metatag End of a Myth: Hydropower Doesn't Mean Green Energy - brazzil

End of a Myth: Hydropower Doesn’t Mean Green Energy

From the Amazon Basin to boreal forests, and from the Mekong to the Himalayan foothills, rivers worldwide are being targeted for major new dams in a global hydropower boom that also aims to supply drinking water to exploding human populations and to facilitate navigation on the planet’s rivers; 3,700 new dams — 847 of them larger than 100 MW — are slated for construction.

But one strong argument in favor of hydropower is now looking far weaker. Scientists have compiled the most comprehensive assessment yet of the global impact that dam reservoirs have on the world’s atmosphere and greenhouse emissions. And it isn’t good news.

Globally, the researchers estimate that reservoirs — long considered “zero emitters” by the United Nations climate program — contribute 1.3 percent of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions on this scale are comparable to those from rice paddy cultivation or biomass burning, the study authors write.

But despite their magnitude, these reservoir emissions are not currently counted within United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) assessments. In fact, countries are currently eligible under the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism to receive carbon credits for their newly built dams. The study raises the question as to whether hydropower should continue to be counted as green power.

Dams Not “Emission Free”

The study, published in BioScience, looked at the carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) emitted from 267 reservoirs across six continents. In total, the reservoirs studied have a surface area of more than 77,287 square kilometers (29,841 square miles).

That’s equivalent to about a quarter of the surface area of all reservoirs in the world, which together cover 305,723 square kilometers (118,040 square miles) — roughly the combined size of the United Kingdom and Ireland.

“The new study confirms that reservoirs are major emitters of methane, a particularly aggressive greenhouse gas,” said Kate Horner, Executive Director of International Rivers, adding that hydropower dams “can no longer be considered a clean and green source of electricity.”

Importantly, the study teased apart the relative emission contributions of each of the three gases — a crucial consideration as these gases have varying degrees of impact on global temperature.

Methane and nitrous oxide are many times more potent than carbon dioxide, and they also behave differently over time once released into the atmosphere, and both of these factors are relevant in the context of short and long-term policies on emission targets.

Over a 100-year timeframe, methane’s effect on global warming is more than 30 times, and nitrous oxide’s effect is almost 300 times, greater than CO2.

But the study authors argue that the next 100 years are not nearly so relevant as the next 20 years for determining climate change policy aimed at quickly curbing global warming and meeting global emission targets set out in the Paris Agreement.

And because methane “is relatively short-lived in the atmosphere (atmospheric lifetime on the order of a decade) relative to CO2 (atmospheric lifetime on the order of centuries),” they write, CH4 “has a higher global warming potential over the shorter 20-year time horizon.”

In fact, methane’s effect is 86 times greater than that of CO2 when considered on this two-decade timescale. Importantly, the study found that methane is responsible for 90 percent of the global warming impact of reservoir emissions over 20 years.

The Trouble with Bubbles

Around half of the methane emitted from reservoirs is released in bubbles, which rise from sediment and travel through the water column to the reservoir’s surface. The gas trapped inside these bubbles in the water column, “is the most direct route for methane to reach the atmosphere without being turned into carbon dioxide via [interaction with] oxygen,” said Tonya DelSontro, one of the study’s co-authors, of the University of Quebec, Montreal.

Accounting for the contribution of methane bubbles is therefore a vital component of accurate reservoir emission estimates, but measuring them is challenging. Bubbles are hard to locate, explained DelSontro, who has studied methane emissions from lakes and reservoirs in Switzerland, Zambia and Canada.

Many factors affect when and where bubbles occur, and how likely it is that researchers will detect them, such as proximity to the shore and to river inflows, and water and air pressure. The method used to measure gas emission from reservoirs is also important, as many commonly used techniques may miss bubbling — known as ebullition — altogether.

The scientists report that only half of the studies they examined took bubbles into account in their methane emission measurements — meaning methane emissions are being undercounted.

