How to solve our Big Dam Problem
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 бер 2023
- Hydropower is a bit like the ‘boomer’ of renewable technology which needs to catch up with the times. While it produces more renewable energy than all other sources combined - it has a terrible social and environmental record. And an even more uncertain future. What does this grandfather of renewables need to do to stay relevant for the new gen?
Reporter: Aditi Rajagopal
Video Editor: Aditi Rajagopal, Henning Goll
Editor: Michael Trobridge
We're destroying our environment at an alarming rate. But it doesn't need to be this way. Our new channel Planet A explores the shift towards an eco-friendly world - and challenges our ideas about what dealing with climate change means. We look at the big and the small: What we can do and how the system needs to change. Every Friday we'll take a truly global look at how to get us out of this mess.
#Hydropower #ClimateChange #RenewableEnergy
Read more:
A brief history of hydropower: www.hydropower.org/iha/discov...
Development banks and hydropower project: ceeca-bhr.org/online-media-br...
Example of corruption from Bosnia-Herzegovina: link.springer.com/article/10....
Climate change and hydropower in the Amazon: www.sciencedirect.com/science...
Reducing impacts of hydro - solutions from the Amazon: www.nature.com/articles/s4146...
Hydropower expansion without building new dams: iopscience.iop.org/article/10...
Chapters:
00.00 Intro
01.25 Hydropower: Grey zoned
03.38 Heavy on the planet
05.37 Same sh*t, new decade
07.04 Power dynamics of power
08.05 The climate paradox
09.03 Hydro sans dams?
10.35 New generation: ‘Boomer’ hydro going Gen Z
What do you think about hydroelectric dams? Do the costs outweigh the benefits?
Yes, yes it does
It definitely depends where it is built. In mountain areas with little population and no forests, it can also give an impulse in the tourist industry creating lakes for recreation. I think Switzerland has many good examples where it had large positive effects and not so many negatives.
@@robbedeboer2728 Good example!
Well.. We in Switzerland hand it quite smart.. So we dont see or rarely see something unpositive about it........... Hydro is good. Those people in those countries just need to learn how to handle it better. :)
In most of the cases it's a yes.
Sardar sarovar dam in India provided clean electricity and water security to the gujrat region which had a huge impact in agriculture sector which eventually boomed in Gujarat by the irrigation system
Gujarati didnt known for agriculture at all
It's also of note that this propaganda is being pushed by Deutche Welle, and Germans are known for their attempts to create/kickstart (dominate) the solar industry.
11:17 this looks rather ingenious to me. The floating solar panels generate electricity, don't need extra land area, and reduce evaporation. In some places in the US, reservoirs are covered with plastic balls to reduce evaporation. Solar panels seem the better solution.
Ironically the world's largest floating solar plant is in china itself and the three gorges dam already has a significant floating solar plant, this idea is not new. Dams already serve multiple purposes in irrigation, water security, flood control ect, but for some reason this episode decided not to look into those.
Yeah but a large number of US citizens lack the mentality to transfer to renewable energy they don't see the need for solar panels since they have gas and other sources so they just rather put the cheaper option
It really depends on a number of factors. I believe in the area you are referring to in the US the state of California has a pretty strong renewable program, in fact they said one day they generated enough renewable electricity to feed 100% of their demand. You may notice the wording suggests they couldn't use all of it and that's because renewables spike up and down, they need to keep other power sources up to account for that. Shutting down and starting up plants is a long process. So, what they need is storage infrastructure.
I also believe the balls main target was in cancer prevention and not evaporation, but it does that too. I forgot the whole details whether it was something the water foul were spreading or some chemical reaction caused by sunlight. Hard to get that amount of floating solar panels to get sufficient coverage, and as the water level rises and lowers they would need to put on and take off solar panels, unlike the balls which just stack on each other.
Interestingly enough, California is also one of the few places in the world where the average consumer can utilize and refuel personal hydrogen powered cars.
Good and bad actually. Shading the water below have huge impact on living organisms. Sun the the power spurse of life cover a surface pn solar panels and life get affected below. At the end everything have a pro and con
@@scaratb8810 yes because the entire world is anti china
Wait.. what? Deforestation is caused mainly because the construction of dams? Well .. here in Brazil is because agriculture, mining, live stocks .. everything but the construction of dams.
That's not what she said
Stop - you’re using facts. They don’t want to hear facts.
In the case of Sardar Sarovar , obviously the people got displaced , but it help get water security to people that live in the remotest of places
This channel is having some serious problem about their research on dams , why don't they see the flaura and fauna growth in the canal areas as well irrigation 📈
They are American liberals they didn't say anything about American dam and they know that on narmada river India is built photovoltaic systems but they didn't not mention that. When we see the American data from last 20 decades for destroying the nature no one other country come first 🧐🧐🧐
But on other side yes big dams are not that good for nature but building small are far more costly and it won't decrease any corruption in other words it will inc corruption.
That is really well put, hydropower is often touted as a clean, green energy source, but the environmental costs of constructing even a single dam can be enormous, with huge impacts felt across entire river ecosystems. Our crew talked to Matt Ferrell to take a closer look at some of the far-reaching consequences of hydroelectric dams and asked what can be done to develop this technology to better balance energy and conservation.
And did he respond with an answer?
@@shihoorkar YES! we collaborated on a project and released 2 videos about it.
@@terramater Can you refer us to those videos?
The environmental cost of Solar panels and wind turbines/farms are tiny right 😅
The combination of hydro and floating solar is really cool. The surface of that area is unusable you can’t build anything there. So put solar panels over the big lake and use that as main power source and the water as battery a genius solution.
Are buildings the only use?
