Discussion:
Large hydropower dams 'not sustainable' in the developing world
Add Reply
Unum
2018-11-08 16:36:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118

researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.

Dams are now being removed at a rate of more than one a week on both sides of
the Atlantic.

The problem, say the authors of this new paper, is that governments were
blindsided by the prospect of cheap electricity without taking into account
the full environmental and social costs of these installations.

More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.

"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.

"Large hydropower doesn't have a future, that is our blunt conclusion," said
Prof Moran.

"To keep hydropower as part of the mix in the 21st Century we should combine
multiple sources of renewable energy," said Prof Moran.

"There should be more investment in solar, wind and biomass, and hydro when
appropriate - as long as we hold them to rigorous standards where the costs
and benefits are truly transparent."
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 16:41:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet another
monster up on the Peace river.

We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
Unum
2018-11-08 18:16:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet another monster
up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.

"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-08 18:24:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet another monster
up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
I thin Chumsky just claimed Scandinavia & Cantada are in "the developing world".
Or maybe he just nebba reads and/or unnerstans what he's commenting on.
Post by Unum
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
--
[A new record. After 1624 "me too" posts Wally "discovers" the
unresponsive MrPostingRobot is not human:]

It's worse than we thought:
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 09:00:02 +1000
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 12:00:03 +1000
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 13:00:02 +1000
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 15:00:02 +1000
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2017 16:00:02 +1000
Mr. Decimal Places missed by one second at 12:00:03 +1000.

-- Wally W Wally, 04 Aug 2017 14:18Z


[MrPostingRobot's history to this point
(conveniently provided by googlegroups):
(alt.global-warming - 1624 posts)
2016 2017
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
27 212 77 44 58 58 125 221 208 132 210 201 51

WWWallybot's mee too history:
2017
Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
37 295 146 180 267 227 235].
danny burstein
2018-11-08 18:36:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated.
Only 90 percent? You could say that about just about
any other major gov't/gov't-insutry-partnership deal.

Yawn.
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
***@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
R Kym Horsell
2018-11-08 18:49:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by danny burstein
Post by Unum
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated.
Only 90 percent? You could say that about just about
any other major gov't/gov't-insutry-partnership deal.
Neat self-contradiction.
If it's "almost always" then it's expected and not unanticipated.
Post by danny burstein
Yawn.
--
Nature published a great new reconstruction of global temperatures over the
past 2 million years today. Snyder (2016) uses 61 temperature
reconstructions from 59 globally diverse sediment cores and a correlation
structure from model simulations of the last glacial maximum to estimate
(with uncertainties) the history of global temperature back through the last
few dozen ice ages cycles. There are multiple real things to discuss about
this - the methodology, the relatively small number of cores being used
(compared to what could have been analyzed), the age modeling etc. - and many
interesting applications - constraints on polar amplification, the
mid-Pleistocene transition, the duration and nature of previous
interglacials - but unfortunately, the bulk of the attention will be paid to
a specific (erroneous) claim about Earth System Sensitivity (ESS) that made
it into the abstract and was the lead conclusion in the press release.

The paper claims that ESS is ~9?C and that this implies that the long term
committed warming from today's CO2 levels is a further 3-7?C. This is simply
wrong.
-- gavin, realclimate, 26 Sept 2016
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 19:32:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet another
monster up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
Weren't you kooks recently bragging about this?

***

Costa Rica Powered With 100% Renewable Energy For 75 Straight Days

Costa Rica has been powered primarily by hydro power - both pumped
storage and run-of-the-river plants - and a mixture of geothermal, wind,
biomass and solar energy.

https://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days

***

Yeah, in fact about 80% of Costa Rica's power comes from damming up
rivers (I used to kayak some of them):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Costa_Rica

(cue Unum psychobabble)
Unum
2018-11-08 21:37:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet another
monster up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
Weren't you kooks recently bragging about this?
***
Costa Rica Powered With 100% Renewable Energy For 75 Straight Days
Costa Rica has been powered primarily by hydro power - both pumped storage and
run-of-the-river plants - and a mixture of geothermal, wind, biomass and solar
energy.
https://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days
chumpsky didn't bother to read his cite as usual, hilarious!