Reservoir emission estimates that included ebullition in their calculations were on average double those that did not, but the contribution of methane bubbles was “also highly variable, constituting anywhere from 0 to 99.6 percent of total CH4 flux [methane emitted into the atmosphere],” the scientists write.

“This highlights how crucial it is to measure both types of CH4 emission in order to estimate the total flux from reservoir surface waters.”

What determines how much greenhouse gas a given reservoir emits? Previous studies pointed to the importance of latitude, with tropical reservoirs — such as those planned or under construction in the Amazon — counted as emissions heavyweights.

But this latest study found that mid-latitude reservoirs could be equally high methane emitters. Rather than latitude itself being important, methane emissions were best predicted by reservoir nutrient-richness.

If nutrients and organic materials — able to sustain microbial and algal populations — are abundant, methane emissions will be higher. This is often the case in tropical forest reservoirs, because a lot of vegetation may be submerged at the time the reservoir is first filled.

But the authors identified other potentially high methane emitters: reservoirs built in productive agricultural regions at other latitudes — where nutrients and organic matter may leach from catchment areas into the reservoir.

The new research also identified water temperature as being an important factor, with warmer water promoting microbial and algal activity. How this will play out as global temperatures rise is uncertain, but the researchers warn that a “potential positive feedback loop” could be created as a warmer global atmosphere heats the planet’s reservoirs.

DelSontro explained that “future climate change, human population pressure, increased agriculture and other land use changes could cause an increase of nutrient input into freshwaters, thereby stimulating production (e.g., algal blooms) and perhaps higher rates of methane emission.” More methane in the atmosphere would mean a warmer climate, which could in turn enhance algal and microbial growth in the reservoirs, resulting in more greenhouse gas emissions that would further warm the climate.

The study also highlights other important emission pathways that are not generally taken into account when reservoir emissions are calculated, and that require further study.

These include emissions from “drawdown zones,” the areas that are repeatedly exposed and flooded as water levels fluctuate; “degassing” as water is aerated in turbines and spillways; and the decomposition of standing wood, known to be a major contributor to tropical reservoir emissions but not studied elsewhere.

Global Emission Budgets

The authors caution that with a near doubling of reservoir area predicted for the coming decades, the benefits of new dams need to be carefully weighed against the costs of building them: 847 large (more than 100 MW) and 2,853 smaller (more than 1 MW) hydropower projects are currently planned or under construction around the world.

Importantly, the greenhouse gases that reservoirs emit should no longer be overlooked in international policy, the researchers argue, but instead be included “in future UN IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] budgets and other inventories of anthropogenic GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions,” particularly as methane emissions have the greatest impact in the first 20 years of a reservoir’s life.

“The role of hydroelectric dams in emissions inventories and in mitigation has been systematically ignored,” and urgently needs to be addressed, wrote Philip Fearnside, of the National Institute for Research in Amazônia, in 2015.

“International Rivers has advocated for reservoir emissions to be included in national greenhouse gas inventories for many years,” Horner added, “and the IPCC should no longer give dam builders a pass when it reconsiders its methodology for such inventories.”

Fearnside highlighted another significant omission in IPCC consideration of reservoir emissions: land-use change such as deforestation, which often accompanies dam construction. Horner raised the same issue:

“Hydropower projects, for example, in the Amazon, in Central Africa and in Southeast Asia often open up pristine forest areas to deforestation. The findings of the study are conservative in that they don’t consider the massive emissions from this additional deforestation.”

Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, numerous additional environmental and social impacts often accompany dam development, as seen in the Amazon, the Mekong and elsewhere: communities are displaced, aquatic and terrestrial habitats are irrevocably altered, fisheries negatively impacted, migratory patterns blocked, and water and nutrient cycles disrupted.

Some of the emissions that reservoirs produce can be mitigated if dams are sited upstream of nutrient sources, and if nutrient levels are reduced in reservoir catchment areas, the scientists suggest. Clearing vegetation before inundation is another strategy to reduce the initial spike in methane emissions.

