How (And Why) Europe Is Removing Its Dams
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 15 พ.ค. 2024
- Major dam removals are happening all over Europe, but why are these construction behemoths being taken down? What is the insane engineering needed behind a dam removal and demolition? Today we explore why these mega projects are being reversed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
► OTHER INTERESTING VIDEOS:
Unveiling The New Notre Dame - 2024 Restoration Update
• Unveiling The New Notr... - บันเทิง
There is a lot of people not understanding what was said (maintly due to the video's fault) so I'll give a little explanation.
They are removing OLD and SMALL damns, which were EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN, and were MORE TROUBLE THAN IT'S WORTH.
This.
Yes, thank you for clarification of this fact, which the most of the eager leftist radicals (who - as we all know - are all uneducated idiots) failed to understand. The video itself have the same propaganda of letfist ideas
Thank you!
Thank you, for providing the context so I don't need to watch the whole video
Thank you for explaining it clearer than the video
Those 3 little dams in Finland were inconsequential to flood control and electrical generation. Wise decision to remove them for the fish. Other dams throughout Europe have much more important missions as demonstrated by some deadly flooding.
I'm sure removing the 100yo dam in Norway was also a good decision
I heard something about salmon "pens".
When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"
@@hg2. You do understand dams don't affect jusr salmon?
@@joaquimbarbosa896
Am I going to get an effing lecture from no-real-job YOU about how I have to contribute slave labor to your stupid sense of "fish diversity"?
@@joaquimbarbosa896 it was a Hydro-power dam, but a very small one in Norwegian scale and it was built in a way that made maintenance a nightmare and it was not easily upgradable making it more costly to keep up to date than what it made in power.
also it's in an area of Norway where power is cheaper than the rest making even less economical combined with having a lot of people that hates what is needed to make the modern world going and loves to go about that loudly but loves every bit what it gives.
Misleading intro to the video. Showing some of the largest, gargantuan dams in the Alps. Not a single one of them is being dismantled. The video only shows small weirs or small to medium river dams (even here not really big ones). None of the big dams of the Rhine or the Danube are being dismantled. Dismantling these megadams would ruin renewable energy endeavours and sabotage the relatively eco-friendly shipping lanes … the video is deceiving to the last minute. Not saying the renaturalising small rivers is a bad thing, but this is not what’s happening to the really big and important dams.
Pretty good observation, but it comes down to just using unfit footage for the story. Renaturalising the small rivers is in fact the point, as the power plants on those ones generate hardly anything worth mentioning, while for survival of migratory fish and the ecosystem as whole it is of utmost importance.
you can report it for misinformation. I do that sometimes when it's about an area where I'm confident in my knowledge.
these small dams are still an ecological disaster. They are too small scale to produce net energy these days and they obstruct some habitats. Small rivers are still an abundance source of biodiversity, probably even more so than bigger rivers.
All dams have a lifetime, so it makes sense to remove them in a systemic way. Not all dams will be removed, but each one will be evaluated for various beneficial uses.
PS - Appreciate how this video lays out the options.
It's all for those stupid salmon???
We have fish farms for those.
Why can they just build a fish ladder?
I heard something about salmon "pens".
When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"
@@hg2. I think maybe, that 'those stupid salmon' may have a higher intellect
@@thejollygreendragon8394
Female?
[This is the type of anamist/pagan/human-sacrifice religion I can't stand.]
Leave it to the Beavers!
Removing derelict dams sounds good to me but operational and useful ones? That is a much harder sell but perhaps we will learn how worth it it is now! Also yeah updating and improving dams with fish ladders is a good plan as well
Fish ladders are areas where fish predators wait. They are not a very good option.
It's all for those stupid salmon???
We have fish farms for those.
Why can they just build a fish ladder?
@@bertanelson8062
I heard something about salmon "pens".
When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"
@@bertanelson8062
As if bears don't stand in the water falls waiting to grab the fish as they jump?
@@bertanelson8062 Bears wait at the top of the falls the salmon would cross anyways, so are the ladders really that much worse?
