Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Identify Another Source of Dangerous Greenhouse Gases: Reservoirs (popsci.com)
A team of researchers from Canada, Holland, China, the U.S. and Brazil "found that greenhouse gas emissions from man-made reservoirs were likely equal to the equivalent of one gigaton of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere every year...a little less than one-sixth of the United State's greenhouse gas emissions." An anonymous Slashdot reader quotes Popular Science:
A reservoir is usually created by damming a river, overflowing the banks and flooding the surrounding area, creating a man-made lake...the perfect conditions for microbes to generate greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane (a gas that is about 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide)... "When reservoirs are first flooded there's organic matter in the soil and vegetation that can be converted by microbes into methane and carbon dioxide," John Harrison, a co-author of the paper, tells Popular Science.
"Also, reservoirs because they are in line in rivers, they receive a lot of organic matter and organic sediment from upstream that can fuel the production of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide." Harrison says that reservoirs also tend to occur in areas where fertilizers are used on the surrounding land. Runoff from those fertilizers into bodies of water can cause algal blooms that can also produce more methane and carbon dioxide.
If the world's reservoirs were a country, they'd be #8 on a list of polluters -- right behind Brazil, China, the EU and the U.S.
"Also, reservoirs because they are in line in rivers, they receive a lot of organic matter and organic sediment from upstream that can fuel the production of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide." Harrison says that reservoirs also tend to occur in areas where fertilizers are used on the surrounding land. Runoff from those fertilizers into bodies of water can cause algal blooms that can also produce more methane and carbon dioxide.
If the world's reservoirs were a country, they'd be #8 on a list of polluters -- right behind Brazil, China, the EU and the U.S.
Because this runoff would go to the oceans. Would that somehow be better? How?
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves please; the EU is not a country.
To hydro, or not to hydro--that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler on the earth to suffer
The slings and varied emissions of outrageous power generation
Or to take arms against a sea of microbes
And by opposing end them.
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
From the article:
"For one, when reservoirs are first flooded there’s organic matter in the soil and vegetation that can be converted by microbes into methane and carbon dioxide. Also, reservoirs because they are in line in rivers, they receive a lot of organic matter and organic sediment from upstream that can fuel the production of methane, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide."
Okay... these are not going to be an issue in a un-dammed river (or natural lake)?
Harrison says that reservoirs also tend to occur in areas where fertilizers are used on the surrounding land. Runoff from those fertilizers into bodies of water can cause algal blooms that can also produce more methane and carbon dioxide.
A level of being redundant... Okay... these are not going to be an issue in a un-dammed river? And ... they are going to blame reservoirs for non-associated (man caused) pollution?
Someone is very anti-reservoirs (read pro coal/gas)
AFAIK co2 isn't bad in itself. Without co2 we'd have much more serious problems than we have now.
The point is that the co2 equilibrium is disturbed by the fact that man dig or pumps up fossil fuels that have been stored for millions of years thereby adding co2 to the atmosphere.
Burning wood, rotting vegetation, farting animals and bubbling reservoirs are part of the co2 balance already so are not the cause of the current problem.
(This is how I understand it which - admittedly - isn't saying much)
The headline and summary makes it sound like it is a large effect. It's not.
The estimate was 25% too low, and
"All told, reservoirs used for everything from power to flood control to irrigation account for roughly 1.3 percent of our global carbon footprint, much higher than previous estimates."
Wow. We're talking about a 1.3 percent contribution, and the original estimate was off by 25%.
So, the original estimate undercounted greenhouse emissions by a little under half a percent.
Some other sources:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/whoops-dams-and-reservoirs-release-tons-greenhouse-gases-180960645/?no-ist
http://gizmodo.com/scientists-just-discovered-a-major-new-source-of-carbon-1787222994
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I order to be green you must go red. No not be socialist silly commies, no red as in Mars. (Who do you think is causes most of our problems in the first place?) You can't damage the "environment" of a planet that doesn't have one. We can turn Earth back into wild life park and let all the wolves and tigers eat the dirty hippies stinking up the forests.
This tired old argument again? It's been known for years, usually brought up as part of anti-hydro power campaigns typically funded by our pro-fossil fuel lobbying friends.
While not good, this isn't really that bad. Consider for a moment why we call them fossil fuels. That is taking carbon which was long out of play and adding it into the system.
With lakes dams and still rivers it is burping up atmospheric carbon which was already in play over the last decades or centuries anyway and wasn't neccesarily on track to be sequestered. That orgaic matter recently took the carbon out of the atmosphere, thus no net change to the amount of carbon in the system. If it comee up as methane that's not good for 125 years or so until it breaks down to CO2 again, but that pales in comparison to the effect of ancient carbon being added to the system.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
I'm not nearly as poetic as you, but:
> To hydro, or not to hydro--that is the question
That question was answered in the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. We did put hydroelectric dams in most of the places where geography makes it attractive to do so.
There's a lot to be said good about hydro-electric, and some bad. Like nuclear, it provides steady, reliable, clean energy, and like nuclear a worst-case accident could be really bad. The collapse of the Banqiao hydroelectric dam killed about a quarter million people, for example.
