5 ms·

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

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.
  - soperj 5y ago
    Honestly, this isn't even about Quebec. This came from research into my own province, BC. J'aime le Quebec. Montreal est une de mes villes preferees.
    - belval 5y ago
      In that case I am sorry I discounted your post, do you happen to have some links I could read? I know mercury can contaminate the reservoir's water and that it has been an issue for some northern communities, but I never heard of the methane thing.
      - soperj 5y ago
        I've posted one. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-005-7303-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-005-7303-7 I'm happy to be completely wrong on this, but I don't see why it would be true for a dam in Brazil vs. a dam in Canada. BC Government has never studied it. There's absolutely zero incentive for either province to do the research on it.
        liketochill 5y ago
        This source [0] shows 34 tonnes of CO2 per GWh from hydro and specifically mentions the releases from reservoirs and 820 tonnes per GWh from coal. The springer link unfortunately doesn’t have any numbers for tonnes to compare but mentioned lush Amazon rainforest being flooded and the vegetation at the bottom producing the most methane which is 25x more potent ghg than CO2, resulting in 3.6x equivalent warming than due to burning coal which primarily results in CO2. 0: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/uranium-powering-the-cleanest-source-of-energy/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/uranium-powering-the-cleane...
soperj 5y ago
The reservoirs in BC and Quebec that were flooded were not logged. They're also the largest in NA. Williston Lake is 7th largest in the World. Manicouagan Reservoir is the 5th largest in the World. >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? That's exactly what the research is saying yes. You're talking about 700 sq miles of forest here that was flooded. Not a few trees.
maxerickson 5y ago
There's a cottage industry using remote operated submersibles to extract timber from reservoirs. The decision about what to do with it before flooding the reservoir would depend on things like the timber market at the time and the reason for the dam (many are flood controls that also produce electricity).

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.
- soperj 5y ago
  Honestly, this isn't even about Quebec. This came from research into my own province, BC. J'aime le Quebec. Montreal est une de mes villes preferees.
  - belval 5y ago
    In that case I am sorry I discounted your post, do you happen to have some links I could read? I know mercury can contaminate the reservoir's water and that it has been an issue for some northern communities, but I never heard of the methane thing.
    - soperj 5y ago
      I've posted one. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-005-7303-7 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-005-7303-7 I'm happy to be completely wrong on this, but I don't see why it would be true for a dam in Brazil vs. a dam in Canada. BC Government has never studied it. There's absolutely zero incentive for either province to do the research on it.
      - liketochill 5y ago
        This source [0] shows 34 tonnes of CO2 per GWh from hydro and specifically mentions the releases from reservoirs and 820 tonnes per GWh from coal. The springer link unfortunately doesn’t have any numbers for tonnes to compare but mentioned lush Amazon rainforest being flooded and the vegetation at the bottom producing the most methane which is 25x more potent ghg than CO2, resulting in 3.6x equivalent warming than due to burning coal which primarily results in CO2. 0: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/uranium-powering-the-cleanest-source-of-energy/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/uranium-powering-the-cleane...

soperj 5y ago

The reservoirs in BC and Quebec that were flooded were not logged. They're also the largest in NA. Williston Lake is 7th largest in the World. Manicouagan Reservoir is the 5th largest in the World. >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? That's exactly what the research is saying yes. You're talking about 700 sq miles of forest here that was flooded. Not a few trees.

maxerickson 5y ago

There's a cottage industry using remote operated submersibles to extract timber from reservoirs. The decision about what to do with it before flooding the reservoir would depend on things like the timber market at the time and the reason for the dam (many are flood controls that also produce electricity).