The TRUE Costs of Damming Our Rivers | Earth Explained!
VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 14. 05. 2024
- đ Watch our entire Earth Explained! series: â¶ïž âą Earth Explained
Hydropower - using water stored in dams to generate electricity - 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. â Subscribe: czcams.com/users/TerraMaterO...
This video, in collaboration with Matt Ferrell, takes a closer look at some of the far-reaching consequences of hydroelectric dams and asks what can be done to develop this technology for a better balance between energy and conservation.
Check out Undecided with Matt Ferrell, for more detail on the latest developments in hydropower technology: đđœ âą The Truth About Hydrop...
And donât forget to subscribe to our channel for more in-depth videos on important conservation topics!
Producer: Katrin BlaĂ
Executive Producer: Philip-Jamie Alcazar
Graphics: Jörg Eisenprobst
Motion Graphics: Elias Freiberger
Voice Over: Sophie Kozeluh
Sound Mix: Hubert Weninger
Production:
Terra Mater Factual Studios GmbH
social@terramater.com
@terramater
#terramatters #hydropower
đ Sources:
[1] "Dams and protected areas: Quantifying the spatial and temporal extent of global dam construction within protected areas", Michele L. Thieme et. al; A Journal of the Society of the Conservation Society (2020)
[2] "How to balance hydropower, rivers & people | Jessie Moravek | TEDxFulbrightGlasgow", CZcams (2019)
[3] "Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Reservoir Water Surfaces: A New Global Synthesis", Bridget R. Deemer et al. BioScience, Volume 66, Issue 11, Pages 949-964. (2016)
[4] "Deploy diverse renewables to save tropical rivers", Nature (2019)
Additional Sources:
"Mapping the worldâs free-flowing rivers", G. Grill et. all; Nature volume 569, pages215-221 (2019)
"Empirical trends and characteristics of existing and removed dams in the United States", Zbigniew Grabowski; River Research and Applications (2018)
"Climate Impacts of Hydropower: Enormous Differences among Facilities and over Time", Ilissa B. Ocko et. al; Environmental and Science Technology (2018)
"Hopes for a Fish Revival as a Dam Is Demolished", New York Times
"Reducing greenhouse gas emissions of Amazon hydropower with strategic dam planning", Nature (2019)
Phys.org: "Study finds big savings in removing dams over repairs" (2019)
The River Collective: "Clogging the EarthÂŽs arteries: River damming changes biogeochemical cycles"
U.S. Environmental Community and Hydropower Industry Issue Joint Statement of Collaboration: "U.S. Hydropower Climate Solution & Conservation Challenge", (2020)
Hydropower may not be the latest solution out there but did you know that many technological advancements have been made which can make it more environmentally friendly? Check them out and have a look at Matt Ferrell's video here: czcams.com/video/3nBkx3V9E48/video.html
hey terramatter , have u heard of ecosia? u should team up with them!
@@7c18langit2 Sure!
Thanks for the suggestion! :)
Use my siphoning project so we created electricity in various natural ways without any harm to natural habitat đđđđđ
Thanks for your excellent video and your partnership with Matt Ferrell.
Well, thank you for the information, but please don't ignore nuclear as a supplement or replacement to hydro power. You bring up solar and wind with storage, when nuclear is equally if not more viable for that role.
Thanks so much for teaming up on this one! It was such a pleasure working together.
It has been a great pleasure working with you! :)
What are both of your opinions on the policies from the green deal ?
Love Matt been a follower for 2 years now
Absolutely nothing about water scarcity and how many nations need dams for storing water not exactly producing electricity!! And same goes with migratory species as there aren't migratory species in every river in the world!! And a dam doesn't continue carbon emission forever rather only when it was first filled even then comparing them with even coal plants which are actually way way worse, just another total joke environmentalist video...
I don't care about some stupid fish! we need more dams
I like that you guys don't go to the extremes of things such as saying "there should be no more dams and such" and instead talk about how we need to do things better and try to find a balance. If everybody would try to be as objective as you guys try to be things would be much better. I always like to say that answers are found somewhere in the middle. Corps, ppl ,etc. we usually just need to reach to a compromise.
Thanks so much for your kind words, they mean the world to us!
We're always on the hunt for solutions, and it's nice to hear that our subscribers appreciate our work! Thanks for being here!
Nuclear could easily supplant dams...
@@marianconstantindumitriu6062 âïžThis âïž but dams still have a place in say small and medium settings to take advantage of nearby water resources. Like say a smallish rural community that lives by a decent sized river, the power and water control would be advantageous.
Absolutely nothing about water scarcity and how many nations need dams for storing water not exactly producing electricity!! And same goes with migratory species as there aren't migratory species in every river in the world!! And a dam doesn't continue carbon emission forever rather only when it was first filled even then comparing them with even coal plants which are actually way way worse, just another total joke environmentalist video...
Don't you get it? There is no balance.
This is a huge problem here in Brazil, with enormous dams being constructed in protected areas, destroying large areas of forest and indigenous land. Hydropower is renewable, but far from green and has also lots of negative sociological impacts.
I find the portion showing dead salmon dishonest due to the fact that's what salmon do; they return to spawn after years at sea and die after they spawn.
It is a smear too by showing Three Gorges dam that has nothing to do with fish migration and CO2 release. I would say this video has much as credibility of voter fraud claimed by Trump. Does voter fraud exist? probably. Does the evidence materially affect or overturn the election outcome? No.
Maybe, but dams prevent a lot of other anadromous iteroperous(multiple spawnings) fishes from being able to make their journies upriver. Furthermore, the hydrology of dams changes the hydrology of rivers, impacting the substrate. Species that need rock and pebble substrate, as many salmonids do, will not be able to find suitable spawning habitat
Less will spawn, less will survive, less will return. It is a positive feedback loop that can and will lead the local extinctions of several fish populations. Fish ladders only do so much, and it is not addressing the problem. Dams degrade the environment and local ecosystems. Building fish ladders or other mitigation efforts does little if anything to address the long term damage dams do. The habitat is being negatively altered, and to fix it, the same need to be removed.
