3 ms·
Somewhat true, but it doesn't harm the environment from the same angle. The #1 enemy right now is greenhouse gases, and you can't deny that hydro power produces
by emilecantin 6y ago
Somewhat true, but it doesn't harm the environment from the same angle. The #1 enemy right now is greenhouse gases, and you can't deny that hydro power produces much less of it than coal.
You're right that there's a real impact on ecosystems; flooding large areas and such. However, I'd describe it more as a disruption than a destruction; 30 years later the ecosystems around it have adapted and the reservoir serves the ecological function of a large lake. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's better than burning coal.
- soperj 6y agoexcept not. WAC Bennett dam in BC was built more than 30 years ago, and you still can't eat fish from the area for miles and miles around, including feeder streams and streams downstream because of methyl mercury issues. The dams in the Pac-Northwest are a major reason for the collapse of the salmon fisheries which absolutely has a huge impact on all wildlife in the area, and trees and plants too. Everything up and down stream.
- Gibbon1 6y ago> and you can't deny that hydro power produces much less of it than coal. I can't vouch for this but I read stuff like this https://news.wsu.edu/2016/09/28/reservoirs-play-substantial-role-global-warming/ https://news.wsu.edu/2016/09/28/reservoirs-play-substantial-... td;dr: Bacteria in reservoirs decompose organic material trapped behind the dam releasing CO2 and methane.
- mcswell 6y agoOk, but the link doesn't seem to say what would happen to that organic material if it weren't trapped behind the dam. Wouldn't it decompose anyway? (or get turned into fish, but I would expect that to happen either way)
- soperj 6y agogenerally organic material in a forest doesn't get decomposed into methane.