How to solve our Big Dam Problem 

Yes, yes it does

It definitely depends where it is built. In mountain areas with little population and no forests, it can also give an impulse in the tourist industry creating lakes for recreation. I think Switzerland has many good examples where it had large positive effects and not so many negatives.

@@robbedeboer2728 Good example!

Well.. We in Switzerland hand it quite smart.. So we dont see or rarely see something unpositive about it........... Hydro is good. Those people in those countries just need to learn how to handle it better. :)

In most of the cases it's a yes.

Gujarati didnt known for agriculture at all

It's also of note that this propaganda is being pushed by Deutche Welle, and Germans are known for their attempts to create/kickstart (dominate) the solar industry.

Ironically the world's largest floating solar plant is in china itself and the three gorges dam already has a significant floating solar plant, this idea is not new. Dams already serve multiple purposes in irrigation, water security, flood control ect, but for some reason this episode decided not to look into those.

Yeah but a large number of US citizens lack the mentality to transfer to renewable energy they don't see the need for solar panels since they have gas and other sources so they just rather put the cheaper option

It really depends on a number of factors. I believe in the area you are referring to in the US the state of California has a pretty strong renewable program, in fact they said one day they generated enough renewable electricity to feed 100% of their demand. You may notice the wording suggests they couldn't use all of it and that's because renewables spike up and down, they need to keep other power sources up to account for that. Shutting down and starting up plants is a long process. So, what they need is storage infrastructure. I also believe the balls main target was in cancer prevention and not evaporation, but it does that too. I forgot the whole details whether it was something the water foul were spreading or some chemical reaction caused by sunlight. Hard to get that amount of floating solar panels to get sufficient coverage, and as the water level rises and lowers they would need to put on and take off solar panels, unlike the balls which just stack on each other. Interestingly enough, California is also one of the few places in the world where the average consumer can utilize and refuel personal hydrogen powered cars.

Good and bad actually. Shading the water below have huge impact on living organisms. Sun the the power spurse of life cover a surface pn solar panels and life get affected below. At the end everything have a pro and con

@@scaratb8810 yes because the entire world is anti china

That's not what she said

Stop - you’re using facts. They don’t want to hear facts.

This channel is having some serious problem about their research on dams , why don't they see the flaura and fauna growth in the canal areas as well irrigation 📈

They are American liberals they didn't say anything about American dam and they know that on narmada river India is built photovoltaic systems but they didn't not mention that. When we see the American data from last 20 decades for destroying the nature no one other country come first 🧐🧐🧐 But on other side yes big dams are not that good for nature but building small are far more costly and it won't decrease any corruption in other words it will inc corruption.

And did he respond with an answer?

@@shihoorkar YES! we collaborated on a project and released 2 videos about it.

@@terramater Can you refer us to those videos?

The environmental cost of Solar panels and wind turbines/farms are tiny right 😅

Are buildings the only use?

It's much more expensive though

They also prevent some evaporation of the water so that is helpful. Plus the electrical infrastructure is already there for the power for the dam itself so it does not need to be build just for the solar like it would in a stand alone solar project.

@@Parker307 Dams don't need electric power. Many dams do have electric power it it true. Electric lighting, lunch facilities, opening and closing sluice gates, some winching or cranes. But it is not substantial enough to carry very much power at all.

@@neddyladdy This video is talking about dams that are generating power mostly

email the authors to get access to their research. And their are websites where you can get access to them for free.

scihub, for example

So what new did u learn...cause from the video video it seems even they didn't get sufficient research done...

We don't need to decarbonize electricity, we need to decentralize electricity. Electricity is a governmental MONOPOLY in every country in the world.

Yup... At the end of this video they suggested microHydro which isn't a answer as it doesn't generate a meaningful amount of power. The question people should've been thinking of when they watched this video was 'Do I want the environmental impact from coal/oil/gas OR hydro'. You can't always put solar where hydro goes, can't always put hydro where wind goes, and can't always put wind where solar goes... They all have a place and all need to work together. Nuclear is a real option, but there is so much negative public opinion from the cold war and fukashima that it makes it hard to even start a conversation on it. Then everyone gets angry at the idea of it, despite it being the best of fossil and renewable energy we have right. Really needs the 20 years of government subsides Obama gave solar/wind.

