#1
I'm sitting in a car right now on my way to melbourne, and we got talking about global warming and what not, and something came to mind and I can't find a reason why we don't do it...

Here in Australia we're a big supporter of hydro-electricty, we don't have much but we fully support the idea, what I don't understand is why we don't use consective dams to make our electricity?
Like have a river with a hydro dam or whatever you call it, pump the water through and a kilometre down the river have another hydro dam?

Sure it would completely ruin the river it would happen to but you could have like 10 in a row, would that not work? It would cost a fair bit but in the long run would it not be better off, with electricity being a lot cleaner resource and all.

Thanks for any input.
Felix.
UG's Official Stuffed Toy! Because I am so cuddly wuddly


I LOVE KENSAI
#2
they already do that.. there's a bunch of dams following the hoover dam on the Colorado river..
#3
Well a dam can only let some water go through it (ruining the river) so it can keep the pressure, building more dams would mean the water would come by less and result in inefficiency. i imagine
#4
Those are called Hydro-Sleusses I think.

Maybe the great wall of china could be converted into a massive Hydro-Sleuss. That could power the world.
#5
cost a sh** load i guess, but it'd be a good idea, shame congress cant get there heads out of the lobbyists asses long enough to do something
Quote by guitardude34875
be the music, not the scene
#7
Also most large towns are on the coast lines, it's expensive to take electricity from a mountain range and transfer it all the way to a town, same sort of situation with wind farms up at the north of Scotland, big pylons to transfer all that electricity down to the central belt. =/
Quote by MetalHead73
So I, with a broomstick(Just in case) walk right where they can see me and I said:

"You kids ever taken a broom up the ass?"

The look on their face was priceless, and they ran, and I mean ran like a bat out of hell.
#8
Quote by Scrubs
Also most large towns are on the coast lines, it's expensive to take electricity from a mountain range and transfer it all the way to a town, same sort of situation with wind farms up at the north of Scotland, big pylons to transfer all that electricity down to the central belt. =/



Ok sure, its expensive. But can you really put a price on our planet? Cause we cant continue burning coal and whatnot like we are.
UG's Official Stuffed Toy! Because I am so cuddly wuddly


I LOVE KENSAI
#9
Yeh I'd agree with you, except it's the government that choose whether they build a ruddy great damn in a mountain range and have people maintain it and also stick pylons up to transfer it from point A to B. Plus some of the distances may just end up using more energy, provided by coal and oil, to build and set up than the gain in electrical energy.
Quote by MetalHead73
So I, with a broomstick(Just in case) walk right where they can see me and I said:

"You kids ever taken a broom up the ass?"

The look on their face was priceless, and they ran, and I mean ran like a bat out of hell.
#10
Quote by ShredGod George
cost a sh** load i guess, but it'd be a good idea, shame congress cant get there heads out of the lobbyists asses long enough to do something



Yep, they're too busy sniffing buttholes to implement a technology that has already been in place for decades.
<Han> I love Hitler