How (And Why) Europe Is Removing Its Dams 

This.

Yes, thank you for clarification of this fact, which the most of the eager leftist radicals (who - as we all know - are all uneducated idiots) failed to understand. The video itself have the same propaganda of letfist ideas

Thank you!

Thank you, for providing the context so I don't need to watch the whole video

Thank you for explaining it clearer than the video

I'm sure removing the 100yo dam in Norway was also a good decision

I heard something about salmon "pens". When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"

@@hg2. You do understand dams don't affect jusr salmon?

@@joaquimbarbosa896 Am I going to get an effing lecture from no-real-job YOU about how I have to contribute slave labor to your stupid sense of "fish diversity"?

@@joaquimbarbosa896 it was a Hydro-power dam, but a very small one in Norwegian scale and it was built in a way that made maintenance a nightmare and it was not easily upgradable making it more costly to keep up to date than what it made in power. also it's in an area of Norway where power is cheaper than the rest making even less economical combined with having a lot of people that hates what is needed to make the modern world going and loves to go about that loudly but loves every bit what it gives.

Pretty good observation, but it comes down to just using unfit footage for the story. Renaturalising the small rivers is in fact the point, as the power plants on those ones generate hardly anything worth mentioning, while for survival of migratory fish and the ecosystem as whole it is of utmost importance.

you can report it for misinformation. I do that sometimes when it's about an area where I'm confident in my knowledge.

these small dams are still an ecological disaster. They are too small scale to produce net energy these days and they obstruct some habitats. Small rivers are still an abundance source of biodiversity, probably even more so than bigger rivers.

It's all for those stupid salmon??? We have fish farms for those. Why can they just build a fish ladder?

I heard something about salmon "pens". When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"

@@hg2. I think maybe, that 'those stupid salmon' may have a higher intellect

@@thejollygreendragon8394 Female? [This is the type of anamist/pagan/human-sacrifice religion I can't stand.]

Leave it to the Beavers!

there is nuclear power. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lhHHbgIy9jU.html

Nuclear…

@@WeiglerGodoy I think we need nuclear energy for a long time, but building takes time and most countries should have started building new plants decades ago

Solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear are all good options.

@@guerreiro943 The problem with solar and wind is that together they can't provide more than about half of the energy mix if the country has industry that requires precise power delivery.

Fish ladders are areas where fish predators wait. They are not a very good option.

It's all for those stupid salmon??? We have fish farms for those. Why can they just build a fish ladder?

@@bertanelson8062 I heard something about salmon "pens". When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"

@@bertanelson8062 As if bears don't stand in the water falls waiting to grab the fish as they jump?

@@bertanelson8062 Bears wait at the top of the falls the salmon would cross anyways, so are the ladders really that much worse?

Source?

​@@realcryptcthis video

The literature specifies 150K barriers in the water, including very small ones, but I guess it's too hard to make an accurate video for RU-vid nowadays.

It's just another of the crap fact verse type channel with absolutely no effort

In Washington state, US?

@@Andrew-df1dr Apologies, yes, Washington State. There are videos of the dam removals and subsequent recovery of fish, wildlife and vegetation.

@@catherinespencer-mills1928 Fascinating. The Olympic Mountains a high on my list of places to visit of i ever come to your country.

europe want suicide

Couldn't have said it better

You haven't got a clue about Europe, have you?

Bro didn’t watch the video, which explains why

​@@smallpeople172 he is not wrong, but (small) dams are not a very relevant part of that

Windmills when there's no wind and solar panels at night.

How much electricity was lost then you reckon? Huge gains opening up migration of species in and close to the river.

i guess finland replaced them with a nuclear plant?

Most are small dams 3-5 meters high located on secondary streams, the production of electricity is negligible

There’s no reason for power generation. Burn wood and cook fish. That’s what we did thousand years ago and we are very progressively moving backwards. It’s better to be simple part of harmonious nature rather than being exceptionally well off in dead desert.

It's all for those stupid salmon??? We have fish farms for those. Why can they just build a fish ladder?

@@hg2. they are, at least in Switzerland we are not tearing dams down.

@@Braun30 TG... so good to hear SOMEBODY in Europe still has some sanity.

@@hg2. actually a salmon "farm" is in a dam. They grow salmon in sweet water.

@@Braun30 I heard something about salmon "pens". When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"

You God dam right!

size matters

In the US the Utilities invested over $30 millions over the last 3 years to upgrade Hydro-Electrical plants. Don't "bla-bla-bla" about a topic, you have no knowledge about.

