The problem they are talking about is specifically related to submersion of the flora after flooding. I see no reason to discount the journal's findings. I am sure they didn't leave out huge factors. The build up is indeed released into the atmosphere, as they indicate, when the water proceeds through the turbines.

It's not just threatened. It's a fact that flooding thousands of hectares of terrestrial habitat will kill, injure, and displace thousands of animals. This really isn't debatable. The other problems regarding erosion, fish population destablizatino, are also well documented.

Again, no one said it justifies nuclear as the opinion option. I needn't therefore prove nuclear is the only option. It does however, address the claim that the ecological impact doesn't involve destruction of habitat. It does. That's a fact inherent to the process, and it's often quite significant. It also indicates that the "green claims" of hydro are exaggerated quite a bit and dishonest. It doesn't mean they should be banned any more than ecological damage means we ought to ban nuclear plants.

They address all plant life, but that doesn't matter. When the plants break down, they form CO2 and CH4, which sit, disovled in the water. But aquatic plants grow off of that CO2 and CH4 and remove it, which is why it is not recorded leaving the surface of the water to any degree like these people are suggesting. That is a huge factor that they left out. Why they left that out, I'm not going to speculate, but they did.

It's not a flash flood that occurs over night. It will displace birds and other animals, but guess what, they move around all the time anyway, which is why they easily adjust. The only time when they have a hard time is while the dam is being built and there is a lot of people and construction. As for fish destabilization, it often adds fish, which is, by definition destabilization, but not in a negative way. In Oregon, the best places to fish are in the resevoirs behind the dams. Why? Because there are so many fish and they thrive so well there.

Yes it does. When radioactive water leaks out into the enviroment, I suppose that does no harm?

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

This is where you make the mistake:

1. It doesn't stay dissolved in the wate
2. It is, in fact, recorded as being released. Part of the process of using the water after it absorbs the material causes the problem. You entirely glossed over this fact. It's being recorded much like they say.


I will be back a little later. I want to read this:

http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/sdissu...mblaypaper.pdf

And then come back.

Obviously, plant die naturally, and rivers are the source of submerged decay that happens naturally. The problem with making dams is that they flood lots of previously unflooded area at once, killing much flora at once. This then decays en mass, and then is absorbed into the water in bulk. When processed, in a sense, it then gets removed into the atmosphere, whereas it normally would not, they indicate. It has to do with the additional area undergoing submersion + the time frame.

Of course the land isn't all instantly flooded, but in the process, it displaces many animals from that land and kills many. No one said it's instant death for all of them. Ignoring the reality of dam construction's negative impact on the environment doesn't make it go away. Flooding does, and has, killed terrestrial animals in habitats flooded by dam construction. This qualifies as an ecological habitat destruction. Again, that you replace it with new animals and a new aquatic habitat doesn't negate this, which you seem stuck on.

You're trying to shift goalposts and are misunderstanding the point in the process.

1. This isn't an argument about whether something shouldn't be used if it causes harm. No one said either nuclear OR hydro shouldn't be used if it caues harm.

2. I never argued that nuclear is harmLESS, which is bizarre, given you are focusing on the potential harms of nuclear as well.

3. The actual argument is in response to your claim that hydro power does not cause habitat destruction. This claim is false. It causes a great deal of habitat destruction.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:

"Dams can create large reservoirs submerging what used to be dry land, producing many problems. The Balbina dam in Brazil, for example, flooded 2,750 square kilometers (965 square miles), an area the size of Rhode Island. This land is often composed of wetlands, which are important wildlife habitats, [...] Wildlife habitats destroyed by reservoirs can be especially valuable. In South America, 80 percent of the hydroelectric potential is located in rain forests, one of the most rich and diverse ecosystems on Earth. The Rosana dam in Brazil destroyed one of the few remaining habitats of the black-lion tamarin, a rare and beautiful species of long-haired monkey."


But obviously, dams don't destroy habitats! They are magic green projects. Flooding terrestrial habitats by the thousands of hectares--some even the size of whole states, doesn't destroy them. It transmutes them into the goodness of love and happiness, right? Surely it doesn't kill, injure, and displace wildlife! That...that's just unheard of! Not to mention it often floods more land than it takes the build a nuke facility.


One problem can potentially be mitigated by cutting down the forest BEFORE you submerge it: that is, it can eliminate the problems associated with submerged decay. It also can mitigate the harm that is usually caused to fish populations. Again, they indicate: "without the forest first being cleared, as the plants and trees that were submerged began to rot, they reduced the oxygen content of the water, killing off the plants and fish in the water."

I guess that causes no habitat destruction either, huh?