@@matildo4ka7 You're right. I want a coal-burning reciprocating steam engine generating my electricity in my back yard.

@@gregorymalchuk272 get it ;)

Are those solar thermal, geothermal, or some other thermal?

Tom Kelly Dams and hydropower use a huge amount of cement and concrete c ompated to solar and wind. Solar uses very little concrete, mostly steel and aluminum. Wind turbines use concrete in the base, but there are typically less than a hundred wind turbines.

Did you hear recent news from Pennsylvania?

@@haveaseatplease Indeed I could have phrased that better, it is less so an innate problem with hydro but more so an example of the risks that hydro has if done improperly. However unfortunately quite a few governments and companies fail to deal with this risk properly and as such their dams do produce methylmercury. The case I referenced is also a rather extreme one, this is not a very researched problem and as such even a properly managed dam could be causing more of a problem then we originally thought.

Wow it looks like they are almost self-sufficient on renewables, and mainly hydro. 💧

A dam solves the problem of storing energy, that can be used when needed. Other forms of energy (except nuclear) doesn't work like that. To store the huge energy behind a dam on the larger scale, in batteries, it would require insanely much. So there lies one problem, or rather, one huge plus for dams.

Hey there! Our video on tidal energy could be interesting for you! Check it out here 👉ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1-2TyKqP84o.html

no, they should be updated and used... the damage was done allready now use the product

I think that might have been only in reference to some tropical projects were a lot of vegetation had been submerged by the reservoir. However that could have been made more clear, and I also don't see how those issues would continue at a large scale over the lifetime of the dam.

@Sean Reid Let me present some peer-reviewed facts from academic researchers who looked into the topic 🤓: From the Journal of Scientific Reports ☟ “Even though hydropower is often thought of as a ‘green’ source of energy, studies suggest that reservoirs are not carbon neutral and in extreme cases might have even higher carbon footprint than fossil fuel energy, particularly those situated in the tropics5,6. Tropical reservoirs have been estimated to emit about 3.0 Tg CH4-C year−1 2 and to contribute 64% of the total reservoir CH4 emission” 🔗: www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47346-7 From the Journal Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change ☟ “Hydroelectric dams in tropical forest areas emit greenhouse gases, as illustrated by the Curuá-Una Dam in the Amazonian portion of Brazil. Emissions include carbon dioxide from decay of the above-water portions of trees that are left standing in the reservoir and methane from soft vegetation that decays under anaerobic conditions on the bottom of the reservoir, especially macrophytes (water weeds) and vegetation that grows in the drawdown zone and is flooded when the reservoir water level rises. Some methane is released from the reservoir surface through bubbling and diffusion, but larger amounts are released from water passing through the turbines and spillway. Methane concentration in the water increases with depth, and the turbines and spillway draw water from sufficient depth to have substantial methane content. In 1990 (13 years after filling), the Curuá-Una Dam emitted 3.6 times more greenhouse gases than would have been emitted by generating the same amount of electricity from oil.” 🔗: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11027-005-7303-7

@@frederic5335 Concrete dams can last centuries and even millennia, so that supposed methane burst from the initial buried vegetation gets amortized over centuries of power production. Plus they just said that the water in reservoirs is cold, which isn't compatible with decomposition. Besides, even if you acknowledge the methane, the lack of atmospheric particulate, SOx, and NOx emissions alone make hydroelectricity worthwhile.

How does the system work?

That might affect marine life on a large scale, but they already have some interesting ways to generate hydropower from the ocean in a manner that causes less of an impact.

@@justinweatherford8129I agree it may affect, but there are already many stone wave breaks in the ocean essentially doing the same thing.. Just like the unpowered dams

They picked country - India hence narrators accent and big time spending talking about big dam in India that is per DW is OUR (who is that - World, Germany?) problem. Idk did Germany lose contract in India or smth? Or India shouldn't have the ONLY cheap GREEN energy when it has 1+ billion people to feed. Big country (population) requires big dam. It's very generic video with the mixed info, but it is ok.

