What Is The Future Of Hydropower? 

Michael Franzese spoke about this on his channel, in all likelihood they're mob related bodies.

You didn’t know? They found mafia or gang victims dumped in barrels down there.

@@TheBooban I always "knew" but hearing it confirmed from a real mobster pushed it from 99% to 100% sure. All doubt removed now

They don't want to talk to much about it. I wouldn't be a hero by exposing the cartel and have a target put on my back

Why would you not expect that. It happens all the time. In rivers and oceans as well.

Same thing here in BC. We sell to Alberta as well as the US.

good French boys

Quebèc also sells some of their hydro to Ontario, too!

Hydropower combined with nuclear is great! Nuclear provides all the baseline power and hydro smooths any fluctuations. Once it's been constructed it's carbon free!

Hell yeah

We have to do the right way, for our future..

Maybe there is no more land to be flooded? Or will politicians suggest flooding indigenous lands to create reservoirs?

Unfortunately China gives no f-cks about the environment

@@quadq6598 The Chinese government may not care about the wellbeing of the country's population, especially NOT of certain ethnic minorities, but they do know how to plan for the future, and they are well aware of environmental issues that can make life impossible to the average citizen.

But also your government destroy the biggest rain forest too…

Hydro is good, imho, as batteries for other sources. It's not a solution for climate change.

I expect these dams are run as a commercial operation. Letting all the water run out would reduce the income available while the benefit would be to the climate not the company. Some kind of requirement or incentive would be needed to get them to do it.

But they classify natural gas a renewable.

@@ekowhanson9268 Natural gas can be made in a renewable way using organic matter. Germany is actually producing quite a lot of it (but Germany also uses a lot of coal...)

I'm surprised this comment is visible with all the censorship going on youtube.

Urban areas make up 20% of human water consumption in CA. Agriculture uses 80%.

Old school farming takes 80% of California's water. It need to change permanently... Ask the Dutch or Chinese what to do with less!

@@stickynorth Holland is a waterlogged country, constantly being drained for excess water that they pump into the ocean - I'm not sure they know how to farm in the desert. Or maybe they do - do you have a link?

That’s right, up here in BC, 95% of our power is from renewable sources, with about 86% of that coming from hydropower.

Quebec has almost 100% with hydro power.

@@Arctic_Adjuster You need to learn more and understand the power grid.

Yes and in canada we almost poisoned lake ontario until they cut generation at Sir Adam Beck hydro plant by 60 percent now we have brought it back to 100 percent and built two new plants! But who needs fresh water anyway!

Funny how they don’t mention Canada. We actually sell a lot of our excess hydro-generated electricity to Washington and Canada. It’s all clickbait.

@@empi492 ontario sells electricity to a number of states but most of ours is now produced in a Co-Gen gas plant we shut down all of our carbon neutral coal fired plants

Here in Iceland, 90% of energy comes from Hydro

It's just forgotten in the western usa, but that's because they don't have water anymore.

Especially at locations like Hoover which are running below design capacity due to lack of water. Makes better use of existing infrastructure.

@@NVGEAR Floating solar would be cheaper, faster to build, would have minimal hookup costs because the dam already has a grid hookup, the panels would enjoy increased efficiency from the water and produce more power, the panels would last longer, the arrays can be rotated to track the sun, the arrays reduce evaporation, and the arrays would reduce sunlight making its way to the bottom, which would reduce biomass growth and reduce CH4 emissions from reservoirs. Why would they not invest in floating solar? There's no reason not to.

@@NVGEAR It's faster, cheaper, and the cost to link it to the grid is next to nothing.

@@firefox39693 And you don't need to clear whole swathes of land to install the panels. There are Hydro reservoirs that are absolutely humongous. You wouldn't cover them whole, but covering like 50% in a well designed way would not have a big impact on the biomes. You could inject it into the grid, and do some PSH on top. But I bet you that operators would just use it all for pumping, and then release it during the dinner peaks.

