Hydropower is a low-carbon energy source that can help tackle climate change, but it also faces environmental and social challenges. Its long lifespan allows for the amortization of emissions associated with construction over a longer period, and reservoirs can emit or store carbon dioxide and methane, affecting the climate and the grid. While hydropower is a potentially clean renewable energy source, some projects produce high greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The IPCC report recognizes hydropower as a low-cost, low-carbon, and flexible technology to reduce emissions and limit warming to 1.5°C. However, there is mounting evidence that hydropower facilities can emit high GHG emissions. Hydropower dams can reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from flooded vegetation and provide clean, cheap energy. The median GHG emission intensity of hydropower is 24 gCO₂-eq/kWh.
Over 200 existing hydropower facilities globally potentially cause more warming in the near-term than fossil fuel plants. However, when human-made reservoirs are constructed for hydropower facilities, they change the way carbon is emitted and stored in river systems. Hydropower generation, on average, emits 35 to 70 times less GHGs per TWh than thermal power plants and about 70 times less than a coal-fired generating station.
In conclusion, hydropower is a potentially clean and low-carbon energy source that can help tackle climate change. However, it also faces environmental and social challenges, such as the emission of high GHGs from reservoirs. It is crucial to address these issues and improve the accuracy of measuring hydropower’s carbon footprint to ensure its continued use and sustainability.
📹 How Lake Oroville’s hydropower is reducing California’s carbon emissions
Hydropower is back online at Lake Oroville for the first time in 5 months, leading to less need for fossil fuel generated energy.
How much greenhouse gases does renewable energy reduce?
It has been demonstrated that the implementation of renewable energy and electrification strategies can result in a reduction of approximately 75% in CO₂ emissions. Furthermore, when these strategies are combined with substantial electrification, they can achieve reductions in excess of 90% of the requisite reductions.
Does hydroelectricity contribute to the greenhouse effect?
Inland waters naturally produce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but human-made reservoirs for hydropower facilities alter the way carbon is emitted and stored in river systems. Hydropower is a reliable, renewable resource that stabilizes the electrical grid during energy demand fluctuations. However, concerns about GHG emissions associated with hydropower reservoirs have led to studies into its carbon footprint. As the US transitions to a clean energy future, accurate estimates of GHG emissions, including carbon dioxide and methane, from various energy sources, including hydropower, are crucial.
Current methods used to quantify the carbon footprint of hydropower facilities may be insufficient. The U. S. Department of Energy’s Water Power Technologies Office commissioned Oak Ridge National Laboratory to review existing methods of measuring GHG emissions from hydropower facilities to ensure accurate assessment of hydropower as part of a strong and clean electric grid.
Is hydropower environmentally friendly?
Hydropower plants are environmentally friendly compared to other fossil fuel-based sources of electricity, as they do not emit waste heat and gases, which contribute to air pollution, global warming, and acid rain. The mining and drilling required for other power sources also have negative environmental impacts. Hydropower plants are often located in river basins, helping control water flow fluctuations and enhancing aquatic habitats during dry months.
However, hydropower projects and dams can change the natural river environment, and there is often a cost to these changes. USACE works closely with natural resources agencies to minimize the negative environmental impact of its hydropower projects.
How does water reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
To reduce greenhouse gas emissions, consider the following tips:
Use water efficiently: Conserving water is crucial for reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. By avoiding water-related activities like shaving or brushing teeth, you can save money and water.
Repair leaks promptly: Fixing leaks in toilets and faucets can save water and reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Irrigate your lawn or landscape only when needed, especially in the coolest part of the day, such as early morning.
Compost food scraps and yard waste: Composting food and yard waste reduces garbage sent to landfills and greenhouse gas emissions.
Purchase green power: Green power is environmentally friendly electricity generated from renewable sources like wind and the sun. There are two ways to use green power: buying it or modifying your home to generate your own.
By adopting these tips, you can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, increase clean energy supply, and create a greener home. Consider installing solar panels and researching incentives for renewable energy Exit in your state.
How much CO2 do power plants produce?
In 2022, the total annual U. S. electricity net generation by utility-scale electric power plants (plants with at least one megawatt of electric generation capacity) was 4. 23 trillion kilowatthours (kWh) from all energy sources, resulting in the emission of 1. 65 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide (CO2), equivalent to about 0. 86 pounds of CO2 emissions per kWh. The amount of CO2 produced per kWh varies by energy source and plant efficiency, with hourly, daily, monthly, and annual CO2 emissions.
The U. S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) publishes CO2 emissions estimates related to electricity generation on a monthly and annual basis. Utility-scale electric power plants that burned coal, natural gas, and petroleum fuels accounted for about 60 of total annual U. S. utility-scale electricity net generation, accounting for 99 of CO2 emissions associated with utility-scale electric power generation. The EIA considers electricity generation from biomass, hydro, solar, and wind to be carbon neutral.
How much CO2 is produced from 1 kWh of electricity?