@@crystalbaerwaldt2075 Another desk bound environmentalist! Yes you have a case if a dam is built say within 2 to 5 miles from the oceans. Most dams don't and salmon or its kind doesn't live in every river. Take the Yangtze River for example it has possibly over 100 dams and houses at least the world's biggest hydro power plant No. 1, 2, 4 and 8. It is 6,300km long and has a vertical drop of 5km over its distance! Not extracting energy from this river because of your reasons is almost criminal and cannot be good or green for human survival/civilisation.
@@gunsumwong3948 I have a bachelor's degree in ecology. China is destroying their natural resources, do you know nothing of th e animals they are endangering by their use of hydroelectric Dams, or the people they are displacing? They rush fprward with little regard the dams may have on the surrounding enviornment, and then lie to cover up their mistakes. They are not the solution, and to pretend that dams are a good thing for humanity is ludicrous. It puts the control of water and power in the hands of those with selfish interests, and actively denies the use of that water to anybody downstream. Tell me this, do you really expect the Chinese government to do what is best for their people?
@@crystalbaerwaldt2075 I have a Ph D in hydraulics and do not live in China but in a western democracy all my life. Your narrative of Chinese dams is flaw, especially in modern China. Before a dam is built in China affected population is always consulted and reallocated to something better, more convenient and with new facilities, jobs and education facilities in a new town as part of the project. Most big dams in China are in JInsha River virtually uninhabited and with almost no vegetation in Qinghai, Tibet and Gangsu. No government is doing more for the benefit of its people than China with a leadership totally uninfluenced by rich capitalists, commercial companies, lobbylists or interest groups. There is no selfish interest in Chinese government, no selfish interest in the Chinese because there is no selfishness in the Chinese 5000+ years culture! China is governed by a culture in which all good and bad, right and wrong, evil and virtue have been well defined and refined over the years.
How could you be so ignorant of Chinese government could do anything other than its people? What government would take 30 to 50 years to turn deserts into green fields, extricate 800 million citizens from poverty, never stop improving the living condition of the people and actually stopped the advance of covid? For the last 251 days there has been just one single death by covid in China against 328,425 Americans perished in US over the same period (Johns Hopkins University data). You can be excused for not knowing the true China because western media always slander and smear China but you should be able to do some fact-checks.
I would say when you sell your ecology ideals to China it is like pointing Tom Cruise's nice thick black hair is cooler than the bald head of Vin Diesel as though the latter has a choice. Well only the westerners would go out to a foreign land, exterminate the indigenous people, call it their new country in America, Australia and New Zealand continents to have more land, space and resources to sing the high tune of ecological environment is good for human habitation. China has stuck with the same piece of land for 5000+ years to feed its 1.4 billion population, solve its own problems and live in peace without coming out to take over foreign land.
I feel Nuclear Power is much greener compared to other options.
It's expensive. It is not feasible to generate energy. Once created infrastructure are not useful after 20 years
it needs to e the salt hydride kind--cold fusion nuclear power to be comparable.
@@rabinsonrai2905 where do get that from? What do you mean it's not useful after 20 years?
Lots of concrete. Mining for radioactive materials, storage, a huge distaster Risk (like in Fukushima) and lots of problema with radioactive waste. And extremely expensive. Not worthy. Money better usted elsewhere.
@@ns7023 to be fair oil and coal produce more radioactive waste than nuclear does and generally do a terrible job containing it, I mean Oil Companies aren't even required to label their radioactive waste
When it comes down to it Nuclear is safer than Coal or Natural Gas and can produce massive amounts of power very cheaply over the long term, like any other plant you have to keep safety systems up to date and protocols enforced
the issue to take with a pro-nuclear stance is really that it's usually coupled with the desire for nothing to significantly change on a systematic level, and that's at best being a useful idiot for the rich assholes who got us into this mess and at worst saying you don't see an issue with the current system
There's a lot of damn problems with dams, the fish r damned cause of the dams, we need a damn dam solution.
Damn it, yes!
Damn
Oh DAYYYMMMMMNNNnnn
Damn that was deep
I live a region of my home country of Ireland that's flooded every Autumn/Winter into Spring because a huge hydro electric dam. The countries water way authorities and the government have claimed for the past eighty eight years that the problem is "Heavy seasonal rain fall" and not the dams fault so there's nothing they can do! "I wonder if its maybe really all about having to spent money???"
Thanks for sharing your story!
The region is flooded every winter into spring? Sounds very drastic for both locals and the environment. In this case it's always a good idea to double-check the "there's nothing they can do" information. For example, you can ask professors (Limnology, Biology, Hydrology, Geography), if there's a university next to your home, or you can ask river conservation NGOs ( Riverwatch, Euronatur) about their opinion or you may talk with rivers enthusiastic students (riverintellectuals.org) about their experience.
Btw: Are you talking about the Shannon hydroelectric scheme?
The area flooded in the Winter and spring is storing water for summer and fall. The project is doing what it was designed to do. Just remember to either remove your grazing stock before winter or teach your sheep to swim.
Even when you know dams do cause some environmental harm, it doesn't really hit you until you see a visualisation of some sort, thank you very much!
At first sight it might be hard to imagine but if you take a closer look it's eye-opening, right?
yes! please keep doing more :D
Absolutely nothing about water scarcity and how many nations need dams for storing water not exactly producing electricity!! And same goes with migratory species as there aren't migratory species in every river in the world!! And a dam doesn't continue carbon emission forever rather only when it was first filled even then comparing them with even coal plants which are actually way way worse, just another total joke environmentalist video...
But you have visuals that are not related. Like salmon that will die normally after spawning dam or not.