@@AlldaylongRock Yes, you just pointed out that combining them, by using solar to pump into storage makes sense and increases simplicity by using a dedicated separate pumping system. Storage capacity can easily be accomplished by increasing the reservoir's volume.

generally surfacewaters are not desired to be directly pumped into aquifers due to contamination risk... however a flood recharge where an area is purposefully flooded and allowed to trickle down (thereby getting filtered) is an option that is used in some areas.

That's actually a good idea. It'd probably need treatment and therefore more than just local, 10' x 10', pump houses. Our depleting aquifers are of grave importance though.

I keep asking the SAME THING

true california lets so much water go to waste when they need to improve infrastructure to collect it. they been using too much ground water. as dirty as it sounds imagine if urine was recycled and then used to hydrate californias forest. would prolly avoid using it for agriculture. but it is safe I mean NASA does it all the time.

I’ve considered that as well. In regards charging aquifers I heard the figure that 30% of the stored water in the Colorado River system leach’s into the sandstone. Was wondering where that ends up.

yes because they are not building new dams

Forgotten in the US, I think that's what she meant. No new dams built here probably

@@RhythmBoy there haven't been any recently, but America has thousands of dams built years ago

nothing but the best of wishes for you !!! you truly are changing the world for good ❤️🌎

check out the company Eco Wave Power

@@karpuzye That's really cool! Thank you! Was not familiar with Eco Wave Power. I'll buy a share or two of their stock today to keep an eye on them. I've been thinking about using a hydraulic cylinder to turn a generator for a few of my inventions. I'm glad to see they were able to use hydraulic cylinders to do that. Makes me a lot more confident I will be able to be successful with my ideas!

@@searchandverify :)

That's fantastic - best of luck!

Based!

California needs to delay closing Diablo Canyon and repair and restart the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. Grid operators are expecting a shortfall of 1.7 gigawatts in California this summer. San Onofre had a capacity of 2.2 gigawatts.

We need both hydro and nuclear, because nuclear has a constant output whereas sometimes we need more or less power. Hydro, whether pumped or not, is the best low carbon dispatchable generation. Use excess solar in the day and nuclear at night to pump up hydro then let it out at peak times and during the winter when solar produces less. They can all work together really well.

@@adrianthoroughgood1191 That's not exactly true. Nuclear plants can do load following, and be even quicker at it than CCGT. Hydro is the quickest one at it with both turbining and pumps, not accounting for batteries (which are very resource intensive). Thing with Nuclear is that load following with most reactor designs is a waste. Overall I agree with you. Nuclear for baseload (maybe a bit over minimum maximum demand), Solar for the increased demand during the day, I especially like rooftop solar and floating panels at Hydropower reservoirs (reduces evaporative losses and uses already built wiring to connect to the grid). And Hydro working as the balancer between all.

yep I served on nuclear powered submarines, never more than 600 feet from a running reactor core....longest I've been underwater is 87 days....it's a great source of power, compact footprint lots of power no pollution. :)

We will need every type of renewable technology.

@@Morhua1 Thank you, Mattias, I absolutely agree, I was just thinking about relating to hydropower in this instance, but absolutely, anything and everything to get off of fossil fuels and be much less harmful to the environment. After all, it is the ecosystem human life depends on.

They don't work

Storage is a huge potential positive of hydropower because of pumped storage. Tidal is not commercially viable at the moment.

Tidal is more dependent on Geography than Hydropower. There is a reason its not used as much. Not many places can work for Tidal power.

OH NATHAN - LIE-berals DO NOT WANT YOUR SUGGESTIONS regarding water power!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LIE-berals are seeking to turn electricity into a HIGH PRICED COMMODITY that they can sell to us within a LIE-beral controlled MONOPOLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! As for reforestation - that has been under way for DECADES NOW - as Cdn LIE-beral environmental rules SPECIFY NEW PLANTINGS to replace trees cut by loggers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Cdn LIE-beral propaganda offering to plant millions of trees is nothing more than political NOISE as millions of trees are ALREADY BEING PLANTED ACROSS THE LAND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for watching☝️Get-in-touch , Let's discuss on Financial investments

Depends on what environment level you care about - People really believe the world ends if you don´t fix global climate. Would you then care about local environment?