But that is exactly WHY they are doing it; to degrade and diminish humanity. Just watch for the RESULTS of this insane policy. Here the Klamath dams were removed, transforming the whole area into what is known as The River of Death. Toxic sediment did not go away, and it has eliminated the local ecology. The miniature dams shown here are just the begining; the goal is to make it impossible for rural folk to live outside the urban hive. This is a MALTHUSIAN offensive, and humanity itself is what they mean to reduce, grind-down and crush.

The poi t is to remove your electricity

@@junicohen7918 Yes, can't have the peasants getting too prosperous, now can we? =/

They are removed only old dams to save high maintenance cost only

Dams have lifespans though and end up full of silt.

That's not going to be allowed

Imagine... Spain... the most desertic country in southern Europe, leading the destruction of irrigation dams by far (it's like the blind leading the way... like the illiterate telling everyone else how to think... like... the fact is, either RU-vid or this channel will pull my comment out or who-knows-what: You MUST agree to die of thirst to show your allegiance to Big & Stupid Brother). Destruction of dams = Utter nonsense in desertified countries like Spain. (The strange suicide of Europe).

Other videos I've watched have a lot of pro-dam removal comments. I'm pro-hydropower so am interested in keeping dams that provide a lot of low-carbon emission electricity. These seem too small to be relevant to that.

Regarding the same format - was it just the basic YT nickname that everyone got several months ago, when YT did some unknown updates to our nicknames? I remember everyone getting this strange mess instead of personal nicknames, and most ppl since didnt bother changing those abominations

@@MonochromeChromosome Yes you've got a point. I now see they've stuck a number on the end of my name too.

There are bots, look at braun30 he spams the same text ​@@kitten_processing_inc4415

Its full of bots, and that is clear in their responses

Building cost already recovered by producing enargy

Concrete in dams naturally degrades over time which is one reason for dam removal and it was mentioned in the video. Better to remove a dam ahead of time as opposed to the dam collapsing and causing more serious problems.

My point is merely What did it cost to build? They said is costs $XX to tear down, is that more or less than it cost to build? That is it. Not if it should be or not. Hell, I live in Alaska, near a Salmon breeding area. I get the damage that they do. All I asked for was the building cost folks.

I heard something about salmon "pens". When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"

Why is Europe so ideological braindead? Is it because you were successful for too long

Debatable , how can you tell if a fish it's happy ? Are we supposed to just project human concepts or associate them with an animal. Just look at that fish face, it's so fishy , so unhappy like .

For eco warriers salmons are more important than people

Electricty generation, flood control, water supply. We can look forward to ever higher energy and water bills, higher insurance costs to pay for all the flood claims, and more expe4nsive food, since these dams are often the source of water for agriculture.

@@hugheaston7598Most dams that need removal are smaller, maybe generated a dozen KW of power, or were built to run water mills, make large basins for canal boats and feeding canal systems. I'd scarcely think anyone's going to remove something that's making hundreds of KW to MW's of electricity, particularly when stable dispatchable generation that a large hydro dam provides is increasingly valuable.

I'm thinking the Hydro-Electric dams were built long before they had the technology for Nuclear Reactors all over Europe. So, at least those dams are likely not needed anymore, or at least, not as many. Not sure about all the smaller ones though?

Valid is Agenda 2030. You have nothing!

@@hugheaston7598 Many of those power generation dams haven't been in use in years some decades, one I know of in Czechia (that barely produced a few kW); over 100 years...

1-Its not the cleannest 2-They barely lost any eletrical power. An engineer can't understand that 100yo dams don't produce eletricity anymore? Most dams were beyond their usefull life or to small to producw relevant ammounts of power

@@joaquimbarbosa896 What is the cleanest?

@@superlacrosseguy nuclear

@@joaquimbarbosa896 I would do nuclear as 2nd choice. My only beef with nuclear is that it dumps a significant amount of thermal energy into our atmosphere via cooling towers or river systems in order to create the low pressure side of the turbine system. Hydroelectric does not add heat to our atmosphere or rivers to create power.

@@superlacrosseguy That barely makes a difference in the local atmosphere, it literally makes no difference in the global atmosphere. Also nuclear for one does not stop river flow...

Oh, there's a whole movement behind that bs? Who would've guessed... 🙈

How is this a great video? It's purely one-sided like some sort of anti dam extremism, not showing any rational discourse around dams, just cheering at their destruction for refutable reasons.

