CARLY CASSELLA
31 AUG 2019
If all the hydro-power dams in the United States were removed and replaced with solar panels, it would take up a fraction of the land and produce substantially more electricity, according to a new analysis.
The idea is ambitious, and for now, it’s really just a thought experiment. Today, hydropower is a significant source of renewable energy in the US, accounting for roughly six percent of the country’s total electricity output.
Removing all 2,603 hydro dams in America would leave a huge energy void behind, but it could also provide room for greener opportunities.
While it’s true that hydropower dams are a renewable source of energy, they still produce large amounts of greenhouse gases and can be environmentally destructive and costly to maintain in the long term.
In recent years, these criticisms have led to a growing dam removal movement. And although it’s theoretical, a massive investment in solar power might be able to cushion that loss.
To cover for all the hydro dams currently in use, scientists estimate we would need nearly 530,000 hectares of photovoltaics (PV). While this sounds like a lot, it’s a “surprisingly modest” amount compared to the combined size of most reservoirs, which cover nearly 4 million hectares nationwide.
In fact, the new analysis suggests that substitute solar panels could match the total energy output from hydro dams while using just 13 percent of the same land.
“I think that’s pretty astonishing and tantalising too,” John Waldman, an aquatic conservation biologist from the City University of New York, told Carbon Brief.
“I’m hoping this presents a different mindset for people who think about our energy futures.”
The potential land sitting under reservoirs right now is immense, and if only 50 percent of that surface is drained and used for solar panels, it could greatly improve energy efficiency, producing nearly three-and-a-half times the amount of energy hydropower currently generates.
Even in a more conservative hypothetical, where only a quarter of that drained land is used for solar farms, Waldman and his colleagues calculate energy production could increase 1.7 fold.
In some states, this has the potential to free up huge swathes of land for other purposes, including wildlife habitat, recreation, and agriculture. In Florida, for instance, scientists calculated a solar farm the size of New York’s Central Park (341 hectares) could replace 26,520 hectares of the state’s hydro dams.
The new analysis focused on solar power because it is easily scalable, but the authors argue the same logic can also be applied to wind power on a reservoir’s surrounding ridges and hydrokinetic turbines in a newly-flowing river.
“Also, potentially expensive and difficult-to-permit electrical lines that transmitted the hydropower already exist at these locations and could potentially be repurposed to carry electricity from alternative sources,” the authors argue.
Published findings in Nature Sustainability here.
HT/ozspeaksup
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This complete energy idiocy !! God help protect us from these morons .
Larry Hamlin
Spencer’s 2nd Law is that more than half of adults have IQs less than 100. (Due to such problems as motorcycle accidents and recreational drug use.) My suspicion is that liberals account for a disproportionate share of the lower half.
From the paper link—Abstract —-“These analyses are theoretical and do not consider costs…” Costs involve energy, should stop right there!!!!
Paper—“Our analysis was based exclusively on PV replacement for hydro-power foregone. The amount of land needed to replace a substantial number of hydro-dams could be further reduced by (1) inclusion of wind power, (2) aquatic diversionary or hydrokinetic turbines that capture a portion of a river’s energy without damming, (3) other forms of alternative energy production and (4) energy efficiency measures that would reduce total energy demand, depending on individual site conditions. Also, land dedicated to PV arrays can provide ancillary environmental benefits, such as using them for low-lying crops and meadows for pollinators 25,26 or making productive use of contaminated lands…. However, of 32 environmental impacts of solar power plants, 22 were considered beneficial in comparison with traditional power generation, 4 were neutral, none were detrimental, and 6 required further research.”
Dams (Aswan, and many others) have had an effect on coastal fisheries (with which I have been involved), among other inland changes. To be fair, a real comparison of pros and cons might be nice. “….none were detrimental,..” is 99.77% impossible.
This came from Nature, will get another round of ads from reading it. Current one has Nature cover “Burning Issues” with, of course, smoke in the background.
Also, land dedicated to PV arrays can provide ancillary environmental benefits, such as using them for low-lying crops and meadows for pollinators
Hint to scientific geniuses: Those ‘low-lying crops’ depend on sunlight for their life cycles and photosynthesis. But that essential sunlight will be intercepted and blocked by the solar panels overhead.
This is a science class, not one of wishful thinking. Take a provisional ‘F’, rework and re-submit with a workable proposal.
I’m sure that geneticists can develop low-light tolerant corn and soybean hybrids! [Do I need a ‘sarc’ tag?]
““These analyses are fantastical and do not consider costs…” Corrected!
It seems that they know not the difference between theory and fantasy :¬(
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2594474580597595&set=a.454296011282140&type=3&theater
The Ohio River dried up. One of the major arteries of commerce closed off. Solution: Dams!
Since when is “ambitious” a synonym for “stupid”?
since climate crisis?
How’s the fishing, swimming, boating, water skiing, picnic-ing, and general all round recreation at a grid-scale solar array? Really? I’ll keep the lakes and reservoirs PLUS 24/7 pollution free generation.