Thanks for always watching friends, you're awesome! đ€
dont mention it we only watch /subscribe because u make greate content
I hope your channel have Indonesian Sub
You did not discuss about other uses of dams eg for agriculture etc. Dams are not only build for hydropower. Controlling flooding also one reason. Flooding also kills lot of vegetation which also generate greenhouse gases. Only threat to fish ecosystem is what I find new. It is good informative video but my opinion is it is not considering all parameters and only showing one side partially.
there is a better way to deal with flooding that wouldn't create greenhouse gases or damage fish breeding
@@robinsss i am sure there is better solution to control floods than dams but again my statement is, dams are not built to control floods. Dams solve many problems which I have mentioned above. The solution you will suggest might not solve other problems. eg if dams are not built how will agriculture work? Without irrigation i think our agri production will be half of current. I am sure we won't be able to feed all the population we have without irrigation/dams.
@@chandd1000 divert some water from the river to a reservoir and pull the irrigation water out of the reservoir
@@robinsss Dams are type of reservoirs, if you are talking about natural lakes only as a reservoirs, I don't know for all geographical areas but the place I live and have lived in past, natural reserviors won't last even for a month for irrigation. Second can you produce electricity from natural reservoir. What about floods. Natural reservoirrs have small capacity, only few places they exisist. You are destroying ecosystem when diverting water flow on that scale. So there are many parameters like this that we have to think before doing somthing on ground. My opinion now also is to solve all problems and looking at all paramers pros n cons dams are better solution.
@@chandd1000 to deal with flooding divert some of the river water to a man made reservoir
I like how you explained the impact of these dams without going the typical environmentalist alarmist route and ended on a positive note
"The rotting vegetation in reservoirs represents 1.3% of the total annual global emissions caused by humans. This is alarming." When 1.3% is alarming, that is a living definition of being "alarmist." It also happens to be an excellent reason to exterminate beavers with all the vegetation they cause to be buried under water. I guess the American pioneers who hunted them almost to that point were doing environmentalists a favor while also making a profit--an ideal green compromise.
@@ReflectedMiles beavers are an essential part of the environment in north america and the dams the beavers build are nowhere near to the scale we build them. they said "that's alarming" because most people think it is completely green until now. try to think about your words before you say something unintelligent.
@@sciencewizard2861 The scale is only relevant to the population. The amount of land put under water per beaver is undoubtedly greater, but there are just far fewer beavers. A rise in the beaver population would be disastrous. Being green means protesting against beavers. PETA tells me they canât file a class action against them, though, so taking them out has to be a grassroots ecological effort. (I am completely reveling in the irony, of course--not serious--just making a bit of a mockery of the logic of the video extended into another area of ecology.)
â@@ReflectedMiles Being green doesn't mean STOP ALL GREENHOUSE GASES. Many animals and humans breathe CO2, doesnt mean we should kill everything. What humans have done is disrupt this balance. Beavers making dams is a stupid argument, 1 human would cause more damage to the environment than 100,000 beavers would in their lifetime.
@@thetimelapseguy8 I say just the opposite. And since neither claim is based on science, neither has any particular validity or meaning.
Somewhat simplistic and very general analysis. Dams can be good or bad, depending on how they are built and the type of dam. Fish and aquatic life can move freely up and down a dammed river if the infrastructure is there. Release of sediment collected from the base of the dam can be done as well, to mimic the season. The point is to build smart dams, not stupid ones.
@ygg drasil They covered this in the video, though your comment just supplements the content a little, like: sediment being released with the water to mimic the season, but it's still unnatural and problematic, you'd have to agree. Also, they final part addresses how the co-operation being various interest groups, including the industry, to improve the infrastructure in this area, towards as you say, 'smarter' forms of infrastructure that impact their local ecosystem alot less.
Did you watch the whole video? They cover this at the end
"10x more carbon intensive than coal"
Where are you getting your information here? the world average is 50 times LESS intensive than coal.
Ya that one was really stupid.... Really grasping at straws there.
It was proven wrong its not good
@Stellvia Hoenheim wut shut up
yeah this video doesn't sound very accurate
The concrete used can emit pollution, but I doubt it is 10x as much as traditional pollution.
It seems like some paid ploy.
Farming in the delta depends on silt, which is being blocked by dams in other countries upstream, more energy burning and electricity consumption for fertilizers industry, stick have two ends.
as far as im aware modern dams in silt heavy areas have gates towards the base off the dam. silt builds up behind the gates and then the operators use this to add silt back into the river at the optimum time for farmers
I must appreciate Terra Mater a lot for taking steps to bring environmental awareness among the people. And, your video quality is awesome. My wishes for you to keep making such videos to enhance the global welfare and development of natural habitats.
Thank you!!!
Reminds me of the kihani spray toad series where the environmental impact study forgot to check the gorge below the dam and they wiped out a little endemic toad.
I doubt they "forgot" to check...
@@work2gather me too
I'm missing details on one-time gh gas emissions vs operating gh gas emissions. From my understanding contruction emissions and those from rotting vegetation in the reservoirs are one-time. Surely like with BEVs a payback time can be calculated, how lon it takes to recoup the gh gas investment. I would also be interested in average numbers for gh gas per kWh of power.
They donât show it cause they are biased af
But one time is enough. You could remove all the plants on earth and say "oh well, it's just one time". Plants naturally die and release these gases. But then new plants come and capture them again. Saying that it is one time is misleading, it is a cycle that is broken when it's all flooded.
But it can be mitigated. By planting a new forest somewhere else.
@@TheBooban i don't get your point. The cycle doesn't do any good, what is of interest is the average carbon contained.
A one-time carbon expense of flooding a valley can be compared to an annual carbon saving.
If we had numbers we could judge whether it's favourable
Rotting vegetation by definition goes away. That means these emissions are temporary. Sure seems like obfuscation and lying on your part. Question is why?