It won't be a revolution until we find a way to create abundant renewable power. Here in Sweden 35-45% of our electricity comes from hydro plants. Solar and wind can produce some energy but not enough and not with a stable enough output that works for industry.
there is nuclear power.
th-cam.com/video/lhHHbgIy9jU/w-d-xo.html
Nuclear…
@@WeiglerGodoy I think we need nuclear energy for a long time, but building takes time and most countries should have started building new plants decades ago
Solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear are all good options.
@@guerreiro943 The problem with solar and wind is that together they can't provide more than about half of the energy mix if the country has industry that requires precise power delivery.
We made a camping trip around the Olympic Peninsula one spring. Both the Elwha and the Glines Canyon dams were still in place at that time. The videos were fascinating. We haven't made another trip after the removals. Maybe soon.
In Washington state, US?
@@Andrew-df1dr Apologies, yes, Washington State. There are videos of the dam removals and subsequent recovery of fish, wildlife and vegetation.
@@catherinespencer-mills1928 Fascinating. The Olympic Mountains a high on my list of places to visit of i ever come to your country.
When you mentioned Ukraine, i started to think about destruction of Nova-Kakhovka dam, which completely drained huge reservoir leaving only a small portion of Dnipro‘s stream. BTW, this demolition wasn’t made in an eco-friendly way and caused massive destruction.
europe has 150 000 dams... europe has 155 000 obsolete damn. flawless
Source?
@@realcryptcthis video
The literature specifies 150K barriers in the water, including very small ones, but I guess it's too hard to make an accurate video for TH-cam nowadays.
It's just another of the crap fact verse type channel with absolutely no effort
Europe wanting to speedrun deindustrialization.
europe want suicide
Couldn't have said it better
You haven't got a clue about Europe, have you?
Bro didn’t watch the video, which explains why
@@smallpeople172 he is not wrong, but (small) dams are not a very relevant part of that
0:32 is the Vajont reservoir.
The mountain above it collapsed and sent a wall of water down the valley wiping out various villages on the 9th of October 1963.
More tha 2000 people died.
Since then is has been inactive.
It's all for those stupid salmon???
We have fish farms for those.
Why can they just build a fish ladder?
@@hg2. they are, at least in Switzerland we are not tearing dams down.
@@Braun30
TG... so good to hear SOMEBODY in Europe still has some sanity.
@@hg2. actually a salmon "farm" is in a dam.
They grow salmon in sweet water.
@@Braun30
I heard something about salmon "pens".
When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"
Dam it
It sure was a great Dam video
You God dam right!
And they replaced the power generation with nothing
Windmills when there's no wind and solar panels at night.
How much electricity was lost then you reckon?
Huge gains opening up migration of species in and close to the river.
i guess finland replaced them with a nuclear plant?
Most are small dams 3-5 meters high located on secondary streams, the production of electricity is negligible
There’s no reason for power generation. Burn wood and cook fish. That’s what we did thousand years ago and we are very progressively moving backwards. It’s better to be simple part of harmonious nature rather than being exceptionally well off in dead desert.
Meanwhile in Romania, companies pump entire rivers thought pipes just for the renewable energy grants they get for the construction 😢
Keep up the good work people!
Outstanding, we are doing the same in the states.
In the US the Utilities invested over $30 millions over the last 3 years to upgrade Hydro-Electrical plants. Don't "bla-bla-bla" about a topic, you have no knowledge about.
"How (And Why) Europe Is Removing Its Dams"
So they can re-discover why they built them in the first place.
I am concerned that many dams being removed will reduce hydroelectricity production. Which is more important, clean renewable hydropower or no electricity? Some day they might build a power plant of some type to replace the lost electrical power , but it will be years later, if ever. Don't forget these dams also provide drinking water and storm water storage. Some dams also allow for ships and barges to transport goods further inland. Fish ladders might be possible at some dams. There are dams that are no longer serving any purpose and are costly to repair or replace and should be removed. Each dam needs to be evaluated fully and not just because it's a man made structure.
But that is exactly WHY they are doing it; to degrade and diminish humanity. Just watch for the RESULTS of this insane policy.
Here the Klamath dams were removed, transforming the whole area into what is known as The River of Death. Toxic sediment did not go away, and it has eliminated the local ecology. The miniature dams shown here are just the begining; the goal is to make it impossible for rural folk to live outside the urban hive. This is a MALTHUSIAN offensive, and humanity itself is what they mean to reduce, grind-down and crush.
