And despite the fact that many people would argue in favor of hydro-electric plants, I am a staunch opponent of this method. Generation of electricity from hydro-electric plants require huge reservoirs, and this submerges vast areas of the landscape (in some cases forests which are home to many unique species of flora and fauna). Also it disrupts the riverine ecology, by preventing the migration of fish and other species. It may be better than coal-fired plants, but I would rather prefer nuclear power.
Hydroelectric power is the necessary ingredient in the green world people who think some solar panels and wind turbines will solve everything.
Dams are the only real batteries in this world, there is a little no alternative to them, once the wind stops at night there is no other green way to get electricity other than hydro, which at the same time can store a lot when then energy is not needed, releasing just enough water as needed by the river.
Second, damns are also a measure to control flooding, even without the need for the energy you will still have dams, as you need dams to control floods or you risk
having stuff like this happening, anybody putting in balance the lives of millions of people over a few fishes hasn't experienced what floods can do, imagine having your entire family and house was taken away from you because the migratory yellow striped golden wing white bellybutton fish should be able to migrate. What would you chose and be sincere?!
Atomic, do you meant nuclear power? I have never known any news that Bitcoin miners use nuclear power.
Why do people think if a miner is close to a dam it uses hydro, if there is nuclear powerplant it uses nuclear!
Look at your power bill, does it mention from which powerplants you got energy?
Nobody really knows where that energy comes from all the time, the only way to find out is when some powerplant goes down and you end up with a blackout, that's when you find out like it happened in Xinjiang.