"It’s good news that more geothermal will be coming on board, as there are
obvious downsides of being too reliant on hydropower, especially run-of-
the-river systems, which can be hindered by seasonal changes in water flow.
Droughts can also severely impact power supplies. And there are also some
environmental downsides to hydroelectric dams more generally, namely the
impact on riparian ecosystems and passing fish. "
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-08 21:57:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet another
monster up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
Weren't you kooks recently bragging about this?
***
Costa Rica Powered With 100% Renewable Energy For 75 Straight Days
Costa Rica has been powered primarily by hydro power - both pumped
storage and run-of-the-river plants - and a mixture of geothermal,
wind, biomass and solar energy.
https://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days
chumpsky didn't bother to read his cite as usual, hilarious!
"It’s good news that more geothermal will be coming on board, as there are
obvious downsides of being too reliant on hydropower, especially run-of-
the-river systems, which can be hindered by seasonal changes in water flow.
Droughts can also severely impact power supplies. And there are also some
environmental downsides to hydroelectric dams more generally, namely the
impact on riparian ecosystems and passing fish.   "
And how does that change the fact that:

a) 80% of Costa Rica's power comes from dammed-up rivers, and;
b) greenie kooks brag about it
Unum
2018-11-09 00:51:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet another
monster up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
Weren't you kooks recently bragging about this?
***
Costa Rica Powered With 100% Renewable Energy For 75 Straight Days
Costa Rica has been powered primarily by hydro power - both pumped storage
and run-of-the-river plants - and a mixture of geothermal, wind, biomass
and solar energy.
https://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days
chumpsky didn't bother to read his cite as usual, hilarious!
"It’s good news that more geothermal will be coming on board, as there are
obvious downsides of being too reliant on hydropower, especially run-of-
the-river systems, which can be hindered by seasonal changes in water flow.
Droughts can also severely impact power supplies. And there are also some
environmental downsides to hydroelectric dams more generally, namely the
impact on riparian ecosystems and passing fish.   "
a) 80% of Costa Rica's power comes from dammed-up rivers, and;
b) greenie kooks brag about it
I don't recall anyone bragging about hydropower. I am certainly not in
favor of it, and it is 'not sustainable' in the developing world.

Why didn't chumpsky even read his cite?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 02:05:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet
another monster up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
Weren't you kooks recently bragging about this?
***
Costa Rica Powered With 100% Renewable Energy For 75 Straight Days
Costa Rica has been powered primarily by hydro power - both pumped
storage and run-of-the-river plants - and a mixture of geothermal,
wind, biomass and solar energy.
https://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days
chumpsky didn't bother to read his cite as usual, hilarious!
"It’s good news that more geothermal will be coming on board, as there are
obvious downsides of being too reliant on hydropower, especially run-of-
the-river systems, which can be hindered by seasonal changes in water flow.
Droughts can also severely impact power supplies. And there are also some
environmental downsides to hydroelectric dams more generally, namely the
impact on riparian ecosystems and passing fish.   "
a) 80% of Costa Rica's power comes from dammed-up rivers, and;
b) greenie kooks brag about it
I don't recall anyone bragging about hydropower. I am certainly not in
favor of it, and it is 'not sustainable' in the developing world.
Why didn't chumpsky even read his cite?
So it doesn't change the fact that Costa Rica gets 80% of its power from
damming-up river, and all your kook-blubbering is pointless?
Unum
2018-11-09 05:35:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet another
monster up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
Weren't you kooks recently bragging about this?
***
Costa Rica Powered With 100% Renewable Energy For 75 Straight Days
Costa Rica has been powered primarily by hydro power - both pumped
storage and run-of-the-river plants - and a mixture of geothermal, wind,
biomass and solar energy.
https://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days
chumpsky didn't bother to read his cite as usual, hilarious!
"It’s good news that more geothermal will be coming on board, as there are
obvious downsides of being too reliant on hydropower, especially run-of-
the-river systems, which can be hindered by seasonal changes in water flow.
Droughts can also severely impact power supplies. And there are also some
environmental downsides to hydroelectric dams more generally, namely the
impact on riparian ecosystems and passing fish.   "
a) 80% of Costa Rica's power comes from dammed-up rivers, and;
b) greenie kooks brag about it
I don't recall anyone bragging about hydropower. I am certainly not in
favor of it, and it is 'not sustainable' in the developing world.
Why didn't chumpsky even read his cite?
So it doesn't change the fact that Costa Rica gets 80% of its power from
damming-up river, and all your kook-blubbering is pointless?
I merely posted an article describing how large hydropower dams are
'not sustainable' in the developing world. Why did the nutjob suddenly
start blabbering about dams in Costa Rica? And why didn't chumpsky even
read his cite?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118

researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.

Dams are now being removed at a rate of more than one a week on both sides of
the Atlantic.

The problem, say the authors of this new paper, is that governments were
blindsided by the prospect of cheap electricity without taking into account
the full environmental and social costs of these installations.

More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.

"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.

"Large hydropower doesn't have a future, that is our blunt conclusion," said
Prof Moran.

"To keep hydropower as part of the mix in the 21st Century we should combine
multiple sources of renewable energy," said Prof Moran.

"There should be more investment in solar, wind and biomass, and hydro when
appropriate - as long as we hold them to rigorous standards where the costs
and benefits are truly transparent."
Wally W.
2018-11-09 05:48:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
"To keep hydropower as part of the mix in the 21st Century we should combine
multiple sources of renewable energy," said Prof Moran.
What??!

Building windmills keeps "hydropower as part of the mix?"

How so?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 06:34:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now
being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US
electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet
another monster up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not
fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
Weren't you kooks recently bragging about this?
***
Costa Rica Powered With 100% Renewable Energy For 75 Straight Days
Costa Rica has been powered primarily by hydro power - both pumped
storage and run-of-the-river plants - and a mixture of geothermal,
wind, biomass and solar energy.
https://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days
chumpsky didn't bother to read his cite as usual, hilarious!
"It’s good news that more geothermal will be coming on board, as there are
obvious downsides of being too reliant on hydropower, especially run-of-
the-river systems, which can be hindered by seasonal changes in water flow.
Droughts can also severely impact power supplies. And there are also some
environmental downsides to hydroelectric dams more generally, namely the
impact on riparian ecosystems and passing fish.   "
a) 80% of Costa Rica's power comes from dammed-up rivers, and;
b) greenie kooks brag about it
I don't recall anyone bragging about hydropower. I am certainly not in
favor of it, and it is 'not sustainable' in the developing world.
Why didn't chumpsky even read his cite?
So it doesn't change the fact that Costa Rica gets 80% of its power
from damming-up river, and all your kook-blubbering is pointless?
I merely posted an article describing how large hydropower dams are
'not sustainable' in the developing world.
So it doesn't change the fact that Costa Rica gets 80% of its power from
damming-up rivers, and all your kook-blubbering is pointless?
Unum
2018-11-09 15:47:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a
peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being
dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US
electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet another
monster up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of
people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
Weren't you kooks recently bragging about this?
***
Costa Rica Powered With 100% Renewable Energy For 75 Straight Days
Costa Rica has been powered primarily by hydro power - both pumped
storage and run-of-the-river plants - and a mixture of geothermal,
wind, biomass and solar energy.
https://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days
chumpsky didn't bother to read his cite as usual, hilarious!
"It’s good news that more geothermal will be coming on board, as there are
obvious downsides of being too reliant on hydropower, especially run-of-
the-river systems, which can be hindered by seasonal changes in water flow.
Droughts can also severely impact power supplies. And there are also some
environmental downsides to hydroelectric dams more generally, namely the
impact on riparian ecosystems and passing fish.   "
a) 80% of Costa Rica's power comes from dammed-up rivers, and;
b) greenie kooks brag about it
I don't recall anyone bragging about hydropower. I am certainly not in
favor of it, and it is 'not sustainable' in the developing world.
Why didn't chumpsky even read his cite?
So it doesn't change the fact that Costa Rica gets 80% of its power from
damming-up river, and all your kook-blubbering is pointless?
I merely posted an article describing how large hydropower dams are
'not sustainable' in the developing world.
So it doesn't change the fact that Costa Rica gets 80% of its power from
damming-up rivers, and all your kook-blubbering is pointless?
Settling for last post already?
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 16:00:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US
reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now
being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of
US electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Canada's juice, and we're building yet
another monster up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced
millions of people and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
Weren't you kooks recently bragging about this?
***
Costa Rica Powered With 100% Renewable Energy For 75 Straight Days
Costa Rica has been powered primarily by hydro power - both
pumped storage and run-of-the-river plants - and a mixture of
geothermal, wind, biomass and solar energy.
https://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days
chumpsky didn't bother to read his cite as usual, hilarious!
"It’s good news that more geothermal will be coming on board, as there are
obvious downsides of being too reliant on hydropower, especially run-of-
the-river systems, which can be hindered by seasonal changes in water flow.
Droughts can also severely impact power supplies. And there are also some
environmental downsides to hydroelectric dams more generally, namely the
impact on riparian ecosystems and passing fish.   "
a) 80% of Costa Rica's power comes from dammed-up rivers, and;
b) greenie kooks brag about it
I don't recall anyone bragging about hydropower. I am certainly not in
favor of it, and it is 'not sustainable' in the developing world.
Why didn't chumpsky even read his cite?
So it doesn't change the fact that Costa Rica gets 80% of its power
from damming-up river, and all your kook-blubbering is pointless?
I merely posted an article describing how large hydropower dams are
'not sustainable' in the developing world.
So it doesn't change the fact that Costa Rica gets 80% of its power
from damming-up rivers, and all your kook-blubbering is pointless?
Settling for last post already?
I accept your defeat.

