4 ms·

Article doesn't get into this level of detail, but I'd be interested in how they define "renewable". Does it include hydropower, which is renewable but has stro

by Arubis 5y ago

Article doesn't get into this level of detail, but I'd be interested in how they define "renewable". Does it include hydropower, which is renewable but has strong non-carbon-related undesirable environmental consequences? Is burned trash "renewable"?

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
> Does it include hydropower, which is renewable but has strong non-carbon-related undesirable environmental consequences? IIUC, the vast majority of ecological impact caused by hydro is already done. It is not making things exponentially worse. Am I missing something?
- emteycz 5y ago
  No hydro - no obstacle in the waterway, migration paths are affected but still functional. Hydro - it's a meatgrinder.
- jhgb 5y ago
  Depending on location, hydroelectric power can have (mostly because of decomposing vegetation) carbon-equivalent emissions ranging from several grams of CO₂ per kWh, all the way up to around two thousand grams (!) per kWh. This greatly depends on location, with shallow, large-area tropical dams being the worst offenders, and cold, high altitude Nordic dams being the most environmentally friendly.
CaliforniaKarl 5y ago
Cal ISO's web site is at https://www.caiso.com/Pages/default.aspx https://www.caiso.com/Pages/default.aspx On there you can dig in and find what sources are counted as renewable.
- Arubis 5y ago
  That’s clarifying; thanks!
jhgb 5y ago
Hydropower actually has strong carbon-related undesirable environmental consequences, but probably not to such an extent in California as it does in Africa and South America. You'd have to find dam-specific data to verify that for Californian dams, though. It's not like with coal where burning 1 kg releases 3.6 kg of CO₂ no matter where you burn it. Emissions of a dam per kWh produced depend at the very least on its surface area, depth, water temperature, biomass inflow etc., all of which are dam-specific.
fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago
Even if California shut down all of its hydro power, the dams would stay because the state is constantly in a drought and desperately needs water.

by Arubis 5y ago

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

> Does it include hydropower, which is renewable but has strong non-carbon-related undesirable environmental consequences? IIUC, the vast majority of ecological impact caused by hydro is already done. It is not making things exponentially worse. Am I missing something?

emteycz 5y ago
No hydro - no obstacle in the waterway, migration paths are affected but still functional. Hydro - it's a meatgrinder.
jhgb 5y ago
Depending on location, hydroelectric power can have (mostly because of decomposing vegetation) carbon-equivalent emissions ranging from several grams of CO₂ per kWh, all the way up to around two thousand grams (!) per kWh. This greatly depends on location, with shallow, large-area tropical dams being the worst offenders, and cold, high altitude Nordic dams being the most environmentally friendly.

CaliforniaKarl 5y ago

Cal ISO's web site is at https://www.caiso.com/Pages/default.aspx https://www.caiso.com/Pages/default.aspx On there you can dig in and find what sources are counted as renewable.

Arubis 5y ago
That’s clarifying; thanks!

jhgb 5y ago

Hydropower actually has strong carbon-related undesirable environmental consequences, but probably not to such an extent in California as it does in Africa and South America. You'd have to find dam-specific data to verify that for Californian dams, though. It's not like with coal where burning 1 kg releases 3.6 kg of CO₂ no matter where you burn it. Emissions of a dam per kWh produced depend at the very least on its surface area, depth, water temperature, biomass inflow etc., all of which are dam-specific.

fshbbdssbbgdd 5y ago

Even if California shut down all of its hydro power, the dams would stay because the state is constantly in a drought and desperately needs water.