So tell the people of Las Vegas you are planning on draining Lake Mead that drives the Hoover Dam generators and replacing them with solar panels.
Electricity is not the long term issue for Las Vegas planners, it’s water.
Then ask these nutjobs who suggest such lunatic ideas what happens then when the sun goes down? Or it gets cloudy for few days? Or that while hydro dams do have to maintained, what the cost of maintaining solar panel farms (and batteries?) would be in comparison to the cheap electricity hydro provides. It is exactly because of hydro power that Washington State has the lowest electricity prices in the US. Leftist morons want to destroy that, and put in solar panel farms somewhere else? Like the electricity in Arizona, So Cal can instantly be available to anywhere in the US? These folks are clueless morons. All of them.
These eco-nutters who advocate dam-removal are just Liberal Arts (un-)educated morons with zero understanding of anything mathematical or engineering related. They live in happy-little unicorn emotional states and run fro reality. Gender studies and other useless degrees like “climate change communications” degrees are far worse than no advanced “education.” These morons on the Left actually think they know something, something that turns out to be opposite of reality (dam removal would somehow be “good), which is worse than recognized ignorance.
Most of the agriculture in the Columbia Basin of Washington State would cease if we removed the dams on the Columbia River. Also, there would be no barging of grain destined for Asia down the Columbia River without the dams and locks, so fossil fuels would have to be used.
I’m starting to get a mental picture of the future for the U.S. if the Leftards implement their MAMA ideology.
“Electricity is not the long term issue for Las Vegas planners, it’s water.”
The last time I spent any time in Las Vegas was in the summer of 1974. The city’s population was roughly 350,000 back then. There were still open areas between the outskirts of town and Henderson.
Not any more. The population of the city is now well over a million.
When I took the obligatory tour of Hoover Dam, I asked the guide how long it would be before the reservoir behind the dam silted up to the level of the turbine intakes.
I wasn’t the first to ask the question, and he had a ready answer. About a thousand years. He also said that future generations were likely to do whatever they had to do to keep the dam’s intakes open.
Dredging is easy and cheap.
Beaches do it all the time for many decades now.
Hydro and nuclear are the only two practical “green” energy sources and they hate both. Makes sense only if you understand that their goal is to destroy the country.
If we ever starts enacting National Energy policy based on some crap, self-serving, self-interested pseudoscience paper written by a fish conservation biologist, then we deserve what happens next.
That is the dumbest idea since New Coke.
They admit that their idea is not realistic and that they are thinking outside the box. So what they are really doing is what so many academics are hired to do, i.e., intellectually jerk off.
Water does not need any maintenance or very little anyway but PV panels require huge maintenance in comparison . Not only cleaning and constantly cleaning ! there is the failure rate which I am not sure of in PV panels but I am sure it exists . And with 530,000 hectares of panels , how many panels is that ? many millions . There would need to be a separate industry to just maintain and replace them (every 20 years or so) hydro power dams last 100 years + with relatively very few moving parts . As I think about this and type it gets more ridiculous . It must be joke !
Don,
Actually, there are many small dams around the Santa Clara Valley (aka Silicon Valley) that formerly were treated with copper sulfate to keep the algae blooms under control. I don’t know if they still do it. The eco-loons have probably trotted out their inscribed tablets with the Precautionary Principle and demanded that toxins no longer be applied to reservoirs that often contained sediments rich in mercury sulfide and metallic mercury.
While it represents a certain idiocy, I like the notion that liberal have to feel “sciencey”.
How much energy do the expect to get from north facing slopes? Imagine if they drained the Flaming Gorge in Wyoming/Utah? It’s spider like layout has as much north facing slopes as any other direction.
Not going to generate enough energy on those slopes to make it worth it.
When you’re focused on only Green Energy you tend to miss other important things, like flood control and water supply.
This needs a “stupid it burns” tag.
Why stop at draining a few dams or lakes. Let’s just go the distance and drain the Pacific. What could possibly be wrong with that!
Moderately Cross of East Anglia
September 2, 2019 at 1:35 pm
Sorry, but as a New Zealander living near some beautiful beaches I have to disagree with you.
However, draining the Atlantic is a much better proposition…less water to drain, reduces your chance for hurricanes to develop and avoids those embarrassing “Titanic” moments. And the newly exposed mid-ocean ridge would provide a great tourist attraction and a guaranteed supply of new land for even more solar panels.
They could install solar panels just above the water surface, thus producing solar energy and hydro-power at the same time.
This also will prevent sunlight of reaching water surface, thus reducing algae, bacteria and fishes growth, thus reducin CO2 and methane emissions.
The purpose of a hydro reservoir is potential energy storage over the seasons. Only the powerhouse produces energy, on demand at that.
Solar panels have no storage capability and no ability to produce on demand. In the winter output is half in the south and nothing in the north. There is no equivalence here.
It is wonderful how easy it is to come up with brilliant ideas on a subject you know nothing about when you have enough dope.