Check the channel name, what else would you expect but lies and obfuscation?
(From such a luddite greentard channel)
I was about to say the same thing. The vegetation would rot anyways. Granted it will have less oxygen so more CH4 will be produced but not enough to offset the production of electricity because of it
@@paulhanley3368 Plus methane only lasts a decade or so in the atmosphere so it's trivial short of massive releases.
Bro The video is just to point out the negatives, the down sides... The rotting vegetation is something that a lot of people would not have considered. It is not a lie, it is true the rotting plants are bad. Therefore it is worth mentioning that true fact. after all the video is pointing out the negatives. Not saying there are no positives. Why is everyone so offended?
@@voidremoved What the guy said is that even they told the truth that roting vegetation is bad, its not an constant product of the dams, it runs down.
Solar energy waste is toxic, and wirlwinds kills endagered birds.
If we are not having hidro, then the only "green" type of energy is nuclear
"...in harmony with..." The most unscientific/psuedoscientific phrase ever uttered
Every single way of taking energy from somewhere and using it somewhere else will interfere with the environment. Sometimes we know the problems. Sometimes we don't. One thing is certain, using less energy and creating less waste reduces the scope of the problem no matter what energy source we are talking about. Reducing populations, making things last, abandoning the throwaway society and packaging, getting away from whole house climate control, riding a bike or walking rather than cars. All of these can minimize the problem with very little downside.
Also we really need to legislate away from non-degradable plastics and maybe even outlaw petroleum byproducts, as a means of curbing emissions but also giving incentive for giant oil monstrosities to bend the knee and shift to green energy so we can speed up the process of transitioning to green energy.
@@orangeyewglad look at the co2 graph then the warming graph then the rise in population, they all go up together, which isn't surprising, we all need heat and light, however made, we all need food and we all breathe out CO2 24/7, until we tackle that all the rest is just window dressing, if we are serious about cutting energy usage then stop the internet as its a huge power user, no more mobile phones as there again running the network is power hungry, like the much demonized car these have given us the society we have today so probably no going back. Nothing we ever do is truly green and the sooner the majority of people realize that the better.
@@CrusaderSports250 youâre right and youâre wrong, sustainable societies are completely attainable, what we donât need is to be fighting one another to purge the earth of the âcancerousâ humans as the radical eco-fascists would have us
@@brileyrowand8278 unfortunately I think a sustainable society would have to be somewhat smaller than the one we have today, in small groups people tend to behave differently look at villages versus cities, where the rest of the population go is a good question, especially if you think you may be in that group!!.
@@CrusaderSports250 Sorry but that is ridiculous that sustaining us we would need a smaller society. There are better ways to sustain energy that could sustain all of us, such as tapping into the magnetic energy of the earth. That is a lack mindset that you have rather than an abundant mindset. There is abundance for all.
the emission, of greenhouse gases, will end when all the green stuff completely rots... so its not a constant emission, but only for some time
For real, how do they not understand this? Anyways the process would be pretty much carbon neutral since the trees absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere in the first place. It's not like they are extracting millions of tons of carbon from the underground and releasing it into de atmosphere.
Hydro power is not the only reason for building dams. Building water resorviors for fresh water source is another reason for having these dams. It's a lifeline for soo many people around the world and I pray your efforts would bargain more fruits for all stake holders involved
Harms outweigh the benefits
Also u can control flooding...
Excellent, we need more collaborative video's like this to educate the people, I am always of the opinion that the best solution to for method is through graphic illustration, 'pictures speak a thousands words' and can over come language barriers! Well done!!!
the quality of this channel always amazes me.... keep up the good work....
I disagree with your conclusions that damns are carbon emitters due to rotting of plants. Since these plants grew but recently absorbing carbon from the atmosphere this decomposition would be considered carbon neutral. What I didnât hear you talk about was the huge carbon impact of creating so much concrete to build the damn in the first place.
That's disagreeing with the logic, you're still agreeing that dams are carbon emitters.
âTwo thirds of them are already dammedâ *sigh* well there it is đ€Šââïžđđ
Damn
it's not generating any interest for me, water-ver that means
Yeah, I'll show myself myself out
Thank you for attaching the sources!
You're welcome!
This video is stupendous and informative, thanks for making this type of felicitous videoâ€ïž
Dams can have both positive and negative effects. I am Zambian and the Kariba Dam was a net positive for the country by far, producing cheap electricity and providing the benefits of a lake (large fishing industry). I am sure the original fish were impacted, but lets keep in mind just how much we impact the environment with farming, mining and other activity. The impact of Zambia's dams is miniscule relative to other industries. In places like China dams can also server to mitigate flooding, although dam failure or mismanagement can also make it worse.
Iam a civil engineering student,I don't know the disadvantages of dam.
Thank you for giving information â€ïž.
You students donât know squat! Go learn something.
Thankful for your information. Your work regarding river ecosystems is really appreciable.
BTW hydro power is not only the need of dams but also conservation of water for summer
Take heart, the world will exist with or without us, we may or may not be doomed, but this little rock that we are riding thru space will have life until our little star blows it all away.
Thereâs still lots of time for lots of life here!
I recommend watching "damnation" from patagonia. It's a great documentary.
What if we used more of the smaller side hydro power turbo systems that won't harm fish is that a good idea as part of the solution I know that they won't create as much electricity but if there's enough of them built carefully it might help
I've sometimes wondered about these things but then "I'll do that next time" comes upđ Good thing we have content like this and the CZcams algorithm to drag us back. Thanks for showing us a perspective
But if we look at it. Every renewable Power Source will have some problem connected to it
1) In India Wind Farms of Rajasthan(State) Kill tons of endemic species of Birds
2) There is a problem with the waste management of Nuclear Fuel
3)Solar Farms are expensive to build and maintain
We do need some sources of dependable power but all of them are harmful to the environment or the wallet in some or the other way
Nuclear waste isn't much in creating waste at all compared to other power sources, also it could be recycled much easier than other without high risk, but again it need really good management, diligent oversight, efficient & effective in its construction, and truly organized structure of working place to make sure it won't cause same incident like Chernobyl.
