This has caused the Washington Post’s main climahysteric, Chris Mooney, to hyperventilate
But if a new study is correct, there’s a big problem: There might be more greenhouse gases going into the atmosphere than we thought. That would mean an even larger need to cut.
The new paper, slated to be published next week in BioScience, confirms a  significant volume of greenhouse gas emissions coming from a little-considered place: Man-made reservoirs, held behind some 1 million dams around the world and created for the purposes of electricity generation, irrigation, and other human needs. In the study, 10 authors from U.S., Canadian, Chinese, Brazilian, and Dutch universities and institutions have synthesized a considerable body of prior research on the subject to conclude that these reservoirs may be emitting just shy of a gigaton, or billion tons, of annual carbon dioxide equivalents. That would mean they contributed 1.3 percent of the global total.
Moreover, the emissions are largely in the form of methane, a greenhouse gas with a relatively short life in the atmosphere but a very strong short-term warming effect. Scientists are increasingly finding that although we have begun to curb some emissions of carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas, we are still thwarted by methane, which comes from a diversity of sources that range from oil and gas operations to cows.
Certainly, methane is a considerably more potent GHG than CO2, and, while it’s atmospheric lifespan is much shorter, it’s greenhouse potential is much, much higher, nor does it seem to have that pesky doubling issue, where it stops really making a difference. The study took a look at 267 reservoirs, not just dams that produce energy, and
The research, said Deemer, complicates the idea that hydropower is a carbon-neutral source of energy, although she stresses that the authors aren’t saying that they’re against using large bodies of water to generate energy through dams. Rather, they’re arguing that the greenhouse gas calculus has to be included in evaluating such projects.
Well, extreme enviro-weenies and Warmists are all for these projects in theory. In practice? They work overtime to block the construction of any new dams, and are even trying to take down existing ones. What this study is suggesting is more government intervention and oversight. Because, you know, Leftists love government.
The authors acknowledge the study  does not represent a full “life cycle analysis†of reservoirs, taking into account how much carbon was stored (or emitted from) lands prior to their being flooded, and also what happens after reservoirs are decommissioned. Nor does it attempt to weigh the methane emissions from reservoirs used to generate hydropower against the amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would presumably be created if that electricity was instead generated by burning coal or natural gas.
But it clearly suggests a need to take these emissions seriously, and conduct further research.
So, more taxpayer funds to continue to “study” this problem. Go figure
“We’re trying to provide policymakers and the public with a more complete picture of the consequences of damming a river,†said Harrison.
The consequences? Inexpensive energy, irrigation, and other benefits to human needs vs a tiny increase in global temperatures. Which do you choose?
That’s is liberal/regressive stupidity at it’s finest. 75% of the planet is covered in water, and a few man-made lakes are killing the earth.
Tell the Lying Left they don’t get to play it both ways.
Either the science is settled, in which case there is no way we could be emitting MORE than claimed — or their science is meadow muffins to begin with, since it is so often proven wrong, and this just underscores it.
Amazing that the “Party of Science” doesn’t even have a grade-schooler’s comprehension of what science is.
Teach don’t you remember high school chemistry? Methane oxidizes and becomes C02
Teach don’t you remember high school chemistry? Methane oxidizes and becomes C02
Obviously you don’t remember yours either. Methane oxidation is an anaerobic process that breaks down Methane into sulfate, nitrate, nitrite and metals. A very small percentage of this activity is actually a precursor for Co2 development.
However there is research being done that could force this anaerobic activity to create co2 rather then the prevailing nitrates etc.
But this just underscores how little we actually know about the processes that drive weather and certainly any AGW that might be man made…..
Just another tidbit of information that will be buried to keep the mantra alive that AGW is the exclusivity of the fossil fuel industry.
Laim typed:
Please conservasplain how a molecule of methane, CH4, i.e., 1 carbon atom with 4 hydrogen atoms, is “oxidized” (anaerobically) to sulfate (SO4), nitrate (NO3), nitrite (NO2) and “metals” (iron, silver, magnesium, lead etc).
Anaerobic means without oxygen, so please describe the agents that strip electrons from methane, other than oxygen.
Once the methane is oxidized to sulfate, nitrate, nitrite and “metals” what happens to the carbon atom? Is it changed to sulfur, nitrogen or “metals”? Otherwise where does the sulfur, nitrogen and metals come from??
Can you explain what you meant? What you typed was nonsense.
Science is an iterative process meaning that new experiments and new observations can add to our knowledge and understanding. Finding that freshwater lakes and reservoirs may add up to 1% or so of GHG to the atmosphere does not invalidate the scientific theory of AGW. But then the objective of deniers is not to invalidate a theory scientifically, but rather to influential policy for political and ideological reasons.
Science is rarely settled, but we do have many scientific facts we can depend on. At standard pressure water boils at 212F or 100C. Adding solutes to water can change its properties (water with salt or alcohols added has different freezing and boiling points than pure water). Carbon has an atomic mass of 12.011. The Sun is the center of our solar system with planets and asteroids in orbit around it. Specific compounds have specific electromagnetic absorption spectra, e.g., CO2 absorbs and re-emits electromagnetic radiation in the infrared wavelengths. So does methane. But you already knew that fact.