It's much more expensive though
They also prevent some evaporation of the water so that is helpful. Plus the electrical infrastructure is already there for the power for the dam itself so it does not need to be build just for the solar like it would in a stand alone solar project.
@@Parker307 Dams don't need electric power. Many dams do have electric power it it true. Electric lighting, lunch facilities, opening and closing sluice gates, some winching or cranes. But it is not substantial enough to carry very much power at all.
@@neddyladdy This video is talking about dams that are generating power mostly
Nice video, but I think the argument at the end, that we kind of need every community to be happy in the energy transition, is kind of dangerous. For example, nobody wants to live close to wind turbines, power lines or nuclear. Sure, you should listen to communities and try to benefit them with the projects, but if you take 20 years to build a transmission line, we'll never decarbonize electricity in the pace we need. You can try to just do rooftop solar and offshore wind, but then everybody will end up with a bill 2 or 3x as high...
We don't need to decarbonize electricity, we need to decentralize electricity. Electricity is a governmental MONOPOLY in every country in the world.
Yup... At the end of this video they suggested microHydro which isn't a answer as it doesn't generate a meaningful amount of power. The question people should've been thinking of when they watched this video was 'Do I want the environmental impact from coal/oil/gas OR hydro'. You can't always put solar where hydro goes, can't always put hydro where wind goes, and can't always put wind where solar goes... They all have a place and all need to work together.
Nuclear is a real option, but there is so much negative public opinion from the cold war and fukashima that it makes it hard to even start a conversation on it. Then everyone gets angry at the idea of it, despite it being the best of fossil and renewable energy we have right. Really needs the 20 years of government subsides Obama gave solar/wind.
@@matildo4ka7 You're right. I want a coal-burning reciprocating steam engine generating my electricity in my back yard.
@@gregorymalchuk272 get it ;)
Ataturk Dam is not build on Tigris River but Euphrates River .Ilısu Dam build on Tigris.
Okay there's a problem with the hydropower projects but what is the solution 😮 or any replacement of such dams or projects
As a igcse student, I was about to choose hydropower and dams and some issues it creates as my topic for individual reports, but the research I could get access to was really limited as a student .As soon as I saw the thumbnail of this video I got excited and felt relief that researchers and adults are focusing on this topic thank you DW planet A for the great video
email the authors to get access to their research. And their are websites where you can get access to them for free.
scihub, for example
So what new did u learn...cause from the video video it seems even they didn't get sufficient research done...
Nepal relies 99.9% on hydropower, only 2 small thermal plants and are almost shutdown
Are those solar thermal, geothermal, or some other thermal?
We erroneously named the river that the Atäturk dam sits on as the "Tigris" when it is in fact the "Euphrates". Though the dam complex does impact the Tigris too. We apologise for the mistake!
sardhar sarovar was and still is primarily meant for irrigation. Dams already serve multiple purposes, and always have been, you can not completely ignore the primary focus on a dam to take cheap shots at a statue nearby.
Wonder why Sardar Sarovar Dam has been singled out for so much love in this video? World bank stopped funding the dam but the people of Gujarat stepped in with funds to complete the project.
Wow, you touched on some of the most important points of hydro, like existing unpowered dams and combining hydro with other power sources to smooth out the duck curve without the need for batteries or even pumped hydro.
Irrigation is also another big topic in there along with the fish ladders. I think when you look at the environmental impact/KWH, Hydro is much better than wind or solar who require many more metals and cement to produce a KWH. Also I think mass produced hydro units with fish ladders and outlets at the top to let out the warmer water would be good for something like a creek. It would make it more accessible to individuals
Tom Kelly
Dams and hydropower use a huge amount of cement and concrete c ompated to solar and wind. Solar uses very little concrete, mostly steel and aluminum. Wind turbines use concrete in the base, but there are typically less than a hundred wind turbines.
Carbon and steel is used to build the dam.but solar and other renewables are build out of wood..😂😂😂
🤣🤣🤣 Americans women
Propaganda bro...paid western propaganda...some commie marxist organisation put this up. How many dams does the western countries have ? They are done with their hydro renewables development and now they want us to stop.
Bro google is your friend
“In general, it is estimated that a solar panel needs around three years to produce the energy required to offset the carbon dioxide emitted in its production. The lifetime of a solar panel system is around 30-40 years, so the amount of energy a solar panel produces in its lifetime will completely outweigh the number of carbon emissions produced to create the panel itself.”
3 years…. 3 years and you start saving carbon.
Obviously its not only the manufacturing of the dam or panels. There is obviously still all the habitat destruction
But as far as i know solar and wind disrupt thing wasaaay less.
I make quick judgments too.
And i have to slow down and take a moment to get the required info to give good feedback and not spread my stupidity.
We need todo better
There is also end of life. Recycling and that is still a problem,but can be done and is done. For a cost.
Its not too late to edit your comment 😊
Wasn't the sardar sarovar more about irrigation project than power generation?
Too bad you didn’t mention Quebec. They’re 100% self sufficient on hydro
Wow it looks like they are almost self-sufficient on renewables, and mainly hydro. 💧
New dams construction should always considering whether it's benefit bigger than its environmental impact. One thing to note, that is Dams is supporting human life by letting human to control the water in order citizen to bath, drink, food irrigation, flood control, canal transport and power generation and those multipurpose dams are usually massive. Which those things are failed to be delivered in this video. Yes everything that is too big, too much are always bad for environment, and that is greedy human fault not only for dams, that is also the problem for fossil fuel which we are too rely on. I think the goals for future are not making ideas dams are bad but greedy construction are, and how we are maximizing our local environment by using it's best renewable energy sources and combining all of them with responsible fossil fuel usage.