1) After a few years birds adjust to the farms and learn to avoid them, already happening in a lot of places with no exceptions to the trend.
2) There's no problem, it's incredibly space efficient to store and requires only mostly concrete to do well. The issues come with the designing stage which is obviously the fault of the human planners and not intrinsic to the process. It's also not very expensive.
3) Solar is getting cheaper to produce and run and in some places has already become cheaper than coal. Pollution from solar production is also very localized and thus easier to contain and manage than pollution from fossil fuels.
@@anentiresleeveoforeos2087 But it won't be efficient and power-generating more than what we have, it still lacking behind coal and oil source, instead better to invest on nuclear generated power plant that are cleaner and more efficient that generating more energy that needed.
@@williemherbert1456 No, the best solution is to focus on a multilateral approach that utilizes our available options where they're best suited and in tandem with one another. Renewables are constantly improving in both cost and efficiency and have many applications that fossil nor nuclear fuels either cannot fulfill or have not reached parity in.
@@anentiresleeveoforeos2087 Again it use lots of material that are not available near the centre of manufacturing, like Europe, USA, and China, it's mostly located in Africa thus costing more for its shipment, and then those renewable energy tech are much easier to be broken faster and needed to replace them with the new one since those are not always redeemable for being recycled, and it take lots of space for producing smaller energy compared to nuclear power, and need more extra maintenance with additional parts to be attached in order to keep the environment damage to be smaller, and the most expensive one is to build new electricity infrastructure to connect it into cities that are requiring more resources to do so compared to the nuclear one that are requiring less. Also from what I've seen, nuclear energy is still underrated and underutilized like in Germany only handful nuclear reactor are still in operation, only France that has follow the opposite path here where almost 75% of their energy source came from nuclear, also the developed nation in the West already have advance tech and equipment to build these nuclear power plant more efficient that are resemble lesser than what in "Simpson" is depicting. Also who said we can improve these renewable energy take even further, we already at its limits. With limited time and resource we could get, it's better for nations of whole world to focus on applying nuclear power as primary clean-energy source for generating electricity in needed number and efficiently.
We must go back to burning millions and millions tons of coal! A great move backwards!
Nuclear.
Solar and wind are now generally the cheapest, add storage (massive batteries if nothing else) and that's all we need....not apposed to nukes but they tend to be relatively expensive.
We could foreseeably begin to remove dams except for the irrigation, water storage and flood control aspects.
@@Mrbfgray Storage isn t cheap. Not on this scale.
False dilemma. The solution could be wind and solar. And if thatâs ânot enoughâ, then nation build more and more solar, and prioritize the land for more solar and wind as a opposed to other development
Thank you Terra mater once again for spreading light of awareness.
Thanks so much for always watching our docs!
@@terramater If I could, I would make whole world watch your docs and what humanity is doing to this planet in the name of development and we all need to mend our ways.
where is @3:00?
Also...as always, amazing video. I love everything about this channel and been loving it since less than 10k subs :)
Thanks for supporting us since the beginning! đ€
That's the Aji Dam in Rajkot (Gujarat, India), which overflowed in August 2020.
I have been fishing an artificial lake for over 27 years and have been observing a lot of disturbing things, so yes pretty much everything being said in this video is true. Fish can't properly reproduce because there is no flow, no natural shallow areas with reeds and other aquatic plants providing shelter for the spawn, it is basically a huge and deep tub of water with rotting biological matter and loads of residual fertilizers and other harmful chemicals coming from the surrounding farmlands. Also raising and lowering the water level during spawn season usually gets most of the fish eggs caught outside the water to dry in the sun and die. If they didn't put in new fish at the beginning of the season most species would have died out a long time ago. People could listen to anglers once in a while they would have heard the same stories from them but hey, they are fisherman so they are bad, right?
On top of that we have a "new" thing called cyanobacteria that has been getting worse with climate change every summer for the past 5-10 years thanks to the lack of oxygen, the rising temperatures and the beforementioned farmland sludge. Three years ago they decided to close the lake completely to tourists, hobby-anglers and sunbathers during july-august because of the health dangers of that disgusting film gathering on the surface. So I haven't even been allowed on my boat for quite some time now and it doesn't look like it will get better anytime soon. In a few years they will empty the lake to clear out the sludge and repair the dam so hopefully things will get better for a couple of years after until the same thing inevitably happens again.
If they'd at least invest in creating natural shallow banks with plants that absorb some of the excess nutrients and provide safe spawning grounds, things would look much much better. But hey, fuck nature right? Who cares, eh? That stuff costs money and dedication... So to all of the people questioning this short documentary or only fixating on some aesthetic aspects of the video footage if you have no scientific degree in water management, long time experience with water quality issues from keeping aquariums or at least some personal experience from spending lots of time on a lake, have been speaking to the local authorities and getting your info from people who know way more about these things than the average youtube commenter does, then your opinion is worth about as much as the one of a climate change denier or someone preordering a Tesla SUV right now because they believe that it is so much more efficient and clean than the normal five year old car that they own now. Sadly our species has their heads so far up their own asses that they will believe any proposal of simple fixes to tackle massive problems like producing clean energy since there is literally no such thing in existence to this day.
Last time I checked dams were not a natural thing (except for when beavers build them and they are known for being bad to the ecosystem too). Should we really want to have more of them then we need to find a different way of engineering them if we don't want to ruin the rest of the natural habitat for local species that are left in this world and cause more harm to the environment in general. I feel that that is the message behind this video and if you can't get behind it well you are probably shouldn't comment on videos like these at all...
