Hydroelectricity and greenhouse gasses

10/14/2019 09:26 - Posted by Tom van Leeuwen
Hydropower is one of the cleanest energy sources available. The only downsides known so far are the impact on the landscape and the risk of a dam breaking due to earthquakes. Carefully choosing the locations and high construction standards are needed to solve these problems.

Besides electricity generation, dams also help to regulate the water flow in the rivers, making them better navigatable and useful for irrigation.

So, overall it seems to be quite positive, but recent research has "discovered" a new downside to hydroelectricity and it's a usual suspect: Greenhouse gasses.

In this article in The Guardian titled "The hydropower paradox: is this energy as clean as it seems?", Bridget Deemer, a "research ecologist" at the US Geologic Survey, who led the study during her prior position as a research associate at Washington State publishes their conclusions:

"But analysis by Deemer and her colleagues shows that the latitude and depth of water are not leading factors. Instead, 'biological activities' in a reservoir – such as decaying vegetation and nutrient runoff from watersheds upstream – are more important indicators of greenhouse gas emissions. The nutrient runoff can be from natural processes or from farming, logging and land development.

Using data from the 267 reservoirs, the authors estimate total emissions from all reservoirs worldwide and conclude that those water storage facilities account for 1.3% of all manmade greenhouse gas emissions."

Right, I'm not a biologist and I'm not a researcher... but using my common sense, I'm asking myself: "What would have happened to these 'vegetation and nutrients runoff from watersheds upstream' if there were no water reservoir? Would it have conserved itself magically and eternally? Or would it have decayed anyway?"

Of course, it would have decayed anyway! Vegetation is part of the carbon cycle. Vegetation consumes CO2 when it grows and vegetation emits CO2 when it decays and rots after the plant dies. The net effect is zero.

Moreover: They state that the nutrient runoff comes "from natural processes or from farming, logging and land development". So, would those factors magically disappear if there were no dam? The nutrients would have decayed anyway, that does not depend on whether or not there's a dam, a reservoir or whatever. It decays because it is organical material.

There is no hydropower paradox. Water reservoirs do not produce greenhouse gasses, at least not after the construction phase of the project.

Two questions:
  • Do these "researchers" really get paid for writing this kind of this nonsense?
  • How on Earth did this article pass The Guardian's quality control?

Just another example of the incredible amount of propaganda that is thrown upon us by the main-stream media.

Tom van Leeuwen, October 14th, 2019.


Please donate

Fighting the climate hysteria is time-consuming! If you think I'm on the right track and you want to support my efforts I would be more than happy to receive a small donation that will help me to maintain this site.


The fingerprints of the greenhouse effect

The hypothesis of "man-made climate change" tells us that the increase in the concentration of CO2 enhances the greenhouse effect of the atmosphere and has global warming as a final result.

Since the beginning of the industrialized era around 1850, man emits relatively large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere through the use of fossil fuels. The consequence of these emissions is that during that period, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increased sharply from about 300 parts per million to more than 400 ppm, an increase of almost 40%. The average temperature increased in the same period more or less 1.5 °C with a small variation depending on the data source used.

Why did the warming stop?

The political reports of the IPCC are based on the hypothesis that CO2 is the most important control knob of the Earth's temperature. The problem is that this hypothesis does not correspond at all with the empirical data available to science. Forecasts are made using models that are not capable of 'predicting' the past.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture

When discussing “Climate Change” it’s good to have an understanding of how the Earth’s climate has changed in the past. That will give us a reference to decide whether the current changes are normal or not.

Global temperatures have varied a lot over the last 500 million years. Depending on the timescale used, the current temperature is either cold or hot, so when you want to know the “normal temperature” you’ll have to indicate what timescale you’re using.

Video - Who are the real climate deniers?

The climate has shown many fluctuations during the Holocene. The difference between the highest and lowest average temperature of the past 10 thousand years is about 3 °C.

Climate alarmists, led by the IPCC, are trying to deny this, and understandably so. This variation means that without human influence there was climate change as well.

This undermines their hypotheses and often their jobs depend on it.

Climate change seen from a historical perspective.

Satellite Earth temperature February 2022

The satellite temperature departure measurement for February 2022 is exactly 0° C.

This means that Earth temperature during February 2022 was exactly the same as the average from 1991 to 2020.

Satellites are the best way to have insight into the short-term temperature variations. They measure the whole surface, independent of weather station distribution, Heat Islands, measurement failures, surface condition (land or water).

There is a step-wise increase in temperature, triggered by two very strong El Niño events (1998 and 2016.) The energy that welled up from the deep oceans established a new level in these two ocasions, where the warming paused. This is a natural phenomenon and has nothing to do with CO2, or human activity.

Where is the Climate Emergency? It just does not exist.

Wake up and spread this information to your government!

Tom van Leeuwen, March 1st, 2022.

The H2O greenhouse effect

The IPCC's CO2 hypothesis, with which Western governments try to incite their citizens to group-think, panic and unnecessary measures and taxes, rests in large part on the belief that there is a positive feedback effect between the greenhouse effects of CO2 and water vapor (H2O). A small increase in temperature, caused by the increase in CO2 concentration, would lead to an increase in water vapor concentration and thus increase the H2O greenhouse effect.

This is a misconception. First, positive feedback effects are extremely rare in nature. Furthermore, there is no sensible word to say about the effect that an increase in the H2O greenhouse effect has on the temperature.

Below are three reasons why it is impossible to model this effect.

Rob Jetten, Minister of Climate and Energy

Rob Jetten is the new, brand new Minister of Climate and Energy in the Dutch cabinet Rutte IV.

This is a new ministry, but unfortunately it is characterized by the same ideas as in previous cabinets. The idea that humans, by burning fossil fuels, are responsible for the recent warming of the Earth.


This article is partly based on the thorough research done by Freek van Leeuwen on the scientists Valentina Zharkova and Willie Soon and their work on sunspots.

As we have seen in recent weeks, new research indicates that there is no increased CO2 emissions. global warming, and that only 12% of the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to human action.

Good news, then, but then the question arises where the heating comes from, which many people feel and which can also be seen in the monthly charts of the satellite measurements.