Hydraulics, a false good idea?

[highfly-addict]

Here, everything is in the title.

What do you think of the development of rivers for the production of electricity?
Do we collectively have the right to upset or destroy ecosystems to improve our comfort?
With this in mind, do you have any ideas or solutions?
And by the way, what is the current energy balance of a dam?

I hope this topic will stimulate some! I will try to make him live regularly .....

Econologically yours!

[jonule]

Hello,
"in my opinion" there should be special watercourses for the production of electricity which would thus supply all of France, locally.

a bit like the canals that were built in the past.

also to cool these pesky nuclear power plants ... which will disappear one day when there will be more uranium ... because at present it is they who destroy the ecosystem, spitting out modified water and especially overheated.

this summer may be hot, they will still ask for authorizations to discharge overheated water into rivers, for fear of no longer being able to cool the power plants (and BOUM) and above all of not being able to sell their electricity " on the "delocalized" market so to speak ...

otherwise there are wind turbines, to take advantage of other available streams ;-)

[jonule]

it must not be forgotten ...

how was electricity produced before the plants?

by micro dams, for each town / village.

where did they go? "we" had to make them disappear, to set up the plants ... I'm tired of seeing that the question is asked again, because they should never have been removed.

no, they did not look at the landscape like the huge dams: we talk again about local production and on a scale ...

[highfly-addict]

it must not be forgotten ...

how was electricity produced before the plants?

by micro dams, for each town / village.

where did they go? "we" had to make them disappear, to set up the plants ... I'm tired of seeing that the question is asked again, because they should never have been removed.

But we did not remove them (in France at least), we simply abandoned them because they were not very profitable. In addition, still in France, the law prohibits the use of micro-power stations by locks (temporary blocking of the flow to increase the pressure and the flow then significant lachure and so on ..). There are still many forced to operate "with the flow" (it is also a windfall for their owners who resell "green" electricity at a high price).

no, they did not look at the landscape like the huge dams: we talk again about local production and on a scale ...

Certainly, they did not deteriorate the landscape .... (it's pretty a mill! ) but ecosystems? Most fish populations need to move to ensure their biological cycle (salmon and eel are the best known among us) and the transformation of a stream in succession of "steps" does not favor them. not the task, believe me!

I can also speak of the case of the pike which no longer finds flooded areas long enough to ensure its reproduction because the rivers thus amménagée see their flows policed ​​by the man for his exclusive use.

[jonule]

that's why I'm talking about dedicated channels, they were good for something specific that no longer exists (barges), and have nothing to do with natural waterways.

for fish it's something else, we must be able to play with the partial diversion of streams, or other technique to develop with people close to these eco-systems ...

but what do they think of the water discharged from nuclear power plants?
is it better than dams?



to come back to the fish, did you know that all rivers in France are permanently contaminated with pyralene, oil used to cool electrical transformers?

there is only the Loire I think that escapes ... for now ...


decidedly electricity what environmental-mental problem! but what does jancovici do?

[highfly-addict]

The channels are good! But their water comes from somewhere ... it is taken directly from the natural waterways, to their detriment of course!

For fish, we have not found a miracle solution, the best fish passes allowing anyway endangering species and swift to pass and again if they find this famous pass (overpriced otherwise!) .

How to compare the harmfulness of nuclear power and μcentrals? The impacts are too different ... In any case the massive diversion of water and its rejection once heated is harmful, it is on!

As for the pollution .... alas yes, I know that and much more, the physicochemical quality of our rivers has nothing to envy to their "physical" state .... but that is another debate.

[castorbarbu]

Hello, I am surprised enough discourse on the preservation of fish (and yet I am one!)
FYI I recover a hydro sawmill in the Pyrenees and I am convinced of the interest of this driving force ... I explain myself:
I no longer have the numbers in mind, but the potential for electrical production of pico power plants in France is sufisamentally important for the state to put its nose (report Dambrine Mars 2007 I think)
it turns out that the owner of the sawmill greased his wooden wheels a little too long ago, but at that time there was plenty of fish and there were many
So why is there a problem today ... chemical pollution I think, and even though I'm greener than him, too many of us are not "clean" enough ...
Moreover, when I made a mandatory fish pass (rockfill parcelle concrete is ugly and energetic) I could keep a sufficient amount of water behind the dam to compensate for severe low flow increasingly common. This deeper water will be cooler by inertia and favorable to the fish, who can also take refuge in the reach, private property prohibited from fishing ... but perhaps you are sinful?
Apart from that I would end up saying that I would be autonomous in energy, big drop of my carbon billan because the biggest ecological concern seems to be even the climate change which does not favor the fishes the summer especially when the farmers irrigate the future biodiesel ... and the loop is closed ... but you have a possible solution to protect the most possible millieux by continuing to use the fairy electricity?
ps: I can potetiellement produce in 6 hours of turbining the same power as a year in photovoltaic with conventional equipment, for much less expensive, with a bronze propeller that will turn 20 years without problems against silicon cells energy expensive to manufacture without telling the chemical treatments ...

[highfly-addict]

Many things in this post!

First, I was a fisherman and I'm not (I like to eat my catches and since qq years, it seems to me not very reasonable health issue ...)

I do not question the use of hydraulic power, I simply note that it can also cause damage (albeit minor compared to oil ...) on the environments and animals that live there.

It seems obvious to me that small installations are not the cause of the rarefaction of fish, it does not help, that's all.
After all, dams have existed for a long time. Note, however, that the salmon began to disappear in France when we had enough technology to block large rivers ...

You can overcome low water !? Damn! I do not understand the concept because fish passes or not, the total flow in the river will be the same: if it is almost dry your reach will probably be a refuge, but what about the portion of the stream that you run -circuit?

In addition you must certainly know the concept of "minimum biological flow" which will require you to favor the natural watercourse to allow the flow to pass in the event of severe low water .... so depending on your site of establishment it is very possible that you cannot legally turbinate for long periods!

And yes, I have a solution to protect the environment but it may not please: we must change our relationship with nature (!) And adopt a philosophy of the style "Can I make a small place for myself?" rather than "push yourself away that I get started" ... Vast task, utopian in the medium term in my opinion, but we will have to get started anyway or I fear the worst.

And finally, you're right, I think the main current concern for our fish from the south is irrigation! But that too is another story ....

[Christophe]

Just a judicious remark I've heard recently: 200 there was 20 30 times more fish in our rivers while there were a multitude of small flour mills running everywhere ...

So for the small hydraulics, the impact on the fish is a factional argument ... For the big hydraulics, I fear that it is already too late ...

[highfly-addict]

Indeed, there were μinstallations everywhere there are 200 years and full of fish, but there had not yet been the regroupings, phytosanitary products, the pyralene ....

Fallacious for the time, the argument seems to me today much more valid given all the rest, of course!

And for the big .... well yes I think you're right (unless a band of ecoterrorists make it all fart!).

Good night!