I find it so interesting when people criticize hydroelectric power. Of course it's not perfect and some people, and some of the environment is negatively impacted. If we want to use power there is going to be an environmental cost up to the time fusion or some new source is available. When it was said in this video it was worse than coal I think any rational person would have questioned the legitimacy of all of the "facts" presented.
I think that might have been only in reference to some tropical projects were a lot of vegetation had been submerged by the reservoir. However that could have been made more clear, and I also don't see how those issues would continue at a large scale over the lifetime of the dam.
@Sean Reid Let me present some peer-reviewed facts from academic researchers who looked into the topic 🤓:
From the Journal of Scientific Reports ☟
“Even though hydropower is often thought of as a ‘green’ source of energy, studies suggest that reservoirs are not carbon neutral and in extreme cases might have even higher carbon footprint than fossil fuel energy, particularly those situated in the tropics5,6. Tropical reservoirs have been estimated to emit about 3.0 Tg CH4-C year−1 2 and to contribute 64% of the total reservoir CH4 emission”
🔗: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47346-7
From the Journal Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change ☟
“Hydroelectric dams in tropical forest areas emit greenhouse gases, as illustrated by the Curuá-Una Dam in the Amazonian portion of Brazil. Emissions include carbon dioxide from decay of the above-water portions of trees that are left standing in the reservoir and methane from soft vegetation that decays under anaerobic conditions on the bottom of the reservoir, especially macrophytes (water weeds) and vegetation that grows in the drawdown zone and is flooded when the reservoir water level rises. Some methane is released from the reservoir surface through bubbling and diffusion, but larger amounts are released from water passing through the turbines and spillway. Methane concentration in the water increases with depth, and the turbines and spillway draw water from sufficient depth to have substantial methane content. In 1990 (13 years after filling), the Curuá-Una Dam emitted 3.6 times more greenhouse gases than would have been emitted by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.”
🔗: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-005-7303-7
@@frederic5335 Concrete dams can last centuries and even millennia, so that supposed methane burst from the initial buried vegetation gets amortized over centuries of power production. Plus they just said that the water in reservoirs is cold, which isn't compatible with decomposition. Besides, even if you acknowledge the methane, the lack of atmospheric particulate, SOx, and NOx emissions alone make hydroelectricity worthwhile.
Another problem with hydro is methylmercury. In Canada the Newfoundland government somehow failed to do the paper work to get the Muskrat Falls reservoir cleaned and now the people of Labrador have to deal mercury in their foods.
Did you hear recent news from Pennsylvania?
@@haveaseatplease Indeed I could have phrased that better, it is less so an innate problem with hydro but more so an example of the risks that hydro has if done improperly. However unfortunately quite a few governments and companies fail to deal with this risk properly and as such their dams do produce methylmercury. The case I referenced is also a rather extreme one, this is not a very researched problem and as such even a properly managed dam could be causing more of a problem then we originally thought.
All industrial activity has environmental and social effects. Those need to be evaluated and necessary mitigations and other actions must be taken. Green energy production is not any different here.
Nice video. I have been interacting with a small hydro project, so this is helpful background. Coordinating with other renewables is a useful suggestion, it would be nice to know more about lessons learned in this area. The prospect of floating solar panels in reservoirs is interesting. I would also like to know more about the watersheds and reservoirs around hydro. Are watersheds and their forest cover better managed after a project, and what can be done better? What are the tradeoffs between the pre-existing ecosystems before the reservoir, and the biodiverse wetlands that may emerge with a reservoir? Can this tradeoff be handled better?
Why does everyone ignore tidal generators. The technology is there and is not as damaging and with more investment can be possibly our most productive form of energy production.
A dam solves the problem of storing energy, that can be used when needed. Other forms of energy (except nuclear) doesn't work like that. To store the huge energy behind a dam on the larger scale, in batteries, it would require insanely much. So there lies one problem, or rather, one huge plus for dams.
Hey there! Our video on tidal energy could be interesting for you! Check it out here 👉ua-cam.com/video/1-2TyKqP84o/v-deo.html
i like the micro hydro set up. put it near farms allows irrigation plus electric add floating solar=more power. the more options you can add the more diverse it will be.
Hydroelectricity is by far the best renewable. It's dependable, affordable, and its output can be adjusted to suit electrical demand far more easily than any other renewable, and it actually is better than natural gas, and far better than oil or coal, at how fast it can respond to demand. And yet it tends to be ignored in favor of less dependable renewables like wind and solar. The dam in Portugal with the floating solar panels is actually a very good example of this. The output of the panels is reportedly 5MW and that of the dam itself is 518MW. Those numbers are the reported maximum capacity for each type of electricity generation. The panels capacity is less than one percent of the dam and yet many people believe that the panels are a big part of the combined power output. It would be interesting to know how many kw/h each system actually produced.
It would have been interesting to see a comparision of hydro projects in the third world verses somewhere like Norway where people have rights and those rights are respected, and Norway is less likely to destroy it's own nature, (I know Norway is big oil and gas producers but they do care for their own country even if they are happy to let others polute themselves).
No one cares about Norway in the World. Countries like China are more cutting edge, because they are fighting environmental issues on a much bigger scale. How will you use example of Norway with population of 5 million people on the world scale? 5 million ppl are just living in the VILLAGE in India or China, I'd listen to them instead of Norwegians. Chinese and Indians have real world solutions, not DREAM world solutions.
I see some sort of western environmental chauvinism here.
@@abcddef2112 you got it ;)
And why do u say that... For all i see west was the most oppressive until they got rich..
