3 ms·

Hydro is terrible when measured in TWh / deaths, mostly due to Banqiao. Nuclear is by far the best by this metric (ahead of even solar and wind).

notJim 6y ago
Hydro seems to also have bad implications for wildlife habitat. Here in the Northwest US, there is a lot of desire to remove some dams to restore salmon habitat. I'm not quite sure if this is because these old dams were built before habitat preservation was a major consideration, or if it's an irreconcilable problem.
- morpheos137 6y ago
  I never understand people who oppose hydropower on an environmental basis. Here is the fact. A lake made by a hydroelectric dam is not much different from a naturally formed, river fed lake. Different river fed lakes have existed for billions of years. Yes, they fill with silt over time. No, the sky does not fall. See Stanley Pool for an example of a natural lake fed by a major river, i.e. the Congo.
  - putnambr 6y ago
    I don't think anyone opposes hydropower due to reservoirs, the concern is lifecycle species like salmon that are born at the headwaters of rivers, live their adult life in the ocean, and return to headwaters to reproduce. Dams get in the way, and the kill rate of dams even with ladders is enormous. The other big concern I see is access, e.g. canoeing or kayaking rivers, destroying fishing spots, culturally significant sites, etc.
    - AstralStorm 6y ago
      There's another thing that destroys rivers: drying out. Not helped with rising average temperatures... On the other hand with enough investment you can build artificial lakes instead. However, current economy does not value the abovementioned things enough to build artificial lakes.
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    The problem in the PNW is that these lakes are bad habitat for our native salmon. The more dams we make, the less habitat there is for the salmon. It's not a matter of "oh we just don't like them on principal." Rather, they tore down the dam in Elwha because it eliminated what was previously a thriving spawning ground and replaced it with a silty lake full of invasive species. Everything is interconnected, and it's a really typical technocratic attitude to say that it's fine in isolation. "Who gives a shit? It's just a bunch of fish." Analytical people eschew context. Analysis is about reducing everything to components. And guess what -- it has led us astray here. It turns out in the PNW that salmon are a major part of the food chain for a lot of animals, and our hydropower efforts are suppressing that food chain. It's also making it really hard to find enough salmon to fish for ourselves. You'll see similar problems with the Colorado River. The Hoover Dam has basically destroyed all the downstream ecosystems that relied on the water to create their living conditions. It's an ecological disaster in slow motion.
    - notJim 6y ago
      > that salmon are a major part of the food chain for a lot of animals The rivers in the PNW tend to be nutrient poor, because they're mountain runoff. I've read that salmon swimming upstream and dying are a major provider of nutrients for the upstream ecosystem.
  - enaaem 6y ago
    If you compare hydro to nuclear, we can dump nuclear waste in a hole in the middle of the desert that is mostly dead. All the US nuclear waste fits in a football field at a depth less than 10 yards. Hydro harms living ecosystems with areas far far greater than that required for nuclear waste storage. We are talking about country wide scales.
- seanmcdirmid 6y ago
  Yes. The Elwah dam they tore down recently was built long ago before conservation was much of a concern. More to the point: it wasn't really economical to keep such small scale hydro going. The large dams on the Columbia and Snake are fairly safe from being eliminated, even if they do cause some habitat loss.
  - ncmncm 6y ago
    "Some habitat loss" meaning upcoming extinction. But the reservoirs provide irrigation that makes it politically inexpedient to take them down. Turning them off while fry are heading downstream ought to help, some.
    - notJim 6y ago
      I think with the Snake River, the issue is that the river is used to ship grain on barges for export. If they instead had to use trucking, the prices wouldn't be competitive, and would lead to higher emissions.
    - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
      They all have fish ladders these days. Not perfect, of course, but there is some effort out into at least.
Hammershaft 6y ago
I'm not being hyperbolic when I say some of the remaining spots for hydro threaten the spectre of nuclear war in the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEo4NNo7oaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEo4NNo7oaM
- medium_burrito 6y ago
  I'm amazed how few people are aware of this. Even conventional conflict beacons- an unstable Ethiopia + Egypt coming to blows, for example.
AJ007 6y ago
Dams have a life expectancy of 50-100 years. Globally, most dams are past their life expectancy. If they don't abruptly fail, then they eventually silt up and become useless.