The emission of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere during the generation of one kilowatt-hour (kWh) of energy typically ranges from 0. 85 to 1. 1 kg per unit, with the output of a power plant being measured in kWh.
How efficient is hydropower as much as ______________?
Hydroelectric power plants represent the most efficient method for the production of electric energy, with current plants achieving an approximate efficiency of 90%.
Does hydropower reduce greenhouse gas emissions?
The life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per unit of electric energy produced by hydropower are lower than those of fossil fuel sources. However, the net hydro emission range is approximately two-thirds that of natural gas power plants and is comparable to other renewable sources and nuclear energy.
Is hydropower more sustainable?
Hydropower plants are environmentally friendly compared to other fossil fuel-based sources of electricity, as they do not emit waste heat and gases, which contribute to air pollution, global warming, and acid rain. The mining and drilling required for other power sources also have negative environmental impacts. Hydropower plants are often located in river basins, helping control water flow fluctuations and enhancing aquatic habitats during dry months.
However, hydropower projects and dams can change the natural river environment, and there is often a cost to these changes. USACE works closely with natural resources agencies to minimize the negative environmental impact of its hydropower projects.
Is hydropower sustainable?
Hydropower is a renewable energy source that relies on the water cycle, making it clean and clean. It is a domestic source of energy, allowing each state to produce its own energy without relying on international fuel sources. Hydropower installations often create reservoirs for recreational activities, and they are flexible, providing backup power during major outages or disruptions. It also offers benefits beyond electricity generation, such as flood control, irrigation support, and clean drinking water.
Hydropower is affordable, providing low-cost electricity and durability over time. It complements other renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar power, with technologies like pumped storage hydropower (PSH). The U. S. hydropower workforce is expected to grow to 120, 000 jobs by 2030 and 158, 000 by 2050. Hydropower education programs are available nationwide for those interested in joining the workforce. It creates jobs in rural areas and boosts local economies.
To stay updated on hydropower news and funding opportunities, subscribe to the Hydro Headlines newsletter. Charles Scaife, a technology manager and scientist at the U. S. Department of Energy’s Water Power Technologies Office, shares his journey to understand the impacts of climate change on water and energy.
What is the biggest disadvantage of hydroelectric power?
Hydropower construction has several drawbacks, including environmental impact, high costs, and dependence on rainfall. Dams can alter aquatic habitats, flood dry areas, and require land expropriation, leading to community relocation and water quality changes. Additionally, not all land is suitable for dam construction, limiting renewable energy generation space. Despite these challenges, hydropower is essential for generating clean and sustainable energy, competing with the current fossil fuel model. However, it is crucial to consider all challenges and strive for a more sustainable planet for future generations.
📹 The TRUE Costs of Damming Our Rivers | Earth Explained!
This video, in collaboration with Matt Ferrell, takes a closer look at some of the far-reaching consequences of hydroelectric dams …
I like that you guys don’t go to the extremes of things such as saying “there should be no more dams and such” and instead talk about how we need to do things better and try to find a balance. If everybody would try to be as objective as you guys try to be things would be much better. I always like to say that answers are found somewhere in the middle. Corps, ppl,etc. we usually just need to reach to a compromise.
Somewhat simplistic and very general analysis. Dams can be good or bad, depending on how they are built and the type of dam. Fish and aquatic life can move freely up and down a dammed river if the infrastructure is there. Release of sediment collected from the base of the dam can be done as well, to mimic the season. The point is to build smart dams, not stupid ones.
I live a region of my home country of Ireland that’s flooded every Autumn/Winter into Spring because a huge hydro electric dam. The countries water way authorities and the government have claimed for the past eighty eight years that the problem is “Heavy seasonal rain fall” and not the dams fault so there’s nothing they can do! “I wonder if its maybe really all about having to spent money???”
Every single way of taking energy from somewhere and using it somewhere else will interfere with the environment. Sometimes we know the problems. Sometimes we don’t. One thing is certain, using less energy and creating less waste reduces the scope of the problem no matter what energy source we are talking about. Reducing populations, making things last, abandoning the throwaway society and packaging, getting away from whole house climate control, riding a bike or walking rather than cars. All of these can minimize the problem with very little downside.
I’m missing details on one-time gh gas emissions vs operating gh gas emissions. From my understanding contruction emissions and those from rotting vegetation in the reservoirs are one-time. Surely like with BEVs a payback time can be calculated, how lon it takes to recoup the gh gas investment. I would also be interested in average numbers for gh gas per kWh of power.
Dams can have both positive and negative effects. I am Zambian and the Kariba Dam was a net positive for the country by far, producing cheap electricity and providing the benefits of a lake (large fishing industry). I am sure the original fish were impacted, but lets keep in mind just how much we impact the environment with farming, mining and other activity. The impact of Zambia’s dams is miniscule relative to other industries. In places like China dams can also server to mitigate flooding, although dam failure or mismanagement can also make it worse.