They claim that all the rotting plants at the bottom of the reservoir emit enough methane to cancel out all the climate effect. Which is ridiculous. The initial methane burst (only observed in hot tropical climates) is a price you pay once, and it gets amortized across centuries or even millennia of carbon free electricity. Never mind the lack of SOx, NOx, and particulates that makes the comparison to coal totally inappropriate.

No one cares about Norway in the World. Countries like China are more cutting edge, because they are fighting environmental issues on a much bigger scale. How will you use example of Norway with population of 5 million people on the world scale? 5 million ppl are just living in the VILLAGE in India or China, I'd listen to them instead of Norwegians. Chinese and Indians have real world solutions, not DREAM world solutions.

I see some sort of western environmental chauvinism here.

@@abcddef2112 you got it ;)

And why do u say that... For all i see west was the most oppressive until they got rich..

Not sure about Norway, but here in Sweden most hydro project were built quite a while back, and having read about the environmental thinking back then, I would say you are somewhat mistaken: They prioritized the new grid and electricity above all else, and care for nothing and nobody. This is not quite how we do big projects today, and its also why they are so hard to get approved. "Just" simple on-shore wind power is hard to build today due to the huge amount of concern that needs to be taken for everything and everyone.

We've been removing these dams for several decades now.

🤣🤣🤣 Americans women

Propaganda bro...paid western propaganda...some commie marxist organisation put this up. How many dams does the western countries have ? They are done with their hydro renewables development and now they want us to stop.

Bro google is your friend “In general, it is estimated that a solar panel needs around three years to produce the energy required to offset the carbon dioxide emitted in its production. The lifetime of a solar panel system is around 30-40 years, so the amount of energy a solar panel produces in its lifetime will completely outweigh the number of carbon emissions produced to create the panel itself.”

3 years…. 3 years and you start saving carbon. Obviously its not only the manufacturing of the dam or panels. There is obviously still all the habitat destruction But as far as i know solar and wind disrupt thing wasaaay less. I make quick judgments too. And i have to slow down and take a moment to get the required info to give good feedback and not spread my stupidity. We need todo better There is also end of life. Recycling and that is still a problem,but can be done and is done. For a cost.

Its not too late to edit your comment 😊

Respected sir, these are environmentalists these type of people works for Ngos which runs propaganda and put pressure on underdeveloped countries in the name of environment just think these people comes from capitalist format economy countries where production and consumption is more important the more consumption the more production in this situation to fulfill this production is more important to whatever degree and if this is done where is environment . If these so called environmentist are so much concerned than they should focus on discouraging people on unnecessary large scale consumption but they can't do this because they are not here to propose solution but for anarchy in the Underdeveloping countries just blackmailing tactics

And so called environment concernedcountries can't direct interfere so they take help of these ngos to disrupt any project

"Destructive complex future technology will save is from relying on destructive complex technology". The Delusion of the Techno Fantasy.

Hey there! Yes, we talk about that kind of hydro power at minute 2:10. It is called run-of-river hydropower and there are small projects using this kind of hydropower

​@DWPlanetA Yes, but you could show more details of this alternative in comparison with the dams

Exactly, the main reason why Shree Sardar Patel and Shree Kesubhai Patel insisted on building it was water for drinking and agricultural purposes in barren lands of Kutch and Saurashtra region of Gujarat.

It is controversial because of the ecological impact of dams. Just because it helps you personally doesn’t mean it’s without negative consequences to other people.

Something provides you something that doesn't mean it's good 😳

@@CampingforCool41 oh, so then why don't you abandon the cell phones through which you type this virtuous comment. You know the lithium and silicon mining involves human rights violations? Give up with your douche woke comment already!

​@@CampingforCool41 not to ppl dude, it's negative to marine life and vegetation

And yet we keep adopting a lifestyle which requires always more electricity. It's easy to shift 100% of the blame on external forces that you don't control so that you can have good conscience.

