quote:

---

In Quebec, Manitoba and Newfoundland, the increasing threat of new small and big hydroelectric projects will result in damage to river ecosystems. A coalition of international and Canadian environmental organizations are demanding that governments and hydro utilities not destroy the environment in order to fight climate change. The coalition notes that Canada should not destroy its rivers for electricity or for dollars from exporting electricity to the U.S.

---

Sierra Club counterposes wind and biomass technologies to hydroelectric power. But I'm sure they would have some horror stories to tell about the social and environmental effects of those technologies as well.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
We managed to get some hydroelectricity out of Niagara Falls without having to dam the river. Why can't the same technology be used elsewhere on natural waterfalls?

---

In Manitoba where we have a great deal of hydroelectricity, the topography is flat, so they had to dam the rivers and change the envrionment dramatically to get that production.

No source of power is perfect, but I am most encouraged by that new fusion reactor they're building in France. This will be the stablest, cleanest, most-eco-friendly method of power generation humans will be able to put online -- the only opponents would be those who think all progress is bad.

We did work in various communities affected by the damming of the columbia and Kootenay rivers, and it was unbelievable. It happened long before I was born, but during that summer I did some research on certain towns -- a few had to be moved, even the cemeteries. Every year, when the water gets low, there are sand storms on the shores of the 'lakes' old bones wash up. You can see stumps of trees from the orchards and forests that used to be there, as well. Every so often the 'lake' bottom has to be dredged, since there is a dramatic stop in flow where the gates are. The list goes on and on as to how bad dams can be for the environment.

I talked to some of the people who used to live in the 'relocated' towns, and they have yet to be financially compensated for their forced relocation, because they refused to accept the pittance originally offered. One of the questions that came up was whether it would change for the better if the dams were taken out, and most people in the area who knew what it was like before said no. The dams were built starting 100 years ago, and construction on new ones (as opposed to upgrades/renovations on existing ones) stopped about 30 years ago, so to just remove them would cause even more damage, unless it was done very, very slowly.

[ 24 December 2005: Message edited by: Amy ]

It would appear that almost inevitably, there will be some environmental impact when we seek to provide power for large numbers of people.

What is the answer? What I want to know is why more is not being done to FIND alternate ways to generate power.

The politicians continue to blab on about all the ways they will improve the delivery of electricity - but how very little is actually done to attempt to find an alternate way of delivering electricity.

Moreover, why is more not being done to guide people toward SAVING power?

If more people were to be more concious of conservation, ultimately, that would lead to power conservation on a large scale, while we try to find another way.

In my opinion, anyway. (sigh)