You did not discuss about other uses of dams eg for agriculture etc. Dams are not only build for hydropower. Controlling flooding also one reason. Flooding also kills lot of vegetation which also generate greenhouse gases. Only threat to fish ecosystem is what I find new. It is good informative article but my opinion is it is not considering all parameters and only showing one side partially.
I disagree with your conclusions that damns are carbon emitters due to rotting of plants. Since these plants grew but recently absorbing carbon from the atmosphere this decomposition would be considered carbon neutral. What I didn’t hear you talk about was the huge carbon impact of creating so much concrete to build the damn in the first place.
Thanks for bringing this up. First finance minister of India fought hard to not let damming rivers of India. But alas, according to this age no one has brain unless he is educated in Oxford or harward. Humanity has been converting rivers into ponds even after knowing a river is much better and superior body than a pond.
It’s complicated and the most important aspect is proper scientific assessment of the environmental effects on the local ecosystem. In some river systems the effects are minimal, in others like salmon rivers the effects are significant. The CO2 emissions claimed for existing dams is somewhat disingenuous, modern practice is to always remove vegetation before filling a new reservoir. For older dams where this was not done, the available carbon is finite and reducing over time. The other important aspect not addressed in the article, is if we’re facing a climate crisis as some claim, then hard choices will have to be made. All generation technologies have impacts and risks, just like all activities of any kind do. We need to apply sound judgement and scientific methods to ensure that we make good choices with small environmental consequences.
I have been fishing an artificial lake for over 27 years and have been observing a lot of disturbing things, so yes pretty much everything being said in this article is true. Fish can’t properly reproduce because there is no flow, no natural shallow areas with reeds and other aquatic plants providing shelter for the spawn, it is basically a huge and deep tub of water with rotting biological matter and loads of residual fertilizers and other harmful chemicals coming from the surrounding farmlands. Also raising and lowering the water level during spawn season usually gets most of the fish eggs caught outside the water to dry in the sun and die. If they didn’t put in new fish at the beginning of the season most species would have died out a long time ago. People could listen to anglers once in a while they would have heard the same stories from them but hey, they are fisherman so they are bad, right? On top of that we have a “new” thing called cyanobacteria that has been getting worse with climate change every summer for the past 5-10 years thanks to the lack of oxygen, the rising temperatures and the beforementioned farmland sludge. Three years ago they decided to close the lake completely to tourists, hobby-anglers and sunbathers during july-august because of the health dangers of that disgusting film gathering on the surface. So I haven’t even been allowed on my boat for quite some time now and it doesn’t look like it will get better anytime soon. In a few years they will empty the lake to clear out the sludge and repair the dam so hopefully things will get better for a couple of years after until the same thing inevitably happens again.
Then there is the massive amount of concrete. you barely touched on sediment. The mouth of rivers the deltas and marshes depend on the sediment that’s why louisiana is disappearing. So the sediment building up behind the dam as well as the slowing of water and no more flooding. I imagine these has a huge effect on the nile. Then there is also the lost of water from the dam due to evaporation. I think there are other ways to get power from water without damming but I wonder if would cause some of the same problems because taking energy/momentum/speed out of the water. I also wonder about this with wind farms. wouldn’t they be changing the weather for same reason but with the air/wind?? Define nuanced solutions like with EVs the fuel to charge batteries and how the batteries are made vs current system with oil/gas
Thanks a lot for bringing this up. Not a single YouTube article that talks about climate change talks about this huge dark side of hydroelectricity. Living in a tropical country I want to add one more point to this article. River Dams also drastically affect the water cycle of the surrounding area, accelerating desertification.
1. Desilting the existing dams to the limits of removing the waste and sand accumulated at the river bed. This will increase the water holding capacity of the existing dams without additional construction 2. Increasing the heights of existing dams. This will be less destructive when compared to constructing new dams. 3. Increasing the efficiency of the existing hydroelectric turbines.
But if we look at it. Every renewable Power Source will have some problem connected to it 1) In India Wind Farms of Rajasthan(State) Kill tons of endemic species of Birds 2) There is a problem with the waste management of Nuclear Fuel 3)Solar Farms are expensive to build and maintain We do need some sources of dependable power but all of them are harmful to the environment or the wallet in some or the other way
That argument about drowned plant matter from the formed reservoir is a weak one. The real problem there is the loss of plants processing CO2, not their decomposition. In fact the dam helps bury the carbon which would have otherwise totally decomposed on land. The consequences of repurposed land for reservoirs is made when talking about a dam in the amazon. That is the point you should have elaborated on, however that example is at an extreme.
“It’s about finding the right balance between hydropower and rivers, but also more generally between energy consumption and ecosystem conservation.” This “right balance” is seen as right only by industrial humans. If you asked anybody living in the river or around it, the answer would clearly be no to dams. Non-industrial humans don’t need electricity, so they would not have to look for this nonsensical balance either.