Use less electricity tbh
Thank you for your perspective, veey informative
Amen
They said dams increase emissions of rivers. That means the river itself was never emission free, either.
1.3% is also literally nothing to me.
I do like river rapids, though.
Exactly, the organic detritus would have to decompose somewhere with or without the dam. The "emission" is a non-issue.
This is what should be shown to kids and or in schools. Very interesting video!
Having the impact assessed by independent scientists is vital.
"It's about finding the right balance between hydropower and rivers, but also more generally between energy consumption and ecosystem conservation."
This "right balance" is seen as right only by industrial humans. If you asked anybody living in the river or around it, the answer would clearly be no to dams. Non-industrial humans don't need electricity, so they would not have to look for this nonsensical balance either.
Well, neither would they watch this video
The total population of "non-industrial" humans that the planet can support is in the millions while the current population is about 8 billion. Reversing our progress is not a solution.
@@jaredhill8721 Indeed, but that seems to be the only true sustainable way to live here.
I am not sure I would call this a progress. It is just more of the same: new technological solutions for problems caused by previous technological solutions.
It seems that there is no way around to reducing human population on earth. I guess it would be better to do it in a planned manner rather then wait until some feedback loop does that for us. And by that I mean things as simple as introduce schooling for everybody.
That argument about drowned plant matter from the formed reservoir is a weak one. The real problem there is the loss of plants processing CO2, not their decomposition. In fact the dam helps bury the carbon which would have otherwise totally decomposed on land.
The consequences of repurposed land for reservoirs is made when talking about a dam in the amazon. That is the point you should have elaborated on, however that example is at an extreme.
even with the decomposed plants buried under water, the greenhouse gas from those plants can bubble up through the water and into the air
I wasn't very clear on that. Of course there is decomposition producing methane and co2. I just think there is a significantly bigger effect from the lack of plant life that could have absorbed all that co2 and more, especially when water can slow decomposition vs the open air.
@@Alabar3000 what is causing the lack of plant life?
When the dam is made, water builds up in the resevoir. The water resevoir floods areas around the dam, killing all the trees and plantlife that gets flooded, which make that detritus that decomposes.
@@Alabar3000 what reservoir?
Awesome đ
Keep it up
Thank you so much, we're trying our best! đ
This should be an international awareness..
@
Terra Mater
Can you do a video on the Florida Panther if you aren't planning one already?
Great suggestion, thanks!
The water level at lake Kariba in Zimbabwe fluctuates so much in order to generate as much electricity as possible that it kills off oxygen weed and other plants causing fish populations to decline
That sounds awful and bad for both nature and humans!
Are you living next to the dam?
@@terramater I fish there occasionally and have noticed a decline in fish stocks over the years. Other fishermen I have spoken with say the same thing
Great video!
Mentioning run-of-the-river projects in the video would be fair. Instead, you make it sound like the whole hydropower idea is bad for the environment, whilst such finger-pointing should be applied to DAMS specifically.
Never forget US Army of Engineers flooded entire native villages for these dams with no remorse or warning.
an important issue, also in the Alps!
True that!
Especially in sensitive areas, such as the Alps, we need to protect wild rivers and watersheds.
Then there is the massive amount of concrete. you barely touched on sediment. The mouth of rivers the deltas and marshes depend on the sediment that's why louisiana is disappearing. So the sediment building up behind the dam as well as the slowing of water and no more flooding. I imagine these has a huge effect on the nile. Then there is also the lost of water from the dam due to evaporation. I think there are other ways to get power from water without damming but I wonder if would cause some of the same problems because taking energy/momentum/speed out of the water. I also wonder about this with wind farms. wouldn't they be changing the weather for same reason but with the air/wind??
Define nuanced solutions like with EVs the fuel to charge batteries and how the batteries are made vs current system with oil/gas
Love your videos as always
Glad to hear that!
What's your fav one so far?
@@terramater The hyacinth macaw one
@@fake...... Good choice, we love that one too! đŠ
thanks terra mater
Thank you for watching!
@@terramater no thank you for uploading
Great video! Here in Oregon about half of our power comes from hydro electric, but is had a huge effect on Salmon and Steelhead. Some rivers are down 90% from historic runs. A great case study in dam removal is the Sandy River, after the dam was removed salmon runs returned to pre-dam numbers.
There needs to be a organisation that research on innovative solutions to these problems, to make dams more green and create construction and management protocols for such projects.
well you see the issue there is lots of people are getting lots of money and power from how things are right now and in order to actually respond to climate change it'd require dismantling the exact system which gives them power
Excellent initiative
Thanks a lot!
Green is not always green. It seems green. Renewable energy with its own demerits. We want power... Either political or any other.
As you already said, green is not always green!
Just use nuclear power. Safe, clean, and incredibly powerful
Itâs actually not very safe, and we will run out of uranium one day.
@@davidlaszlo5025 its safer by human deaths than even solar or wind my man. And both of those are way safer than anything else. as for running out... well not really. using nuclear does not speed up the proccess, it simply uses what is already happening, think of it like solar power, the sun is already giving off these rays, why not use them. oh and some people say "what about the waste", and while that will at some point be an issue, its going to take thousands of years for it to matter, at that point, sending it to space could be a reality anyway. or a dyson sphere. etc. anyway. no.
@@davidlaszlo5025 well Everything will run out oneday.
Good work đ
Thank you so much for the information!, IÂŽm currently working for a Energy generation company in Colombia and some Dams are planned to be built in the coming years.
