Reservoirs are not as carbon neutral as we thought, according to new studies from the Washington State University. Hydropower is an underestimated cause of greenhouse gasses, producing around one gigaton of carbon dioxide per year.
Hydropower is not as clean as it appears now. Though much attention has been paid to their effects on fisheries and the natural flow of rivers, little attention has been focused on their carbon footprint. According to new studies, the reservoirs are responsible for 1.3% of all GHG emissions worldwide. Now it is to calculate how it will affect the hydropower-depending nations, especially those who are developing ones, in the following years to meet the Paris Agreement guidelines and other international climate policies.
“While reservoirs are often thought of as ‘green’ or carbon neutral sources of energy, a growing body of work has documented their role as greenhouse gas sources,” Bridget Deemer, WSU research associate and lead author, and their colleagues write.
Hydropower isn’t as clean as we thought
Hydropower is a way to produce energy derived from falling water or fast running of water. Since ancient times, it has been used as a renewable source of energy. In 1879, the first commercial hydropower plant was opened at the Niagara Falls. It has even been considered by institutions such as the World Bank as a mean to economic development that didn’t add an important amount of carbon to the atmosphere.
However, the most common type of hydroelectric power plants require dams on a river to store water in a reservoir, and it has been proven now that they do have a significant negative impact on societies since they can destroy river ecosystems and displace millions of people. Also, new studies show that they are having big, though little known, impact on global warming.
Therefore, Hydropower is not as carbon neutral as we believed it to be. They produce 1.3% of Greenhouse gas emissions which is more than Canada’s net greenhouse gas production. The study – which will be published next week in “Bioscience” – established that the reservoirs represent an important source of methane, which is a GHG which is 34 times more damaging that carbon dioxide, trapping 86 times more heat than CO2 over 20 years.
The methane in reservoirs is produced by microbes living in the water consuming organic matter. The amount of methane gas produced in these places can even be compared to the amount produced by biomass burning or rice paddies according to the statistics of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This international institution is discussing whether or not including reservoirs greenhouse gas emissions in the 2019 IPCC update about how states report their GHG emissions. It is important to be aware that hydropower-derived emissions are not yet considered in these inventories.
“We had a sense that methane might be pretty important but we were surprised that it was as important as it was,” said Bridget Deemer. “It’s contributing right around 80 percent of the total global warming impact of all those gases from reservoirs. It’s a pretty important piece of the budget” She added.
She acknowledged that reservoirs, though they have a negative side, they do have a positive one since they stand as providers of important services such as electrical power, navigation, water distribution and flood control.
Why are reservoirs a climate problem?
The study takes into consideration data from the year 2000, and it has proven that each square meter of the surface of reservoirs produces 25% more methane that it was thought by scientists. It all occurs because unlike other water bodies; reservoirs tend to flood large amounts of organic matter which produce gasses such as CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide as the organic matter discompose.
“There’s been a growing sense in the literature that methane bubbles are a really important component of the total emissions from lake and reservoir ecosystems,” said Deemer.
Bioscience published in 2000 one of the first papers highlighting the concerning release of gasses from reservoirs, and ever since several studies have been taken on the subject. Scientists explain that the impact of reservoirs on global warming is best calculated by knowing how biologically productive it is since those with more algae and nutrients systems are also the most contaminating.
The Washington State University study is the first to look at the flow of the three major GHGs, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, in reservoirs. It is part of the WSU Grand Challenges which is aimed to tackle important societal issues, especially regarding the challenge posed by resources and their sustainable use to supply present and future generations.
Although the recent discovery is raising concern about the viability and sustainability of hydroelectric power, there are currently at least 3700 large reservoir projects under considerations and construction for the upcoming years mainly in emerging economies, according to research published by Aquatic Science in 2015.
Source: Phys Org
When the funding is so easy to come by these are the sorts of study that the gravy train creates. And these are what the news reports and activists talk about each day. This whole alarmist nonsense is nothing but a money train.
Site your original source. What study by Washington State University?
Is this Freshmen Intro to Writing 101?
Guess I’ll have to wait till next week in Bioscience to find out.
That study produces so much methane from the shit as in bull shit pilled so high, these idiots with their – “the Sky is falling, the sky is falling” scare tactics.. They should be put out of their fucking mental illness misery.
Garbage. How green can millions of dirty solar panels covering thousands of acres killing all flora and fauna along with the killing of all things living on the land be? Then cluttering the landscape with windmills that dont work. But lets build hydro electric pumps in the ocean to harness the waves and thousands of more windmills in the ocean to garner the ocean winds for power. Stupidity at best. Green people are nuts.
Solar is the best way. Fossil fuels pollute and nuclear is unaccepted. Bty, we’ll need millions of acres of solar (and machine recyclers). No problem, global warming solved by mid century (unless greens enact severe CO2 taxes)!
Oh gee wiz. This has nothing to do with carbon emissions considering how small the footprint of hydro-electricity really is. This is about literally changing the face of the planet by damming up rivers, estuaries, lakes and other bodies of water. The real climate change is occurring because we’re physically changing the ecology of the planet, not because of carbon emissions.
There is only so much organic matter underneath a reservoir. Therefore, the “findings” are false – because they would only be temporary. Besides, all new projects would probably have to clean up the wood and what not, before flooding, precisely for this reason.