The other bad thing about slowing the water and stopping flooding causing the downstream sediment change. less material to rebuild or with slower water less material moved and this can have a huge effect downstream in the marsh, estruisaries, delta causing them to stop growing and even shrink. Louisiana is no longer growing from the mississippi. If you look at ancient cities that used to be on the coast only centuries for the to become KMs inland.
I reccomend “Silenced Rivers” from Patrick McCully, as well as Michael Cernea’s work on relocation and compensation processes and the multifactorial empoverishment processes they generate in the vast majority of the cases. One of the aspects leading to impoverishment which is usually impossible to compensate is the loss of ecological relations cultivated over many years. Other authors, generally in the realm of critical development studies and political ecology that help us understand the social and environmental effects of dams and the limitations and challenges of resilliency processes include Pablo Escobar, James C. Scott, Alicia Barabas and Miguel Bartolome, Roberto E. Barrios, Bogumil Terminsky, Robert Muggah, and Chris McDowell. Finally, organizations devoted to reducing and assesing the impacts of internal forced displacement provoked by dams include the UN’s IMDC. You can also check EJ Atlas to explore many cases of dam construction and their impacts.
It’s not just fish that are effected. Lots of wildlife feeds on the fish and aquatic plants. I grew up on the Sacramento River before Shasta Dam was completed or Oroville, Folsom and Nimbus dams were started. The first salmon cannery on the West Coast was built in West Sacramento. Now barely enough salmon pass Sacramento to continue the specie. Bear populations plummeted in the Sierras after the salmon no longer spawned above the dams. Probably a lot of small animals, too. The Sacramento River is now more like a drainage ditch. So much water is pumped to Southern California, sometimes parts of the rivers run backwards. California is grossly overpopulated. I moved away decades ago.
One-sided environmentalist’s view is dangerous. CO2 repleased be vegetation buried behind a dam is a laugh because none ever allowed and even if exists it can happen only once and cannot repeated annually for ever after the vegetation decay away. Silt and sand can be removed by dam design. Being an enivonmentalist means this person has next to nothing engineering knowledge and skill to design a dam. Also once reached a steady state the dam can release water in the quanity of the seasonal flow same as when there was no dam. As for the fish many dams are several thousands miles from the sea and few of the world rivers have migratory fish like salmon. In fact many reservoirs are used to bleed fish nowadays.
Hydroelectric projects has never been green. What’s happened to the streams and rivers of California’s Sierra Nevada, alone, is an enormous ecological tragedy. Thanks for the truth. Of course the solution to nearly all our major environmental problems is to reduce the planet’s human population, but nobody dares talk about that anymore.
I think the dam ´s can be improved if the original divergent canals which were used at the construction of dam are still kept working or revived. Once or few times a year, the dam’s flow could be diverted through these alternate routes and dam ´s stored water could be completely emptied. The new dams should be made of smaller sizes so a single big sized dam could be replaced by many mini water dams on diverted flow which would n’t need storage of water or blocking of the fish migration routes. So debris of dead vegetation or accumulation of sand won’t be affecting the environment.
Such a slanted and biased report, of course no mention that wind and solar have a 25 year life span until need of complete replacement. Also is 80 percent more efficient than wind or solar,this is just more of the same politics driving methods. By passes for migrator species can easily be constructed, just the opposite of this report properly constructed dams provide irrigation and flood control. I vehemently disagree with this report.
very biased article, the part that shows all the dead fish looks like salmon. I live in Alaska and have seen lots of salmon streams and its natural to see lots of dead fish. Hydro provides 16% of the worlds energy and 1.3% of CO2, I think that’s pretty good. Overall what I have issues with environmentalist is they don’t like nuclear, oil, gas, coal, and hydro which provides almost all of our energy. I think they want us living like its 1800.
— North Euro offshore wind turbines work 33% of the time — North Euro onshore wind turbines work 22% of the time — North Euro solar panels work 11% of the time — Over 60 yrs, jets are 68% more efficient and fly 60X more passengers — 4.4 billion air trips were taken in 2018 — 2.63 billion in 2010 — If batteries were 60X more efficient we would use 60X more of them
“Matt Ferrell is diving in deep’” . . . Not really. His short clip of a fish ladder was nonsense, I don’t think it was even a Real fish ladder. Google the fish ladder at the Nimbus Hatchery on the American River, Ca and watch 1,000 salmon swim up it each hour! You need to show true info for the viewer in order to be trusted, other wish you work/video is for nothing.
Why is everybody so godamn negative in the comment section? Regardless of the details like that they show salmon, who yes die either way, this article is great and makes me isnpired to make a difference. I can tell all the people talking about how baised this website is are hateful and enjoy highroading. That brings nothing to the table, this article does. Thanks!
