4 ms·

It only looks amazing because they have never investigated whether or not their hydro power produces emissions. Based on studies where they've flooded areas wi

by soperj 5y ago

It only looks amazing because they have never investigated whether or not their hydro power produces emissions. Based on studies where they've flooded areas without removing trees, hydro plants could be producing more GHGs than even the dirtiest coal plants. Quebec and BC could actually be the dirtiest provinces and we just don't know. Long story short, when trees decompose in an anaerobic environment, it produces methane instead of CO2, and also takes 4 times longer to decompose.

AnotherGoodName 5y ago
That'd be a once off though. The dam may exist for such a long timescale that those decomposing trees under the waterline are irrelevant. I always feel we need to simplify the carbon emissions to the point of "Carbon that was buried and is now in the atmosphere". This generally removes life in the carbon equation and reasonably so. The carbon in life was in the air relatively recently. Trees absorbed it from the air and other organisms will eat it and re-release it. In general that alone won't revert the earth to the state it was in billions of years ago. The carbon underground however hasn't been in the atmosphere for billions of years. That's the carbon that's going to return earth to the state it was in billions of years ago. That's what we should focus on.
- soperj 5y ago
  No it won't. Trees can take 100 years to decompose in an aerobic environment. Show me a 400 year old dam.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    [Citation needed]
    - soperj 5y ago
      Please take your crass comments elsewhere. Instead of consistently questioning my motives, you could try contributing something positive.
liketochill 5y ago
I don’t think it was that common to flood reservoirs without removing valuable timber first. No matter how long it takes there was a fixed volume of trees that got flooded one time - you are suggesting that those trees underwater produce more warming gases than the dirtiest coal plants, MW per MW? A coal plant continuously burning enough coal to get 1000 MWe produces the same amount of warming as a hydro reservoir flooded once that has a dam that produces 1000 MWe? It seems like an outlandish claim to me.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > It seems like an outlandish claim to me. Wonder if such claims aren't made for political motives instead of environmental ones.
  - belval 5y ago
    They usually are, Québec is borderline hated in Canada for various legitimate and illegitimate reasons and unfortunately that usually makes it hard for people to have an opinion on hydro-québec that is not rooted in their own biases.
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      Oil and Gas lobbies must love it. These folks are doing their (paid) lobbying... for free!
      - soperj 5y ago
        I feel like I'm doing myself a disservice here even responding to you, but pointing out that Hydro is contributing massively to released GHGs isn't lobbying for oil and gas. It's saying that people need to get their head out of the sand if they actually want to positively impact the environment. There are clean energy generating technologies, hydro can be one if done right, in BC and Quebec it wasn't. That being said, Hydro has a lot of negative externalities even without creating an GHGs, it has poisoned whole ecosystems with mercury for instance, and then there's the impacts on salmon migration.
908B64B197 5y ago
> hydro plants could be producing more GHGs than even the dirtiest coal plants. Quebec and BC could actually be the dirtiest provinces and we just don't know. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. > Long story short, when trees decompose in an anaerobic environment, it produces methane instead of CO2, and also takes 4 times longer to decompose. Assuming that's true, the GHGs for all the existing dams have been emitted already... making them 0 emissions now and for the rest of their lifetime. And now, if the methane hypothesis is true, this means there are now ways to mitigate that for future dams.
- soperj 5y ago
  There are ways to mitigate it for future dams. No, they aren't all emitted, it takes decades for trees to break down in an aerobic environment. Anaerobic is 4 times longer. Most trees in the BC/Quebec areas that were flooded take at minimum 40 years to decay in an aerobic environment. Here's one about the Curuá-Una dam in Brazil: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-005-7303-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-005-7303-7 Key phrase: In 1990 (13 years after filling), the Curuá-Una Dam emitted 3.6 times more greenhouse gases than would have been emitted by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.

by soperj 5y ago

AnotherGoodName 5y ago

That'd be a once off though. The dam may exist for such a long timescale that those decomposing trees under the waterline are irrelevant. I always feel we need to simplify the carbon emissions to the point of "Carbon that was buried and is now in the atmosphere". This generally removes life in the carbon equation and reasonably so. The carbon in life was in the air relatively recently. Trees absorbed it from the air and other organisms will eat it and re-release it. In general that alone won't revert the earth to the state it was in billions of years ago. The carbon underground however hasn't been in the atmosphere for billions of years. That's the carbon that's going to return earth to the state it was in billions of years ago. That's what we should focus on.

soperj 5y ago
No it won't. Trees can take 100 years to decompose in an aerobic environment. Show me a 400 year old dam.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  [Citation needed]
  - soperj 5y ago
    Please take your crass comments elsewhere. Instead of consistently questioning my motives, you could try contributing something positive.

liketochill 5y ago

I don’t think it was that common to flood reservoirs without removing valuable timber first. No matter how long it takes there was a fixed volume of trees that got flooded one time - you are suggesting that those trees underwater produce more warming gases than the dirtiest coal plants, MW per MW? A coal plant continuously burning enough coal to get 1000 MWe produces the same amount of warming as a hydro reservoir flooded once that has a dam that produces 1000 MWe? It seems like an outlandish claim to me.

908B64B197 5y ago
> It seems like an outlandish claim to me. Wonder if such claims aren't made for political motives instead of environmental ones.
- belval 5y ago
  They usually are, Québec is borderline hated in Canada for various legitimate and illegitimate reasons and unfortunately that usually makes it hard for people to have an opinion on hydro-québec that is not rooted in their own biases.
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    Oil and Gas lobbies must love it. These folks are doing their (paid) lobbying... for free!
    - soperj 5y ago
      I feel like I'm doing myself a disservice here even responding to you, but pointing out that Hydro is contributing massively to released GHGs isn't lobbying for oil and gas. It's saying that people need to get their head out of the sand if they actually want to positively impact the environment. There are clean energy generating technologies, hydro can be one if done right, in BC and Quebec it wasn't. That being said, Hydro has a lot of negative externalities even without creating an GHGs, it has poisoned whole ecosystems with mercury for instance, and then there's the impacts on salmon migration.

908B64B197 5y ago

> hydro plants could be producing more GHGs than even the dirtiest coal plants. Quebec and BC could actually be the dirtiest provinces and we just don't know. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. > Long story short, when trees decompose in an anaerobic environment, it produces methane instead of CO2, and also takes 4 times longer to decompose. Assuming that's true, the GHGs for all the existing dams have been emitted already... making them 0 emissions now and for the rest of their lifetime. And now, if the methane hypothesis is true, this means there are now ways to mitigate that for future dams.

soperj 5y ago
There are ways to mitigate it for future dams. No, they aren't all emitted, it takes decades for trees to break down in an aerobic environment. Anaerobic is 4 times longer. Most trees in the BC/Quebec areas that were flooded take at minimum 40 years to decay in an aerobic environment. Here's one about the Curuá-Una dam in Brazil: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-005-7303-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-005-7303-7 Key phrase: In 1990 (13 years after filling), the Curuá-Una Dam emitted 3.6 times more greenhouse gases than would have been emitted by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.