Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed

[Pooeypants]

• 14:29 24 February 2005
• Exclusive from New Scientist Print Edition
• Duncan Graham-Rowe

"The Trip of a Lifetime to the Arctic

Contrary to popular belief, hydroelectric power can seriously damage the climate. Proposed changes to the way countries' climate budgets are calculated aim to take greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower reservoirs into account, but some experts worry that they will not go far enough.

The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, says Éric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Everyone thinks hydro is very clean, but this is not the case," he says.

Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels. Carbon emissions vary from dam to dam, says Philip Fearnside from Brazil's National Institute for Research in the Amazon in Manaus. "But we do know that there are enough emissions to worry about.

In a study to be published in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Fearnside estimates that in 1990 the greenhouse effect of emissions from the Curuá-Una dam in Pará, Brazil, was more than three-and-a-half times what would have been produced by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.

This is because large amounts of carbon tied up in trees and other plants are released when the reservoir is initially flooded and the plants rot. Then after this first pulse of decay, plant matter settling on the reservoir's bottom decomposes without oxygen, resulting in a build-up of dissolved methane. This is released into the atmosphere when water passes through the dam's turbines. "

Read the rest by clicking here.

So, I guess Nuclear Power is the way forward? :confused:

[RickSp]

Quote by: Pooeypants [list] So, I guess Nuclear Power is the way forward? :confused:

Or maybe just cut down the trees and haul them away before flooding the basin? As compared to the problems with dealing with nuclear waste. cutting down a few trees doesn't seem like such a big deal.

Your link doesn't work.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: RickSp Or maybe just cut down the trees and haul them away before flooding the basin? As compared to the problems with dealing with nuclear waste. cutting down a few trees doesn't seem like such a big deal. Your link doesn't work.

Oops, corrected the link now.

Cutting down the trees? Then where will you store them? We're talking possibly tens if not hundreds of thousands of trees in a forest that could be flooded. Not to mention the other vegetation that would get covered by the water.

[Catch 22]

yeah those thousands of trees would sequester millions of tons of carbon, with flooding all of that carbon stays in the atmosphere. Suffice to say it's not a good thing for climate change.

[Pooeypants]

Basically, the flooding causes mass deforestation, all in an attempt to produce ecologically sound energy...kind of ironic isn't it?

[SlySpy]

So let's make a lot of furniture and firewood. What's the problem? :confused:

[RickSp]

Quote by: Pooeypants Cutting down the trees? Then where will you store them? We're talking possibly tens if not hundreds of thousands of trees in a forest that could be flooded. Not to mention the other vegetation that would get covered by the water.

You act as if cutting down trees is a new idea. Been happening for a quite while. Are you aware of how trees are used, say for lumber and paper? That's not new either. And of course you base this all on the presumption that damns are only built in woodlands. In the cases that they are, your comment on "mass deforestation" is silly. Of course they will be deforestation. You are filling the valley with water.

How difficult would it to be to remove and productively use the bio mass as compared to disposing of tons of nuclear waste that will remain toxic for thousands of years?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: RickSp You act as if cutting down trees is a new idea. Been happening for a quite while. Are you aware of how trees are used, say for lumber and paper? That's not new either. And of course you base this all on the presumption that damns are only built in woodlands. In the cases that they are, your comment on "mass deforestation" is silly. Of course they will be deforestation. You are filling the valley with water. How difficult would it to be to remove and productively use the bio mass as compared to disposing of tons of nuclear waste that will remain toxic for thousands of years?

Erm, contrary to belief, very little dangerous radioactive material is produced by nuclear power stations, it is public hysteria that has lead to problems.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Pooeypants Erm, contrary to belief, very little dangerous radioactive material is produced by nuclear power stations, it is public hysteria that has lead to problems.

Right and denial is just a river in Egypt.

So let's get this straight - you are suggesting that nuclear waste isn't dangerous but trees are. Reminds me of Ronald Reagan who once claimed trees were major polluters. Someone tacked up a sign on a tree at a Reagan rally that read -"Stop me before I kill again."

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: RickSp Right and denial is just a river in Egypt. So let's get this straight - you are suggesting that nuclear waste isn't dangerous but trees are. Reminds me of Ronald Reagan who once claimed trees were major polluters. Someone tacked up a sign on a tree at a Reagan rally that read -"Stop me before I kill again."

