Comments on Hydropower Not So "Green"

I'm opening up a can of worms but it must be said to get it out there.

One would think that the International Rivers Network would have a strong stake in marginalizing hydroelectric dams, and when it comes to the study's controls, it's essentially their word against ours. So, like many organizations who conduct "studies", I can see them creating control factors that would create results favorable to their cause. We also have nothing to bounce these findings off against, because everyone involved has an interest in furthering the organization's cause. Yes, we have reached an age where science is politically manipulated.

I want to see more studies from UNBIASED sources confirm this before we as a society champion these findings.

But let's humor the argument and add a couple points.

- A hydro plant produces far, far more power than most other sources, including natural gas plants. NG plants produce less methane than hydros, but you only have to build 1 dam to provide what power dozens of Ng plants would need to be built to provide.
- This completely discounts what energy and environmental impacts result from construction of solar and wind power devices. And remember, these are inefficient. You'd have to cover landscapes in panels and build hundreds, of not thousands, of windmills to power entire communities.

Hydroelectric dams are the main reason for wild salmon depletion in the Pacific Northwest. You can't, in good conscience, call something "Green" that has particularly killed off the salmon population. I-937 did the right thing NOT including Hydro.

Arguing about hydroelectric as a source of future energy is silly -- we've already used all the good sites. And most of the not-so-good ones as well.

Treating hydro as something as environmentally evil as coal power or something is just as silly.

BTW, Erica misstated the No on 937 stance: it's clean compared to other power generating methods (yes, even with the methane production; and pointing only to natural gas, a nominal energy source, is rather silly), and the actual main crux of that point is that it's renewable. The green thing is more your issue than theirs'.

Also, the crux of the argument was that it would needlessly raise electricity costs for the consumer. The 'clean' argument was at best a one-line item, not the major argument you claim it to be.

There were better ways to promote clean energy production, but it's too late now. Thanks, guys. Don't come bitching to me when your power bill spikes by 50%.

Power bill spikes of 50%. What a load of horseshit. I-937 has a 4% cost-cap built into it. And, with the conservation provisions, the initiative will be a sure moneysaver. Don't believe me. Look at this study: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_policies/washington-clean-energy-i-937.html . Gomez might argue that this study is biased because of the assumptions (all of which are defined in the study), but at least this study from UCS was driven by data and peer reviewed. The No on I-937 never produced a data driven, peer reviewed study, only argumentative crap.

Can you assure us that the 4% cost cap will work with the 15% requirement by 2020, and that WA utilities won't sell out our hydro power to CA?

I don't think you give a crap about that.

Shopping at Whole Foods and driving a hybrid car will do more for the environment than any new from of energy. Please...please...everyone see the Al Gore movie. It explains everything. Now that Democrats are in power, we can stop global warming.

Yes, the whole point of the 4% cost cap is to ensure that 15% by 2020 requirement does not drive up rates and does not cause displacement of existing hydro resources.

And, actually, I do care about hydro. I'm on the board of a utility that gets almost all of its power from hydro. But, I know that hydro is maxed out and that we'll need to be looking at other resources to meet future needs. Much better to meet those needs from renewables than fossil fuels. Oh, and by the way, there is no cost-cap on fossil fuel resources.

Just to add a little balance to this ridiculous hydro-isn't-green argument,

"hydropower produces slightly higher net emissions of methane than burning natural gas"

I'll note that natural gas is one of the cleanest-burning fuels in the world.

But let that not stop us from beginning to replace the dams with VERY clean-burning windpower ASAP. Then the little bacteria and fishies can have their rivers back.

It should be noted that there is in fact untapped hydropower resources out there that I-937 should encourage development of. Tidal Power is very appropriate for several sites in Washington, and carries none of the objectionable features of traditional hydropower. It cant match the capacity of a dam, but it will be a good addition to the generation mix in the state.

Yes, the whole point of the 4% cost cap is to ensure that 15% by 2020 requirement does not drive up rates and does not cause displacement of existing hydro resources.

And, actually, I do care about hydro. I'm on the board of a utility that gets almost all of its power from hydro. But, I know that hydro is maxed out and that we'll need to be looking at other resources to meet future needs. Much better to meet those needs from renewables than fossil fuels. Oh, and by the way, there is no cost-cap on fossil fuel resources.

Wind farms are now seeming to scare some bird nesting due to vibrations - and are very intrusive I think.

Go tide sites, go any secondary hydo sites.

I think there are many smaller hydro sites, not at all interesting to big govt. or big utilities.

How about the sewer fall from Beacon Hill to the Sound?

Queen Ann Hill to the Sound?

Creative folks, creative.

Sorry, ECB. This study means little to nothing in the context of dams in the Pacific Northwest.

The effects studied in this report suggest that increased emissions of methane are a significant problem in *tropical* climates, where temperatures, organic decay and resulting methane emissions rates are highest. If you look at the data, the reservoirs behind dams in temperate and boreal climates emit significantly less greenhouse gases (as measured by g CO2 eq/kWh), and are well below that of natural gas generation.

Not only that, but the report specifically states that greenhouse gas emissions are expected to decline over the lifetime of the dam, due to the releases from the organic material originally trapped during the formation of the dam.

In the end, yes, hydro projects are not as "clean" as we probably would like to assume they would be. But anyone that states that wind, tidal or solar are completely clean and impact-free are not looking at the big picture either. The energy and materials that are used to develop these facilities have to come from somewhere. Similarly, they all have their own environmental impacts, some of which may be quite undesirable.

The only way to not impact the environment with electricity generation is to keep from consuming electricity. If we can't do that, we need to make the best decisions available given our resources. That includes wind, hydro, solar, natural gas, and yes, even coal and nuclear.

UH OHS. If bma is correct, then that WOULD render this study's conclusion irrelevant to the 937 debate.