notJim 6y ago

Hydro seems to also have bad implications for wildlife habitat. Here in the Northwest US, there is a lot of desire to remove some dams to restore salmon habitat. I'm not quite sure if this is because these old dams were built before habitat preservation was a major consideration, or if it's an irreconcilable problem.

morpheos137 6y ago
I never understand people who oppose hydropower on an environmental basis. Here is the fact. A lake made by a hydroelectric dam is not much different from a naturally formed, river fed lake. Different river fed lakes have existed for billions of years. Yes, they fill with silt over time. No, the sky does not fall. See Stanley Pool for an example of a natural lake fed by a major river, i.e. the Congo.
- putnambr 6y ago
  I don't think anyone opposes hydropower due to reservoirs, the concern is lifecycle species like salmon that are born at the headwaters of rivers, live their adult life in the ocean, and return to headwaters to reproduce. Dams get in the way, and the kill rate of dams even with ladders is enormous. The other big concern I see is access, e.g. canoeing or kayaking rivers, destroying fishing spots, culturally significant sites, etc.
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    There's another thing that destroys rivers: drying out. Not helped with rising average temperatures... On the other hand with enough investment you can build artificial lakes instead. However, current economy does not value the abovementioned things enough to build artificial lakes.
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  The problem in the PNW is that these lakes are bad habitat for our native salmon. The more dams we make, the less habitat there is for the salmon. It's not a matter of "oh we just don't like them on principal." Rather, they tore down the dam in Elwha because it eliminated what was previously a thriving spawning ground and replaced it with a silty lake full of invasive species. Everything is interconnected, and it's a really typical technocratic attitude to say that it's fine in isolation. "Who gives a shit? It's just a bunch of fish." Analytical people eschew context. Analysis is about reducing everything to components. And guess what -- it has led us astray here. It turns out in the PNW that salmon are a major part of the food chain for a lot of animals, and our hydropower efforts are suppressing that food chain. It's also making it really hard to find enough salmon to fish for ourselves. You'll see similar problems with the Colorado River. The Hoover Dam has basically destroyed all the downstream ecosystems that relied on the water to create their living conditions. It's an ecological disaster in slow motion.
  - notJim 6y ago
    > that salmon are a major part of the food chain for a lot of animals The rivers in the PNW tend to be nutrient poor, because they're mountain runoff. I've read that salmon swimming upstream and dying are a major provider of nutrients for the upstream ecosystem.
- enaaem 6y ago
  If you compare hydro to nuclear, we can dump nuclear waste in a hole in the middle of the desert that is mostly dead. All the US nuclear waste fits in a football field at a depth less than 10 yards. Hydro harms living ecosystems with areas far far greater than that required for nuclear waste storage. We are talking about country wide scales.
seanmcdirmid 6y ago
Yes. The Elwah dam they tore down recently was built long ago before conservation was much of a concern. More to the point: it wasn't really economical to keep such small scale hydro going. The large dams on the Columbia and Snake are fairly safe from being eliminated, even if they do cause some habitat loss.
- ncmncm 6y ago
  "Some habitat loss" meaning upcoming extinction. But the reservoirs provide irrigation that makes it politically inexpedient to take them down. Turning them off while fry are heading downstream ought to help, some.
  - notJim 6y ago
    I think with the Snake River, the issue is that the river is used to ship grain on barges for export. If they instead had to use trucking, the prices wouldn't be competitive, and would lead to higher emissions.
  - seanmcdirmid 6y ago
    They all have fish ladders these days. Not perfect, of course, but there is some effort out into at least.

Hammershaft 6y ago

I'm not being hyperbolic when I say some of the remaining spots for hydro threaten the spectre of nuclear war in the future. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEo4NNo7oaM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CEo4NNo7oaM

medium_burrito 6y ago
I'm amazed how few people are aware of this. Even conventional conflict beacons- an unstable Ethiopia + Egypt coming to blows, for example.

AJ007 6y ago

Dams have a life expectancy of 50-100 years. Globally, most dams are past their life expectancy. If they don't abruptly fail, then they eventually silt up and become useless.