Not sure about Norway, but here in Sweden most hydro project were built quite a while back, and having read about the environmental thinking back then, I would say you are somewhat mistaken: They prioritized the new grid and electricity above all else, and care for nothing and nobody.
This is not quite how we do big projects today, and its also why they are so hard to get approved. "Just" simple on-shore wind power is hard to build today due to the huge amount of concern that needs to be taken for everything and everyone.
They don't want hydro to grow
I am in Australia and since 2016 my gov has been aware of RDP Marine Australia
the system allows all dams and large water storage dams to make more power from the same volume of water .
deductible
How does the system work?
Same old problems connected to almost every kind of larger power plant project. May it be coal, nuclear or hydro.....profits are always first whereas social and environmental concerns are something for the ESIA report which will be archived very soon after it is written and ....end of story. The core issue is that greediness of investors, governments, authorities and the total lack of responsibility for locals and environment.
And yet we keep adopting a lifestyle which requires always more electricity. It's easy to shift 100% of the blame on external forces that you don't control so that you can have good conscience.
@@PG-3462 It needs a little bit more in my case to have a good conscience. I'm building power plants, that is my profession. Above is more a kind of observation rather than for my own conscience.
@@meerkathero6032 My point is mostly what do you expect the government to do when electric consumption keeps increasing? Where I live (Québec, Canada), our electric grid is now saturated. The first plan was to promote easy things that we can all do on a daily basis to reduce our energy consumption during the peak hours which would have been enough to eliminate the problems we have as they only occur during peak hours. However, very few people listened to it and thus it didn't work. Now, if we don't want the power to go out during peak hours, the government must quickly find a way to increase electricity production, and no matter what is done, it will have an impact on the environment.
By the way, sorry for my english it isn't my first language and my explanation is probably not as clear as I would want it to be 😂
@@PG-3462 English is not my first language either. No worries, I got your point.
There is a great deal of room to save energy and to reduce power peaks in Canada. The grid in Canada is excellent (at least compared to many other countries), the energy consumption is high, money is available to improve the grid, to built additional peak power plants or to introduce load management (underestimated, but the cheapest and most efficient way to overcome load peak issues).
The situation in India, Congo and many other countries is very different. The people can't save energy by changing their lifestyle and they have every right to get electricity for their homes as the people in Canada have it already. Smaller power plants normally would do the job, participation of the local community would be a good thing. What I see often is that the investors prefer huge projects and that they give a s++t on the well being of the local community and the environment. Again, I don't write such comments because of my conscience.
Well sad. GREED and not carbon is the plague of the 20th century that we are dragging to the 21st century. The environment is getting connected to $$$ more and more year by year and it breaks my heart to see.
jocelyn medallo has the right perspective. wonderful.
You can also put dams in the ocean and use the tides for power like a two-sided pumped hydro facility. When the tide comes in, you use the water coming into the dam for power, and when it goes back out, you use it for power again. There’s a small dead spot at the highest and lowest tides, but that can be dealt with.
That might affect marine life on a large scale, but they already have some interesting ways to generate hydropower from the ocean in a manner that causes less of an impact.
@@justinweatherford8129I agree it may affect, but there are already many stone wave breaks in the ocean essentially doing the same thing.. Just like the unpowered dams
I lived near Oroville CA Dam for 20 years, and worked on the Spillway repair 2017, 2018....you are correct..the fish in the lake are different fhan the fish in river....old dam, but works well... Pelton😮 wheels are more efficient
.
I think the authors of such articles should study all aspects. I happend to work for India's largest Hydel power project, Tehri Hydro, with a capacity of about 2000 MW. A town of 40,000 people were evacuated. New Tehri town was built to resettle them. Many seniors of the area told me that people were mostly malnouriished, now their average beight has increased. People receive clean water at home. A group of erngineers were continuously capturing seismic activiities. Selling. free carbon free power has made the area rich. Some people suffer from nostalgia having lost their ancestral home. I have been told huge tract of infertile land has now become food producing due to Narmada Savar. We should cover both sides of the story.
Respected sir, these are environmentalists these type of people works for Ngos which runs propaganda and put pressure on underdeveloped countries in the name of environment just think these people comes from capitalist format economy countries where production and consumption is more important the more consumption the more production in this situation to fulfill this production is more important to whatever degree and if this is done where is environment . If these so called environmentist are so much concerned than they should focus on discouraging people on unnecessary large scale consumption but they can't do this because they are not here to propose solution but for anarchy in the Underdeveloping countries just blackmailing tactics
And so called environment concernedcountries can't direct interfere so they take help of these ngos to disrupt any project
They should demolish old inactive dams
no, they should be updated and used... the damage was done allready now use the product
Tapping small farmers dams for hydroelectric power reminds me of those small solarpower generators you can simply tap into any wall socket at home.
One or two solar panels and 300 to 800 W inverter right to your homes circuit. And excess energy simply get's dumped into the grid, purging away nuclear and fossil energy.
Hydro plants built by flooding (permafrost) arctic tundra have caused massive ecological disasters by thawing out untold amounts of carbon locked into that permafrost. Then there's the issue of causing thawing of even more toxic methane hydrates in those areas into the atmosphere.
I'm glad you also mentioned the cost of manufacturing all that concrete and steel and consuming he increasingly scarce sand and aggregates which often get mined from distant places.
Sardar sarovar ain't controversial. It provides water to almost arid villages like mine with a perennial supply of water and has transformed villages like mine into lush green fields.
Exactly, the main reason why Shree Sardar Patel and Shree Kesubhai Patel insisted on building it was water for drinking and agricultural purposes in barren lands of Kutch and Saurashtra region of Gujarat.
