Dr. Lars Schernikau (www.unpopular-truth.com/blog)
When we think of clean energy, hydropower often sits at the top of the list. After all, it’s renewable, seemingly reliable, and emits no direct greenhouse gases during operation. But as with anything in life and in energy… the devil’s in the details. It turns out that hydropower’s reputation as the ultimate clean energy source might be more myth than reality…
I recently wrote a blog post on hydropower that sheds light on some unpopular truths… the kind of truths you won’t hear about in sustainability pitches or clean energy PR campaigns.
Is Hydropower Nature’s “Frenemy”?
At first glance, harnessing the power of flowing water sounds perfect. No burning fossil fuels, no air pollution, just a steady stream of clean energy. But here’s the twist: large-scale hydropower projects often wreak havoc on ecosystems. Damming rivers disrupts natural water flows, affects fish migration, and leads to the flooding of vast areas, sometimes displacing entire communities. The environmental toll doesn’t end with construction… but it continues for decades.
And let’s not forget about GHGs like methane…the potent greenhouse gas that’s believed to be 25 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than CO₂. How does GHGs come into play? When vegetation and organic matter decompose in the stagnant waters of reservoirs, they emit GHGs like methane. Isn’t that a far cry from the squeaky clean image we’ve been sold?
Reliability Isn’t Always Reliable
We like to think of hydropower as dependable, but generation depends on water availability, which in turn depends on weather patterns. Some countries that heavily rely on hydropower are finding themselves scrambling for backup energy sources during dry seasons.
Here’s the irony: in a world increasingly affected by changing weather patterns, hydropower’s reliability diminishes. That’s not the kind of limitations we would expect for our energy future…now is it?
The Unpopular Truth About “Clean” Energy
In my detailed article on Hydropower I make one thing clear: no energy source is perfect. Every option comes with trade-offs, and hydropower is no exception. What we need is an honest conversation about those trade-offs instead of the promises of a net-zero utopia.
Hydropower has a role to play, but we should approach it with eyes wide open, acknowledging its limitations and environmental impact.
So, where does that leave us? Should we be rethink what we call “clean.” Is hydropower really as sustainable as we want it to be?
What do you think about hydropower? clean energy saviour or overhyped disruptor? I would like to hear your feedback.
Full article here: The “Unpopular Truth” about Hydro Power
Ps: feel free to subscribe to my blog and keep questioning, keep learning, and keep pushing for transparency in energy discussions.
Something that often not taken into account: emitted methane just doesn’t “hang around”.
It gets degraded pretty fast with a half-life of 10-12 years. CO2’s half-life is somewhat longer with 120 years, but there’s a turnaround time of only about 4 years for it, since it is taken up by plants and is part of the carbon cycle. When one looks at Earth’s history, CO2 went down to a very dangerous level, where all life on Earth was in peril. It is now thankfully coming back to somewhat safer concentrations due in part to fossil fuel use, and also to a mild warming of the Earth which releases dissolved CO2 from the oceans. The GHG myth is just a senseless religion and a multi-trillion dollar scam. Hydro’s main problem is siting and extremely long timelines to build dams. Better to go for gas and nuclear power plants.
The next glacial period will drop CO2 substantially as the oceans cool and absorb more CO2.
The last glacial period dropped CO2 levels down to 180 ppm.
150 ppm is the point where photosynthesis stops in 90% of the plants and they die taking most of the animals down with them
The referenced Nature article, authored by two women and two men, is devious. It uses a plethora of DEI – like terms to confuse the casual reader.
How many know intuitively what a teramole of carbon means in a climate context? Or, a petagram of CO2 equivalent methane? How many have “done a deep dive” into the meaning of GWP? How deep is deep? Further, did the article use the latest parameterization for GWP, and is that parameterization meaningful?
Questions, questions, questions.
Unfortunately, since I must present such concepts to young minds (my students), I have to do all necessary conversions to put it all on ONE scale. Finally, the fugitive CH4 turns out to be “not much” compared to the global emission, and it is apparently declining. The article states that the release rivals “the release due to international shipping on a 20 year time scale“.
OK, is THAT a large number?
Now, we are getting down to cases. The key is the “20 year time scale“, which means that the article, if it used the latest IPCC GWPs, used about 90 for the 20 year horizon of CH4.
Parenthetically, GWP is a bogus concept, but that is another story, too long for here.
