Dam emissions, not so bad after all

From the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies

Greenhouse gas impact of hydroelectric reservoirs downgraded

Located on the middle of the Rio Grande, the UHE FURNAS reservoir is one of the largest in Brazil. It impounds the Grande River and has a capacity of 22,590,000,000...

Site design and location can minimize carbon dioxide, methane emissions

An international team of scientists has amassed the largest data set to date on greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs. Their analysis, published today in the online version of Nature Geoscience, posits that these human-made systems emit about 1/6 of the carbon dioxide and methane previously attributed to them.

Prior studies based on more limited data cautioned that hydroelectric reservoirs could be a significant and large source of both carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere.

Through an analysis of 85 globally-distributed hydroelectric reservoirs, the authors revealed that these systems emit 48 million metric tons of carbon annually, a downgrade from earlier estimates of 321 million metric tons. Further putting things in perspective, hydroelectric reservoirs are responsible for less than 16% of the total carbon dioxide and methane emissions from all types of human-made reservoirs combined.

“Our analysis indicates that hydroelectric reservoirs are not major contributors to the greenhouse gas problem,” comments Dr. Jonathan Cole, a limnologist at the Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies and one of the paper’s authors. “But there are some caveats. To date, only 17% of potential hydroelectric reservoir sites have been exploited, and impacts vary based on reservoir age, size, and location.”

IMAGE: Located in the State of Mato Grosso, the APM Manso Dam impounds the Manso River and has a capacity of 5,600,000,000 m3 and a surface area of 357 km2….

Click here for more information.

Carbon dioxide and methane are two of the main greenhouse gases created by human activities. Carbon dioxide is produced during the combustion of nearly any organic material; methane has a variety of industrial sources. Both gases are also produced naturally, particularly in wetlands and lakes.

When rivers are dammed to make the reservoirs needed for hydroelectricity, flooding creates lake-like conditions that generate carbon dioxide and methane. Emissions are the highest following reservoir construction, due to decomposing vegetation and soil organic matter. As reservoirs age, emissions decline, with cold-water systems stabilizing more rapidly than their warm-water counterparts.

Lead author MSc. Nathan Barros, of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora further explains, “The bottom line is that per unit of energy, hydroelectric generation produces much less carbon dioxide and methane emissions than previously thought, but impacts are not equal across all landscapes.”

The amount of greenhouse gases generated by hydroelectric reservoirs depends on where they are built, with the team’s analysis indicating that emissions are correlated with latitude and the amount of biomass in the watershed. With Barros adding, “Reservoirs in tropical locations, such as the Amazon, emit more methane and carbon throughout their lifecycles.”

Hydroelectricity supplies an estimated 20% of the world’s electricity and accounts for more than 85% of electricity from renewable sources. Future development is expected globally.

The paper’s authors urge careful consideration of site location and design. “During the environmental impact phase, it should be a goal to minimize the amount of carbon dioxide and methane emitted per unit of energy generated,” Cole notes.

To truly tease apart the emissions generated by hydroelectricity, the authors also call for a study that assesses a site’s carbon budget before and after reservoir construction. Pre- and post flooding analysis would clarify the net carbon impact of hydroelectric reservoirs.

###

Other contributors to the paper included Drs. Lars J. Tranvik, Yves T. Prairie, David Bastviken, Vera L. M. Huszar, Paul del Giorgio, and Fábio Roland.

The work was supported by grants from FURNAS Centrais Elétricas and from the Swedish Foundation for International Cooperation in Research and Higher Education (STINT).

The Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies is a private, not-for-profit environmental research and education organization in Millbrook, N.Y. For more than twenty-five years, Cary Institute scientists have been investigating the complex interactions that govern the natural world. Their objective findings lead to more effective policy decisions and increased environmental literacy. Focal areas include air and water pollution, climate change, invasive species, and the ecological dimensions of infectious disease. Learn more at www.caryinstitute.org

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

88 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bystander
August 2, 2011 6:03 am

Waiting for the anti-hydro power crew to show up here based on the anti-wind and anti-solar responses to those updates….

Darren Parker
August 2, 2011 6:11 am

In a warming world (if it actually is), there’ll be more rain therefore Hydro will be a more viable solution in more locations than otherwise

August 2, 2011 6:13 am

“Emissions are the highest following reservoir construction, due to decomposing vegetation and soil organic matter. As reservoirs age, emissions decline,….”
==================================================================
Oh, my……are they really that ……. … Yeh!! Cause the vegetation and organic matter wouldn’t decompose if the dam wasn’t built!!

Beowulf1005
August 2, 2011 6:21 am
oeman50
August 2, 2011 6:23 am

It also matters if the flooded land for the reservoir was logged or not before it was filled. Rotting wood at the bottom of a lake can generate a lot of methane. However, most states now require saleable timber to be logged before filling, but I know of some that were filled before this became a requirement. And BTW, although this means less GHGs are generated, it doesn’t really make a bit of difference to the climate.

Bystander
August 2, 2011 6:28 am

Not in the same way or amounts suyts…

mac
August 2, 2011 6:33 am

Observations don’t match projected estimates. (again)
I wonder if the proverb, “a lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on” applies wholesale to climate change science?

Keith
August 2, 2011 6:34 am

Er, what purpose does evaluating the co2 and ch4 emissions over the life of a hydroelectric project serve? Electricity output; impact on homes, wildlife and habitat of damming; connection to grid; cost per unit; they’re the main factors to consider.
Can they move on from obsessing over the carbon arseprint of cattle, etc, and get their senses back?