These ideas might help in several areas. Fish Runs saving Dams and Water Shortages Update 7/4/2021 Do you have a nearby moving river or stream? You can now place a slow speed water generator on the bottom of the stream and make power 24 hours a day. The unit is called a Waterotor made in Canada. The Waterotors won’t harm fish and can be scaled up to meet the needs of small towns or cities. Make the power miles away from the small town, sell the power to the power company than use the power to make water anywhere. Atmospheric water generators can make drinking water and irrigation water, and with a Waterotor, power can be made even in remote regions of the World. You just need moving water 3 to 4 miles an hour in streams, irrigation websites, fish ladders or even waste water outlet’s. Garbage treatment plants can also use the power they make burning garbage to make water with atmospheric water generators and add storage tanks to supply small towns and cities. Adding Waterotors below dams can maximize electrical power made by any dam and replace power lost if the dam has a fish ladder or website for fish to move up and down stream. A dam can be saved for flood control by adding these powered fish ladders and websites or notching the dam and putting in a flood gate to raise and lower the river during fish runs. Now people and fish can share the river. Note using the methane from sewage treatment plants or garbage landfills might be used to generate electricity for any water making projects.
ocean tidal dams would be better like the one they had planned for wales uk or ocean current tunnels which creates hydropower rather than daming rivers because you r not destroying any land or blocking any fish migration and to stop fish getting sucked into tunnels just build them longer with greates at the end so only water can get threw
Nice article! You touche on a lot of environmental issusse and some solution at the end that were nice to have! (Dams done right are majorly important for a sustainable future). However, you might want to address some of the impacts that dams have on local communities (good and bad). Like how a reduction in fish populations leads to loss of food and income security particularly in developing countries (Ex: Mekong delta). Or how dams can increase water security. This is interesting as dams don’t just have environmental impacts but also social impacts. This is why in most cases today, in new big dam projects, you have to do an environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) (unfortunately there are limiting factors with those as well but not really related to the ESIA tool its self). There is also the dimension of geopolitical conflicts and power plays that are relevant for a better understanding of why dams are being built and where(Ex: Nile river and conflicts between Egypt and Ethiopia because of the Grand Renaissance Dam). Damn, there’s a lot to be said about dams haha But anyway keep up the good work 😉
This is why we need to invest in modern advanced nuclear energy options. Small form reactors, LFTRs, Thorium Reactors, liquid reactors. Utilizing our advanced modern technology, engineering, material science, safety measures understandings and designs, computer technology, robotics, It will really allow any nation to be pretty much be energy independent. Less reliant on fossil fuels. They’ll have efficient, stable electrical grids and the rest of the grid could experiment with alternative power sources, etc. We need to heal from the trauma of our past and see that it came solely from Us not understanding what we were doing, not have advanced enough technology, material science, engineering, safety measures, understanding of how to go about everything, etc. This source of energy will greatly help the world improve towards the future and lowering emissions more than anything else could while having a very stable electrical grid system. Currently we have alternative energy options but the majority of our grid is powered off of fossil fuels and emission producing sources of energy. We will be so much better going forward commiting to modern advanced nuclear energy options. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ {I truly believe, The more our surroundings flourish, the more we all flourish.} With how bad I’ve been seeing “water level/droughts” in the Western America lately. I really hope we not only reintroduce Beavers all over I hope we actively do cloud seeding to influence more rain to such important area’s that supply crops, deal with forest fires, & are running out of water.
We need more dams. They are the better solution for energy storage, not batteries farms. But I agree they must be a part in a larger strategy. A lake is not polution. CO2 and methane emissions drop after a few year. And dams also release mercury in the water. However, it can be mitigated by cleaning vegetation before filling the dam. Old dams are destroyed because they are no longer cost effective, not for the environment. And the actual trend is to replace them with biomass power plants which are much worse. Fish ladders works well. They are much easier to climb than falls and rapids. And they can give the fish a chance to rest.
Love how clean non-fossil fuel burning energy is scrutinized for releasing green house gasses when it is the least harmful In this respect, it doesnt require continued war for oil in the middle east, it bring in huge amount of energy and it’s a huge construction project that many workers make money off. Dont discuss the small downsides of something thats HUGE for saving the environment.
Rivers that carry a lot of sediment usually aren’t dammed. A dam is a massive capital investment, and damming a silty river wastes the reservoir capacity, ruining the return on the initial investment. We have a river in my town that carries a lot of sediment. It’s a big river that would make tons of power, but would only last 15-20 years before having no reservoir capacity left. So it’ll never happen
The trouble is that it is not what the environmentalists say but the government of each country says. When they decide to build a dam, the officials may look at the economic benefits more than they inspect the environmental damage caused by such a colossal structure. Otherwise, there won’t be so many dams around.
There are a few errors in this calculations. Organic “waste” left on the flooded terrain doesn’t emit more greenhouse gasses than if it was left to rot (or be eaten) on the air. It just how nature stores energy and how it releases it. Anything edible is obviously harvested prior to flooding, anything of use is also harvested (like wood) everything else would emit co2 and methane anyway. In the big picture and on the longer time frame water reservoirs actually capture co2. And they add to mitigate draught problems.
