I live in the PNW. We have so many dams with hydroelectric powered and it makes our state rich in the power distribution. We also have an amazing amount of wind turbine farms to supplement that power. You we sell more of that power out to outside states and Canada let alone the the server farms for Google, Amazon etc in this area that consumes so much also. But here is an issue. There is a side effect to it with nature. Salmon runs are interfered with so much that it effects population and guess what - no fish other wildlife is affected. As for the wind turbines - well guess what - it kills more birds and eagles than anything else. Sooooooo... whats the balance here - maybe stop demanding so much power. Does everything thing we do in life REALLY necessarily need a plug in and download. No talks about the demand of power to the server farms. We want Netflix, Amazon on demand videos, Facebooking blah blah I want my MTV syndrome... How about just enjoy life, hike and take a good few picture ;) ... Have a great day everyone.

With all the talk about electric cars and how it takes more fossil fuel to supply the electric needed for this than we have, why did we abandon hydroelectric power? In the past we built a wonderful system of dams called the TVA Project and then we built the Hoover dam, and then just quit? China built the world's largest hydroelectric dam on our money and we print trillions when we need to. I understand large dams are expensive but so are nuclear power plants. If we want to promote electric without increasing our fossil fuel consumption why aren't we building dams?

With all the talk about electric cars and how it takes more fossil fuel to supply the electric needed for this than we have, why did we abandon hydroelectric power? In the past we built a wonderful system of dams called the TVA Project and then we built the Hoover dam, and then just quit? China built the world's largest hydroelectric dam on our money and we print trillions when we need to. I understand large dams are expensive but so are nuclear power plants. If we want to promote electric without increasing our fossil fuel consumption why aren't we building dams?

First you have to have a river capable of producing a useful amount of power, flat country slow flowing rivers don't do it. Then it can't be a large navigable river, you stop the boats. It can't be a place where your flood out farms, towns etc. and you may have to get past legal blocks put up by environmental groups who don't want the canyon/valley etc. flooded.

Dams are large expensive building projects - TVA and the others you mentioned were in large part built by the "Alphabet Agencies" of the Depression with a large part of the labor force being those out of work.

I see you are from PA. No problem with drops in elevation in this state. I'm sure you are familiar with the "Endless Mountains". There are vast areas of PA where dams could be built and disrupt very little if any existing communities. Northeast of Pittsburg there are also many mountain valleys with very little population. Kentucky is lightly populated in some areas as well as western Maryland. I'm not saying hydroelectric is the answer to our energy problems, just that it is one piece of the whole that is not being utilized enough. As a photographer I'm tired of seeing the landscape filled with giant windmills and while electric will need to build transmission towers, they aren't as numerous in a concentrated area as windmills are. I'm all for geothermal. When I lived in Indiana, in leu of putting out the expense for a new fossil fueled power plant, the utility offered homeowners a sweet deal. They would pay for putting in a groundwater heat pump system and continue charging the same rate the homeowner was currently paying for electric. The this would pay the system off in ten years and then the cost of electric would go down by half or more. Hydroelectric and geothermal are the areas we should be looking at to meet demands for the future. If we don't start some very aggressive actions now, how are we going to meet the demand for enough electric power to fuel an all electric motor pool? A lot of people want the US to be energy independent but where are the actions that back up that want? It seems no one wants to take the "bull by the horns" and get aggressive on developing alternative energy. Here is an idea: Why not require all businesses over, say 5000 sq. ft. to install X-number of solar panels per sq. ft. of roof? There are many 1,000,000 sq. ft. warehouses being built in this area. A solar farm on these roofs could supply not only most or all of the energy needed for the business but put some kilowatts back into the grid to supply additional facilities or homes in the area. I know it is a fine line to cross for government to demand businesses to do this or that, but there are many regulations government already demands -- x-number of parking spaces for certain businesses, green areas, retention ponds, curbs, etc. I'm sure there would be resistance from the business sector, but it could be a good deal if incentives like tax rebates were offered.