@@thetaomega7816 tell that to Egypt and countries depending on the Mekong river

Enviros are idiots

Pointing out issues isn't a bad thing. You need these problems to come to light to correct or mitigate them. We need to ensure that your not destroying the environment so all people, "poor" included, can enjoy it. You sound like a turn of a century industrialists who complains about not being able to dump chemicals into the river.

Yeah. The methane that would be POTENTIALLY released from a reservoir is miniscule and negligible compared to ALL the methane we realease. Also, rivers have been releasing this supposed methane for thousands of years. It's okay, woman. "But think about the poor fish, they won't be able to swim past the dam!!!" * Palmface *

Environmentalist should have no kids and love in the forests.

@@rh5829 He has a point though. Every month that green energy projects are held up because they aren't *perfect*, is another month that we continue to burn coal and gas powering our electric grid.

yeah right, and we pump up the oil by old grandma's rocking chair. oil export up 50% this year.

@@AnaGonzalez-gh5fx not sure who you mean by "we" ... but yes, Norway pumps and exports lots of oil. But as for their own energy consumption, Norway is going all electric for years

I love norway's electricity grid. It's a good help for the nations close to norway in the EU and the UK. It helps stabalize our supergrid a lot and i think that's super cool.

Yes, Norway won the geographical lottery, congrats to them!

They also only have a population of 5.379 million in the Arctic where they don’t have drought to consider, I get what you’re saying but it doesn’t really apply to the 330 million Americans

But you have to look at the environmental impacts of these dams and what they do to the river ecosystems. Fish depend on getting from ace to place in these rivers and all a dam is, is a barrier to them.

Not forgotten, it’s just not mainstream.

Misinformation.

Nuclear is the way.

actually fam if as good as hydro is in generating power and regulating water flow to prevent floods. down side is water flow can become political and can damage eco systems that rely on water. look at how much water loss has occurred in the colorado river. with that being said Nuclear is the way to go with only biproduct of water vapor or steam and ofcourse the decay of radioactive material. however with regards to removing radioactive material we can just launch it to the moon through NASA's atermis program and spacex falcon heavy.

yes you Right

Yeah but we haft to dig for lithium for batterys and that releases a lot of carbon & U.S. uses African children to do the mining they often die & dont get paid enough

The upkeep is minimal and the environmental tradeoff is a no brainer.

i think they're mentioning the poor regulated projects which the consequences may outweight its benefits. this kind of project is widely found throughtout southeeast asia and africa as the developing country usually lured by the financing and the seemingly "sustainable & green" power source. yet the environmental risk is often not well studied beforehand. in additional it usually bring job oppprtunity to the local community (which usually doesnt really the case). so I agree with the scientist, to open our eyes wide open to all the pros and cons :)

Rivers being dammed, for less that 100 years in most places. Give me any river with a dam I will give you a list of dead animals and plants, as well as extinct human communities. A reservoir is not a lake, and a river that doesnt flow to the sea is unnatural. It's also why estuaries, deltas, and brackish water ecosystems are dead and gone almost everywhere. It's why freshwater species are mega expensive in places where they were freely available in abundance just 100 years ago.

Nuclear is a debatable energy source.

@@Vlad2319 What is not a debatable energy source at this point‽ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-yR2lgxy-htU.html You have to look at the practicality of what something is and can achieve in actuality.

Huh? You realize despite not building any new ones in decades the US is still the largest producer of nuclear power globally.

@@seanthe100 90% of the grid in the US is powered by fossil fuels. It should be the other way around: Nuclear should be making up the largest share of the grid with hydro and renewables filling in the gaps

@@mehdihatami3391 this is false more than 40% is nuclear and renewable

The crypto market has been favourable in the past weeks, I keep missing out on this opportunity, I'm most certainly very impatient how can I ever make a profit in the crypto market.*

There are platform where you can invest and they trade your money. Then pay you profit either weekly or monthly. That's investing.

