Hydro beats nuclear and coal, beats oil and gas

Researchers in Italy and the UK have reviewed the economic, social and environmental impact of hydro, coal, oil, gas and nuclear power. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but of these conventional electricity generation technologies, hydroelectric power appears to be the most sustainable and acceptable environmentally and economically. Nuclear and coal run a close second place but oil or gas-fired power stations are revealed to be the worst choice when considering the various factors overall.

Giorgio Locatelli of the University of Lincoln and Mauro Mancini of Milan Polytechnic explain that the research literature has offered several studies of the economics of power plants but these are commonly based on cash flow considerations whereas sustainability factors, such as environmental and social considerations have moved higher up the agenda when investment in this area of technology is considered.

Writing in the International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, the team explains that as for electricity grows, new power plants must be built. However, the "green" options of solar, wind, tidal and other newer forms of electricity generation simply cannot maintain pace with demand. "Worldwide population growth combined with growing requires the construction of more power plants," the team says. , , energy security, ever-changing fossil fuel prices and supply, as well as the of power plant location must now be considered as part of the multitude of considerations in building new infrastructure. Moreover, investors must now consider sustainability.

The team has considered various factors: fuel supply security, environmental impact, public acceptance, volatility of fuel price, risk of severe accident and emergency planning zone (EPZ) consideration - in assessing each classification of power generation. Each factor carries a certain weight in their calculations of which power source is most sustainable overall. These factors are in the broad sense beyond the control of investor or users.

Given that many regions do not have the potential to use hydroelectric power generation, nuclear and coal-fired are the next obvious choice, but each has many pros and many cons. The next stage in their research will be to provide a balanced review of each of these with a view to offering a possibly definitive answer on sustainability of power generation.


Explore further

European power plants boosting coal use

More information: "Sustainability in the power plant choice" in Int. J. Business Innovation and Research, 2013, 7, 209-227.
Citation: Hydro beats nuclear and coal, beats oil and gas (2013, February 5) retrieved 25 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2013-02-hydro-nuclear-coal-oil-gas.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 05, 2013
Unfortunately, at least in the USA, there are very few sites that have not been developed. Also, in many cases, smaller hydro plants are being removed to improve fisheries.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more