Should hydroelectric dams be a part of plans to combat global warming?
Hydroelectric energy should be utilized to provide clean energy.
All forms of energy, including hydroelectric energy, should be explored to see how much can be provided toward our energy demands. Hydroelectric energy should be researched to fully utilize it as a source of clean power. Using water, as well as wind, to provide power would benefit everyone. We will need to have a more available, more renewable source of energy that is safer for the planet.
Posted by: babydoll93Hydroelectric dams should be part of the plan to combat global warming, because there is no direct waste from it that would contribute to global warming.
It is the most grandly used form of unending energy. Once a hydroelectric dam is constructed, the process produces electricity with no direct waste. This makes it a highly green method of producing energy. The dams also currently make up about 20% of the world's electricity, while lowering the overall greenhouse gases that the human race produces.
Posted by: GabriBalHydroelectric dams are a good replacement for fossil fuels.
Being non-poluting and renewable, it is a reliable resource to provide the world energy. Fossil fuels, however, on the other hand, is the answer mostly to why the world has air pollution today. Also it is getting very expensive, for being more and more limited today. Hydroelectric dams do not involve burning anything, unlike fossil fuels, that burn coal and cause greenhouse effect.
Posted by: AnonymousGlobal warming is a significant concern to the environment and to the human race, and alternative energies such as hydroelectric dams will likely play a huge role in combating global warming.
As evidence mounts that global warming is caused by the emission of greenhouse gases from various sources such as coal power plants, it's important to diversify our energy sources. Hydroelectric dams can play a great role in providing energy from a renewable and cleaner source than burning fossil fuels. However, the dams do have some side effects such as hampering the migration of fish so they should be used sparingly and in conjunction with other renewable energy sources such as solar panels and wind turbines.
Posted by: P3rEverHydroelectric power is a renewable source of electricity that does not contribute to global warming.
Hydroelectric power is a wonderful source of electric power that once the dam ( power source ) is built will continue to produce very cheap electric power forever. The more electricity that is generated by hydroelectric power, the less electricity will be generated by sources that contribute to global warming. There are problems that have to be addressed in more dams create environmental problems for certain species, but the benefits outweigh the problems that go with it.
Posted by: ddeathnoteHydroelectric dams should be a part of plans to combat global warming.
I agree that the Hydroelectric dams should be a part of plans to combat global warming. Hydroelectric dams are renewable and non-polluting compared to the other sources of energy. Actually hydroelectric dams produces methane, which is far less than greenhouse effects. Also, it is easy to convert methane into other compounds, and it is also very easy and cheap to control global warming.
Posted by: I0rFashionI think hydroelectric dams are an excellent alternative energy source.
Hydroelectric dams produce energy without any fuel combustion, so unlike coal, petroleum or natural gas, there are no polluting emissions at all. Because dams harness the power of naturally moving water, they are an infinitely renewable resource, unlike fossil fuels which are only available in finite amounts. Hydroelectric dams have already proven themselves to be effective sources of large amounts of energy. For example, the Hoover dam in Nevada produces electricity for the entire state of Nevada, including energy hungry Las Vegas, and still has enough to send large amounts of energy to California.
Posted by: 54r4h5FinIHydroelectric dams should be a part of plans to combat global warming as they are pollution-free, but are not enough by themselves.
Hydroelectric dams should definitely be a part of plans to combat global warming. They are completely pollution free and can produce great amounts of power without increasing global warming at all. There are limits to hydroelectric dams, however. There is obviously a limit to where and how many can be built, set by geography. There are also environmental effects besides pollution caused by changing the flow of water and creating lakes. So, hydroelectric dams will be a great part of obtaining power without causing global warming, but will not be able to do the whole job without other methods.
Posted by: tacomoonI think hydroelectric dams should be part of plans to combat global warming because it is a clean way to produce energy.
Hydroelectric dams are a good alternative to coal. Since coal mines are responsible for a lot of medical and life-threatening issues, replacing them with a cleaner, safer energy producer is a good thing. In addition, since coal is responsible for so many greenhouse gases, replacing coal with hydroelectric dams will make our world a cleaner place.
Posted by: JayceCHydroelectric dams should be part of plans to combat global warming. They produce clean energy.
Hydroelectric dams should be part of plans to combat global warming. They produce clean, renewable energy. They do not produce carbon dioxide. They eliminate the cost of fuel. No imports are needed. The plants are automated, so labor costs are usually low. Some dams can support agriculture by irrigating with a relatively constant water supply.
Posted by: lachikaIt can provide safe energy that won't hurt the ozone.
A dam has its pros and cons. One con is that it provides environmental harm to the area before the dam. That area is flooded and the wild life there is killed off. However, the pros outweigh to cons. One, it provides clean energy. Secondly, they are easy to build anywhere. All you need is a river
Posted by: C0rn4GamerLow carbon, low cost once built, and requires low technology to build.