However, Horner cautioned, “the cleared biomass will still emit CO2 when it burns or decomposes, and the long-term emissions from organic matter that is deposited in a reservoir can’t be avoided.”

DelSontro’s ongoing research in the lakes of Quebec suggests that understanding the interaction between temperature and nutrients is important for accurate greenhouse gas emission predictions.

“These types of predictors are what some people, including myself, are looking for to better help us make predictions for potential changes to greenhouse gas budgets of freshwaters in the face of global environmental change.”

“As for reservoirs in particular, it is vital to understand that these water bodies have the potential to emit greenhouse gases, even hydroelectric reservoirs that are helping produce a ‘clean’ and ‘green’ form of energy,” she concluded.

“Therefore, potential reservoir projects should include an environmental assessment that includes potential greenhouse gas emissions, bearing in mind that emissions from the natural ecosystem must be taken into account.”

Horner takes a bolder stance on new hydropower dams: “At a time when wind and solar power have become cheap and abundant, such greenhouse gas emissions can’t be justified.”

This article appeared originally in Mongabay – https://news.mongabay.com –

Tags:

You May Also Like

It seems the future never arrives in Brazil What Lies Ahead in Brazil? Brazil Has No Exemplary Past or Present. But What Lies Ahead for the Country? Europeans, US, developed country, developing country. Bolsonaro, future B. Michael Rubin For years, experts have debated what separates a developing country from a developed one. The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of a country is one simple way to measure its economic development. Another way to measure a country's progress is the extent of public education, e.g. how many citizens complete high school. A country's health may be measured by the effectiveness of its healthcare system, for example, life expectancy and infant mortality. With these measurement tools, it's easier to gauge the difference between a country like Brazil and one like the U.S. What's not easy to gauge is how these two countries developed so differently when they were both "discovered" at the same time. In 1492 and 1500 respectively, the U.S. and Brazil fell under the spell of white Europeans for the first time. While the British and Portuguese had the same modus operandi, namely, to exploit their discoveries for whatever they had to offer, not to mention extinguishing the native Americans already living there if they got in the way, the end result turned out significantly different in the U.S. than in Brazil. There are several theories on how/why the U.S. developed at a faster pace than Brazil. The theories originate via contrasting perspectives – from psychology to economics to geography. One of the most popular theories suggests the divergence between the two countries is linked to politics, i.e. the U.S. established a democratic government in 1776, while Brazil's democracy it could be said began only in earnest in the 1980s. This theory states that the Portuguese monarchy, as well as the 19th and 20th century oligarchies that followed it, had no motivation to invest in industrial development or education of the masses. Rather, Brazil was prized for its cheap and plentiful labor to mine the rich soil of its vast land. There is another theory based on collective psychology that says the first U.S. colonizers from England were workaholic Puritans, who avoided dancing and music in place of work and religious devotion. They labored six days a week then spent all of Sunday in church. Meanwhile, the white settlers in Brazil were unambitious criminals who had been freed from prison in Portugal in exchange for settling in Brazil. The Marxist interpretation of why Brazil lags behind the U.S. was best summarized by Eduardo Galeano, the Uruguayan writer, in 1970. Galeano said five hundred years ago the U.S. had the good fortune of bad fortune. What he meant was the natural riches of Brazil – gold, silver, and diamonds – made it ripe for exploitation by western Europe. Whereas in the U.S., lacking such riches, the thirteen colonies were economically insignificant to the British. Instead, U.S. industrialization had official encouragement from England, resulting in early diversification of its exports and rapid development of manufacturing. II Leaving this debate to the historians, let us turn our focus to the future. According to global projections by several economic strategists, what lies ahead for Brazil, the U.S., and the rest of the world is startling. Projections forecast that based on GDP growth, in 2050 the world's largest economy will be China, not the U.S. In third place will be