I’m amused by the idea of “an aquatic conservation biologist” advocating draining bodies of acquatic material.
Maybe we could also float windmills?
As many comments indicate, hydro lakes have many other uses. None of these uses were addressed in the article. ScienceAlert should be embarrassed for publishing this. It isn’t just the author that is crazy.
Hydro isn’t even the primary reason for most dams. Flood control and water storage come first. You get a twofer for hydro and storage because you get power when you deliver the water.
If you look at lakes Powell and Meade, if you drain them, the terrain is unsuitable for solar. Do they think the bottom of the lake is flat? And you take away Nevada, Arizona and California water supplies. Yes. Let them drink sand. How are those millions of people going to compensate? Southern California has to rely on water from northern California and the Colorado river basin as it doesn’t have much of its own.
This was not a very well thought out article.
Jeff: they never are
They don’t consider geometry or maintenance or environmental factors for equipment or transmission or storage or …
I blame it on a combination of factors, not the least of which is a poor education and probably too much Harry Potter and related fiction
Before those dams were built, there were frequent years of terrible flooding, and other years of almost zero stream flow for months at a time.
The idea of getting rid of dams is insane.
They idea of getting rid of them so we can use the space for wasteful solar power arrays is almost too stupid to comprehend.
The claim that is would save space or money or anything else is a plain old lie.
But we MUST be doing it the wrong way now because capitalism is in operation, and we need to go the other way to get a marxist utopia, so stop making sense, and drain all the dams!
Article: “The authors of the new analysis admit that their calculations are not exactly “realistic” and their hypothetical is more about potential than anything else. Nowadays, we still can’t figure out how to efficiently store and deploy vast amounts of solar power when we need it, so battery storage would need to improve for this idea to come to fruition.”
The big bugaboo with the current generation of grid-scale lithium-ion storage batteries has been capital costs, and replacement & disposal costs.
Vanadium-flow redox batteries are now being promoted as the solution to wind and solar’s intermittency issues and their lack of dispatchable, on demand generation capacity. Here is an article from Forbes about the WattJoule V-flow battery.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2019/08/26/energys-future-battery-and-storage-technologies/#5127b99c44cf
The constant refrain heard from wind and solar’s advocates is that the cost of battery storage is coming down rapidly.
In announcing their decision to close Diablo Canyon by 2025, PG&E’s management in San Francisco claimed that reaching 70% renewable electricity for California by 2030 is doable. But they didn’t say how exactly this goal could be achieved, only that in their opinion, it could be done.
No one in authority in California has told PG&E to do an engineering feasibility study to determine what specific steps must be taken to reach 70% renewable electricity for their customers by 2030, including how much grid-scale battery storage must be purchased and installed.
If the WattJoule V-flow system is the best that will be available throughout the 2020’s, then the 70% by 2030 engineering study for PG&E’s customers should use the WattJoule product as the sole cost basis information source for estimating the price of California’s grid-scale energy storage requirements.
If PG&E won’t do the study, then the California Independent System Operator (ISO) should to be given direction and funding to perform the estimating work. After all, if you can’t trust the California ISO, who can you trust?
I was really surprised reading that water reservoirs emit greenhouse gasses, so I followed the link to the article for an explanation:
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2016/nov/06/hydropower-hydroelectricity-methane-clean-climate-change-study
Here, they say: “Instead, “biological activities” in a reservoir – such as decaying vegetation and nutrient runoff from watersheds upstream – are more important indicators of greenhouse gas emissions. The nutrient runoff can be from natural processes or from farming, logging and land development.”
My question is… What would happen to that upstream vegetation without the dam? Would it exist forever? Or would it decay and emit GHG anyway?
I mean… those GHG are not caused by the dam, they are caused by the vegetation!
Vegetation and nutrient runoff are both part of the carbon cycle. The amount of CO2 they produce when they decay is the same amount they consume when they grow.
Hydropower dams do NOT produce any greenhouse gasses!
So much for previously impoverished areas that became “unpoverished” by TVA’s hydro-power. (And, of course the water.)
So much for the drinking water and irrigation water dams provide. (By-by LA?)
I did notice that they are only talking about “dams” that provide hydro-power.
So I guess that bastion of sensibility, NYC, is safe since they get their hydro-power via Niagara Falls (no dam) and their water from the Finger Lakes in upstate NY.
Goofball conservationists have been trying to get us to tear out dams for decades now. You know, free the rivers, stop the reservoir lakes from changing the ecosystems, let the fish migrate, all development is bad, and etc. etc. We’ve all read some of their arguments against dams in general. I think, considering the source (Nature Sustainability), that this “report” came out of one of those spitballing sessions where every possible attack on dams was to be thrown up against the wall to see if anything stuck. I think they whiffed on this one, but wouldn’t be surprised to see AOC pick up on it.
This breathtakingly stupid article seems to assume the existence of a new type of solar panel that generates continuous electricity at night from moonshine. The author of the article seems ignorant on all fronts economic, energy and environmental.