Enviros vs. Zero-Carbon Energy (hydropower, in this case)
“The court’s naked bias against the use of rivers for hydroelectric projects is demonstrated by its words, ‘damage wrought by exploitation of the waterway.” Using this reasoning, it would be impossible to use any river for hydroelectric power.”
“Environmental organizations routinely oppose the construction of dams for hydroelectric power, i.e., clean renewable energy, while professing that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are an existential threat to mankind.”
“Such opposition against carbon-free capacity dwarfs, capacity-wise, support for wind and solar. How ironic, then, that the public policy program of the climate activists might be net CO2 positive.”
Back in 1992, a writer for Energy Daily [1] noticed something. “A strange thing happened to hydropower on its way to the sustainable energy ball: the party’s environmentalist hosts withdrew their invitation.” Daniel Kaplan continued:
Long a favorite of sustainable energy groups opposed to more traditional fuels … in the last 10 years environmentalists have turned on hydropower. . . . Suddenly hydro is being mentioned in the same breath with coal, oil and nuclear–precisely the fuels hydro, touted early on as an environmentally benign energy source, was to replace. Today environmentalists talk of “non-hydro renewables” like wind, solar and biomass.”
And a quarter-century later, the environmental war against the largest US source of renewable energy continues. This month, Greenwire reported “Greens score big win over Alabama hydropower project” as environmental groups obtain a favorable ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Two environmental groups, Alabama Rivers and Alabama Rivers Alliance, filed a petition back in 2013 to bring the current verdict.
The court said that FERC failed to properly consider the environmental impacts of relicensing Alabama Power Co.’s 961 MWCoosa River project, which includes several dams along 267 miles of the Coosa River in Alabama. The court also said the biological opinion FERC relied on was unreasoned and unsupported by substantial evidence (see legal summary here).
Specifically, the court was concerned that the US Fish and Wildlife Agency approved the relicensing though the agency assumed there was a 90 to 100% possibility that the high at-risk species, tulotoma snail, and painted rocksnail, in certain sections of the river, could go extinct.
FERC provided four pages of background information, including the following:
- “The Coosa River Basin drainage encompasses about 10,161 square miles in Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee. The Coosa River begins at the confluence of the Oostanaula and Etowah rivers near Rome, Georgia, and flows 267 miles in a southerly direction to its confluence with the Tallapoosa River.”
- “The Coosa River is highly regulated, with flows controlled by nine hydropower and storage developments operated by Alabama Power and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). The Corps has congressionally mandated authority to determine flows for navigation on the Coosa River.”
- “On June 10, 2012, FWS filed its Biological Opinion, which concluded that relicensing the project as proposed with staff’s additional recommended environmental measures, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any of the species, nor is it likely to destroy or adversely modify any critical habitat.”
Here are excerpts from the Court’s ruling:
- “Nevertheless, the [FERC] Commission concluded that licensing the generation project would have no substantial impact on either the River’s ecological condition or endangered species. In doing so, the Commission declined to factor in the decades of environmental damage already wrought by exploitation of the waterway for power generation and that damage’s continuing ecological effects. Because the Commission’s environmental review and a biological opinion it relied on were unreasoned and unsupported by substantial evidence, the Commission’s issuance of the license was arbitrary and capricious.
- Accordingly, we dismiss the first petition for review, grant the second petition for review, vacate the licensing decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Two conclusions can be drawn from this litigation, regardless of the merits of the threat to some aquatic species:
- The court’s naked bias against the use of rivers for hydroelectric projects is demonstrated by the words, “damage wrought by exploitation of the waterway.” Using this reasoning, it would be impossible to use any river for hydroelectric power.
- Environmental organizations routinely oppose the construction of dams for hydroelectric power, i.e., clean renewable energy, while professing that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are an existential threat to mankind.
This opposition to hydroelectric power demonstrates the same hypocrisy as when environmental groups oppose nuclear power that produces electricity without CO2 emission. Such opposition against carbon-free capacity dwarfs, capacity-wise, support for wind and solar. How ironic, then, that the public policy program of the climate activists might be net CO2 positive.
————–
[1] Daniel Kaplan, “Is the Green Promise of Hydro Fading to Brown?” Energy Daily, December 7, 1992, p. 1. For more detail on hydropower and environmentalism, see Bradley, “Renewable Energy: Not Cheap, Not ‘Green’.” Cato Policy Analysis 280, August 27, 1997, pp. 13–15 (online).
The post Enviros vs. Zero-Carbon Energy (hydropower, in this case) appeared first on Master Resource.
Source: https://www.masterresource.org/hydroelectricity/enviros-vs-hydropower/
Anyone can join.
Anyone can contribute.
Anyone can become informed about their world.
"United We Stand" Click Here To Create Your Personal Citizen Journalist Account Today, Be Sure To Invite Your Friends.
Please Help Support BeforeitsNews by trying our Natural Health Products below!
Order by Phone at 888-809-8385 or online at https://mitocopper.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomic.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Order by Phone at 866-388-7003 or online at https://www.herbanomics.com M - F 9am to 5pm EST
Humic & Fulvic Trace Minerals Complex - Nature's most important supplement! Vivid Dreams again!
HNEX HydroNano EXtracellular Water - Improve immune system health and reduce inflammation.
Ultimate Clinical Potency Curcumin - Natural pain relief, reduce inflammation and so much more.
MitoCopper - Bioavailable Copper destroys pathogens and gives you more energy. (See Blood Video)
Oxy Powder - Natural Colon Cleanser! Cleans out toxic buildup with oxygen!
Nascent Iodine - Promotes detoxification, mental focus and thyroid health.
Smart Meter Cover - Reduces Smart Meter radiation by 96%! (See Video).