Dam replentish underground waters, and avoid nutriets to spill at first use into the see, letting to recycle them, and fish pass allow the fish to move freely, EVEN, in small hydropower as the archimedean screw, those are used as FISH LIFTERS in fish farms, AND as oxygenation for water cleaning in sewage water treatments, too lazy lo learn?

No. Absolutely technically unfeasible.

More ecological and more efficient

They will cut forests and build huge fields of solar panels.

Don't listen to idiots and demagogues, (like your PM Souteneur Trudeau) and you would not have concerns. I am an electrical engineer, who worked on over a dozen of Hydro-Electrical plants upgrade in the US. Yes, or course the electrical and mechanical equipment has to be periodically replaced with new, but -so far - even a 100-years old dam concrete structures hold very well.

@@arney444 the last thing I'd do is listen to Trudeau, he screwed us and future generations :(

@@Welv1987 Thank you, you made up my day! Of course, we in the US must do our part and get rid of of that mentally deteriorated Joe

If Europe had hoped that others will follow its example, that is delusional and a miscalculation, didn't Yanis Varoufakis recently said that, Mexican president told him that Europe is irrelevant ?

Spot on! 👏

CA? what does that mean?

@@reapersmercy7283 the golden state

With a delusional mindset of California government and the increasing illegal immigrants adding to the population, California will be in drought soon enough.

Water problems and telling it's because of "climate change" ........ But it's because of cloud seeding removing dams ect ............. Removing the carbon and the carbon is you Bill Gates.... 🐑💉🧬💀

That state has much bigger problems. 1.6 trillion dollars in debt. Who is going to pay for the dams.

Our leaders are malevolent idiots.

lots of them were lost their usefullness and are obsolete so the power that was lost is almost none

yes. it has to do with the water height. lakes are not common because water tends to "want" to run to lower altitudes and ends up destroying the sides of a lake through erosion over hundreds if not thousands or millions of years. and when they're natural most of the water in them flows underground. dams pretty much stop the water in an artificial lake made on a river, which if it is there it's probably because there's some material preventing the infiltration of all that water (not all of it mind you). This means we're accumulating water and organic matter in a place were naturally it would not occur as the amount of water flowing would clear them up. this is how swamps are made btw...a river flows into a field or a blockage makes it inundate the surrounding area turning the place into a swamp thus stopping the water and accumulating organic matter which incentivizes the growth of anaerobic bacteria and even makes those nice naturally formed methane reservoirs which then bubble up and you can see videos of people igniting for fun.

@@pedromoura1446 But is there LESS life in artificial water reservoires? Or is there just DIFFERENT life in them? Is there any objective measure of how that change of one perfectly inhabitable environment to another perfectly inhabitble environment "is bad"? In Scandinavia, forest areas that are industrially clear-cut have much greater ecological diversity than the natural hegemonic pine forest that monotonically covers 95% of the place. Could it be that dynamic human interaction with the environment can actually stiulate its diversity? CO2 additions to the atmosphere certainly stimulates all kinds of life on the entire planet. Especially in the Arctic and in the deserts. So hydroelectric power plants might be bad in the sense that they compete with accelerated CO2 emissions, I could give you that!

@@bjorntorlarsson on your first question. It depends on how the lake is formed and maintained but generally speaking it's worse because you need to compensate for the damage you caused. You need fish ladders to maintain the current habitats and even then a dam is a barrier preventing local aquatic species from moving around, you need machinery to constantly remove the sediments from the bottom and place them over the dam to prevent problems like bridges falling or beach erosion, invasive water species accumulate in these reservoirs which you then need to remove and eliminate least they spread, all the organic matter from wateaver was in that area is now being slowly decomposing in anaerobic conditions, etc. But you're also right, It's a different environment, not necessarily a worst or better one. that's a human evaluation of the current local fauna and flora because we know that we can make very rapid changed that most species cannot adapt to. and yes. There is a method to measure that :) it's measured in biodiversity. Generally speaking if something man made increased the number of species in a place without putting a strain in another species. for instance... Imagine you eliminate mosquitoes in a place but your work added 1 or 2 other species of animal to the location, mosquitoes are considered common enough that it wont affect their population and 2 other species moving in means you succeeded in increasing biodiversity of the location. This is a generalization ofc since usually biodiversity increase means you created the conditions for species that feed and control the less desirable or more common ones to move in, you do not eliminate them. The opposite is also true... By knowing we reduced the amount of species in a location we know we did something wrong and we need to repair or at least minimize the damage. I hope this also clears your second question.