@@PG-3462 It needs a little bit more in my case to have a good conscience. I'm building power plants, that is my profession. Above is more a kind of observation rather than for my own conscience.

@@meerkathero6032 My point is mostly what do you expect the government to do when electric consumption keeps increasing? Where I live (Québec, Canada), our electric grid is now saturated. The first plan was to promote easy things that we can all do on a daily basis to reduce our energy consumption during the peak hours which would have been enough to eliminate the problems we have as they only occur during peak hours. However, very few people listened to it and thus it didn't work. Now, if we don't want the power to go out during peak hours, the government must quickly find a way to increase electricity production, and no matter what is done, it will have an impact on the environment. By the way, sorry for my english it isn't my first language and my explanation is probably not as clear as I would want it to be 😂

​@@PG-3462 English is not my first language either. No worries, I got your point. There is a great deal of room to save energy and to reduce power peaks in Canada. The grid in Canada is excellent (at least compared to many other countries), the energy consumption is high, money is available to improve the grid, to built additional peak power plants or to introduce load management (underestimated, but the cheapest and most efficient way to overcome load peak issues). The situation in India, Congo and many other countries is very different. The people can't save energy by changing their lifestyle and they have every right to get electricity for their homes as the people in Canada have it already. Smaller power plants normally would do the job, participation of the local community would be a good thing. What I see often is that the investors prefer huge projects and that they give a s++t on the well being of the local community and the environment. Again, I don't write such comments because of my conscience.

Well sad. GREED and not carbon is the plague of the 20th century that we are dragging to the 21st century. The environment is getting connected to $$$ more and more year by year and it breaks my heart to see.

Ok, so using your logic ocean is the worst body of water in the world and we need to drain natural lakes?

Yeah that is actually incorrect my mans. It would kind of be correct if the Dam itself was absorbing lots of heat, but the reality is the more water is contained in a single space the more temperature you need to heat it up. You also go up against Boyle's Law, the increase in surface area resulting in gas formation is exponentially less than the increase in volume causing less gas formation under standard temperature and pressure.

@@matildo4ka7 By your logic, we drink sea water.

Its nice for land owners, but in the grand total micro power is not going to help much. Here in Norway at the end of 2022 about 579 of 1761 hydro power stations were small stations with

@@Gazer75 We should be incentivizing every little bit.

This water did not pass a turbine and produced electricity at all. These are spillways which release floodwater and such (or sometimes they make a big show just for the spectacular pictures and open the gates).

These spills are usually an exception for when the water cannot be safely used or stored. When this is needed the spilling has to function reliably, but any technology you add to capture the energy might fail and hinder the safe operation. Second, these spills are ideally very rare. Investments in the installation and maintenance would give only short duration of energy, which then also needs to be used or stored - but here the hydro "battery" is already full, so you might not have anything where it could be stored.

These are spillways which bypass the turbines altogether. They have these big jets because they need to dissipate the energy so as to avoid scouring the foundation of the dam.

That is a good question Bruce. Have you watched our latest video on thorium nuclear? Please check it out here 👉ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Km6kqykX900.html.

Hi there! We also made a video called "How green is solar energy really" ☀ ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EWV4e453y8Y.html and we tackle the different aspects of wind power in several videos you will find on our channel! 👍

Hydro plants are often cheaper to construct.

Hey there! This question cannot be answered easily. The exact costs and benefits depend on various factors such as topography, material available, geology, the purpose, environmental and social impact and many more. As we tackle in the video, the environmental effect of large dams is very bad and obviously the safety risk is higher. If you are interested in more detail, you can find several reports online, especially for specific country-cases.

@@DWPlanetA As you said, "The exact costs and benefits depend on various factors. . ." How do you deduce the environmental effect of large dams is very bad (i.e. big dam is worse than small dam)?