August 2, 2011 6:38 am

Hydro can’t be good, because it is able to run without subsidies. /sarc

Dan Santo
August 2, 2011 6:38 am

suyts – yes and no.
========================================================
Oh, my……are they really that ……. … Yeh!! Cause the vegetation and organic matter wouldn’t decompose if the dam wasn’t built!!
========================================================
Decomposes differently at different rates and with different byproducts. For example, a log in a forest can take 50 years to decompose and much of the decomposition is immediately tied into the growth of other organisms such as moss, fungus, etc while the reservoir lake will decompose most of the plant matter in it within 10-15 years. Also, the type of decomposition that happens in open air is different than the decomposition in water – the air-decomposed log generates a LOT less methane than the log which is submerged.
Don’t take me the wrong way – worrying about the CO2 and CH4 contribution of reservoir lakes is silly, but the scientists in this study aren’t the idiotic morons your comment suggests. There is a very distinct difference between the emissions of decomposing matter in a suddenly-created lake and the emissions of decomposing plant matter in an open forest/jungle/grassland.

Bob Kutz
August 2, 2011 6:40 am

Just a question here; those early emissions from decaying plant matter; wasn’t that going to happen anyway? We call it autumn here in Iowa.
As to the rest; seems like they’re grasping at straws. Can anybody explain the logic why hydroelectric dams produce substantially more CO2 than non-hydro?
Can anybody explain why a reservoir would produce substantially more CO2 than a non-dammed river?
I am sure there is some level of justification; CO2 required to perform maintenance on a hydro-electric, for example. But I don’t see where the volume would be sufficient to really be an issue and, outside of that example, I don’t see where a non-hydro dam would result in more CO2 at all, when compared to an un-impounded river eco-system.
Just a couple of honest questions.

Esteban
August 2, 2011 6:41 am

Slowest rate of arctic ice melt extent 15% since 2006
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
at this rate forget it warmistas haha.
BTW it seems that 80% of polar ice is in Antarctica so NH ice is pretty insignificant anyway. Is this true?

Doug in Seattle
August 2, 2011 6:44 am

The only solution to CO2 (or was that C) emissions is to remove the source – mankind!
/sarc (as if really necessary)

Chilli
August 2, 2011 6:56 am

Having trouble believing that people actually get paid money to write this c***. How much CO2 does a dam emit?? FFS. This must surely be the high water mark for hysteria about a harmless, natural, plant-fertilizing trace gas essential for all life on earth.

John Marshall
August 2, 2011 6:57 am

Methane is naturally produced by the anaerobic rotting of plants and animal remains in marsh, bog, wetlands in general. I would like to bet that research into these areas would show that these natural producers exceeds that of humans. Some real research is open to an enterprising PhD student.

August 2, 2011 6:58 am

Bystander says:
August 2, 2011 at 6:28 am
Not in the same way or amounts suyts…
Explain, please.

Sal Minella
August 2, 2011 7:09 am

News Flash: There is no “greenhouse effect” so, why are we wasting time talking about what contributes to it. It is a waste of time and effort and – wait a minute, why am I wasting time and…
REPLY: There is in fact a greenhouse effect, otherwise the average temperature of Earth would be about 14F – Anthony

Cementafriend
August 2, 2011 7:18 am

Methane only contributes to greenhouse gases when it is burnt (eg a power station, car, industrial furnance or domestic appliance -eg kitchen stove). It does not burn when released into the atmosphere – on its own the IR absorption is insignificant. See the following post http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2011/07/natural-gas-more-polluting-than-coal-only-according-to-the-ipcc-a-note-from-cementafriend/
A human contributes more effective greenhouse gas when breathing out CO2 than a ruminant bleching methane. The methane which might be released from a dam contributes nothing significant to the supposed greenhouse effect.

Eric Gisin
August 2, 2011 7:29 am

If methane is a bigger problem than CO2, then it makes sense to burn the logging debris before filling the lake.
I would also like to see methane levels compared between forests that are logged regularly and “natural” forests that rot in the old-growth stage.

dp
August 2, 2011 7:41 am

I have to bet the farm here that the largest volume of emitted GHG you’re going to get from a reservoir is water vapor. It wasn’t mentioned in the article, but water vapor really is in the top tier of climate affecting gases. I get the feeling sometimes that people just like to talk about CO2 rather than science.

sukheshmg
August 2, 2011 7:47 am

good

kwik
August 2, 2011 7:48 am

Good grief. To even mention that CO2 or methane is a problem regarding a hydro-electric dam….. I am speechless. Must be a different planet.
Just visited the Hoover-Dam. A Great achievement for mankind. Something to be celebrated.

August 2, 2011 7:53 am

Well I never! Being an ignoramus, I thought things didn’t get greener than hydroelectric. This throws a new light on the windmills. What about the emissions from the rotting carcasses of all the birds that get chopped and strewn across the countryside? How about the carbon dioxide being puffed and panted out by all those blasted humans when they climb up the endless steps inside the windmills in order to perform routine maintenance work? And emissions of vehicles they drive to get to those distant and hilly beauty spots defiled by windmills? And the factories that produce the confounded things? Oh dear! This world!
Geoff A

August 2, 2011 7:55 am

Cwaeth Dan Santo:

Decomposes differently at different rates and with different byproducts.

Indeed. The rapid, highly exothermic decomposition that releases massive amount of CO2 and soot on a timescale of hours or days rarely happens under water. I think we’re onto some serious science here.

vboring
August 2, 2011 8:00 am

They seem to ignore the CO2 emissions avoided by preventing floods and reducing the need to pump groundwater for irrigation. Most hydroelectric dams in the US were built primarily for irrigation and flood control. Their electric generation functions are tertiary.
Considering that specialized equipment exists to harvest lumber from dam reservoirs, it should be obvious that CO2 emissions estimates based on full decomposition of everything inundated were silly.

1 2 3 4
Verified by MonsterInsights