Hydroelectricity, nuclear or coal power? Which is best?

Question

I have an in-class essay where I have to write about how nuclear, coal and hydroelectricity power stations work and I also have to talk about which one out of them three would be best to power a large region in Australia, where droughts are common.

I know how they work, but what do you think would be the best one? :]

Answer 1

Hydro is the cleanest but nuclear is more reliable and produces more

Answer 2

While hydro does the least continuing damage, if you factor in things like coal's co2 and pollution and nuclear's radiation waste and possible accident risks.

Hydro does cause damage to the environment during the construction phase usually an entire valley is flooded, areas sometimes many miles long are covered by water.

Answer 3

hydro electricity b cuz it is a form of energy that doesn't harm d environment  

Answer 4

Nuclear for now and space based solar for the future. Coal is costly in just to many ways.

Answer 5

well.. hydroelectricity is good if you have a large water source with alot of pressure close by, but if we are talking outback its not going to be overley effective, and this would also necessitate daming our largest rivers (ide kill rudd with my bare hands if he allowed it), which would have a negative ecology effect.

we all know why coal is terrible, its pollution factor is immense and gives very little yeild.

while i know most people are opposed to nuclear due to the risk of meltdown and exess radiation, thats a very minimal, almost drop in the ocean kind of risk, nuke power has much higher yeild, so less stations will be required, and they can be situated far out west, so any rad damage would be localised to kangaroo's and the workers.

Answer 6

Water is becoming a problem in some parts of Australia, but there's still plenty of opportunity for Hydro' power in the ranges towards the South West. Hydo' is expensive to build, but once it's going it produces relatively cheap electricity... as long as you don't run out of water.

Australia has coal under 1/3 of it's land mass. That's a HUGE amount of coal... enough to power the whole country for hundreds of years... if the political will exists to use it... which is not currently the case.

Australia also has large deposits of Uranium, so Nuclear is also a very real option...

But... who wants to live next door to a nuclear power plant, or a coal one for that matter, and who want to move so that their farms can be flooded for a hydro plant? ultimately the issues are not technological, or economic, but political.

For Australia all three of your options are good, however...

Hydro is only good in areas closer to the hills and potential lakes... transporting electricity over the big distances involved incurrs very significant losses in the power lines.

Coal is big and heavy to move around in the quantities you're talking about, so over time this makes it less attractive (plus the smoke of course).

Nuclear, once built requires little additional external energy to make it work... I'd go with that. Waste disposal should not be an issue... after all you dig it out of the ground there... why not put it back? There is no shortage of suitable sites in central Australia.

.........

I just saw your note that is south-east queensland. For Queensland you can basically drop Hydro... but tidal is an intersting and viable alternative. Nuclear is going to be your best long term option... if politically viable.

This is very a useful comparision of energy sources, issues, costs, potential etc.

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080813/f...

Answer 7

Coal is the cheapest--

Really does not matter-- environmentalists will fight to prevent nuclear power plant construction-- and or MORE dam construction for hydro-electric power. Only Congress can pass Comprehensive energy reforms.