Despite the financial crisis, this is still a good time to invest in Crypto as the market is favourable💰💱

@@emmamartinezs5046 Most intelligent words I've heard.

I tried day trading crypto without adequate knowledge. All I did was end up blowing my trading account. But with the help of John Anderson I've been able to have a 50% ROI on every trade being made.

1000 times this. People say solar is no good because it doesn't work at night and batteries are too expensive, but we have giant batteries right there already built that just need some extra equipment and organisation to make full use of them. Government needs to imscentivise this now before we get to the point of really needing it so it can cut the requirements for gas peaking and save CO2 sooner rather than later.

There is a wonderful development at Niagara Falls. The hydroelectric generation done on both the Ontario and New York State side of the border and was completed in the 60's with a capacity of 2.4 GW. Better yet an 80 million cubic meter reservoir is allowed to fill up at night and is used to generate power during the day.

Amen to that 🙏🏼

Not to mention we can’t keep the damns infrastructure up to code.

BP, Shell, Exxon

In general, hydropower is owned by the government as it is a non competitive industry. I don't know how it is in the US, but in most developped countries, dams are not something you can invest in.

Tidal power don't work.

just build it in mexico then

Have fun designing machines that need to move AND exist in salty water.

Not a real major contributor in NV or AZ - Most goes to CA.... not sure any goes directly to MX per EIA stats... AZ - electricity by source in 2022, 99% of Arizona's total electricity net generation was provided from 6 sources: natural gas (42%); nuclear power (29%); coal (12%); solar energy (10%); hydroelectric power (5%): and wind (1%). Biomass, hydroelectric pumped storage, and petroleum, supplied the rest. NV in 2022, 99% of Arizona's total electricity net generation was provided from 6 sources: natural gas (42%); nuclear power (29%); coal (12%); solar energy (10%); hydroelectric power (5%): and wind (1%). Biomass, hydroelectric pumped storage, and petroleum, supplied the rest. Nineteen percent of the electricity from the Hoover Dam goes to Arizona, 23 percent goes to Nevada, and 58 percent goes to California. About 15 percent of the Dam's electricity goes to Los Angeles -a city that is 270 miles away. But you can see from the stats that hydro isn't a major % of the state makeup of power in either AZ or NV, and all the Hoover Dam power is mixed with other dam generation as well to get 'up' to those numbers. Only 5.7% of US electricity last year came from hydro, in the entire country - and it wasn't from Hoover Dam, which is now not all that big a generator. My stats are all audited and straight from the US EIA.

They didn't mention all of the fossil fuel that was used to have it built in the first place. Fools!

Fukushima. . Chernobyl. Three mile island. Safe? No. Ecological disasters. Global disasters. Get a clue. Radiation is deadly.

So you want to talk about nuclear because it is supposed cleaner then let's start with the cost. A good example to highlight the cost of a nuclear power plant is the Edward Vogtle plant in Waynesboro, GE. That is the only plant now under construction in the country. It is actually two reactors added to the two already present. The estimated cost for these plants is projected to be 25 BILLION $$!!. Length of time to completion from start to finish is more then ten years. They started construction some years ago. People are going to have to make up the cost of these expensive nuclear plants which might be good for 70 years tops. So not cheap any way you look at it. And what about how clean nuclear power plants claim to be? One thing often over looked is prodigious amount of CO2 produced from cement production for the plant construction. And of course there is the highly radioactive waste produced by the plant which the US still hasn't found a permanent home for. It continues to accumulate on the site of the nuclear plants where it is produced. How long can that go on? Then there is also the vast amount of low level nuclear waste which must be stored away indefinitely. And did you say that nuclear power is safe? Did you forget about Fukushima-- complete melt down in at least two plants due to coolant loss because the tsunami wiped out the back up generators. March 11, 2011. There was a partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island plant in 1979. There was the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear plant in 1986. So whether it is democrat or republican states nobody seems to want the big new nuclear plants because of all the baggage that comes with it. And lastly there is talk of thorium reactors mininuke reactors which supposedly produce less waste. But I see no commercial activity with either option. Maybe the authorities need to talk about it for few more years to decide how to sell it to Americans. 🙄 Any more questions?