It is controversial because of the ecological impact of dams. Just because it helps you personally doesn’t mean it’s without negative consequences to other people.
Something provides you something that doesn't mean it's good 😳
@@CampingforCool41 oh, so then why don't you abandon the cell phones through which you type this virtuous comment. You know the lithium and silicon mining involves human rights violations? Give up with your douche woke comment already!
@@CampingforCool41 not to ppl dude, it's negative to marine life and vegetation
They're expensive, they damage fisheries, they fill-up with silt, and are "catastrophes waiting to happen (Oroville). Lots of water is lost to evaporation.
9:20 this lady needs to be running things. I especially dig the micro hydro-power at the farmer/land-owner's scale. Those man made ponds are also a boon to fauna and flora; and with property ownership established, that kind of infrastructure is going to be cared for, with the local steward highly incentivized to make sure things go smoothly.
The lower Snake River dams provide only four percent of the power output of the Columbia, only producing power in the Spring for sale to California. For that, we forfeited the Salmon and Steelhead runs year-round throughout the Salmon River country in Idaho.
We've been removing these dams for several decades now.
Good video to highlight the repercussions of hydro. Maybe she should sign off with, so use every kW of energy wisely!
The future of hydroelectricity depends on a variety of factors, but with continued innovation and investment, it has the potential to continue to be an important source of renewable energy for years to come..👍
Small and middle size rivers equipped with dams would have a second life if able to make pumping/turbining to regulate photovoltaïc daily production to make it available when the grid needs electricity. That would be very interesting for environment for electric powerplants that are not at the foot of a dam but some kilometers away, with river's water diverted in canals ou tunnels, because a bigger quantity of flow can stay in the river. With climat change in Europe we have 30% less annual flow in the rivers in the south where are the mountains with most of the hydroelectric production, but we have also a big increasing of floods on shorter times, with a lot of water destroying land and going fast to see and a big increasing of dryness with few water in the rivers available for all human an dnature needs. So we need to learn to store water, with dams (and make more pumping/turbining) but also in the soils including some lands from agriculture and forests available to be flooded . And as it is said, most of the solar panels can be floating ones on lakes that help do disminish evaporation and make fresh places.
Ifk about that methane comment from trees biodegrading.
Submerged wood, in lakes, biodegrades so slowly there are still original old growth timber stored in the PNW. From almost 200 years ago.
And that stuff sells for a pretty penny now, believe me.
So I'm really skeptical with your rational that culminated with hydro being as bad, or worse, than coal.
That is preposterous.
closed loop pumped hydro solves this. i wish it was brought up as an alternative because hydro power is incredibly useful and we need not intermitent renewable sources. floating solar + closed loop pumped hydro is a great alternative
What specifically is the source for the claim in this video that hydropower projects can have the same impact as a coal generation station? I am not a hydropower apologist but find that hard to believe and would like to evaluate the sources / citations.
In a future video you might pick a country - I could choose Canada, which I'm most familiar with - and trace the development of hydropower and its impacts, particularly in relation to our First Nations and Inuit populations and experience.
Thank you for bringing attention to the biggest renewable in the room in any case - signed, a heat pump person.
They picked country - India hence narrators accent and big time spending talking about big dam in India that is per DW is OUR (who is that - World, Germany?) problem. Idk did Germany lose contract in India or smth? Or India shouldn't have the ONLY cheap GREEN energy when it has 1+ billion people to feed. Big country (population) requires big dam. It's very generic video with the mixed info, but it is ok.
They claim that all the rotting plants at the bottom of the reservoir emit enough methane to cancel out all the climate effect. Which is ridiculous. The initial methane burst (only observed in hot tropical climates) is a price you pay once, and it gets amortized across centuries or even millennia of carbon free electricity. Never mind the lack of SOx, NOx, and particulates that makes the comparison to coal totally inappropriate.
There wasn't nay discussion of another big problem. In addition to the obstruction of padsage to fish, sediments aren't able to flow downward. It creates erosion all the way to the sea and habitat loss.
Thank you. Great video.
I liked the video, but I feel like you need to mention accidents when comparing to other energy production methods. When a dam fails it can be really dangerous for many people.
in a intermediate term are the mini hydropower generators which take an amount of water outside the river and carry downstream to the turbines and then is restored to the river without cutting its main stream or creating a lake in the middle
Hey there! Yes, we talk about that kind of hydro power at minute 2:10. It is called run-of-river hydropower and there are small projects using this kind of hydropower
@DWPlanetA Yes, but you could show more details of this alternative in comparison with the dams
long story short, pumped hydro is the future, non-necessary dams should be either demolished or retrofitted, and construction of new dams on wild rivers should be avoided at all costs
Lake Mead and Powell should be covered in circular 2-axis floating solar lily pads that rotate with the sun and angle control via hydraulic or pneumatic control. This would reduce evaporation and the great hookup is very close.
"Destructive complex future technology will save is from relying on destructive complex technology". The Delusion of the Techno Fantasy.
Hydropower is important to transition from non-renewable energy. It is the only renewable energy with a predictable energy output.
Solutions-
1. We need to find ways which will reduce the impacts of hydroelectic energy as well as dams. This can be achieved by increasing the efficiency of the existing hydroelectric projects by reducing the sendiments accumulated in the reservoir and the production capacity of existing hydrelectric plants. We need to better use the existing dam infrastructure as it has already done with the one-time environmental damage and hence, is clean in the future.
2. Converting dams constructed solely for purpose like irrigation or water supply, need to used to manufacture additional hydro-electricity. The damage has already been done in this case as well, as the dam has already been constructed.