That 1.3% figure makes no sense. Not to mention that all vegetation eventually die, rotten and is converted into CO2 or is eaten by animals and also converted to CO2 so the dams makes no difference actually. It looks to me that you don’t really understand how the Carbon cycle works, the only Carbon you should worry about is the Carbon from fossil fuels, because we are adding it to the cycle
Nonetheless, hydro is the best solution we have. Solar and wind energy are just not reliable until we has great battery technology and even than making enough batteries will cause excess mining and other unforeseen damages. Furthermore, Clouds can stop solar and wind might not blow always that is even if you choose the best spot which might be miles away from the cities. The economical damage of unreliable sources might just be too costly. Nuclear would be best but the initial and maintenance cost is so much that only rich countries can afford it. Furthermore, experts will be needed to see the day to day operation to prevent any disaster. Lastly, storing the radio-active waste safely will again cost a lot. Hydro let’s out some harmful gas in the beginning stages, but if you look further into it, the same decaying plants would release those gases in the end maybe less, but it happens in the end of their life cycle. Some plants down stream getting less sedimentary soil is sad but there has been improvement in dams where the soil are getting cleared for the longevity of the hydropower plant itself. I feel sad for some fishes dying but only salmon is in grave danger, while others can be farmed sustainablely or even moved. ultimately, the problem we are facing is global extinction if global warming isn’t controlled. If renewable energy is ever going to stand in the future economically than hydropower will be the strongest pillar renewable energy has, with the current technology we have.
There are alot more benefits from Dams than just Clean power. It provides water for large swaths of the Worlds population. It provides Flood protection (I love how this was one of the problems because when the dam released extra water that kills a bunch of fish). it provides New Habitat for lots of other animals. As far as blocking fish, Most world Rivers do not have fish like salmon or eels that have to migrate upstream, and we can provide for those fish who do. And I don’t buy that they produce tons of Carbon. That biomaterial would have broken down else where that material did rot.
Wind power is not benign. When I moved to the Columbia Hills in Washington State in 2000, there was an abundant population of raptors (eagles and hawks). Any time of the day, one would see raptors circling in the sky, raptors perched on every telephone pole. Then they built the wind farms. Within a few years, the raptors vanished, slaughtered by the blades of the wind turbines. Wind farms are located where there is lots of wind, i.e., on rivers of wind. Birds follow these rivers of wind when they migrate. The wind farms located on the rivers of wind are walls of death for the migrating birds. Since 1970, bird populations in North American have plummeted 30%, with an appalling acceleration of the decline since the advent of wind farms.
Idk about this article, i’m worried some people are going to watch it and incorrectly think hydropower is not eco friendly or worse, just as bad as fossil fuels, when in fact they are great! but have some downsides like fish migration which can be mitigated but even if it couldn’t it’s a small compromise to make, the fact is we are negatively affecting the environment, the more people there are the worse it’s going to get.
I really wish we could free up all the ecosystems across the planet that have been impacted by hydro-dams. I feel like like would be flourish so much more than it currently is and we have other ways to have electricity so they literally aren’t necessary anymore. It’s outdated technology… We need the ecosystems way more than a couple % on a stat analytics chart of electrical output…
Is absolutely not desing to be a green solution, is all about the resources and transportation of fuel. Nothing to do with being green. And also localization of power production, this usually produce whole lots of power. The range from 1000 MW to 20000 MW. So, that’s a lot of power being produced and supervised in one spot.
So, small beaver dams are hugely beneficial for the environment and can help storing carbon, but large man made dams have the opposite effect. How large (or small) should a dam be do be environmentally friendly and can we learn something from from the beavers to make, for example, several small scale dams to produce carbon negative energy?
Very interesting article! We do certainly need to address these issues more than we do, but as you say we are finally waking up, it seems. I do have one issue though. When you discuss the emissions there is a major difference with the fossil industry: this is not new (fossil) carbon added to the atmosphere but rather already a part of the ecosystem, which hence does not add to the co2-level increase in the same way (correct me if I’m wrong). By saying it the way you did, I think you might give an argument to spokesmen of fossil industries, such as the natural gas industry, for why they should be online instead of hydro. In other words: is the added co2 really the problem? I would rather say the methane leaks is the problem we should worry about regarding that aspect..
Statement that a dam is producing more greenhouse gasses emissions tan coal power plant is true but misleading. The emissions from the dam are related to carbon cycle with 10 to 100 year horizon compared to stored CO2 in the coal which takes millions of years to be transformed. This is very important distinguish between the two sources of GHG.
മുല്ലപെരിയാർ(Mullaperiyar dam(124 years old)) There is a dam in Southern part of India(in kerala ) which is built 124 years ago without modern concrete. It was the biggest dam in the world when it was commissioned. And now, after 124 years, in 2021 its there, holding huge amount of water. Many cracks where found on its walls and now its a tread to the people living below it. More than 100,000 people living there. When the dam collapse, those people will die from the water coming from century old dam. Its a serious thread and a serious human rights violation. But government is not trying to decommission the dam or to build a new dam.