Differences between hydro and nuclear include:
Political feasibility: until recently, it was fashionable in environmental circles to bash nuclear and promote hydro. That's changing.
Scalablity/growth: As mentioned, most of the good hydro spots are already in use. New nuclear plants can be built in many places.
Safety record: While both could theoretically cause many causalties in worst-case scenario, hydro actually does have such accidents occassionally, and a million people have actually been affected. Nuclear has had three pretty scary close calls, but nothing has actually happened like Banqaio etc have for hydro.
Have you seen the decay beneath an old growth canopy - it's simply a solid carpet of decay - producing CO2 and methane at an astronomical rate. And that doesn't even mention the amount of CO2 and methane produced by the billions of creatures wihch call the forest home. Old growth can't possibly expect to keep up with the CO2 generation, and does noting to ameliorate the methane production. What we need to do is completely deforest the planet and plant new, fast growth trees to both eliminate the forest floors and natural habitat for all the CO2 producing microbes and animals. That will eliminate much of the CO2 and methane production, and the new trees will soak up the CO2 at a much quicker rate. /s
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
It's those little bastards that taught us how to do this. The little anti-environmental vermin have been polluting the planet for millennia
wors't -case scenario
What kind of scenario would this be, exactly?
Sausages?
--
BMO
Have you seen the decay beneath an old growth canopy - it's simply a solid carpet of decay - producing CO2 and methane at an astronomical rate.
The material below the canopy that's decaying is, of course, returning to the atmosphere carbon that was removed from the atmosphere by the forest in the first place: net carbon emissions, zero.
Old growth forests are, for the most part, very close to net carbon neutral.
To remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, the biomass produced has to be sequestered.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Why would you class "the EU" along with single countries?
Does saying that the US pollutes more than any single first-world European country hurt for you?
Let's just get rid of the people. They are clearly very bad for the environment, no matter what they do or don't do. And we have the technology to decimate the population in like half an hour, and cool down the earth as well through nuclear winter. How's that for problem solving?
Certainly Chernobyl is the worst nuclear accident that has ever happened.
About 60 people died due to exposure after Chernobyl. Compare 300 for a plane crash. It's estimated that due to increased cancer risk another 4,000 might eventually die sooner than they otherwise would have. I don't think that's the worst-case scenario that scares some people. I think they are worried about something that has never happened, but theoretically could with older reactor designs.
Not matter what alternative you offer them, they will find a problem with it and reject it.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Where should we building cities then? The population is rising and life expectancy is rising. People need to live somewhere. Unless we ban all immigration we need to build new homes every year.
By this same argument wetlands (swamps, estuaries, ponds, etc) are major polluters. Just more clickbait as 'science'.
Organization? You must be joking..
This is nothing but anti-hydropower propaganda. Probably funded by fossil fuel interests.
Go stand next to a man-made reservoir. Then stand near a fossil fuel power plant. Then you tell me which pollutes more.
Hint: some people will pay extra to live in a house next to a reservoir. Whereas houses near fossil power plants are dirt cheap, because absolutely no one thinks that's a good place to live.
There are two carbon cycles. The atmosphere-lithosphere quick turn-around one, and the larger much slower one which includes that plus the crust and upper mantle.
Time scales and orders of magnitude matter. In the last 200 years we've increased the amount of atmospheric carbon by about 40% and the acidity of the ocean by about 30%. In 100 million years time the carbon cycle will be back in balance, but in 500 years it will be experiencing a major wobble. That major wobble may cause enough problems to destroy our civilization one way or another. Let's avoid that, eh?
It's not about saving the Earth, the Earth will be just fine. It's about saving our civilization and a large percentage of the species on the planet.
I can tell you about subduction and the major forms of carbon-silicates in the Earth's mantle if you want me to, but I'm guessing you don't.
~.~
I'm a peripheral visionary.
Before the 1940s, Mississippi used to have horrible flooding problems whenever the Mississippi River got high. That effectively caused the same problems reservoirs cause today. That has been fixed with a series of levies and reservoirs.
Also, at some point reservoirs become semi-natural lakes. That organic matter rots and they are like any other lake. Its not like they keep emitting greenhouse gasses forever.
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
The greenhouse gas forming from flooding the land is a one-time effect after the flooding. And the organic material that is deposited from the river would have went into the ocean otherwise, where it would also rot and form greenhouse gases. The reservoirs just change the location of this greenhouse gas generation, not the amount.
A full meltdown and containment failure is the worst case. The only worse it could get is some of the theoretical failure modes that haven't been seen, and are considered impossible. Perhaps the material melts down to a critical mass, and explodes like a nuclear reactor? Perhaps the core melts down to the point it is self-sustaining, and melts to the core of the earth, and the Earth becomes a star, self-sustaining fission rather than fusion, lasting forever, like the Door to Hell as a drilling worst-case.
But excluding the impossible theoretical exercises, Chernobyl seems like a reasonable worst-case scenario.
Learn to love Alaska
First: what do you mean by 'it'?
2nd: With 'carbon neutral', I think people do mean: CO2 neutral.
3rd: Methane is a gass which contains carbon. So, if 'carbon neutral' means 'CO2 neutral' then no, anaerobic digestion is not 'carbon neutral' because part of the carbon is going into making methane.
"Trump!!", the new Godwin.