3. Attaching turbines and generators to the bridges over bridge can allow to tap the elevtricity without building dams and also give a degree of control over the turbines. This will allow not impact the enecironment in major manner while allowingus to increase the electricity produced using hydro-electricity pronciples.
Tho solar floating on the dam is pretty cool.
"It's not always about the fish Aquaman!"
Only in civil engineering, non engineering peoples gets more benifits. In Hydel power land accusation is very profitable.
To summarise, nuclear power is greener than even hydro.
One other thing that needs to be done: build 100.000s of small dams scattered over the accidented landscape of Europe, to store rainwater that’s falling in the wet season, so rivers can be fed throughout the year. These should only be used for storing water prmarily. By keeping them small, the impact on the environment can be limited.
We should be reducing how much energy we use and planting trees and then we should be ok but if not we will never have enough energy to power the gride all the time everywhere.
Hydro electricity is most Green energy but we interpretated as hydrogen energies. Ocean energy are type of hydro energy but we prefered dams for civil engineer and lands acquisitions businesses.
That´a lie that reservoirs in Brazil have fallen to half, it happened only in a drought year, now they are back to normal. Also, the new dam projects in Brazil retrieve all the trees before the inundation of the reservoir, so the methane emissions are much lower than before.
I'm not an engineer here.. but at the end of those vids.. those hydro plants, are shooting crazy amount of water with high velocity..
can't those "left over" water potential energy be used ?
even left over.. they have a kick right there..
This water did not pass a turbine and produced electricity at all. These are spillways which release floodwater and such (or sometimes they make a big show just for the spectacular pictures and open the gates).
These spills are usually an exception for when the water cannot be safely used or stored.
When this is needed the spilling has to function reliably, but any technology you add to capture the energy might fail and hinder the safe operation.
Second, these spills are ideally very rare. Investments in the installation and maintenance would give only short duration of energy, which then also needs to be used or stored - but here the hydro "battery" is already full, so you might not have anything where it could be stored.
These are spillways which bypass the turbines altogether. They have these big jets because they need to dissipate the energy so as to avoid scouring the foundation of the dam.
So should we use nuclear ??
That is a good question Bruce. Have you watched our latest video on thorium nuclear? Please check it out here 👉ua-cam.com/video/Km6kqykX900/v-deo.html.
Yes, it has harmful effects, but producing energy is already a dirty thing. The polluting aspects of wind and solar energy are also very high. What is important is how we can produce it with the least amount of pollution. Imagine trying to replace hydro energy with other fossil resources.
Micro hydro is definitely an under used strategy. Especially where water mill infrastructure already exists.
There is no problem with Run of type
The part about submerged trees decaying faster and releasing methane is a boat load of crap. Those trees are fully submerged and completely waterlogged to let any oxygen in them be for fungi or microbes to grow. Also the water in reservoir is so stagnant that those trees will be in highly anoxic conditions- which is the same condition where stuff gets fossilized instead of decomposing. Also all the sediments from upstream collects and settles in the reservoir, burying wood in bog conditions before it gets to rot and the areas surrounding the reservoir can also frequently can experience landslides and mudslides from the induces seismicity.
When tere is even a concensus that vegetation we grow to offset carbon is only safely sequestered if it's buried in anoxic conditions and this severe lack of research it's that good.
There is another reason for dams regaining popularity. They are the first point of flood control and mitigation. With increasing precipitation rates and more intense storms, bigger dams have become even more relevant. And because of that very reason I do not see a future with any less dams.
Except for waste to power generation plants, there is not other energy generation projects that's as multipotential as hydropower dams- energy, irrigation, potable water, flood control and mitigation, tourism(?).
Large dam projects come always with pros and cons which are different for each region and project.The typical central European dam is not for irrigation or portable water, focus is on flood control and/or power generation. No lack of water over there. In Egypt or in some parts of India it is the contrary: irrigation, flood control and portable water are of major importance in these regions plus the by-product power. However, some projects have major negative effects on the local community, climate and environment. De-forestation before flooding would be so easy and does not cost much, still many investors and authorities flood the forests and have no problem with the immense methane emissions. The Three Gorges dam is a good example for deportation of the locals and destruction of the villages along the Yantze river, for many the living conditions degraded. All needs to be balanced and a large scale project should come with large scale responsibility. I think that was the major focus of the DW report on the dam topic.
@@meerkathero6032 There you go...you are regurgitating the same exact lie that submerged trees decaying and emitting methane. Instead of trying to push that trees submerged in reservoirs are in the same condition as water logged shallow paddy fields, could you mind explaining exactly how trees submerged in reservoirs with adverse conditions for fungi and microbes to grow- decay and produce methane? Especially when it's submerged at depths below such a huge column of water?
I explained clearly why submerged wood doesn't rot, can you do the same courtesy of explaining how when you are repeating the point that submerged forest release methane?
Anti-human environmentalists come up with reasons to oppose all types of energy infrastructure that actually work and lead to energy abundance.
These giant water surfaces (dams) help to evaporate lots of water (drying land around) into the sky (compare to narrow river streams).
Ok, so using your logic ocean is the worst body of water in the world and we need to drain natural lakes?
Yeah that is actually incorrect my mans. It would kind of be correct if the Dam itself was absorbing lots of heat, but the reality is the more water is contained in a single space the more temperature you need to heat it up. You also go up against Boyle's Law, the increase in surface area resulting in gas formation is exponentially less than the increase in volume causing less gas formation under standard temperature and pressure.
@@matildo4ka7 By your logic, we drink sea water.
Bioenergy is the most important form of hydro energy. Plus we benefit from the energy used by other creatures, it's not all for ourselves.