The poi t is to remove your electricity
@@junicohen7918 Yes, can't have the peasants getting too prosperous, now can we? =/
They are removed only old dams to save high maintenance cost only
Dams have lifespans though and end up full of silt.
In CA we urgently need to BUILD more dams!
CA? what does that mean?
@@reapersmercy7283 the golden state
With a delusional mindset of California government and the increasing illegal immigrants adding to the population, California will be in drought soon enough.
Water problems and telling it's because of "climate change" ........
But it's because of cloud seeding removing dams ect .............
Removing the carbon and the carbon is you Bill Gates.... 🐑💉🧬💀
That state has much bigger problems. 1.6 trillion dollars in debt. Who is going to pay for the dams.
In Europe it costs $750,000.
In US it costs $750,000,000.
size matters
what about a run of river power production system where a part of the total flow is directed in suc a way as to completely circumvent the natural water way. thi has been done in some places.
Thanks for sharing this interesting Video
I heard something about salmon "pens".
When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"
I think the real pain is the operating cost is escalating…
Europe or norse countries?
My only issue with this video is there is no comparisons in cost. You tell us how expensive removal is, but is that more than it cost to build it? For that matter tearing them down is difficult, but more difficult than building them?
Building cost already recovered by producing enargy
Concrete in dams naturally degrades over time which is one reason for dam removal and it was mentioned in the video.
Better to remove a dam ahead of time as opposed to the dam collapsing and causing more serious problems.
My point is merely What did it cost to build? They said is costs $XX to tear down, is that more or less than it cost to build? That is it. Not if it should be or not. Hell, I live in Alaska, near a Salmon breeding area. I get the damage that they do. All I asked for was the building cost folks.
Removing old uneconomical dams, some dams are being replaced with new ones! but also incorporating fish steps so wildlife isn't effected.
Man can u imagine the look on the fishermans face who doesnt know they are doing this and the moment it finally bursts hes going for a bumpy ride
I find this comment thread odd and I think it is getting spammed by bots. Almost every comment says the same thing in a similar kind of way and the vast majority of the usernames associated with the comments have exactly the same format... Fake but negative comments. Why?
Other videos I've watched have a lot of pro-dam removal comments. I'm pro-hydropower so am interested in keeping dams that provide a lot of low-carbon emission electricity. These seem too small to be relevant to that.
Regarding the same format - was it just the basic YT nickname that everyone got several months ago, when YT did some unknown updates to our nicknames? I remember everyone getting this strange mess instead of personal nicknames, and most ppl since didnt bother changing those abominations
@@MonochromeChromosome Yes you've got a point. I now see they've stuck a number on the end of my name too.
There are bots, look at braun30 he spams the same text @@kitten_processing_inc4415
Its full of bots, and that is clear in their responses
Was that a damn Dam revolution?
*grabs his coat...*
They should do that with the Aral Sea.
The Barnes Wallis method is the most efficient.
You can look forward to water shortages. I suggest people invest in rainwater tanks
That's not going to be allowed
Imagine... Spain... the most desertic country in southern Europe, leading the destruction of irrigation dams by far (it's like the blind leading the way... like the illiterate telling everyone else how to think... like... the fact is, either TH-cam or this channel will pull my comment out or who-knows-what: You MUST agree to die of thirst to show your allegiance to Big & Stupid Brother). Destruction of dams = Utter nonsense in desertified countries like Spain. (The strange suicide of Europe).
i hve been contacting local councils about removing dams to improve fish stocks. We also have a video on our channel about it.
I live in France and had never heard of this
The media never speaks of it
Devlet Su İşleri mentioned (DSİ)
There must be a negative impact from removing these dams. They were built for a purpose so it would be interesting to know why those purposes are no longer valid.
Electricty generation, flood control, water supply. We can look forward to ever higher energy and water bills, higher insurance costs to pay for all the flood claims, and more expe4nsive food, since these dams are often the source of water for agriculture.
@@hugheaston7598Most dams that need removal are smaller, maybe generated a dozen KW of power, or were built to run water mills, make large basins for canal boats and feeding canal systems.