This is eye-opening... but unfortunately I just join the hydropower workforce recently
All the time, nuclear is looking more and more like the way forward.
i mean, even taking its benefits at face value
the main appeal of nuclear seems to be that it lets "nothing fundamentally change" which is problematic since its preserving the system that got us into this mess
secondly that they take decades to build and we have years, the infrastructure needed to switch to nuclear is just not going to be ready in time even if we'd
all agree to pursue it
@@sabotabby3372 nothing *needs* to fundamentally change if we can extract energy without damaging the environment. There's nothing inherently problematic about using energy or extracting it from our environment, the problems are all side-effects. Nuclear is appealing because it's a genuinely good, sustainable solution that allows us to stop fucking up our environment without having to slow technological progress. That's the ideal outcome, not "problematic".
The use of energy isn't the problem, it's where we're getting it from.
You gonna work out for video example for a specific events. People do know what it represents. Nice work this really helps open new perspective.
Very informative video
Excellent
The most ideal locations for hydroelectric dams are steep gorges. The flow will be so strong that even salmons canât overcome. So the most efficient hydro power stations have very little impact on fisheries.
Damn you dams
That's the spirit!
This video was excellent but you missed one thing. The massive CO2 emissions from concrete damns during mixing/curing
It's complicated and the most important aspect is proper scientific assessment of the environmental effects on the local ecosystem. In some river systems the effects are minimal, in others like salmon rivers the effects are significant. The CO2 emissions claimed for existing dams is somewhat disingenuous, modern practice is to always remove vegetation before filling a new reservoir. For older dams where this was not done, the available carbon is finite and reducing over time.
The other important aspect not addressed in the video, is if we're facing a climate crisis as some claim, then hard choices will have to be made. All generation technologies have impacts and risks, just like all activities of any kind do. We need to apply sound judgement and scientific methods to ensure that we make good choices with small environmental consequences.
Always solar power is the best
In many cases, solar could be the best solution, yes.
That's exactly what I wanted to tell my teacher but she didn't responded with satisfactory answer and gone in quite harsh debate. I'm an undergraduate environmental science students in 4th sem. You had never disappointed Terra matter.
Love and much love.
Wow, it's awesome that you are raising awareness for river conservation in class!
Keep it up, please!
@@terramater "The world is so human centric that even researchers and early scientists measure the impact in terms of either economic loss of human loss. This have to be changed. We are not alone in this bubble. We are part of these enormous chain." You are much more matured than me even though I am growing and grabbing knowledge. Nothing stands above then NATURE from me.
That's all I can say.
@@katuwalgovinda5028 You bring up such a crucial point! It's extremely shortsighted to make the immediate economic impacts of something the only metric used. Humans are an animal species and can't be extricated from the natural world. Nature is a like a woven tapestry- keep pulling on a single thread and the entire thing unravels. A big pile of cash won't bring back extinct species and it's impossible for foresee all the effects to the ecosystem of extinguishing 1/3 of all life.
Remember most humans for most of our existence humans spent a lot of time dying of a blood infection from a thorn scratch than worrying about a free river.
I never knew this. Well I always knew dam's were bad but not the total reason. Thank you.
very informative....
Yet another person telling me how Irresponsible humanity is.
When is this ever going to end?
probably when humanity finally becomes responsible
@@e1123581321345589144 or probably when Humans doom themselves
Great information
You could make a pro-hydro video with the same content in a different order. Hydro (especially pumped storage hydro) is fantastic for balancing wind and solar. You only mention that at the end
There is no need to pump any water at all for storage, just release water as needed from the dam
@@tomkelly8827 pumping gives you more flexibility (e.g. to overshoot demand with wind and solar) but this is true
Just casually show a bunch of salmon after they spawn and die naturally as they always have
1. Desilting the existing dams to the limits of removing the waste and sand accumulated at the river bed. This will increase the water holding capacity of the existing dams without additional construction
2. Increasing the heights of existing dams. This will be less destructive when compared to constructing new dams.
3. Increasing the efficiency of the existing hydroelectric turbines.
landfill dams cause flooding as well and enormously hit the flora and fauna which is an essential part in our ecological system. I must appreciate the effort you people put in this comprehensive video.
Nuclear is the "greenest" option.
@Autumn Hiems If, but with newer reactors itâs becoming safer and safer
@Autumn Hiems Yet people use coal
4:34 a really good example of the human mind being good at discerning patterns but not so much at understanding it...which is why alot of people get easily hypnotized by vapid shit.
anyone collaberating with Matt Ferrell can't be taken serious.
Yeah, just look at him. They're trying to turn us weak and feeble like him by squeezing our livelihood.
Great job.
These are all very weak arguments vs the benefits hydro provides. Every problem you bring up has been addressed in modern (western) dam implementations.
wheres the sources to suggest that?
cant just say some argument is weak when you don't provide proof of your own to say its weak
@@lockdown727 youtube doesn't allow url's in comments and people don't read them anyway. Just pick any point made, and look at any dam built in the last 2 decades (in the west) and you'll see. Addressing these issues is literally the reason environmental impact assessments are required for any new dam construction.
@@jamesmatthew1903 I would tend to agree about western projects. But these are still relevant for projects being built in developing countries (where a lot of the new projects are planned). As dams impact food security of local fisherman as well as agriculture dependent on seasonal flooding with the fertile sediment this brings (ex: Mekong delta). Furthermore, less sediment transportation increases river and coastal erosion. And you have to take into account geopolitical tensions linked to transboundery externalities of one countries development of hydropower resource on the downstream countries (ex: The Grand Renaissance dam, Ethiopia, Nile river). And on top of that the EIA you mentioned are not done at the right time for the majorities of projects (even in the west) it is supposed to be a integrative process in the design phase to propose the optimal design changes for best avoidance or mitigation of impacts. But it current practice for the EIA or ESIA to come after design phase and hens it has less weight as a decision making tool.
But after saying all this I do agree that Hydro is essential in the bide for sustainable energy productions. haha It just has to be done right and for that there are changes to the industry and national/international planing that have to happen.
This video is sponsored by fossil fuel corporations.
Nice video! You touche on a lot of environmental issusse and some solution at the end that were nice to have! (Dams done right are majorly important for a sustainable future).