Maybe you can use hydropower to desalinate ocean water then use the desalianted water to re-water the depleted ecosystems, preserving balance.
it is such a educating video! thanks a lot
hydro is grey but not wind and solar, are you sure???
Hi there! We also made a video called "How green is solar energy really" ☀ ua-cam.com/video/EWV4e453y8Y/v-deo.html and we tackle the different aspects of wind power in several videos you will find on our channel! 👍
Itaipu is a long-term great success
Makin my way downtown
When people talk about the negative enviromental impacts on the ecosystems they always conveniently forget how important the dams are in a more and more unpredictable rain pattern.
Brazil's rivers have been heavily impacted by this. What is the impact of a severe drought on these ecosystems? That's exactly where dams may play a very important role.
having micro hydro systems should be the solution as they don't block waterways while still allow power to be pulled from the worlds waterways
Its nice for land owners, but in the grand total micro power is not going to help much.
Here in Norway at the end of 2022 about 579 of 1761 hydro power stations were small stations with
@@Gazer75 We should be incentivizing every little bit.
How should we look at the fact that dams use concrete which is created through an intensive carbon-releasing process? How should we look at the one-time methane-release caused by rotting forests submerged by the newly formed reservoirs? Shouldn't we compare the life-time avoidance of carbon release offered by this power source agains any one-time carbon release associated with its construction and initial operation? It's silly just to gasp at the adverse impact of damn without the perspective of the positives. I don't know what the answer is in the trade-offs, but I do know an incomplete analysis when I see one.
Hey Brian! Thanks for pointing out important aspects. We agree that it is indeed very hard to calculate the trade-offs when it comes to big hydropower, especially if it has a very long lifespan. That is why this video did not attempt to give a definitive answer, just to point out often-neglected issues with the technology.
Dont remove the dams just make them last and make more power. in short the longer they work the less downside per year and as i type this a dam is more recyclable than a wind farm and Australia's add on three turbine bank per dams flow is the boost needed
thank you for slowing down earth 🌎 a bit🗿.tha lad was spinin fast
Can you quantify the cost and benefit of building Big Dam and small dam ?
Hey there! This question cannot be answered easily. The exact costs and benefits depend on various factors such as topography, material available, geology, the purpose, environmental and social impact and many more. As we tackle in the video, the environmental effect of large dams is very bad and obviously the safety risk is higher. If you are interested in more detail, you can find several reports online, especially for specific country-cases.
@@DWPlanetA As you said, "The exact costs and benefits depend on various factors. . ." How do you deduce the environmental effect of large dams is very bad (i.e. big dam is worse than small dam)?
To decrease human greed and have simple lifestyle and find true happiness and value outside of material realms.
Why not nuclear? Nuclear power plants has proven to be relatively much disruptive to the nature and much greener than any other renewable energy
Hey Alok, the risks on nuclear are shocking if implemented. ☢ But, that's a solution to think about too. ⚡ Please watch our videos
📺Do we need nuclear power to stop climate change?: ua-cam.com/video/9X00al1FsjM/v-deo.html
📺Can thorium nuclear energy make a comeback?: ua-cam.com/video/Km6kqykX900/v-deo.html
and let us know what you think!
It is quite interesting to see that DW lays such importance on the energy needs of developing countries.
While the developed world has used some of the most controversial methods to tackle it's energy needs. While housing some of the minimum populations of the world, developed countries are the worst exploiters of the global resources.
Hi Naman. 🙌 We have made a video on climate reparations and why rich countries have to pay 👉 ua-cam.com/video/KGOvRn5_QRg/v-deo.html. Please check it out and leave a comment. ✨
Don't forget that we have sea water, too.
What about natural and artificial desasters and flood coused by don releass do we needinsurance as one uses the dam and another cops damages. Also dam as weapon.
Maybe nuclear is not that bad an idea after all...?
Hydro plants are often cheaper to construct.
Well the same can be said about solar panels. Also in Portugal there was a huge forest full of deers and other wild life that was leveled down to put solar panels.
Hello. Yes, while solar energy is a great thing, there are still some hurdles along the way that need to be taken into account. We made this video on solar and asked how green is it really 👉 ua-cam.com/video/EWV4e453y8Y/v-deo.html. Let us know your thoughts in the comments. 🌱
Some countries have deserts or even salt flats. Abandoned mines might also be able to hold solar panels.
I support more investment into hydropower projects. The Grand Inga Dam is to be viewed as an international project. Because the cost of building the 70GW dam is even bigger than the economy of the DRC. If the dam is not built, the local population would feast on the dense equatorial forest in the region as an energy source which is bad for the global climate.
Grand Inga Dam is too big. DRC and all neighboring countries together could not consume the amount of energy the dam would produce, even considering a huge increase of demand. The USD 80 billion cost would only cover the construction of the dam, not included is the power transmission and power distribution. The transmission cost and distribution cot can easily be much more costly. My guess would be if the dam will be built it will be smaller and knowing the government of DRC it will supply a few mine operations in Katanga and nothing for the local community. On the other hand Inga one and Inga two are in dire need for rehabilitation, the dams are in a pity state, same for the transmission lines which provides power to Kinshasa. Fix the existing power supply first, add more and smaller generation later and don't forget the local community. In my opinion a Grand Inga dam would be more harm for DRC than it helps and only fills the pockets of the most corrupts.
@@meerkathero6032 It would do more so let the status quo remain?
@@jameskamotho7513 Status quo is not acceptable, country's infrastructure lays in ruins. Especially Inga 1 and Inga 2 need rehabilitation. This two dams could provide several 100 MW additional power, if they get the repair needed. Many of the existing power lines need repair too (and reinforcements for new power projects coming later). What does a damn dam help if the power can't be transferred to the people?