I'd scarcely think anyone's going to remove something that's making hundreds of KW to MW's of electricity, particularly when stable dispatchable generation that a large hydro dam provides is increasingly valuable.
I'm thinking the Hydro-Electric dams were built long before they had the technology for Nuclear Reactors all over Europe. So, at least those dams are likely not needed anymore, or at least, not as many. Not sure about all the smaller ones though?
Valid is Agenda 2030. You have nothing!
@@hugheaston7598 Many of those power generation dams haven't been in use in years some decades, one I know of in Czechia (that barely produced a few kW); over 100 years...
They gonna to burn coal instead ? 😅
They will cut forests and build huge fields of solar panels.
Great video! We would love to share it on our channels. How can we get in touch with the video owner?
Oh, there's a whole movement behind that bs? Who would've guessed... 🙈
How is this a great video? It's purely one-sided like some sort of anti dam extremism, not showing any rational discourse around dams, just cheering at their destruction for refutable reasons.
Being from Spain, it is not a good idea to loose the dams we have as we are a country prone to droughts and i`m sure we are going to suffer the consequences of this mistake.
But hey, at least the fish will be happier i guess
Why is Europe so ideological braindead? Is it because you were successful for too long
Debatable , how can you tell if a fish it's happy ? Are we supposed to just project human concepts or associate them with an animal.
Just look at that fish face, it's so fishy , so unhappy like .
..believe that the secret of power extraction from rivers is the ancient principle of never taking more than a tenth from Nature. In the case of the river this means a tenth at one time since it is flowing and when it rebuilds its speed through natural gravitation the power can be extracted again further downstream. It just needs a horizontal wheel situated within the stream with appropriate armature to direct the flow to point of maximum advantage and for a honeycomb arrangement to be fixed within the wheel (and within the armature) so that the weight of the fly-wheel is provided by the water itself and if necessary can be variably controlled…guess this has been done in history but know of no examples..
What power sources replaced them? Hopefully wind, solar, or nuclear
removing stored water turning up the price
Can engineers design those dam projects to be easy to dismantle or assembled.
No. Absolutely technically unfeasible.
If they worried about the natural flow of rivers why not try to make an alternative path that allows the natural flow while still giving the power dams give from the water
These ideas are far better than some ideas which has cost the USA billions.
When you've mentioned Ukraine, for a moment I thought you were going to talk about Kakhovka dam.
And people think we can all survive on wind and water power for enviorment x)
If the salmons could survive for centuries after building the dam, they have already adapted thenselves for survival
For eco warriers salmons are more important than people
Losing 3 hydro dams?😮
Looking at the size of them, they all look to be very small-scale. These weren't the Hoover Dam, they were small blockages that likely powered local mills - so the power generation loss is likely minute, and the ecological damage these dams were responsible for was huge. Weirs are even worse, and there's a good reason most of the removals are focused on the 1000s of weirs that have been thrown up over the last century. My town has a big hydro electric dam, a down-river flood management dam, and a half-dozen weirs that don't serve much purpose at all anymore. All that concrete is getting close to end of its life, and there's pros and cons to keeping them intact - if it's producing a ton of power, that's a pretty big pro, but if it's keeping the lights on in a paper mill and strangling local fish stocks, it's a good call to cut losses and just remove the dam.
@@NLuck-eh5cd Yep, and for people that worry about floods and stuff, many dams were made for explicit purpose of power generation. These small dams were quite useful early in electrification of stuff, but with modern grids that can deliver power pretty much anywhere, they don't really make any sense.
Hope that doesn't bite them in the Ass when the warmer summers prevail?
You have to ask yourself which ecosystem is more eco-friendly? A free flowing river or the reservoirs and straits from a controlled river? Then add the free energy into the equation.
So what about the lost of power generation and have there been issues with flooding that wasnt there before
lots of them were lost their usefullness and are obsolete so the power that was lost is almost none
Some were built to control flooding not just power
This is horrible. As an engineer and an avid outdoorsman/ fisherman I care and understand our environment. Please do the calculations. Hydroelectric is the cleanest most dense energy source we have available. We need to focus other engineering solutions for wildlife. Also consider, what other energy sources are replacing these powerplants. I've seen many fossil fuel plants take their place. Cui bono?
