damn dams

I'm not reading full wikipedia articles you haven't read, Weez.

Goodwood pls.

"I'm not going to read evidence you've linked me that disproves my argument"

Alright, bye.

What evidence?

I am informed about hydroelectricity.

What you have said ignores the core ideas of what you actually need to generate power, which, very little of your dams cited actually do.

My argument is that the UK can build hydroelectric dams wherever need the sea via man-made lakes and dams, generate during the day, and refill via pump at night. On a large scale, it would offset fossil fuels better than any other renewable energy they're trying to push.

And it would create more jobs than any other fuel but oil and nuclear.

Enjoy being ignorant to facts, EU shill.

Your argument fails to address that there's a net loss of energy 🤷

Hence, rivers are used 🤷

Which aren't everywhere in the world

And which aren't all suitable for use

Hence why they're called hydroelectric storage.

> Enjoy being ignorant to facts
Ironic coming from someone that doesn't know what energy loss is

you need a lot of head for a dam, and pumping is not a option unless you are using it as a energy storage not a source.

I just explained before the link spam how Canadian hydroelectric dams work.

Even then, there's a net energy loss. @DEPChimp

yep, there is tidal energy, that can be used but from what i understand you need a lot of coastline.

"I'm mad because I spammed a lot of useless wikipedia articles without reading them, so I'm gonna block you."

Which is also very very expensive

Actual brainlet.

And makes the LCOE so high for it

It's quite funny he doesn't realise that his energy "generation" method required other energy sources to power it

In regards to what he was advocating for

Yes, that is how all renewable energy sources are created to offset the use of fossil fuels.

Though I don't expect much from an "Ex concept artist."

So it's whatever 🤷

You think solar panels come out of the ground?

Google, what is net energy loss @Ethaneth

Enjoy losing a debate you depended on Google to misguide you on.

<:WearyPepe:514177055156600834>

And now I a completely unrelated person come in and tell you you are both wrong, and both of you are right. In a way. now Ethan was right that there are artificial reservoirs that are created and use a pump and generator system to fill the upper reservoir at low energy consumption times. How ever Nathan is right, this has a net energy loss. river systems that refill from the water cycle naturally are the only ones that produce energy rather than just store it. What Ethan is talking about is a form of smoothing system used to deal with the peaks and valleys in power generation that rely on nature. For Example solar panels start losing efficiency and generations capacity just as the second peak of the day starts, and have not gotten up to full efficiency during the first peak in the day, and wind turbines are effectively random in their output. As a result these hydroelectric batteries were implemented and even with the loss of efficiency they can still make a profit, and act as a way to store "green" energy during peak production times for peak consumption times.

An effective proposition to help offset fossil fuels, yes.

I read a paper not too long ago

Hydro power I think has the potential in the UK to power half of our energy needs?

And we were actually leading in hydro tech globally for a while

But then the govt lost all interest

re the fracking u-turn, could it be the tories virtue-signalling for the election?