165 million dollars
very
The cost is the difference of thousands of families without jobs
It may cos around 100 MWh
Destruction of free-running rivers and their ecosystems
There is usually a large one off initial capital outlay, for example to build a dam. After that the electricity produced is almost zero cost You will usually be sued also, but it is too clean to turn down.
No. A nuclear power station is a massive undertaking, and is cost effective only on the large scale.
Hydroelectric power stations certainly have their advantages and disadvantages, as do all forms of electrical generation. Probably the best solution is to use a combination of different means of producing electricity, with hydroelectric stations as part of the mix.
The major hurdle associated with hydro power is to ensure uniform availability of water which is not possible as water availability is gioverened by nature. The huge capital cost ( almost three to four times than thermal power) is another drawback yielda higher unit rate of production.
around £3.7 billion
billions of dollars
i asked this question so why dont you answer it
Yes, hydroelectric could power a city. The issue with most green energy sources is cost and inability to obtain uninterrupted power on demand. Hydroelectric does not have these limitations. It does have some negative environmental impacts, just as all energy sources do.