increasingly little time left to do so.  

I think the explanation is overthinking it. The joke is that there's a leak in the dam.

I think the explanation is overthinking it. The joke is that there's a leak in the dam.

[[User:Nico31415926|An idiot]] ([[User talk:Nico31415926|talk]]) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

[[User:Nico31415926|An idiot]] ([[User talk:Nico31415926|talk]]) 16:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)