India, and in fourth – Brazil. With the ascendency of three-fourths of the BRIC countries over the next decades, it will be important to reevaluate the terms developed and developing. In thirty years, it may no longer be necessary to accept the label characterized by Nelson Rodrigues's famous phrase "complexo de vira-lata," for Brazil's national inferiority complex. For Brazilians, this future scenario presents glistening hope. A country with stronger economic power would mean the government has greater wealth to expend on infrastructure, crime control, education, healthcare, etc. What many Brazilians are not cognizant of are the pitfalls of economic prosperity. While Brazilians today may be envious of their wealthier northern neighbors, there are some aspects of a developed country's profile that are not worth envying. For example, the U.S. today far exceeds Brazil in the number of suicides, prescription drug overdoses, and mass shootings. GDP growth and economic projections depend on multiple variables, chief among them the global economic situation and worldwide political stability. A war in the Middle East, for example, can affect oil production and have global ramifications. Political stability within a country is also essential to its economic health. Elected presidents play a crucial role in a country's progress, especially as presidents may differ radically in their worldview. The political paths of the U.S. and Brazil are parallel today. In both countries, we've seen a left-wing regime (Obama/PT) followed by a far-right populist one (Trump/Bolsonaro), surprising many outside observers, and in the U.S. contradicting every political pollster, all of whom predicted a Trump loss to Hillary Clinton in 2016. In Brazil, although Bolsonaro was elected by a clear majority, his triumph has created a powerful emotional polarization in the country similar to what is happening in the U.S. Families, friends, and colleagues have split in a love/hate relationship toward the current presidents in the U.S. and Brazil, leaving broken friendships and family ties. Both presidents face enormous challenges to keep their campaign promises. In Brazil, a sluggish economy just recovering from a recession shows no signs of robust GDP growth for at least the next two years. High unemployment continues to devastate the consumer confidence index in Brazil, and Bolsonaro is suffering under his campaign boasts that his Economy Minister, Paulo Guedes, has all the answers to fix Brazil's slump. Additionally, there is no end to the destruction caused by corruption in Brazil. Some experts believe corruption to be the main reason why Brazil has one of the world's largest wealth inequality gaps. Political corruption robs government coffers of desperately needed funds for education and infrastructure, in addition to creating an atmosphere that encourages everyday citizens to underreport income and engage in the shadow economy, thereby sidestepping tax collectors and regulators. "Why should I be honest about reporting my income when nobody else is? The politicians are only going to steal the tax money anyway," one Brazilian doctor told me. While Bolsonaro has promised a housecleaning of corrupt officials, this is a cry Brazilians have heard from every previous administration. In only the first half-year of his presidency, he has made several missteps, such as nominating one of his sons to be the new ambassador to the U.S., despite the congressman's lack of diplomatic credentials. A June poll found that 51 percent of Brazilians now lack confidence in Bolsonaro's leadership. Just this week, Brazil issued regulations that open a fast-track to deport foreigners who are dangerous or have violated the constitution. The rules published on July 26 by Justice Minister Sérgio Moro define a dangerous person as anyone associated with terrorism or organized crime, in addition to football fans with a violent history. Journalists noted that this new regulation had coincidental timing for an American journalist who has come under fire from Moro for publishing private communications of Moro's. Nevertheless, despite overselling his leadership skills, Bolsonaro has made some economic progress. With the help of congressional leader Rodrigo Maia, a bill is moving forward in congress for the restructuring of Brazil's generous pension system. Most Brazilians recognize the long-term value of such a change, which can save the government billions of dollars over the next decade. At merely the possibility of pension reform, outside investors have responded positively, and the São Paulo stock exchange has performed brilliantly, reaching an all-time high earlier this month. In efforts to boost the economy, Bolsonaro and Paulo Guedes have taken the short-term approach advocated by the Chicago school of