At a certain point we decided it wasn't OK to drown any more open space behind big dams.
If you want to rely solely on hydro and have a surplus for export, sure, but the aforementioned countries still use some, yes?
-
-
If you can't tell this is my first time exploring the topic, but it looks like there's plenty of precedent for small-scale hydropower; what's the harm in proliferating these in MA? It's clean, doesn't alter the landscape much, etc...pic.twitter.com/37Vj9Cpz4N
-
There is precedent of converting older industrial dams into modern hydro power. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glendale_Power_House …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Belgium and the Netherlands (the Massachusetts-comparable countries) have very little hydro and mostly use fossil fuels.
-
They have no hills to speak of so no viable sources of hydropower on their waterways. MA is much less dense and is bursting at the seams w rivers that can (and have) make power
-
Belgium does, in Wallonia. NL doesn't, but it has the Rhine. And Massachusetts is not much less dense than either.
-
Their highest point is only 2/3 the elevation of ours, and as you already said, only part of Belgium has hills in the first place, vs nearly all of Massachusetts. We're much better suited, geographically, than the low countries are.
-
It's a pretty significant part of Belgium...
-
Wallonia is, but the hilly part of it isn't
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.