Here are some more non-problems associated with real dams: "A similar problem has occurred in Canada, in hydro projects built by Hydro Quebec. The stones and soil in the flooded area contain naturally occurring mercury and other metals. When the land was flooded, the mercury dissolved into the water, and then into the local fish populations. The creatures that eat the fish—from bears and eagles, to the native Cree people—are suffering from mercury poisoning. Mercury poisoning can cause brain damage, birth defects, liver disorders, and other ailments."

I guess it's all a big conspiracy against water power. They go on and on. Perhaps they are just lying and it's really a conspiracy against water power propagated by evul ecologists in backroom bars filled with smoke. Who knows? Their claims of habitat destruction are just all wrong!

lol

Plus, how else can I improve the profits of my stock portfolio without people investing in nuclear =D

Of course, it continues with the carbon cycle after being absorbed by the new plants that grow, that called the circle of life. The Carbon doesn't escape into the atmosphere (on a large scale)

I suggest that you re-read the entry from New Scientist that you posted earlier. They are (scientists) argueing about how pollutants should be measured. The CO2 and CH4 coming off from the surface isn't nearly as high as the numbers would suggest (numbers that don't take into effect the new plant life that is completely the carbon cycle).

Yes, and what you get is that is a sharp spike in the CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the water and they go back down when new plant life adjusts. After that initial release of CO2 and CH4, no more pollutants come out, unlike oil or coal.

So how do you wish to continue this? In past posts (when we first got into this), you said that dams cause "vast ecological damage," using "vast" puts it into a catagory of "extreme," while in recent posts you've been saying, "habitat destruction," meaning any at all. I haven't said that no damage is caused to the enviroment. But I stand by that the damage is not "vast" or any other adjective that is extreme in nature, and I stand by that the habitat is repaired to something (although not the same) that is similar and compatible to the current living creatures.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

Tell that to the migrating salmon. Or the species killed when their habitats are flooded.

Roofs are not always at the right angle, or designed to support the structural loads, or in the sun. The sun goes down at night, and is behind clouds a lot, especially in the northeast, where a lot of people live. Deserts are not near most cities, and are wildlife habitats themselves.

Algae thrives on pollution. The goal here is a clean environment, not a polluted one. Switchgrass grows better on farmland than on marginal land, so will compete with food crops.

Name one species that has been killed off because of dams.

The only roofs that can't hold them are ones that are not kept at a safe structural level. Roofs are all designed to be able to support solar panels, as they are not that heavy, and lifts can easily adjust them to the best angle. Solar panels still work when there are clouds, just not as well.

DC power lines can transport electricity a long distance with minimal energy lost to resistance in the wires (like they do now, you don't all have a generator in you back yard).

Algae thrives on CO2, which it then turns into O2 + fuel (theres more than that, but you get the idea), it works like almost every other plant and it cleans the enviroment or CO2.

__________________
Set your destination with your heart, get there with your mind.

"The wisest men follow their own direction." - Euripides

As they indicated, a large amount of it is not absorbed by the aquatic plants. In reality, the process kills many of them off. Moreover, in it later escapes by passing through the turbine, as was explained by the article.


I did re-read it. Many of them say it's quite a bit serious, which you're underplaying. Moreover, the second source from the Union of Concerned Scientists agrees that it causes ecological damage also to the native aquatic flora would otherwise absorb some of the gases.

You're undershooting. There are some who disagree with the statements made by the authors.

Refer to the above.


I stick by the vast statement, given flooding an area, say, the size of RI which was previously dry forest, and turning it into a flooded aquatic habitat certainly, at least via scale, consists of a vast habitat destruction.


Do you really want to stand by the assertion that flooding thousands of hectares of dry forest and making a man-made lake out of it is actually "similar" to what it was before? That's interesting. Most ecologists would disagree that an underwater habitat is nothing like a boreal forest.

Obviously, the damage from any one dam isn't uniform across dams. It depends on the location (type of biome), and the size of the dam. I did say vast at first, not later, because I already said it once. I didn't know I needed to type vast before every time I say ecological damage or habitat destruction. I'll do that from now on.

I consider flooding thousands of hectares of dry terrestrial forest land habitat destruction for the terrestrial animals, regardless of whether different fish species *and some birds* benefit from it later. When you flood large tracts of dry land, by definition you are destroying the previous habitat and replacing it by another one: a flooded aquatic habitat. It's like if we took rainforest, hacked it down, and replaced it with farmland. Farms DO have their own ecology with many organisms that live on them.

Edit: perhaps it was just a misinterpretation of what you said. If so, I am sorry for misrepresenting you. This is what you said:

I took this to mean what it says: hydroelectric power systems don't destroy the habitat. I argued that it does. But just above you said you never said it doesn't destroy them.


If you want to change your argument to it does destroy habitat, but not necessarily on the scale I think, then okay, I can accept that, but your new statement doesn't seem consistent with your original one.