Obviously, the benefits outweigh these false alarms. Perhaps it’s the nature of certain environmentalists that would rather us not have energy in the first place that omits the fact that these results must be temporary.
The degree of “temporary” must be argued to find a legit overall GHG emissions, including diminishing emissions per unit of energy stored/generated due to cleaner sources making and powering equipment in the future.
Not to mention dams are extraordinarily detrimental to the wildlife
Sounds like this has to do with something else. Let me take a stab at it. The west loans the emerging markets money and expertise in building these projects. Promises have been made to lift areas up… but climate change it going to change things. Certain areas are going to see less rainfall and perhaps severe dry spells; which means the loans may go bad. How does on back-track on contracts. How does one weaken countries so that they are more dependent. Less advanced; thus using less materials… as an upcoming middle class might utilize. Anyone else want to guess.
But somehow wetlands are good for global warming? They produce a whole lot more methane than lakes.
It’s more like the study is done by the anti dam people.
DING!!!!! You win the cigar, sir!
I don’t know a whole lot about carbon in the atmosphere, but I do know about how the precision of data can affect the accuracy of the bottom line produced when you multiply several estimated figures together.
In the present article, methane is called “34 times more damaging than carbon dioxide” while another presumably authoritative article says methane is only 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide and its lifespan in the environment is shorter.
Likewise, other articles say the methane output from some reservoirs differs greatly from the output of others. Older reservoirs, it’s said, produce less while newer ones produce more. Nowhere have I yet found that data have been measured accurately over the entire surface of enough reservoirs to produce really precise knowledge of the total output from all sources. Add to this the appearance that figures reported in the present article were gotten by multiplying by a deduced average, and we all know how misleading an average can be.
So my conclusion is to not be alarmed, but keep watching how the article’s claims play out over time as more research gives more granularity to how the reported figures are computed. As for now, I still believe hydro power is among the best sources for electricity.
This is about as weak a piece of pseudo research as was ever foisted on the public. Looks like unprovable secondary modeling results based on faulty level one models. Has this been peer reviewed?
I can’t help myself..reservoirs? Are you serious? How could anyone write this and feel good about themselves? I am at a loss for humanity. We should set up hydro power collection sites around the melting ice caps..but make them mobile…that is exponential energy…uggh
I always remember a saying by my high school teacher – ‘If we wanted to eliminate any potential chance of climate change, then we’d have to go back to 1 billion people and live like the native americans’. Eventually they will say increased population is causing increased CO2. What is their solution? Adapt or regulate until we all are living back in the stone age?
All of our problems are lessened when there are fewer people, of course. Do you realize that the Earth has three times as many humans today as it did in 1950? And…they all want a higher standard of living, which means more energy consumption. More people, each using more energy means chaos and a downward spiral for mankind. Where is our leadership!
Leadership is mostly bound by the profits that strip the future… It’s up to us to make them aware that we need a transition from fossil fuels – and to one with greater energy potential.
The solution is to “fix” the problem. That would be exponential growth in solar/battery installs – and in generating even more clean energy needed to green a desert (for proper CO2 intake via new soils).
We have almost solved the ozone hole problem – and we’re still in our adolescent stage! Of course, GW is a tough nut for early 21st century tech, nothing at all for mid century tech – just as long as we don’t limit the amount of (at first) wind and hydropower, and all along, continue developing the solar/battery revolution.
Yes, let’s just stop producing energy by all means and go back to the horse and buggy. I think we would all be happier and we would save the planet at the same time.
Just think about all of the methane those horses would emit.
If back to horse stage was to be possible, would probably be less than that of today’s fossil fuel CO2 equivalent. But (most likely) not less than what the future of exponential solar/battery infrastructure will offer.
Maybe all those on the planet that are so concerned for the planet, should start saving it by offing themselves. That would be a good start.
Or by proposing real (and even obvious) solutions!
Maybe you’re missing Richard’s excellent point, that shooting the messenger is always the most effective solution.
Yeah, how stupid to be concerned for the planet. We’ll be so much better off when the only people left are bent on rape for profit!
No, just the ones with common sense!
Absolutely, and concern for the planet shows complete lack of common sense. If only people would start caring less and get busy with the collective pillaging!!!!
Nope, too many people (now), too cumbersome. The “slowness” might even cause more stress.
This is the dumbest thing I have ever read. And I read a lot.
What kind of imbecile believes this non science?
People who know a lot more about science than you do. A little bit of methane goes a long way. The scientific community has more than its share of dogmas, but I suspect not as many as you.
missing is part of explanation: wouldn’t that same methane also be produced in oceans without sediment stopping dams?
Paragraph 6 sentence 2: ‘unlike other water bodies; reservoirs tend to flood large amounts of organic matter which produce gasses such as CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide as the organic matter discompose.’ Now, what discomposing has to do with this is concerning. Discompose means to agitate someone, however, had the word DECOMPOSE been used it would have given me more confidence in the article. Clearly someone is looking to create a whole new flow of federal grant dollars.
I think that the argument is that with a reservoir you have increased surface area of water exposed to the atmosphere, so more methane sublimes from the water into the air. I find it to be terribly misleading though — you have to compare it to something, and the appropriate something is a different way of generating the same amount of power, like a coal-burning plant or some such. Comparing it to simply not having a reservoir doesn’t seem to make any sense to me.
And saliva adds to global warming. But only if swallowed in small amounts over long periods of time.