Strawman argument. What I suggested was that hydroelectric dams should be replaced by nuclear powered stations. The reasons are as given in the news article. You might want to check out how much biomass has to be removed and taken care of (in a way which won't release copious amounts of Methane etc otherwise it would be pointless) versus the amount of dangerous nuclear material that has to be disposed of.

[Heuristic]

Yeah. If the hydroelectric stations are causing more pollution that Nuclear Powerplants are creating. Why put the earth at risk when something more efficient can be used instead?

[Catch 22]

I would avoid both technologies at all all costs. Nuclear power produces waste that we have no safe way of disposing of and will invariably seep into the surrounding countryside. Not to mention it only heightens the amount of fissile material around that could be used for any number of fun weaponized activities. Hydroelectric dams while “clean’ destroy millions of trees and destroy river and habitats for millions of animals.

The real solution is a combination of wind, solar, clean coal and bio mass fuel technologies which would provide truly clean energy without all the problems of hyrdo and nuclear.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Catch 22 I would avoid both technologies at all all costs. Nuclear power produces waste that we have no safe way of disposing of and will invariably seep into the surrounding countryside. Not to mention it only heightens the amount of fissile material around that could be used for any number of fun weaponized activities. Hydroelectric dams while “clean’ destroy millions of trees and destroy river and habitats for millions of animals. The real solution is a combination of wind, solar, clean coal and bio mass fuel technologies which would provide truly clean energy without all the problems of hyrdo and nuclear.

What do you think of James Lovelock's take on it?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Pooeypants Strawman argument. What I suggested was that hydroelectric dams should be replaced by nuclear powered stations. The reasons are as given in the news article. You might want to check out how much biomass has to be removed and taken care of (in a way which won't release copious amounts of Methane etc otherwise it would be pointless) versus the amount of dangerous nuclear material that has to be disposed of.

And your argument is merely ludicrous. Biomass is easily disposed of. Trees are themselves a crop after all. (One shouldn't have to be hit upside the head with a 2x4 to be reminded of that.) Methane itself is a clean burning fuel. Nuclear waste from spent fuel rods can be toxic for thousands of years. Get that -Thousands of years.

Your suggestion is equally absurd. Replacing existing hydroelectric plants with nuclear power plants will still release the finite amount of methane in the water and lead to creating deadly nuclear waste. Did I mention that the stuff is toxic for thousands of years? Yes, I think I did.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: RickSp And your argument is merely ludicrous. Biomass is easily disposed of. Trees are themselves a crop after all. (One shouldn't have to be hit upside the head with a 2x4 to be reminded of that.) Methane itself is a clean burning fuel. Nuclear waste from spent fuel rods can be toxic for thousands of years. Get that -Thousands of years. Your suggestion is equally absurd. Replacing existing hydroelectric plants with nuclear power plants will still release the finite amount of methane in the water and lead to creating deadly nuclear waste. Did I mention that the stuff is toxic for thousands of years? Yes, I think I did.

Biomass are easy to dispose of? Without producing methane and carbon dioxide? Are you sure? What's that, you'll burn the methane and produce carbon dioxide? My, what an ingenius idea...

There is actually only a relatively low amount of high level radioactive waste, so little that burying them is a viable solution until we get our Fusion sorted which should happen within the next two decade or so.

So you have two choices, continue burning fossil fuel and biomass, contribute to Global Warming and cause worldwide problems OR use Nuclear power at the possible expense of localised damage. Which one will it be?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Pooeypants Biomass are easy to dispose of? Without producing methane and carbon dioxide? Are you sure? What's that, you'll burn the methane and produce carbon dioxide? My, what an ingenius idea... There is actually only a relatively low amount of high level radioactive waste, so little that burying them is a viable solution until we get our Fusion sorted which should happen within the next two decade or so. So you have two choices, continue burning fossil fuel and biomass, contribute to Global Warming and cause worldwide problems OR use Nuclear power at the possible expense of localised damage. Which one will it be?

This is getting way too silly. You consider cow farts to be more threatening than strontium 90. (Methane as you seem to be unaware is the primary component of natural gas which the US consumes at a rate of 22 trillion cubic feet per year.) You ignore the very real dangers of nuclear power and get upset by the dangers of trees? Damn, if you aren't worried about what you call "localized damage" great. Bury the stuff in your backyard. It is only deadly for thousands of years. I do think I mentioned that.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: RickSp This is getting way too silly. You consider cow farts to be more threatening than strontium 90. (Methane as you seem to be unaware is the primary component of natural gas which the US consumes at a rate of 22 trillion cubic feet per year.) You ignore the very real dangers of nuclear power and get upset by the dangers of trees? Damn, if you aren't worried about what you call "localized damage" great. Bury the stuff in your backyard. It is only deadly for thousands of years. I do think I mentioned that.