However, you might want to address some of the impacts that dams have on local communities (good and bad). Like how a reduction in fish populations leads to loss of food and income security particularly in developing countries (Ex: Mekong delta). Or how dams can increase water security. This is interesting as dams don't just have environmental impacts but also social impacts. This is why in most cases today, in new big dam projects, you have to do an environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) (unfortunately there are limiting factors with those as well but not really related to the ESIA tool its self). There is also the dimension of geopolitical conflicts and power plays that are relevant for a better understanding of why dams are being built and where(Ex: Nile river and conflicts between Egypt and Ethiopia because of the Grand Renaissance Dam).
Damn, there's a lot to be said about dams haha But anyway keep up the good work ;)
I love your photography đđ
Thanks so much, we're trying our best! đ
Such a slanted and biased report, of course no mention that wind and solar have a 25 year life span until need of complete replacement. Also is 80 percent more efficient than wind or solar ,this is just more of the same politics driving methods. By passes for migrator species can easily be constructed, just the opposite of this report properly constructed dams provide irrigation and flood control. I vehemently disagree with this report.
they must be paid, by the nuclear lobby or the fossil lobby...lol...of course dam have impacts, so if he wants less impact, tell him to throw all his electric appliances to the trash...and no using coal, or gas for cooking...lol
@@JoaoMariaNunes Most likely promoted by wind or solar would be my guess. Or by a group of idiots that spend the entire summer with a kayak strapped to the top of their cars,live off of granola and think that pig weed is the answer to world hunger . A Frances turbine can operate with only 8 feet of head ,concrete gets stronger for 100 years.
@@alfredmorganroth9349 there arent perfect energy forms...but some are more hazardous than others...if they are really worried about the rivers flowing they should start to consume less, no more new cars , no more all the new clothes , etc , etc, things WE DONT REALLY NEED that use energy to be produced...
@@JoaoMariaNunes communities and recreation and irrigation projects are built around well constructed projects, what is your point?go out there and hunt and gather in a loin cloth and see how well it goes for you.
@@alfredmorganroth9349 you fail to understand my point exactly...everything we do in life has a "price" and complaining about it and not willing to "pay" is pointless and stupid, so complaining about Hidros, when we still have nuclear, coal and fossile , its kind of TOO SOON...
âMatt Ferrell is diving in deepââ . . . Not really. His short clip of a fish ladder was nonsense, I donât think it was even a Real fish ladder. Google the fish ladder at the Nimbus Hatchery on the American River, Ca and watch 1,000 salmon swim up it each hour! You need to show true info for the viewer in order to be trusted, other wish you work/video is for nothing.
The funniest video I watched all day! đ
Micro-hydro may not solve all the problems. But I see it as one of the better options for how to do hydro power in the future.
One-sided environmentalist's view is dangerous. CO2 repleased be vegetation buried behind a dam is a laugh because none ever allowed and even if exists it can happen only once and cannot repeated annually for ever after the vegetation decay away. Silt and sand can be removed by dam design. Being an enivonmentalist means this person has next to nothing engineering knowledge and skill to design a dam. Also once reached a steady state the dam can release water in the quanity of the seasonal flow same as when there was no dam. As for the fish many dams are several thousands miles from the sea and few of the world rivers have migratory fish like salmon. In fact many reservoirs are used to bleed fish nowadays.
Very well said. people need to do there research.
I agree. See my comments.
Dams do not release water the same early the rivers would naturally fluctuate. It the river system is spring fed, reliant on ground water pushing to the surface, or rain, than the effects of the dam may be minimal, but rivers fed by snow melt have highly varied runs, as the spring melt and subsequent swelling of the river depends on the previous snow pack. Dams are incapable of meeting this natural variation, so systems fed by snow melt that are dammed undergo homogenization of the flora and fauna as a consequence, as the more stable, less varied flows kills of the species that require that variation. Even in rain, ground water, and spring fed systems, the dams do not likely discharge at the natural rate, still impacting the species bemeath the dam, and above th e dam, that now need to adapt from a lotic environment to a lentil one. Dams fundamentally change the species compositions of their rivers, because they alter the hydrology of those rivers.
If I, as a human, have the opportunity to control a river that plagues me with annual, and occasional, catastrophic flooding, I am damn well going to take it. If the method changes the riverine environment so be it. Some things will die out and others, like rice cultivation, will thrive.
When a dam eliminates sea run salmon it creates a place for lake trout to thrive. They are still a fish and still taste good.
@@crystalbaerwaldt2075 That is a silly opinion. A dam once fully filled can be made to discharge seasonal flow identical to before the dam is built. People just don't do it but use the discharge to generate electricity. Also if no electricity is generated, as in the recent Edenville dam Michgan, people deliberately overfilled the impounding water to create a lake for leisure purpose, as this boast their property values with a garden facing a lake. When a heavy rain hit the water overtopped and the dam failed. Had the water level been kept to the design limit of the dam all excess water would pour over the spillway (at normal height) and the flow is exactly seasonal. Thus don't blame a dead structure but the misuse by human.
This is so sad tho:'(
đ
Thanks for bringing this up. First finance minister of India fought hard to not let damming rivers of India. But alas, according to this age no one has brain unless he is educated in Oxford or harward. Humanity has been converting rivers into ponds even after knowing a river is much better and superior body than a pond.
one thing that i did not notice mentioned was native populations that have been displaced because of the flooding of the damn backing up water, have had to move from traditional hunting grounds.
very biased video, the part that shows all the dead fish looks like salmon. I live in Alaska and have seen lots of salmon streams and its natural to see lots of dead fish. Hydro provides 16% of the worlds energy and 1.3% of CO2, I think that's pretty good. Overall what I have issues with environmentalist is they don't like nuclear, oil, gas, coal, and hydro which provides almost all of our energy. I think they want us living like its 1800.