Dirty hydroelectric power?

New research is indicating that hydroelectric power may be as dirty as coal fired power generation.

Granted it's a reasonably new field of study but the latest result are indicating that hydro power is none too clean.
First off is the massive carbon footprint involved in building a dam in the first place.
All that hard-rock blasting and concrete creates a far far larger footprint than a coal strip mine ripping off the overburden.

Most rivers suitable for hydro-electric dams have a high gradient(fast flowing).
Putting in a dam creates an artificial lake.
Apparently that completely changes the water chemistry.
The lake then becomes a large source of methane through siltation and biological action.
Especially after 10 years of dam life.
Methane has a far greater effect on the ozone layer and global warming than co2.
Plus co2 can be produced but apparently that cycle is incredibly complex and needs far more study.
its possible that the co2 can be managed by the way the dam is operated and the type of pollutants (mainly agricultural) that flow into the water above the dam.
On top of that oxygen is stripped out of the flowing watershed completely changing the water chemistry.
A while ago the Obama administration was not willing to grant Canada's hydroelectric industry an exception to it's proposed dirty energy or high carbon impact bills.
Now we see why.
The Americans are starting to get the same research data in as we are.

In Canada, Quebec is fighting this research tooth and nail.
Quebec is now lobbying hard to cancel all scientific research into hydro-electric power in Canada.
After Charest's rant in Copenhagen about Alberta and the O&G business the last thing he needs is a bunch of research proving hydro power is as bad for the environment as dirty coal generation.

Trex

When hydro goes for electric arc smelting of course it's gonna be dirty too.

Maybe every one should go back to candles and wood heat. Oh and pack your water cause the pumps don't work without power.

Gawd ... the old Beatty pumper....

squeeeeeeeak
squeeeeeeeak
squeeeeeeeak
squeeeeeeeak
squeeeeeeeak
squeeeeeeeak

Need Green/Clean Tech alternatives mixed into the grid..

Any links to this research? Hydroelectric generation does have a footprint but to state it has a larger one than coal! Gimme a break. Any energy generation will have an environmental cost to it, even the much vaunted and inefficient wind generation, but we have to make the choice of what we can live with. if you don't want another dam or coal fired generator built then start conserving at home. Everyone turn off your PC's, turn off the lights, and go for a walk!

Domestic usage is only 15%.

Here you go.
Hunt around a bit there should be more as it is an up and coming issue
--

Trex

One can only wonder where people will stop to consider a "carbon foot print" and it's real damage and not only it's estimated damage.. There is nothing on this planet that will not leave a "carbon foot print" so let us not fool ourselves in thinking anything is "free".. What we have to consider is the total package cost.

What is the carbon footprint of nobody working and everyone living and defecating in ditches?

This green stuff has become annoying.

Here is another link dealing with both sides of the hydro-electric question. It appears from the debate that not all hydro projects are a major source of methane and there are other benefits of dams such as flood control and water storage. There is one other aspect and that is that many modern hydro projects do not require dams that completely close the river. Hydro-electric installations can be built alongside the river in much the same way as the old water mills were powered. I expect that would leave a zero methane footprint.

--

Mr. Fearnside, the author of the article, has many colleagues who disagree with him and he even states himself, in a very defensive essay that methane levels drop over time as the flooded vegetation decays. Almost all of his references are to South American dam projects which flood heavily vegitated areas. --
New dam projects have learnt from the past and now remove most of the heavy vegetation from the forebay area before flooding. This is not done to reduce methane, though that may be a side effect, but to prevent those trees and roots from entering turbines and spillways.

For an opposing viewpoint see --

Somehow, I just can't see how methane from bogs behind a concrete or earthen dam is any worse than methane from bogs behind one of sticks and mud.

Oh-oh. I was hoping that no one would eventually figure out that all global waming is caused by beavers.

If that's how you choose to interpret....

Anyone that lives in a place that cold should be figuring out how to harvest the methane for heat. Is the lake man made or a peat bog?