1-Its not the cleannest
2-They barely lost any eletrical power. An engineer can't understand that 100yo dams don't produce eletricity anymore? Most dams were beyond their usefull life or to small to producw relevant ammounts of power
@@joaquimbarbosa896 What is the cleanest?
@@superlacrosseguy nuclear
@@joaquimbarbosa896 I would do nuclear as 2nd choice. My only beef with nuclear is that it dumps a significant amount of thermal energy into our atmosphere via cooling towers or river systems in order to create the low pressure side of the turbine system. Hydroelectric does not add heat to our atmosphere or rivers to create power.
@@superlacrosseguy That barely makes a difference in the local atmosphere, it literally makes no difference in the global atmosphere. Also nuclear for one does not stop river flow...
They should have updated the dams and added in fish ladders for the salmon.
That makes much more sense. There is no hard choice dam or salmon, there are ways to reduce or eliminate the ecological impacts while still benefiting from the dams.
I wonder if sometimes the obosolete dam owners don't stirr up public support into financing the removal for ecological pretexts instead of having to remove or maintain them themselves.
Dams without fish ladders should not exist.
In the map that he shows it says "removed barriers" , that's what is being done by creating canals and elevators for the fish , old dams have to be tared down because they are dangerous , every single country is building new dams and in the rivers that they are demolishing the old ones probably new , larger and more efficient will be built.
@@terra7066 That's what I suspected, there was a safety reason for taking the dams down, not the fishies. And yes, the owners were very smart to get the tree-hugging public to pay for the demolitions. Nationalize costs and privatize profits.
Fish ladders are just not as effective as complete removal of the obstacle. So if it's somehow possible, just remove the dam to restore former conditions.
I'm very ok with that... but.. how about the floods? They were controlled, somehow, by these dams. Will it not affect the localities that are on the course of the river?
Many dams are not made to control floods. These kinds of small dams were built all over when we started electrifying for explicit purpose of electricity generation.
didn't England remove one for Germany about 80 years ago lol
How is the loss of electricity replaced? It’s not going to be wind or sun as it can not generate that much electricity plus very unpredictable. Solutions needed before actions. Don’t make it up as you go
is this an AI youtube channel? no one is actually making this
Europe, look for catastrophic flooding in your area soon!
If they’re now not getting their power from hydro, possibly the cleanest way to produce electricity, where are they getting it from…??
Also, riddle me this… why are man made dams which flood areas creating new eco systems bad,
but flooded areas, creating new eco systems, created by freshly imported beavers (UK),
is the greatest idea since the invention of the wheel…??
If you remove the hydroelectric dams that are at the end of their life are you likewise replacing them with other hydroelectric dams elsewhere??? Because you’re obviously NOT replacing them at the same place. If not doesn’t that cut down on the energy production?? Especially since it’s a “green” source.
Couldnt you just update them to generate more power?
The rpg in my pocket: 🥰☺️
A lot these dams have way gone past their useful lives. It'll be easier to eventually just build a smaller number of larger dams in the future.
More ecological and more efficient
what about beavers dams...
1 meter tall structure is called a dam in Europe 😂😂😂
Priority should be given to unnused, or abandoned dams. Those are just useless, increasing evaporation and disrupting river flow
It's all for those stupid salmon???
We have fish farms for those.
Why can they just build a fish ladder?
I heard something about salmon "pens".
When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"
@@hg2. A fish ladder does not work for the majority of species and for the species that it does work is still prety bad. And no, its not just for "stupid salmon" its for entire ecossystems. And farming fish does not make the tiver ecossystem better
@@joaquimbarbosa896
Please spare us your attempts to impose human sacrifices base on you eco/animist paganism based on superstition.
@@hg2. When did I try to make human sacrifices? Removing non working or small dams is a no brainner
Fascinating. Thanks for some exciting news amid the horrors of 2024. How do they replace the power source?
95% of the dams was industrial and not hydro-power ones
and tearing down a 100+ year old dam for a mill that closed down or converted to electric over 50 years ago is not that of a problem.
With Europe losing water in recent years due to global warming, this might end up not being very bright idea. Especially since desalination plants are expensive (i expect somebody proposing more desalination within next decade and it will turn into blooming business throughout Europe).