Dams are easily built in any nation, using technology available to any third world nation. This allows them to develop indigenous low-carbon renewable energy without having to build factories to build windmills or import solar cells. Once built, the infrastructure cost will be divided over thousands or millions of power users over a century or more of life. And unlike wind and solar, hydroelectric dams produce a constant flow of power year round. They can also be integrated into water management plans, such as building lakes to store up drinking water or prevent downstream flooding.
Posted by: Pir4AndHydroelectric dams are a very efficient form of renewable energy and should therefore be part of plans to combat global warming.
Hydroelectric dams are one of the oldest, yet most efficient forms of renewable energy. Dams are capable of generating vast amounts of electricity in comparison with other renewable sources. While any dam building has to be carefully investigated for its impact on the environment, hydroelectric dams should definitely be part of any plans to reduce carbon emissions.
Posted by: EminentBennett93
Hydroelectric dams should not be a method to combat global warming because they alter the environment and ecosystem too much.
I do not support the idea of using hydroelectric dams to combat the effects of global warming. In fact, I believe that hydroelectric dams may actually contribute to the effects of global warming. One of the main reasons I feel this way is that by installing a hydroelectric dam the environmental conditions surrounding the dam are typically significantly different. This can be seen in the large amount of deforestation due to the resulting upstream reservoir. Furthermore, hydroelectric dams lead to change in the ecosystem. Fish and other aquatic wildlife are no longer able to easily pass through the dam resulting in segmented populations as well and population loss of some species (i.e. Salmon and other migrating species). Overall, I am not convinced the energy gain from hydroelectric dams is worth the environmental changes and/or losses.
Posted by: BabyBooThis would be a wasteful endeavor.
I'm going to disagree with the debate question completely. I believe if you look into it closely, global warming has never been a proven theory. In fact many scientists outright disagree with it. Therefore, it would be wasting even more time to explore if hydroelectric dams would help combat the problem, as many people don't believe the problem exists.
Posted by: R34d3HomeyNot only the environment, but people's life, jobs and health
I agree with BabyBoo, but moreover, dams generate a disaster in the environment, in people(80 million people displaced with their lives ruined) and a giant corruption that only enriches the dam lobby (more accurate is dam maffias) that act in these bussines, including assasination and other crminal practices.
And by the way, for all those innocents that believe that dams do not contribute with global warming, see the latest research: dams are responsible for at least 4% of greenhouse gases, and that is not little thing as you may believe: it means a huge amount of gases and a real large effect in global warming. See
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/may2007/2007-05-09-04.htmlPosted by: AnonymousHydroelectric dams are not a solution to environmental damage because they cause it themselves.
Hydroelectric dams do provide clean electricity that does not involve pollution of the air. However, dams do damage the water system. In many dams, fish are unable to swim up or downstream. Where they can, it is difficult and not all can make it. Dams also create dead pockets in rivers where there is insufficient oxygen. Advances in technology do make some dams less invasive, but there is still alteration of the river, and any interference with nature's food chain is still environmental damage.
Posted by: FlakyHerb64Hydroelectric dams may not cause global warming, but they are damaging to river ecosystems.
Damming a river negatively affects the health of the river and the inhabitants of its ecosystem, thereby causing environmental damage. For example, a dam may flood a canyon upstream thereby decreasing the number of trees living there which remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Damaging the environment is very unlikely to combat the problems with global warming in the atmosphere.
Posted by: Wynn354Hydroelectric dams should not be part of an environmental effort to slow global warning, because it would just be trading one problem for another.
Using hydroelectric dams to try to combat global warning would trade one problem for another. Hydroelectric dams are not a solution to any environmental problem, because hydroelectric dams are actually damaging to the environment. They interrupt water flow, disrupt mating and spawning of fish, and usually require residents to relocate because of flood zones.
Posted by: GoodJerold49Hydroelectric dams contribute to global warming and are worse than fossil fuels.
The plants that are swept into the dams start to decompose and they create methane gas that escapes and contributes to global warming. Hydroelectric dams contribute more to global warming than burning fossil fuels does. If we replace burning fossil fuels for hydroelectric dams global warming will not be fixed and stop, it will just get worse.
Posted by: AnonymousI don't really believe in the term "global warming", so I have to disagree on principle.
Hydroelectric dams are a great idea. They will be using our natural, renewable resources to fuel a non renewable resource. However, I don't believe in "global warming," so while I think dams for power is a good idea, I cannot say that I agree they will help stop global warming.
Posted by: ComplexRoscoeHydroelectric dams are a good power source, but reversing global warming will take bigger efforts.
Hydroelectric dams should be built. They are effectively a free source of power and also create reservoirs for cities to use. But, as a method of combating global warming, they are more of a band-aid solution. Especially given the fact that global warming may not be 100% man-made, the solution to global warming needs to be a reversal of the effects, rather then stopping the theoretical sources. Otherwise, all we do is slow down the process, rather than stopping or fixing it.
Posted by: KnownEvanNo way, there is no such thing as global warming.
Why would we rebuild dams all across Americas to combat something as stupid as global warming? Just how stupid have our leaders become? Global warming is nothing more than a man made hoax. It is a stupid idea, that's goal is to take from the wealthy. It is also in place to destroy capitalism.
Posted by: BriaBlacken