There may be a correlation, but I don't see any causation. At least not yet!

Vegas needs its electricity fix.

Thanks for watching☝️Get-in-touch , Let's discuss on Financial investments

The future is for self-generation of electricity off grid, even in California, they came out with a proposed law that makes things difficult for on grid.

They could combine solar with desalination plants that pumps water into lakes and reservoirs. This basically works as a solar thermal power plant.

Or perhaps the US could actually have a National Grid rather than regional grids with high voltage transmission lines running coast to coast - given the time zones across the US that would give somewhere for California's solar excess a place to go. But US NIMBYism is alive and well in Maine - "A proposal to transport clean hydropower from Canada to the state of Maine has created enough "hoohah" to launch a fierce court battle - possibly signalling trouble for the future of green energy projects across the US. New England Clean Energy Connect (NECEC) was supposed to be an industry-leading project, transporting 1,200 megawatts of Canadian hydropower to Massachusetts across 145 miles (233 km) of transmission line, and eliminating over three million metric tonnes of carbon emissions every year. The $1bn (£840m) project, funded by utility company Hydro-Quebec and Central Maine Power (CMP), which is owned by the Spanish energy giant Avangrid, received final approvals, including a Presidential Permit from the US Department of Energy. Construction began in January 2021. Now, the hydropower project could be dead in the water, after a majority Mainers voted to cancel it last November. The legality of that referendum, as well as the lease for a one-mile stretch of public lands, is currently before the Maine Supreme Court, which could issue its decision any day." www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62072844

I believe the issue is pressure. Water towers exist to ensure pressure to the taps that they feed, so using some of that energy will lead to lower pressure and less efficiency of the distribution system. That being said, there are thousands of pressure reducing valves in urban distribution systems. Retrofitting these to produce power is a huge untapped (pun intended) opportunity.

@@mkkm945 I considered the idea of running a hydro plant of civil water systems. I was just thinking a dedicated water tower for storing water only for use in the hydro plant. It reduces the need for drinkable water in a system intended to reuse the water in a closed system.

@@BeastBishop Ah yes. In that case, yes.

While climate change increase drought conditions in dry regions, it increases precipitations in wet regions, making hydropower even more performant

Every size .

Norway had done it successfully

The government over complicates every thing we do and simply will not get out of the way because their jobs depend on it. And cities depend on government jobs.

The fight against nuclear power was propagated by big oil!

There’s ways to help that. Basically you send the fish through a non powering pump.

Why would you comment before watching the video?

Norway rocks 👍

You Scandinavians function at a higher level then the rest of us neanderthals. I have some insight into this cuz I'm one quarter Dane!! It's the rest me that's neanderthal! 😂😆🤣

I've been waiting for a scientist to speak on this same theory.

Its not economically feasible to pump water over long distances

@@TheWaynester101 yes economics is important but that is why the federal government must be involved, it is something we all need to invest in. Otherwise our food source is at risk as well as a huge part of the country no longer being inhabitable. I think the investment over the long term might be worth it.

@@derrillyager7946 Allow me to rephrase; it is not energy feasible to pump water over long distances (and energy is money). The California Water Project consumes 11500 GIGAWATTS of electricity. It's also able to recover 6500 GW, but that still leaves 5000 GW lost just pumping water around, and many proposals simply can't be as efficient due to the topography involved.

@@derrillyager7946 its better to invest in desalination and other means of water reclamation.

Why doesn’t we do that?

Tidal power is in research in several places atm, the difficulty comes in potential wildlife impact as well as maintenance feasability and cost

@@joshuaford4460 that maintenance would be killer

@@joshuaford4460 Indeed, plus there is also Wave power. Dams & reservoirs aren't the only way to make "Hydro power". They should pump & desalinate the oceans some which might bring more rain to droughted areas. 🤔

@@joshuaford4460 it will be a great study how we can make it environment friendly and ways we can solve the maintenence cost issue.