Does hydroelectric power produce carbon dioxide? How?
Most of the carbon dioxide emissions associated with hydroelectric power can be attributed to building the initial infrastructure. Nearly a ton of carbon dioxide is emitted for every ton of cement used, and large dams use a lot of cement. Lifecycle carbon dioxide emissions from run-of-the-river hydroelectric power plants are much lower. Changes in land use from initial flooding and changing water levels behind a dam can also release methane, although the rates are site-dependent. For a range of published estimates of lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric power and other types of electricity generation, check out the LCA Harmonization Tool.
Why would greenhouse gas emissions increase when hydro power production is reduced when there's less water?
I can think of two reasons.If the hydro power plant produces less power, then other power plants need to produce more power to keep the total output the same. When those other power plants use fossil fuels, this will lead to more GHG emissions. Note that I'm assuming that the demand for electricity stays the same. When there is less water due to warm weather, electricity demand may actually go up due to increased air-con usage.There can also be more GHG emissions when the water levels rise again. When the water level in the reservoir of a dam goes down, vegetation can start to grow on the banks that fall dry. When the water level rises again this vegetation will be flooded. Vegetation that is under water is subject to anaerobic decomposition and that's a process that releases methane gas.Scientists have found that some hydro dams (in the tropics) may even produce more GHG emissions than power plants that run on fossil fuels. This scientific paper describes the problem in more detail.
How do you think governments should deal with greenhouse gas contributed climate change?
Doesn't sound like reward that much. When I think of "reward," the closest thing that comes to mind is "subsidy," which I wouldn't mind as long as it is for clean technology. This plan, though, seems to place rules on what producers are allowed to use: "Mandates, by contrast, specify what fraction of produced or distributed electrical power must derive from certain sources. Some 30 states already have adopted what amount to mandates standards." which doesn't mean much by itself: what if producers don't follow through? How will they adapt to using these technologies? I don't see many of the issues that exist with cap and trade or direct regulation actually being answered by this plan, it's very vague. They also mention a permit plan, which boggles my mind as the try to also say it's not like CAT. What do they mean, exactly? >>>Do you consider this to be a good option to cap and trade or carbon taxes? Good what, in an economic sense or relating to carbon emissions? While the article touches on that a bit, I am not fully convinced that this plan would be of a smaller cost to industry/consumers than CAT and such. I would need to learn more about it. >>>If not what would you propose to deal with reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Well we need intervention in some way or another. I personally like the idea of a carbon tax, and subsidizing clean energy to help it become competitive sooner. A large goal though would be a paradigm shift in the general populace, toward efficiency and clean technology, and away from outdated tech. jim: Have you heard of externalities before?
How renewable is hydroelectric power?
Hydroelectric Power:Hydroelectricity is electricity produced from hydropower. The electricity produced from generators driven by turbines that convert the potential energy of falling or fast-flowing water into mechanical energy. Lutech Engineering active in the development of renewable technologies, including energy from waste, tidal stream, hydropower, and onshore wind farms, including associated environmental and infrastructure work.Renewable Is Hydroelectric Power:In general hydroelectric power is a renewable energy or a power source that is clean and renewable and it doesn’t pollute the air because no fuels are burned and it’s renewable because it uses the Earth’s water cycle to generate electricity.One would think hydropower would get as much attention and investment as other non-carbon sources of energy.The water's weight caused the wheel to turn, converting kinetic energy into mechanical energy for grinding grain and pumping water.There are several types of hydroelectric facilities, but all are powered by the kinetic energy of flowing water as it moves downstream.Turbines and generators capture and convert that energy into electricity, which is then fed into the electrical grid.The water itself is not reduced or used up in the process, and because it is an endless, constantly recharging system and “hydropower is defined as a renewable energy” by the Environmental Protection Agency.Features Of Hydropower:Hydropower is very convenient: Because it can respond quickly to fluctuations in demand. A dam's gates can be opened or closed on command, depending on daily use or gradual economic growth in the community.Hydroelectric power: It is also very efficient and inexpensive. "Modern hydro turbines can convert as much as 90% of the available energy into electricity.Hydropower has become: "The leading source of renewable energy. It provides more than 97% of all electricity generated by renewable sources worldwide.
Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) and Hybrid/electric cars. Is it all a green lie?
Some good points made in previous posts, but all and all I agree on both of your parts. I think as a whole CFL's are better for the environment, as they can be recycled if people would get off their lazy bums and drive them to the centers. Coal fired power plants are indeed the largest cause of Mercury pollution, hence the reason that it's an awful source of energy (even the supposed "clean-fire" plants. As for the hybrid batteries, they can be recycled. Except for the fact that the cost of recycling the batteries is far greater than the cost of producing a new one, hence the reason they will still be disposed of. Have hope for your Hydrogen car though my friend, as BMW is releasing a hydrogen powered car in the States in '08. In regards to Superfund, it might be the worst regulation for the environment. When these companies go bankrupt, that leaves the Taxpayers environmentally allocated money to pay for the clean-ups. More often the not, the site must be made cleaner than it was before the business came to the area, and sometimes even before man came to this continent. Remember the Superfund slogan: 90% of all costs are spent cleaning up the last 5%. While others can complain about your rantings, I am glad to see that you have taken a look at the green alternatives and came to the conclusion every knowledgeable environmental decision maker faces: There are trade offs in everything, and benefitting the environment in one way might cause more harm in another. That being said, I think we can all agree we are on a path to more earth-friendly technology, and that path involves honest and painful truths.
Help me with geography question about Latin America?
In 2005, per capita emissions in Latin America and the Caribbean, not taking emissions associated with land use changes into account, amounted to 5.5 MtCO2-e, with Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela having the highest levels of per capita emissions. On the other end of the spectrum, Guatemala, El Salvador and Haiti had the lowest emission levels in the region. - This could be due to the more industrialized economy of Venezuela and Uruguay compared to the agricultural economy of El Salvador and Haiti. -=-=-=-=- I hope this is helpful.