@@bjorntorlarsson on your 3rd point... Unfortunately no... Co2 is to plants what sugar is to humans. We use sugar as the most basic energy form to feed our cells but you're only healthy because you have a balanced diet. If someone came and force fed you sugar assuming that because your cells use it then more of it would surely be good then you'd probably fall ill and eventually die. Plants react pretty much the same way to co2 (I can go into more detail about the mechanism by which plants consume co2 and why too much is bad for them if you want but I believe there's some youtube videos by veritaseum or scishow...?... that can illustrate it better than I could in a comment)... They've adapted to the current co2 levels and would take thousands of years for entire species to adapt to today's levels of co2 without facing extinction (especially bad if those provide food for us). Then there's indirect problems... Higher temperatures increase solubility of some minerals which can atrophy existing mechanisms or diminish the capability fauna and Flora has to absorb those essencial minerals, co2 disolves in water which acidifies it and has pretty much messed up the calcium carbonate (limestone) cycle which not only released more co2 (one of the many ways an increase in co2 concentration causes more co2 to be released) but also prevents animals that rely on shells from growing and reproducing (corals, molusks, zooplancton...) which in turn removed the food that other animals relied upon and with their numbers dwindling those above them in the food chain suffer as well, those animals are also responsible for depositing co2 through their life cycles so removing them also makes it harder to remove co2 from the atmosphere. And it's also going to make life harder to most of us by removing land mass, agricultural land, increasing the strength of natural disasters, expanding tropical diseases to places that didnt have them, reducing water supplies and even increasing human migrations because 90% of humans live near the coast and if their houses disappear they're not just gonna move inland and call it a day, they're gonna need money to recuperate financially and/or they're just going to move to places they see as both less likely to see that happen again and were opportunity to find a job and remake their lives is easier in their eyes (that means Europe, US, Canada...). Obviously not everything or even everyone is going to die unless we crank co2 production like a James bond supervillain trying to destroy the world (which, To be fair... I can almost see oil companies do since they are being almost cartoonishly evil...) people with money will live somewere protected and separated from those of us and life will adapt and evolve, even if only extremophiles survived life would find a way... But at the very least millions of human beings will die for no reason other than someone wanting more of a piece of paper for their piece of paper collection and the rich themselves wouldn't be much better in a bunker or a fenced property spending inordinate amounts of money and time guaranteeing the resources they need to survive instead of traveling and enjoying a sky trip or eating luxurious foods (which are also disappearing ironically or not). And it's not only not natural but unnecessary and preventable... Anyway... Sorry for the rambling by the end... Professional hazard.

@@pedromoura1446 CO2 level has never been as low as now (or 100 years ago, the oil industry has restored a more natural level thanks to recycling carbon to the atmosphere). When CO2 level was more than 4 times higher, a level that the oil industry unfortunately never can achieve, 100 million years ago, we had mega flora and mega fauna. Life was thriving as never before or hence. Politically manipulated computer models that have been totally wrong in every respect for over 35 years now, are of course nothing but obviously lying propaganda. The climate doomsday fraud is fortunately dying now. In a couple of years no one will even mention global warming or CO2 emissions any more. Now the uneduated looting psycopaths are going for the war economy fraud instead as their means to abolish all human rights and all industrial wealth in the Western world.

Many dams are not made to control floods. These kinds of small dams were built all over when we started electrifying for explicit purpose of electricity generation.

That is a toxic ecoextremist view.

Looking at the size of them, they all look to be very small-scale. These weren't the Hoover Dam, they were small blockages that likely powered local mills - so the power generation loss is likely minute, and the ecological damage these dams were responsible for was huge. Weirs are even worse, and there's a good reason most of the removals are focused on the 1000s of weirs that have been thrown up over the last century. My town has a big hydro electric dam, a down-river flood management dam, and a half-dozen weirs that don't serve much purpose at all anymore. All that concrete is getting close to end of its life, and there's pros and cons to keeping them intact - if it's producing a ton of power, that's a pretty big pro, but if it's keeping the lights on in a paper mill and strangling local fish stocks, it's a good call to cut losses and just remove the dam.

@@NLuck-eh5cd Yep, and for people that worry about floods and stuff, many dams were made for explicit purpose of power generation. These small dams were quite useful early in electrification of stuff, but with modern grids that can deliver power pretty much anywhere, they don't really make any sense.

