[Wullu]

romanP romanP:

Wullu Wullu:

Ohhh the big bad dams!!


Title of the article should have read "Let's Ignore Everything Dams do EXCEPT Generate Power"

Are you seriously that dense? Why not go one step further and say something really stupid like "Gasoline is awesome! It powers my car! Who cares if burning all that gas causes deadly smog, I'm gonna go sit in my garage right now with the engine running just to prove how awesome it is!"

I am not the least bit dense. Apparently the other side of this conversation cannot make the same claim.


Let's take a look at the upside of dams that your are only too happy to ignore. I will put it in point form to make it easy on you.

- Completely renewable, totally clean, cheap electrical power.

- Flood control

- Irrigation of 10s of millions of acres of otherwise useless land (think Eygpt and the US South West)

- Guaranteed source of potable water for hundreds of millions of people.



And by the by? Gasoline IS awesome! It does power my car and it is one of the many reasons (including mining and all those other horrible industrys) that allow you to have a computer to tap out moronic statements on.

[Wullu]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Wow. I didn't expect this to get political.
This just gives us another option. It's not a replacement.

Then you didn't read the article very closely. It was just uniformed bullshit from a reporter that had not clue one about what they were writing.

[romanP]

LightStarr LightStarr:

Wullu Wullu:

Ohhh the big bad dams!!


Title of the article should have read "Let's Ignore Everything Dams do EXCEPT Generate Power"

I don't think the article was saying that at all. Unless I read it completely wrong. It didn't seem like it was saying that we should tear down the dams we have now. But like someone else said, these turbines would certainly allow us to place power generation where a dam is not feasible.

And, better yet, allow us to stop building dams.

[romanP]

Wullu Wullu:

romanP romanP:

Wullu Wullu:

Ohhh the big bad dams!!


Title of the article should have read "Let's Ignore Everything Dams do EXCEPT Generate Power"

Are you seriously that dense? Why not go one step further and say something really stupid like "Gasoline is awesome! It powers my car! Who cares if burning all that gas causes deadly smog, I'm gonna go sit in my garage right now with the engine running just to prove how awesome it is!"

I am not the least bit dense. Apparently the other side of this conversation cannot make the same claim.


Let's take a look at the upside of dams that your are only too happy to ignore. I will put it in point form to make it easy on you.

- Completely renewable, totally clean, cheap electrical power.

It seems you didn't read the article. Just because dams don't directly produce harmful emissions doesn't mean they don't cause harm in other ways.

$1:

- Flood control

You don't need flood control if you don't have something blocking up waterways and causing floods in the first place.

$1:

- Irrigation of 10s of millions of acres of otherwise useless land (think Eygpt and the US South West)

- Guaranteed source of potable water for hundreds of millions of people.

So, thinking of people first and nothing else. There are other factors to consider, and it is foolish to think that those things are not important.

$1:

And by the by? Gasoline IS awesome! It does power my car and it is one of the many reasons (including mining and all those other horrible industrys) that allow you to have a computer to tap out moronic statements on.

You would be an idiot to not understand the damage that burning millions of gallons of gasoline causes to the environment. Mining also causes quite a lot of environmental damage.

[Knoss]

Might be worth considering inthe north -- for politics if nothing else. Dams provide recreatioal lakes control flooding and allow water for agriculture. Prior to 1930 dams were constructed with the instalation of turbines debates as uneccesary (Of course it is proximity to dams that made Great Falls the electric city in 1884).

[sasquatch2]

Roman P

$1:

Fur trading was once doing this country well, but we had to stop before we killed all of the animals that gave us those furs. If we continued on that path, we likely would have seriously upset many North American ecosystems, and most furry animals (ie most land-dwelling mammals) would probably be extinct.

Yet another example of uninformed opinion based upon activist fiction/theology.
This is the sort of stupidity that supports PETA and assume Polar Bears are drowning.
The uero-greeny attack on our fur trade, just succeeded in putting our northern FNs on welfare and a plague of harp-seals to resistrict the Atlantic fishery while the european factory ships trawlers with lined nets finished it off---with no comment from their own greenies.

There is no valid evidence that the northern fur-trapping is/was not sustainable.
Ending the fur-trade certainly F$%^&ed up the Northern communities.