Large dam projects come always with pros and cons which are different for each region and project.The typical central European dam is not for irrigation or portable water, focus is on flood control and/or power generation. No lack of water over there. In Egypt or in some parts of India it is the contrary: irrigation, flood control and portable water are of major importance in these regions plus the by-product power. However, some projects have major negative effects on the local community, climate and environment. De-forestation before flooding would be so easy and does not cost much, still many investors and authorities flood the forests and have no problem with the immense methane emissions. The Three Gorges dam is a good example for deportation of the locals and destruction of the villages along the Yantze river, for many the living conditions degraded. All needs to be balanced and a large scale project should come with large scale responsibility. I think that was the major focus of the DW report on the dam topic.

@@meerkathero6032 There you go...you are regurgitating the same exact lie that submerged trees decaying and emitting methane. Instead of trying to push that trees submerged in reservoirs are in the same condition as water logged shallow paddy fields, could you mind explaining exactly how trees submerged in reservoirs with adverse conditions for fungi and microbes to grow- decay and produce methane? Especially when it's submerged at depths below such a huge column of water? I explained clearly why submerged wood doesn't rot, can you do the same courtesy of explaining how when you are repeating the point that submerged forest release methane?

Anti-human environmentalists come up with reasons to oppose all types of energy infrastructure that actually work and lead to energy abundance.

Hey Brian! Thanks for pointing out important aspects. We agree that it is indeed very hard to calculate the trade-offs when it comes to big hydropower, especially if it has a very long lifespan. That is why this video did not attempt to give a definitive answer, just to point out often-neglected issues with the technology.

Hey Alok, the risks on nuclear are shocking if implemented. ☢ But, that's a solution to think about too. ⚡ Please watch our videos 📺Do we need nuclear power to stop climate change?: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-9X00al1FsjM.html 📺Can thorium nuclear energy make a comeback?: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Km6kqykX900.html and let us know what you think!

Photosynthesis is H2O + CO2 + Sunlight = Glucose + Oxygen. It's a perfect reaction for all our problems. The only issue is that water is key. - If we're letting that water go to waste by having it rush out to sea after being held in a reservoir, very little is evaporated and none of it is used to secure ecosystem-services which life depends on.

People talk about the sea-level rising from the melting cryosphere, but as far as I can tell, everybody overlooks how mych water is stored in living organisms. Take the total sea-level rise in the past 50 years. Subtract the volume originating from ices and underground. The resulting volume would be all the water that came out of all the life that has been snuffed out - I'm talking about the volume of water that is being circulated (and purified) by ecosystems.

If all that water doesn't trickle through these ecosystems, reliable rainfall is a thing of the past. Massive soil-erosion is/will be the future.

Too bad water-rights are such an "I'll just throw money at it" issue. Nobody ever got rich off doing right by the earth, so few environmentalist parties could ever have the power to decide how river-water is allocated. Still, if they could, and they should, all river water ought to be destined to supply the surrounding ecosystems with enough water - and ONLY THEN allow interested parties to buy a share of what's left. Or better yet, just harvest some fresh water from the foggy air that pours out of these ecosystems.

​@@emil4580 WATER should be discussed more than CARBON in the 21st century. Sadly the idea of selling water was normalized in the 20th century and many kids don't find it strange to BUY water in a plastic bottle. Adults are PAYING for water to the GOVERNMENTS (if you don't have your own well). Most and foremost during our lifetime kids will think that to drink clean water and breathe clean air is a PRIVILEGE and not a human RIGHT. Water is connected to vegetation as you rightly mentioned. When we create imbalance in vegetation and consuming and selling more than we should then NATURE takes counter balance action.

Sure is 🙃 - good eye!

Hey and thanks for asking. Rivers are natural source of flowing water that can be used to generate electricity. Also, the use of hazardous materials would pose environmental and health risks...💀

@@DWPlanetA I am well aware of the health risk. What I mean is a completely sealed off complex (not pumping it into a river) which just pumps the liquid up and down depending on wether the energy is needed or not. This could be done with brine for example, the remaining liquid from desalination plants, no?

But most likely it would not be cost-effective to build all this without the natural flows in any case? If you have more leads to this feel free to share though. 🎈

Hey, you're right. 🙌 Like we say (2:29): "This one especially works really well as a large battery - that can counter the intermittency of solar and wind."