3 ms·
That would be a strong argument against new hydropower projects, but now that those dams are built, it seems like we have sunk costs (pun not intended) that wou
by blacksmith_tb 6y ago
That would be a strong argument against new hydropower projects, but now that those dams are built, it seems like we have sunk costs (pun not intended) that would make it a bad choice to decommission, if we'd have to wait 100yr for the forests to begin to recover? That seems to jibe with critical studies I see [1].
1: http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-considered-a-clean-energy-source-hydropower-can-actually-be-bad-for-climate/ http://blogs.edf.org/energyexchange/2019/11/15/long-consider...
- soperj 6y agoThat's not true. Decomposition of trees happens over a long period of time in a anaerobic environment. That's what causes the large methane emissions.
- blacksmith_tb 6y agoI see, that makes sense - though then it'd be a comparison of energy and emissions already put into the making of the dam, the power it outputs (which could otherwise be from fossil fuels) and the atmospheric impact of those methane emissions. My instinct would be the impact of pouring all that concrete etc. would be very large, so decommissioning would still be very costly, but it does strengthen the argument against new dam projects.
- soperj 6y agoHonestly, compared to the ongoing methane releases from some of the worst offending dams, the concrete emissions are negligible.