R Kym Horsell
2018-11-08 22:11:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Unum
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46098118
researchers say the building of dams in Europe and the US reached a peak in
the 1960s and has been in decline since then, with more now being dismantled
than installed. Hydropower only supplies approximately 6% of US electricity.
Hydro supplies 62% of Cantada's juice, and we're building yet another
monster up on the Peace river.
We were green renewable before is was even a climate kook buzzword.
More than 90% of dams built since the 1930s were more expensive than
anticipated. They have damaged river ecology, displaced millions of pople(sic) and
have contributed to climate change by releasing greenhouse gases from the
decomposition of flooded lands and forests.
"They make a rosy picture of the benefits, which are not fulfilled and the
costs are ignored and passed on to society much later," lead author Prof
Emilio Moran, from Michigan State University, told BBC News.
Weren't you kooks recently bragging about this?
***
Costa Rica Powered With 100% Renewable Energy For 75 Straight Days
Costa Rica has been powered primarily by hydro power - both pumped storage and
run-of-the-river plants - and a mixture of geothermal, wind, biomass and solar
energy.
https://www.sciencealert.com/costa-rica-powered-with-100-renewable-energy-for-75-days
chumpsky didn't bother to read his cite as usual, hilarious!
"It's good news that more geothermal will be coming on board, as there are
obvious downsides of being too reliant on hydropower, especially run-of-
the-river systems, which can be hindered by seasonal changes in water flow.
Droughts can also severely impact power supplies. And there are also some
environmental downsides to hydroelectric dams more generally, namely the
impact on riparian ecosystems and passing fish. "
At least Chumsky managed to figure out widin 1-2 days where the developing
world is.

Baby steps.

Baby steps.
--
[Envisioning a short lifetime:]
A genuine visionary would be someone who could convince the cranks and kooks
to stop opposing nuclear.
-- Chomsky aka Kim D'ohbranski, 18 Oct 2018 10:10 AM
$27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO
2018-11-09 06:15:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Man, every time the 3rd World tries to better themselves, the Left try to f--- them over.
Chom Noamsky
2018-11-09 08:13:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by $27 TRILLION to PAY for KYOTO
Man, every time the 3rd World tries to better themselves, the Left try to f--- them over.
Green colonialism.
Loading...