Does your country have a lot of hydropower?

It's really not since there water height is still quite different and .

For example. We build the power plants (turbines, generator) in large tunnels in the mountains, because we also use these mountainous regions for tourism. Or, all Danube power plants have fish ladders and are planned in harmony with environmentalists. A power plant was not built, because otherwise an important riparian forest would have been lost.

Attached: Kaplan2.jpg (1741x1306, 570K)

aren't the immediate environmental effects from hydro power really minor when compared to the potential damage from non-clean energy in the long run?
genuinely curious, I've never really read about these things in depth

>Sadly

Attached: 1549080098013.gif (413x243, 51K)

yes
youtube.com/watch?v=f389hIxZAOc

Fish ladders bad.

Biostreams good.

So, the cleanest form of power (to my knowledge) is nuclear and at that thorium. The thorium is currently being invested in China. Thorium itself is extremely abundant and easier to get than uranium. The list of disadvantages isn't honest since pretty much all power sources have disadvantages.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

Most 'green' tech is actually pretty bad for the environment since you need stuff like lithium for it. Giant wind turbines kill birds and insects (on top of creating microclimates), solar needs rare earth metals, and hydro does . Hydro is probably the least bad, but it still destroy rivers, land, ect.

Pic is Hoover Dam/Lake Mead.

Attached: LakeMeadWaterLevel.jpg (620x840, 475K)

Yes, bunch of it from small rotor installed in river to huge powerful one in dam. But not powerful enough to power 300 million people unfortunately.

>wind bad
Eh, house cats kill birds too and pesticides do insects.

>solar needs rare earth metals
What? Silica?

What's wrong with Lithium? Worse than oil and Uranium?

>So, the cleanest form of power (to my knowledge) is nuclear and at that thorium
In practice, and that's what should matter, Nuclear has destroyed vast areas Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island (?) so it's not really clean.

Also, where are commercial Thorium rectors.

>wind bad
Wind power is good in the right place. But the problem is the wind speed. At the North Sea that works certainly good, but we have little areas for really big systems.
And you can do something against the bird strike. If you want that.

Attached: windpark_Aut_01.jpg (542x320, 34K)

100 percent of our energy comes from it.

>Eh, house cats kill birds too and pesticides do insects.
We shouldn't discount either of those things. Pesticides are not good, look at Round Up.

For rare earth metals:
motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3mavb/we-dont-mine-enough-rare-earth-metals-to-replace-fossil-fuels-with-renewable-energy

>Also, where are commercial Thorium rectors.
The Chinese are working on thorium right now. The US isn't doing much of anything productive with our wealth. You'll have to wait for them. There is more that can be done. Banning plastic would go a long way for helping keep the environment clean.

>In practice, and that's what should matter, Nuclear has destroyed vast areas Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island (?) so it's not really clean.
They're fine for animals though, just not humans. Not saying nuclear power is 100% good, but it's better than coal and some other supposedly green energy sources like solar.

yes
a city even got destroyed some months back because one of those broke off