How big of a dam are we talking?

they were small dams and there were volunteers.

@@cj.wijtmans for the ones in Finland or US?

It's all for those stupid salmon??? We have fish farms for those. Why can they just build a fish ladder?

I heard something about salmon "pens". When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"

@@hg2. A fish ladder does not work for the majority of species and for the species that it does work is still prety bad. And no, its not just for "stupid salmon" its for entire ecossystems. And farming fish does not make the tiver ecossystem better

@@joaquimbarbosa896 Please spare us your attempts to impose human sacrifices base on you eco/animist paganism based on superstition.

@@hg2. When did I try to make human sacrifices? Removing non working or small dams is a no brainner

africans destroyed it?

That makes much more sense. There is no hard choice dam or salmon, there are ways to reduce or eliminate the ecological impacts while still benefiting from the dams. I wonder if sometimes the obosolete dam owners don't stirr up public support into financing the removal for ecological pretexts instead of having to remove or maintain them themselves.

Dams without fish ladders should not exist.

In the map that he shows it says "removed barriers" , that's what is being done by creating canals and elevators for the fish , old dams have to be tared down because they are dangerous , every single country is building new dams and in the rivers that they are demolishing the old ones probably new , larger and more efficient will be built.

@@terra7066 That's what I suspected, there was a safety reason for taking the dams down, not the fishies. And yes, the owners were very smart to get the tree-hugging public to pay for the demolitions. Nationalize costs and privatize profits.

Fish ladders are just not as effective as complete removal of the obstacle. So if it's somehow possible, just remove the dam to restore former conditions.

Nuclear power plants are running profitably. One NPP had to reduce output once because almost all dams were full and demand in both Finland and neighbouring nations was to low. The removed dams are either way beyond their usefull life or way to small to make a difference in eletrical power. This barely makes a difference in the countries eletrical output. For the love of god, stop this stupidity

95% of the dams was industrial and not hydro-power ones and tearing down a 100+ year old dam for a mill that closed down or converted to electric over 50 years ago is not that of a problem.

Couldn't agree with you more!! Spain is comitting suicide by leading all European countries in the massive destruction of thousands of their irrigation dams, arduously built over the last 4 centuries, particularly in the driest southern two-thirds of the Iberian Peninsula. Utter nonsense!! (There are "water steps" devised for fish, so that they can climb even the largest and tallest dams since the 18th [Yes! Eighteen Century Spain, King Ferdinand VI, commencement of construction of the Canal of Castille, and many other hydraulic projects that came afterwards, all planned with extremely sound common sense], as you and anyone aware of some basic History in general know (or should know): The benefits of conserving water in a drying-up country + the benefits of keeping rivers alive). The explanation to the super-fast destruction of dams in Europe and particularly in Spain, and the 4-decade long blockage of the connection of the most important Spanish watersheds nationwide is thus clearly political - we all know the end sought by them global politicians with the help of illiterate local prime ministers: The killing of Europe (& the West in general) by way of the destruction of its component parts, i.e. the established European nation-states, and by the by, as many of their native citizens as possible).

It's all for those stupid salmon??? We have fish farms for those. Why can they just build a fish ladder?

I heard something about salmon "pens". When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"

They will force people eat bugs to save water. Or maybe they will find water on asteroids.

Water problems and telling it's because of "climate change" ........ But it's because of cloud seeding removing dams ect ............. Removing the carbon and the carbon is you Bill Gates.... 🐑💉🧬💀

​@@lol32scbw you will eat the bug and reducing carbon and the carbon is you Bill Gates..... 🦋🐑💉🧬💀

It will be a cold day in hell when the land of thousand lakes runs out of water.

All the lies it's been built on getting exposed now. Thats what.

Those dams were barely producing any eletricity

Because the so-called greens don't actually give a stuff about the climate or the environment. They're communists in disguise, who are using the environment as an excuse to make us all poor and hungry so we'll be obedient little slaves.

Blocking rivers isnt clean. They could just use water pressure through turbines for electricity production

Nothing. Listen once more to what he said. And look through the boolshit and decorations into a sense behind them. All the dams removed were old and small. Not optimal, not producing any energy or producing very little of it. NOONE is removing big, modern dam that produce significant amount of energy. They were way to important for safety reasons. Well, noone but russian army.

Those dams will go right back up when China takes over. Why do people forget that they are competing against other people.

What's a Testla?

​@@ThenakedfinisherTesla company