The GWP for CO2 is defined = 1 at all times, so CH4 effects are multiplied by 90, or nearly two-orders of magnitude! Little wonder CH4 is feared by GWP-believers. A little goes a LONG way.
Another aside, H2, not even a GHG itself, would induce in the Net Zero pathway, as large or greater greenhouse effect than CH4.
Is nothing sacred?
Let’s stipulate that hydroelectric dams produce 2-3% (declining) of the extant fugitive CH4, as the article says.
What will occur over coming decades?
The attached plot, figure 1 in the Nature article, is a ‘logistic’, meaning that the remaining available area for hydroelectric dams is nearing ZERO. There is almost no upside remaining. The turbines are also approaching the logistic limit defined by the Euler Turbine equation. The upgrade of the Itaipu Dam, for example, has reached 14 GW output, with little gain remaining.
Meanwhile, the global energy demand is growing at over 3% annually, meaning that in 20 years, the fugitive CH4 from rotting organic matter in reservoirs will be less than 1-1.5% the annual global release, and halving every two decades. In addition, there is the natural decline in CH4 production mentioned in the article.
The bottom line is unchanged from what it has been since 1980. Let’s stop agonizing over a fictitious global warming and create a stable energy system better than the one we are rapidly destroying in the name of ‘climate change’.
I agree partially with Nick’s assessment of this article, but then have to disagree with him in other ways strongly. There are environmental problems associated with dams. Even removal of dams ends up being an environmental issue for a time as removal of dams recently on the Klamath river showed.
They are expensive. A study by the UN years ago showed that they rarely meet design expectations and routinely over-ran budget by a factor of two. They often aid to suppress flooding, but sometimes contribute to it.
Here is what I despise about the talk of hydro storage. Let’s take the Pacific Northwest as an isolated grid. It has plenty of hydro power. It has plenty of hydro storage as long as the weather cooperates. Yet, assume that a network of this size (40,000MW average demand) is all wind/solar backed up by hydro. I looked at one year’s operation (11-22 to 11-23) and found that beginning from full storage, at least 120 hours of average demand was needed to avoid a black grid at some point. Came perilously close in January during terrible weather.
How big is the 4,800,000 MWhr of implied minimum storage? Well, that would be 20% above what Hoover dam provides per year, without the added headache of pumping the Colorado river all back behind the dam once.
Folks, there isn’t the water or available topography or transmission assets or money or political tolerance for this idea.
Very nice Lars. Hydro should not be considered as a green/renewable source of power for a couple of reasons. Number one if the CAGW clowns can’t include hydro in their renewable numbers everyone could see right off how pathetic wind and solar numbers are. Number two the same people who include hydro with wind and solar are the ones demanding the removal of dams. That is hypocrisy of the highest order. Number three as with wind and solar I would guess that the most productive sites for generation are already being used and future sites would be even less useful. Number four I don’t think enough attention is being paid to how we are going to retire the dams we have now. Sure we can stop generating power any time but at some point I would think the structures are going to fail or be dismantled. How is that going to affect those living downstream? No hydro is not green/renewable but it is a decent source of power.
I’d rather see a lake than a sea of solar panels, or a forest of windmills.If you compared all three over time, I’m sure the last two would be miles ahead in the carbon footprint department. We now have a new type of pollution too…. Visual Pollution.
Don’t forget about flood control. Without the TVA, much of Tennesse would be uninhabitable.
Power dams/reservoirs take considerable effort to construct – look at the cost of the Site C project on the Peace River in NE BC.
And the turbines need refurbishment periodically.
TINFL
But I challenge you on water quality. It comes into dams from rivers, there is flow unless the facility is not generating power at the moment.
My observation after living in CO for a while is that the reservoirs are low due to poor water management not the climate. For 18 of the 20 years I lived in CO there was above average snow mass. Every year the politicians would claim we are in a drought due to global warming and the reservoirs were low. It’s pretty clear CO is in a drought because they (by law?) send all the water to AZ, CA, NM, and KS. It’s a classic case of follow the money. Water wars.
Hydro works well for both Switzerland and Norway, with reservoirs it serves a dual purpose water storage and power generation and it is relatively cheap. So, overall, in these countries, the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
Power generation is not the sole justification for damming rivers. Two months ago the people of Asheville, North Carolina were regretting their leaders declining planned flood control dams.