economics championed by Milton Friedman, who claimed the key to boosting a slugging economy was to cut government spending. Unfortunately many economists, such as Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, disagree with this approach. They believe the most effective way to revive a slow economy is exactly the opposite, to spend more money not less. They say the government should be investing money in education and infrastructure projects, which can help put people back to work. Bolsonaro/Guedes have also talked about reducing business bureaucracy and revising the absurdly complex Brazilian tax system, which inhibits foreign and domestic business investment. It remains to be seen whether Bolsonaro has the political acumen to tackle this Godzilla-sized issue. Should Bolsonaro find a way to reform the tax system, the pension system, and curb the most egregious villains of political bribery and kickbacks – a tall order – his efforts could indeed show strong economic results in time for the next election in 2022. Meanwhile, some prominent leaders have already lost faith in Bolsonaro's efforts. The veteran of political/economic affairs, Joaquim Levy, has parted company with the president after being appointed head of the government's powerful development bank, BNDES. Levy and Bolsonaro butted heads over an appointment Levy made of a former employee of Lula's. When neither man refused to back down, Levy resigned his position at BNDES. Many observers believe Bolsonaro's biggest misstep has been his short-term approach to fixing the economy by loosening the laws protecting the Amazon rainforest. He and Guedes believe that by opening up more of the Amazon to logging, mining, and farming, we will see immediate economic stimulation. On July 28, the lead article of The New York Times detailed the vastly increased deforestation in the Amazon taking place under Bolsonaro's leadership. Environmental experts argue that the economic benefits of increased logging and mining in the Amazon are microscopic compared to the long-term damage to the environment. After pressure from European leaders at the recent G-20 meeting to do more to protect the world's largest rainforest, Bolsonaro echoed a patriotic response demanding that no one has the right to an opinion about the Amazon except Brazilians. In retaliation to worldwide criticism, Bolsonaro threatened to follow Trump's example and pull out of the Paris climate accord; however, Bolsonaro was persuaded by cooler heads to retract his threat. To prove who was in control of Brazil's Amazon region, he appointed a federal police officer with strong ties to agribusiness as head of FUNAI, the country's indigenous agency. In a further insult to the world's environmental leaders, not to mention common sense, Paulo Guedes held a news conference on July 25 in Manaus, the largest city in the rainforest, where he declared that since the Amazon forest is known for being the "lungs" of the world, Brazil should charge other countries for all the oxygen the forest produces. Bolsonaro/Guedes also have promised to finish paving BR-319, a controversial highway that cuts through the Amazon forest, linking Manaus to the state of Rondônia and the rest of the country. Inaugurated in 1976, BR-319 was abandoned by federal governments in the 1980s and again in the 1990s as far too costly and risky. Environmentalists believe the highway's completion will seal a death knoll on many indigenous populations by vastly facilitating the growth of the logging and mining industries. Several dozen heavily armed miners dressed in military fatigues invaded a Wajãpi village recently in the state of Amapá near the border of French Guiana and fatally stabbed one of the community's leaders. While Brazil's environmental protection policies are desperately lacking these days, not all the news here was bad. On the opening day of the 2019 Pan America Games in Lima, Peru, Brazilian Luisa Baptista, swam, biked, and ran her way to the gold medal in the women's triathlon. The silver medal went to Vittoria Lopes, another Brazilian. B. Michael Rubin is an American writer living in Brazil.

Brazil Has No Exemplary Past or Present. But What Lies Ahead for the Country?

For years, experts have debated what separates a developing country from a developed one. ...

Hydra of Lerna: Brazil’s New Anti-Corruption Action Goes After Ministers and Governor

Brazil’s Federal Police officers executed warrants for Operation Hydra of Lerna at the Workers’ ...

Rio Carnaval Parade Celebrating the Amazon Indians Leaves Big Farm Livid

Rio’s Carnaval festivities were threatened this year by a spat pitting a well-known parade ...

WordPress database error: [Table './brazzil3_live/wp_wfHits' is marked as crashed and last (automatic?) repair failed]
SHOW FULL COLUMNS FROM `wp_wfHits`