I think you're missing the point here. I'm not some mad anti-environmental lobbyist. I'd much rather we kept the trees and natural grasslands than be flooded to build a Dam. However, I'll point out again, this action leads to several times larger release of carbon dioxide than a fossil fuel powered station. Now, as I said previously, if Global warming continues with its present course, it will lead to worldwide disasters which I'm sure you're aware of. So in comparison, what is a few tonnes of radioactive material?
Think about it carefully.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Pooeypants I think you're missing the point here. I'm not some mad anti-environmental lobbyist. I'd much rather we kept the trees and natural grasslands than be flooded to build a Dam. However, I'll point out again, this action leads to several times larger release of carbon dioxide than a fossil fuel powered station. Now, as I said previously, if Global warming continues with its present course, it will lead to worldwide disasters which I'm sure you're aware of. So in comparison, what is a few tonnes of radioactive material? Think about it carefully.

Think about it? What's to think about? You seem to think that cutting down a tree is more difficult than storing nuclear waste for a few thousand years. You don't find this to be ridiculous?

And your statement that hydroplants leads "to several times larger release of carbon dioxide than a fossil fuel powered station" is simply nonsense and not at all supported by the article you cited which says that hydro plants can "in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels." The problem seems to be limited to hydro power plants in tropical regions. Countries like Canda, which generates 2/3 of its electrical power through hydro, does not have a biomass issue in power generation as there are very few rain forests in Canada.

Even in trpoical regions biomass is a manageable problem. Nuclear waste, a few tons (or tens of thousand of tons if you had you way) is not.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: RickSp Think about it? What's to think about? You seem to think that cutting down a tree is more difficult than storing nuclear waste for a few thousand years. You don't find this to be ridiculous? And your statement that hydroplants leads "to several times larger release of carbon dioxide than a fossil fuel powered station" is simply nonsense and not at all supported by the article you cited which says that hydro plants can "in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels." The problem seems to be limited to hydro power plants in tropical regions. Countries like Canda, which generates 2/3 of its electrical power through hydro, does not have a biomass issue in power generation as there are very few rain forests in Canada. Even in trpoical regions biomass is a manageable problem. Nuclear waste, a few tons (or tens of thousand of tons if you had you way) is not.

How exactly will I generate thousands of tonnes? I only suggested building nuclear power stations in places where forests had to be flooded to build the dam.
So have you decided what is more important, localised high radiation levels or global climate change?

[RickSp]

Quote by: Pooeypants How exactly will I generate thousands of tonnes? I only suggested building nuclear power stations in places where forests had to be flooded to build the dam. So have you decided what is more important, localised high radiation levels or global climate change?

A typical nuclear power plant generates 20 metric tonnes of spent fuel rods yearly. There are more than 400 nuclear power plants around the world. This means that at a minimum 8,000 tonnes are being generated yearly. One estimate I've found suggests that 12,000 tons per year is a more accurate figure.

The spent fuel rods can be deadly for 10,000 years. Canada's Porter Commission commented on just how lethal this stuff really is.

The extreme lethality of a freshly removed spent fuel bundle is such that a person standing within a metre of it would die within an hour. During the next forty years (and probably for thousands of years), the management of hundreds of thousands of such bundles (in Ontario alone), which at all times must be isolated from the earth's ecosystem, will clearly present a problem of massive proportions.

Nuclear waste is a serious and unresolved problem. Your statement -

Erm, contrary to belief, very little dangerous radioactive material is produced by nuclear power stations, it is public hysteria that has lead to problems

is simply not factually accurate, unless you think the yearly production of 10,000 tonnes of deadly waste that we have no possilbe means of disposing of except burying in the ground and waiting 10,000 years, qualifies as "little" or somehow is not dangerous.

So comparing hydro plants to nukes, the choices are - cut down forests before flooding a valley (in those cases where hydro plants are in forested areas) or store hundreds or thousands of tons of highly lethal waste for thousands of years. Seems like an easy choice to me.