Greenpeace rejoices after getting huge renewable powerplant cancelled

Re: Renewable is OK but...

Right, while burning fossils instead, which is what Chile will have to do now, is SO much better for nature.

@petur

So countries that don't already have hydro shouldn't be allowed to pursue it because of the "nice parts of nature", but it is fine in the developed world because no one remembers how nice the nature was that got flooded to build those dams? Not everywhere is as conveniently barren as the area flooded by the Hoover Dam.

I don't know anything about the project, but most dams also have great benefits for flood control and droughts, two things we're told we should expect more of as the Earth warms. So not only will they be saddled with more expensive energy, they'll be saddled with higher food prices during years where floods and droughts affect yield.

If Greenpeace wants this for less developed countries, they should ask for donations to offset the cost to countries and their residents for stuff like this. Like those who buy tracts of virgin rainforest or stands of redwoods to keep them safe from logging. But their mission seems more about self-publicity than actually having a real benefit on the environment. I'd donate money to almost anyone before I'd give a cent to Greenpeace.

Re: Renewable is OK but...

Not when you go destroying some VERY nice parts of nature to do so.

"Nice"?

I think perhaps we can do without "nice" if the alternative is inexpensive and emmission-free electricity for the foreseeable future. What we can possibly NOT do without is the loss of biodiversity in the areas that would be submerged, the loss of CO2-absorbing forest, and the human impact.

As some others have pointed out, though, the decision here seems to have been motivated more by political concerns than environmental ones.

Re: Have you red the project?

Few things are great about hydro.

Can't you capture all this methane and use it to run a gas turbine. ;)

@ Naich

Sorry mate, it's many years since New Scientist was a reputable source, in my book (indeed, if it ever was).

The whole "flooding valleys creates methane" story is not universally correct because it depends on what and where is flooded, and where it may apply there's a simple answer of stripmining the reservoir bed back to sub soil or bedrock. Even if you don't do that, as IAS pointed out above, a hydro electric dam has an asset life of hundreds of years, so the short term methane emissions are a one time cost for a very long term reliable resource.

And as usual the hippies have ignored what nature does, which is to erode soil and rock, and wash living and dead plant matter into water courses. If the tossers applied the same logic to any lowland river in the world they'd find that nature generates millions of tonnes of methane all the time, and they'd be protesting in Parliament Square demanding the immediate closure of the River Thames. Likewise wetlands and rain forests are major sources of methane, but you don't hear the hippies demanding the levelling of the Amazon basin to stop its methane emissions (the Amazon basin alone is perhaps 5-6% of global methane emissions). What Greenpeace object to is the fact that somebody's lives might be improved.

Re: is that Lewis's knee jerking?

"which seems to be a combination of national pride in their national parks/landscape, well founded distrust of their government, a genuine lack of belief that this project made any sense and the refusal of their government to consider alternatives"

You forgot to add "and being deceived by the strident, often inaccurate, frequently dishonest PR campaigns by smug, middle class, first world based NGOs, who personally enjoy the benefits of the modern world, but are only too keen to stop the less developed world enjoying them"

Re: is that Lewis's knee jerking?

well founded distrust of their government, a genuine lack of belief that this project made any sense and the refusal of their government to consider alternatives.

Distrust? How about "they got voted out of government in the following election"? I'm pretty sure the whole project is why Chileans preferred to vote Michelle Bachelet back into power rather than letting Piñera destroy their national park. It seems they learned that voting for conservatives is a huge mistake, something they should know better given their recent past.