We have something like 10 years left to (TRY) restrict global warming to +1.5C (unlikely to be successful at this stage, and even 2C is dubious). Every additional study or environmental assessment needed at this stage is actually counterproductive. Yes, every “green” energy solution is not 100% green. Shouldn’t we just go for the simple “anything is better than coal, oil, and gas” rubrik, and get on with making the transition already? It’s getting to the point where I start thinking that the Greens (environmentalists) are one of the biggest obstacles to saving our environment…
Can we discuss the fact that wind turbines use a lot of petroleum as do most of our products, which means we are relying on a finite resource to sustain us and is also the cause of starting many wars and killing of innocent people? Relying on petroleum and petroleum based products such as wind turbines will not help us.
Yep. Hydro = bad; Nuclear = bad; Coal = bad; Gas = bad; Solar = bad (many articles on this too); Wind = bad (kills birds, etc.). The environmentalist solution is always a nebulous “alternative energy”; any specific solution get shot down. Can we please point out practical, good solutions rather than just putting everything down? Develop solutions, not just point out problems!
This article goes some way towards explaining why American pioneers were right to hunt beavers to the edge of extinction. There they were, all across the country, building dams. They had a moral and ecological responsibility not to change the natural condition of the lands around them, and yet they were doing it anyway. If they had known how to do hydro as well, there’s no doubt at all that they would have been heating and lighting up their homes from their activities as well.
Thank you for this info. I have been thinking about this for years, that dams are more environmentally destructive than they are helpful. I have never liked it when someone says green energy referring to dams. The destruction the dams causes always been horrific on the environment. We’ve lost many species because of dams. This is like one of the first articles I’ve ever seen that speaks in general terms about dams. Thank you very much
Ok, so if you flood a forest yes you clearly emit methane and CO2. But this is a one time emission. And you yourself mention this is 1.3% of emissions, not from hydropower specifically but from dams, including water control and irrigation dams, despite hydropower being rapidly growing. This initial investment of land and carbon will pay itself off. Unlike coal where every kilowatt hour generated is extremely carbon intensive.
5:50 It’s biogenic carbon, ie not fossil carbon and therefore irrelevant to climate change. What is more, the nutrients that fuel the plant growth in the reservoir would have just done the same thing in the river delta. So a increase in methanogenesis must be explained here, which they don’t address. One potential way this could be an issue is if the environment within a reservoir was relatively deficient in sulfate, as this would chemically favor methanogenesis.
Imagine implying that hydro power isn’t green as in trying to infer that wind or solar are… In other words it’s called the Law of Lavoisier. You don’t create energy out of nothing and there is ALWAYS a trade off. Choosing said trade offs is the discussion to be had, not making platitude statements that only serve to fear monger and sow dissent.
Question? The dame did not create the plant life that decays and omits CO2. That plant life will eventually decay somewhere. So why would it not be carbon Neutral. If the plant life grows because of the dame then that plant life is actually removing carbon. If that carbon gets trapped under sediment then it is carbon negative. I agree with your other points but adding to greenhouse gases doesn’t make sense.
Those huge things billowing “smoke” you keep seeing are COOLING TOWERS. They are not chimneys. I’m not sure if people know this and just show them as negative propaganda, or whether they are literally too ignorant to know how a thermoelectric plant works. But in any case, stop it. It makes you look silly.
This is sadly biased. It is a green source of energy. More green than windmills and even solar panels, when one takes the cost of production idamage. And with the collection of alluvial fill behind the dam, does not take the energy potential away. The energy comes from the drop, not the amount of water behind the dam. This actually said that fossil fuels might be more efficient. There is a cost, no matter what we do. It is about how we mitigate the needs of the ecosystem, vs the needs of our energy appetite. We need to learn how to build, taking all of this into consideration.
We should go back to living in caves! Every little thing we do damages the environment. Hydroeletric power? There are the problems with damming huges amounts of water. Eolic? Less efficient and interferes with some bird’s migration. Solar pannels? When installed in large areas such as deserts, interferes with the ecosystem. Nuclear power? There’s the waste problem? Coal burning? Lots of CO2 emmision. And I’m not even speaking about all the hundreds of articles pointing the problem with plane travel, cars (even the electric ones), road building, etc. Whether we want it or not, the earth is changing – it has changed millions times before and will continue changing even after humans. We must accept the fact that we don’t own the planet, we’re simply living in it, and we must adapt to the this ever changing place we call home.
Typically any generation of Energy or Sustainable energy is a Thread to all. Sustainable life should be prioritize rather than contribution to adding external sources of energy. Pursuit shall find falts in all of the life approches human are developing. Everything are entanglement and everything are fault
bro what? You’re blaming dams for carbon emission by saying that plants covered by water die and emit carbon dioxide? Those plants were there before the dam was constructed, and they’re likely not going to reproduce there while they’re underwater. In the case that they do,, they were going to be there doing this regardless of the dam’s existence.
Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, but doesnt a damn become essential green house gas emission free once all the vegetation in the reservoir has rotted away? I mean damms are by no means perfect and some improvements towards problems such as fish beeing unable to traverse them should be considered but honestly you made dams look so bad when they are long term soooo much better then fossile fuels. a) they eventually stop emitting greenhouse gases, b) they dont consume any fossile fuels who arent only unsustainable because of their emission but also because they arent infinite. Burdening damm construction with a too heavy load of restriction and enviormental legislation will sadly slow down construction and therfore pro long our transition to sustainable energy! I live in germany and considerations both enviormental and just stupid (like windturbines causing headacks via bloody magic) have lead to law makers restrictic the building of renewable energy ressources by drowning any new project in paperwork and therefore extended our countries reliance on coal for another 20 years. I totally get damns arent perfect, Windturbines kill birds and solar panels require rare materials and can at times also fry birds mid flight. But that doesnt mean we should not use them! Enviormental groups often do with the best of intentions actually harm the transition to better systems then the once we have right now for the sake of the new ones not beeeing perfect. And it is harming their own progress and the goals they fight for so much.
I am sorry, but how is rotting vegetation at the bottom of the lakes/water dams any significant part of worlds greenhouse emisions? Do the trees regrow and rot under the water? Dont plants decompose slower under water? Also are you sure that dead mature salmon are a good way to show how fish are dying out? But to be fair you probably just could not find any real pictures…….
Here’s my problem with this article. The choice is not between dams and no dams. The choice is between dams and burning coal. Dams are not perfect but they’re much better than burning coal. The people making this argument don’t live in poor countries where tens of thousands of people don’t have electricity.
I haven’t think of all this like that, it’s nice to know. However, are you aware that what you show while mentioning fossil fuels are nuclear power plants cooling towers, and not Chimneys form petrol, coal or gas power plants? I mention it because I’m pro-nuclear(with moderation) and stuff like this usually set the public as anti-nuclear, believing that what gets out of the cooling towers is smoke; when it’s water vapor. What I say say is: “May I ask for the future to show the real enemy and not just the big guy?”
Ya know, you research and read, listen to all sides, form conclusions, throw out old conclusions, make new ones etc etc but I think the truth is… there is no clean energy solution. Everything has a cost, an environmental cost. Maybe at the end of the day we all just need to throw a condom on and reduce our reckless energy usage.
This program is directed for dams blocking salmon migrating to their spawning grounds upstream. It is not relevant to rivers in Asia that do not have such species of fish. In fact since dams regulate river flow, water levels are maintained during dry seasons and that probably result in higher fish populations.
Even if the carbon held in submerged vegetation would not have become part of the carbon cycle in other ways (forest fires, rotting on the ground etc), what about the vast amount of green carbon capturing vegetation created by reservoirs, through irrigation of otherwise barren land? Why is that not offset against the magical figure of 1.3% of “man made carbon”? 86.5% of statistics are just made up, and that number rises to 92.546% when talking about climate change.
Some of these figures look cherry-picked and lo-and-behold when I actually look at your sources (namely source no. 3), they do indeed turn out to be cherry picked. Reservoirs might total emissions of co2 and methane that equal 1.6% of anthropogenic output, but natural rivers in that same source output 6 times that amount of co2 and only a little less methane. Reservoirs are less carbon-emitting than lakes by a long shot, according to your sources and release less co2 than ponds. And the amount of methane coming out of natural wetland, still according to the same dataset you’re cherry-picking from, release between 2 and 8 times as much methane as all the world’s reservoirs. For everyone else perusal this: please, please, do research on your own too, don’t rely on random youtubers to give you the full info, cos they’re generally more interested in supporting their clickbait titles than the actual science.
Does that mean that after the existing vegetation is degraded, emissions from dams will go down and it’ll be a lot more green? What about the carbon footprint of the construction phase? Are dams still better than fossil fuels? (e.g it only contributes 1-2% emissions but generates a larger proportion of energy)
But first we should learn to use energy in an efficient manner. The amount of food and energy wasted per person in developed countries is extremely high. Excess energy for cooling and heating needs to be controlled. Luxury living distresses the resources of planet. Therefore preach to solve problem by following right living. Don’t just highlight problems.
What…? Burning vegetation is considered carbon neutral. So why even bother making the claim that dams emit co2? Anyway the fish is a real problem, I think you should’ve went into it a bit more because if you think about the natural cycle then obviously the dead fish serves a purpose to not only the animals but also the forest they die in. Like a shipment nutrients of sorts.
I was mad with the idea, the false image your giving it and the way you seem to lack understanding of many of these technologies. Then I say Matt is a Elon fan. So of course all technology except for “Elonwear” is going to be broken,nothing can compair to the brilliance of Elon, All hail Elon or Space Emperor who can do no wrong and I think the hyperloop was an outstanding success.