More than that, it's completely impractical.
Hey, Trevor Wilson, please list the rivers in Australia that could be dammed to provide hydro power, and the amount of power that could be generated. Then factor in the cost of such things as siltation of the dams from the surrounding catchment, evaporation from the dams, variable rainfall patterns - which are becoming *worse*, etc etc.
Short form: there aren't enough rivers left undammed to generate enough power to make any great contribution. You're dreaming.
I did my first degree with a major in fluvial geomorphology over 30 years ago. The only things that have changed since then are the rainfall has become even more variable and the rise in enviro consciousness has eliminated sites that, from a pure power generation POV, were practical. Anyone want to revisit damming the few Tasmanian rivers left undammed, or taking 100% of the Snowy flow for power generation?
Thought not.
We *are* going nuclear, absent a breakthrough on fusion or some equally 'blue sky' system. The questions are when, where and how soon. Personally, I nominate Queenstown in Tasmania. The local environment is already destroyed, there's adequate water for cooling, power reticulation isn't a real problem, the Bbuttlink system should allow transfers to the mainland and if the worst came about, who would really notice the devastation after 100 years of contagionous mining-smelting?
PDW