It doesn't make sense to built the largest power project of the world without the demand for that huge amount of energy nor the transmission and distribution infrastructure. Who buys a moon rocket if he just wants to go to the neighbors house? DRC would go deep into depth for this Gigaproject nobody could pay back and most people would have any benefit from it. Better is to repair Inga 1 and 2, repair the existing and built new powerlines and Inga 3 and other smaller power projects close to the people.
@@meerkathero6032 You've backtracked on your initial statement. It was meant to be shared with the neighbours including South Africa so the issue of demand is taken care of...
@@jameskamotho7513 Well, this means you want to built the largest power plant of the world and additional the longest transmission line with the highest capacity ever built worldwide.
To have an incredible amount of energy at one spot is totally useless without the power lines to transmit it to the consumers. Such a project is technical feasible, but nobody could finance it nor would it be economical viable.
I think u need to consider mini hydro turbines as a solution coz they’re a fraction of the cost, some are portable & this tech is actually scalable . U know, I was thinking that u might mention this one ,in your solutions @the end of the video , anyways great 👍 job ,love & respect for your work.
U guys are pretty underrated,being state -owned most companies try 2 show their government who’s funding them in the good light , but u stood for the truth and reported against the German govt for lutzerath 👏👏👏👏🖖 appreciate your honest journalism 👍
@@Rodickjose they do it too. Don't be delusional.
They didn't show any solutions as the purpose of the video is to reinforce the agenda of BADNESS of Big dams (CHEAP GREEN energy). If you see the data most of the dams are getting built now in so-called third world countries and China is leading the way. See below from bbc: "Chinese players were seen as a welcome replacement to World Bank funding because they did not ask as many questions [about resettling communities or biodiversity] as the World Bank". It's a propaganda piece my friend. China funds big dam projects now around the world, which is very GREAT news for humanity in my opinion as I do not buy the World bank fake agenda of biodiversity and human rights. World bank has only one agenda 🫰💲💵
@@matildo4ka7 I’m not . Just Not as much as others.
These mini hydros are the worst most ineffective solutions by todays build standards. Investors exploit these projects through subsidiaries and put small rivers and streams in pipes, destroying the local river ecosystem drying them up. Untill there comes a much more efficient and non disruptive standard, these are much worse than big capacity dams.
Stara Planina mountain in Serbia had huge protest of locals and manage to eradicate the greedy investors that already did damage to the wildlife, gaining nothing significant in power production.
It's plain and simple really. For all this river-water to have the best possible climate impact, all of it ought to pass through vegetation at least once.
Photosynthesis is H2O + CO2 + Sunlight = Glucose + Oxygen. It's a perfect reaction for all our problems. The only issue is that water is key. - If we're letting that water go to waste by having it rush out to sea after being held in a reservoir, very little is evaporated and none of it is used to secure ecosystem-services which life depends on.
People talk about the sea-level rising from the melting cryosphere, but as far as I can tell, everybody overlooks how mych water is stored in living organisms. Take the total sea-level rise in the past 50 years. Subtract the volume originating from ices and underground. The resulting volume would be all the water that came out of all the life that has been snuffed out - I'm talking about the volume of water that is being circulated (and purified) by ecosystems.
If all that water doesn't trickle through these ecosystems, reliable rainfall is a thing of the past. Massive soil-erosion is/will be the future.
Too bad water-rights are such an "I'll just throw money at it" issue. Nobody ever got rich off doing right by the earth, so few environmentalist parties could ever have the power to decide how river-water is allocated. Still, if they could, and they should, all river water ought to be destined to supply the surrounding ecosystems with enough water - and ONLY THEN allow interested parties to buy a share of what's left. Or better yet, just harvest some fresh water from the foggy air that pours out of these ecosystems.
@@emil4580 WATER should be discussed more than CARBON in the 21st century. Sadly the idea of selling water was normalized in the 20th century and many kids don't find it strange to BUY water in a plastic bottle. Adults are PAYING for water to the GOVERNMENTS (if you don't have your own well). Most and foremost during our lifetime kids will think that to drink clean water and breathe clean air is a PRIVILEGE and not a human RIGHT. Water is connected to vegetation as you rightly mentioned. When we create imbalance in vegetation and consuming and selling more than we should then NATURE takes counter balance action.
Well answered. People like him are an asset for India. The way he presented is like marketing Indian product to the world.
There is no perfect solution.
Need to fight the worst and thus embrase the not perfect.
Hydro is much small problem than global warming.
Same as nuclear.
So need more nuclear and hydro.
That fact that kaleswaram project in telagana is ignored
Dams are not boring.
2:24 is next to where i live :)
each types of energy source have pros and cons. if you using magnifying glass on the cons, then go back to the ice-age.
Nuclear solves all our energy needs, and has the lowest carbon footprint.
We have the technology to do it safely now
80+% of France runs ons Nuclear
Trees are the best 😎😎🌲🌲
You didn't mention the problem of silting up. It isn't just water that runs in rivers; mountains crumble into boulders, stones, gravel and silt, and they are all carried downstream by the water. When they get to a dammed lake, they sink. After a few decades, so much has sunk, and the lake is so shallow, that there is no water pressure to generate electricity; so the dam has come to the end of its life. You can generate electricity on a small scale without a dam, and with low-tech equipment. It's far less "efficient" in engineering terms, but if the mega-dam projects are diverting large bribes to politicians etc., as you so plausibly suggest, that cuts down your "efficiency" advantage. Add in disruption to the rivers' ecology and the livelihoods of fishermen, farmers etc., and the loss of homes and the disruption to communities, well, small is beautiful, as the man said.