Hydroelectric Power Is Dirty!

Well, so much for the $10 billion Canawapa Dam that Manitoba Hydro wants to build up North ...

There can also be mercury release as certain soil types have natural amounts of mercury in them. When the soil is flooded, the mercury is released.

I guess that leaves us ... nuclear??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jayman\";p=\"67320)</div>

From article:
“Colder countries are less affected, he says, because cold conditions will be less favourable for producing greenhouse gases.â€

Isn’t Canada one of those “Colder countries�??

One of the most ecologically correct ways of producing electricity is retrofitting existing “necessary†small dams with generating capability. There are many thousands of them which could be easily converted.

 

hmmm the first 10 years, so is BC off the hook as we haven't had a major Hydro dam built in the last 10 years and most are in the 35-70 year range. Like burning coal which releases cyanide, arsenic, mercury, and a myriad of other toxic agents along with carbon dioxide, monoxide, and NOx, is a better alternative.

 

Based on what I read in this article, I think "hydroelectric is dirty" too simplistic a statement.

I'd try to clarify it by saying:

• The creation of dams or resevoirs can cause large amounts of methane to be released in the atmosphere.
  
  Since hydroelectric energy can be generated from sources other than dams or reservoirs (river hydroelectric, tidal hydroelectric), we should specify where this problem may occur, and where it wouldn't.
  
• This problem occurs due to the amount of plant life "on the ground" when the dam or reservoir is created.
  
  So I think you'd need to factor in (a) where the dam or reservoir is created -- relatively rocky area, or more lush forest/jungle areas, and (B) how much can the effect be reduced by clear-cutting trees/other plant life before the flooding.
  
• Finally, how long after the initial flooding does methane continue to be released into the air? I would assume this would degrade as time went on. How steep or shallow is the reduction?
  • 
    
    I'd also like to know how the amount of methane (or other detrimental gases) released in this situation compares to the amount of gases released by other comparible power sources.
    
    "Bad" is a boolean term (good/bad). I'd first like to know, "how bad"?

 

I would belive that one large cattle feed lot would produce more methane than a hydroelectric dam.

 

It's still much more sustainable than fossil fuel use, and it's not inherently dirty - just some specific methods are dirty.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy\";p=\"67331)</div>

I completely forgot about something until you reminded me of that.

Like how the wy*** could I forget especially all those mornings this winter at -40??

:roll:

That giant dam they want to build is Far North of Manitoba. There is a certain amount of Permafrost in that area. I wonder what effect the flooding would have on Permafrost soil??

I think it's important to keep in mind that *every* energy source is dirty to a certain extent. You have to carefully define all those components, set up a matrix, and determine which is *least* dirty.

I know that PAVE cells sound like a magic answer, but the production process for most PAVE cell is *very* dirty: arsenides, mercury, solvents, etc etc.

 

I would guess that the amount of that vegetative matter is dependent on where the dam is built. I would think that in the west there is not a lot of that, at least on the east side of the mountains around here. On this side of the mountains I would guess that the accusations might be true. You need to look at the native climates when making these generalizations.

 

how much methane do the oceans produce, what with decaying plant matter, alge, and not to mention the odd dead animal that eventually makes it down river to the ocean?

 

That's right. Are we creating "extra" methane or carbon, or just making the cycle run faster with the quantity we have? One would think that long-term it balances out then.