The "dams produce lots of methane" arguement has come up again, in Nature (subs req): In the specific case of Balbina, there is now a rough consensus: in terms of avoiding greenhouse-gas emissions, a fossil-fuel plant
would have been better. Balbina is a dam in Brazil. Opinions seem to vary on just how much methane it emits from decay of vegetable matter, with (oh dear) people partly funded by the hydro industry getting somewhat lower numbers. But the data appear to be sparse... a clear case for more monitoring.
Stoat
Taking science by the throat...
Profile
My family and me.
More...
Make sure you're familiar with the Comment Policy
Search
Recent Posts
- Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
- Do I need a new bike?
- F
- Mothers Day
- Old boat, new boat
- Time considered as a helix of semi precious stones
- Keep your eye on the ball
- IOP: I hate it when they do that
- Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes
- The IOP fiasco
Recent Comments
- P.J.B. on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
- crandles on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
- Bob O'H on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
- 6EQUJ5 on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
- Gerard Harbison on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
- Phil Hays on Do I need a new bike?
- P. Lewis on Do I need a new bike?
- John Mashey on Keep your eye on the ball
- Rattus Norvegicus on Do I need a new bike?
- Tony O'Brien on Do I need a new bike?
Archives
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
Blogroll
- Back Seat Driving
- Bryan's Blog
- CIP
- Climate Feedback (Nature)
- QS/DA
- Deltoid
- Eli t Rabett
- FPA: climate change
- Framing Science
- Jeb
- John Fleck
- Only In It For The Gold
- Reality Check
- Real Climate
- RP Sr
- RP Jr
- Sagredo
- Some are Boojums
Other Information
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
« Climate change sceptics lose vital argument | Main | Cambridge energy forum »
Methane from Dams
Category: climate science
Posted on: November 30, 2006 11:41 AM, by William M. Connolley
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/26949
Comments
There are many negatives associated with large dams, hydro-electric or otherwise, but I cannot see where release of GHG's esp. methane can be a problem. I assume that the methane is supposed to come from the many hundreds of thousands or millions of trees submerged by the rising water. There may be a significant amount produced immediately after the soil and trees have been submerged from more easily degraded biomass in the soil.
However, whole trees are very resistant to bacterial decay. There are numerous examples of people harvesting trees from underwater in many locations, both fresh and salt water, trees which have been submerged for over one hundred years. Those trees are now more valuable than freshly cut trees since the many years under water have given them unique staining patterns.
A company in the interior of British Columbia in Canada has developed an underwater saw which they use to cut down submerged trees which are still standing after many years of being submerged by the flooding of hydro dams in BC and NW USA. Most of these dams were flooded 30 to 40 years ago.
I think this is a case of theoretical considerations not behaving according to theory in the real world.
[I think you're probably wrong; methane emissions from dams are contested as to the exact amount, but that they are significant isn't in dispute - W]
Posted by: Ian Forrester | December 1, 2006 1:25 PM
And let's not forget that a cow emits 500 liters of methane every day, together with 6000 liters of carbon dioxide per day.
http://rucus.ru.ac.za/~wolfman/Essays/Cow.html
A law to fight against these gases that are vital even beyond farting is an anti-cow holocaust law at the same moment.
Posted by: Lubos Motl | December 2, 2006 12:53 AM
Eructing Lubos, most of the gas comes out the front end of cows....hmmm.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | December 2, 2006 9:11 PM
Hardly a surprise that Lubos can't tell his hot air from his bullshit.
Posted by: James Annan | December 3, 2006 5:01 AM
I think that all of you are confused about all these things. Methane is always a component of farts. Read e.g.
http://exn.ca/Stories/2000/04/12/56.asp
Global warming: why we can't afford to be sheepish about farts. ;-)
Even if the farts went from the front, I still call them farts if they smell like all other farts. What matters to identify a fart is the composition, not the origin.
Posted by: Lubos Motl | December 3, 2006 11:08 AM
[this commen edited for politeness -W]
Posted by: Carl Christensen | December 3, 2006 11:20 AM
I always appreciate your Gentlemanly protection, William. ;-)
Posted by: Lubos Motl | December 3, 2006 12:57 PM
Half an hour ago, two old French guys found germs in a French lake that will eat the methane from cows and sheep. ;-)
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=5&ObjectID=10413619
Posted by: Lubos Motl | December 3, 2006 1:04 PM
Actually not Lubos dear, cows have four stomachs, which is why they are such efficient large lawnmowers. In the first, the rumen, grass is softened by anaerobic bacteria, which, among other things generate methane, so it am cow burps (eruction), not farts that pollute the atmosphere with methane. Mercaptains are something else. By thinking about this it has been demonstrated that the amount of methane can be reduced by changing the diet of the cows. They can also be fed various cow additives to do same. You can google it. Now rice paddies, those are REALLY dirty.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | December 3, 2006 5:54 PM
Dear Eli, thanks for your comments. I don't really want to teach you how to deal with your native language. Nevertheless, the right word for your "eruction" is actually "eructation". Otherwise, I have already agreed with you that the gases are emitted by the mouth. Still, the smell is like farts.
Posted by: Lubos Motl | December 3, 2006 10:21 PM
Ah yes, the spelling flame, but never having kissed a cow I will take your word on the smell.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | December 4, 2006 6:25 PM