Our leaders are malevolent idiots.
We in South Africa are still building them and adding hundreds of illegal ones to the many legal but unsustainable number. Would that people had any idea of the damage we have done and are still doing.
That is a toxic ecoextremist view.
Is it to create an energy shortage? So the price of running the new nuclear plants will be profitable? Which it is not now if we compare it with the energy price from current hydropower ;)
Nuclear power plants are running profitably. One NPP had to reduce output once because almost all dams were full and demand in both Finland and neighbouring nations was to low.
The removed dams are either way beyond their usefull life or way to small to make a difference in eletrical power. This barely makes a difference in the countries eletrical output. For the love of god, stop this stupidity
Europe’s Energy Policy : Get rid of Coal, Get rid of Nuclear, Use lots of expensive compressed NG, Get rid of Hydroelectric.
That is ASTRONOMICALLY STUPID
If Europe had hoped that others will follow its example, that is delusional and a miscalculation, didn't Yanis Varoufakis recently said that, Mexican president told him that Europe is irrelevant ?
Spot on! 👏
So where is the drinking water and electricity going to come from?
You cant control people by buying up all the water rights if they have a lot of dams ...now can you
In terms of an ecosystem, dams, and even incorrectly designed bridges and culverts interrupt the movement of sediment downstream.
This stalls one form of energy transfer. When rewinding, the ‘release’ of these stored energies (built up sediment) must be taken into account.
Dam replentish underground waters, and avoid nutriets to spill at first use into the see, letting to recycle them, and fish pass allow the fish to move freely, EVEN, in small hydropower as the archimedean screw, those are used as FISH LIFTERS in fish farms, AND as oxygenation for water cleaning in sewage water treatments, too lazy lo learn?
Finland has a new nuclear reactor at 1200 MW.
What about the people. look at what is happening.
Wait, hydro-electric dams have a limited lifetime? As a Québécois, I find this very, very concerning
Don't listen to idiots and demagogues, (like your PM Souteneur Trudeau) and you would not have concerns. I am an electrical engineer, who worked on over a dozen of Hydro-Electrical plants upgrade in the US. Yes, or course the electrical and mechanical equipment has to be periodically replaced with new, but -so far - even a 100-years old dam concrete structures hold very well.
@@arney444 the last thing I'd do is listen to Trudeau, he screwed us and future generations :(
@@Welv1987 Thank you, you made up my day! Of course, we in the US must do our part and get rid of of that mentally deteriorated Joe
I have often wondered if mining operations as well as the creation of dams would, even minutely, impact the earth’s wobble, with potentially catastrophic outcomes, as billions of tons of materials are collected in selected areas? Could these also potentially impact geological activity? I don’t have an answer, just asking the question to any erudite geology scholars out there. I have heard that the numerous pyramids around the world could have been constructed in specific locations to stabilise the earth’s wobble, but as far as I know that was only a theory. In any case, as we have seen in the past and recent years, dams can be potential targets for belligerent factions, the destruction of which could have massive potential to devastate huge areas and population centres. Possibly this is another reason they are dismantling some of these structures as the politicians seem hell bent on provoking wars.
What surprises me is anyone thinks dams are green in anyway, never mind the enormous amounts of petroleum to make them.
Companies pay to build them? In Canada "government"/taxpayers pay to build them, pay to operate them and pay for hydroelectric from them, companies pay little except wages, nice wages and benefits too.
What if electricity can be harvested from the aether?
Why removing it cost us again... Just keep the gates open....
What does everyone have against clean renewable energy?
All the lies it's been built on getting exposed now. Thats what.
Those dams were barely producing any eletricity
Because the so-called greens don't actually give a stuff about the climate or the environment. They're communists in disguise, who are using the environment as an excuse to make us all poor and hungry so we'll be obedient little slaves.
Blocking rivers isnt clean.
They could just use water pressure through turbines for electricity production
Nothing.
Listen once more to what he said. And look through the boolshit and decorations into a sense behind them.
All the dams removed were old and small. Not optimal, not producing any energy or producing very little of it.
NOONE is removing big, modern dam that produce significant amount of energy. They were way to important for safety reasons. Well, noone but russian army.
you can eat zee bugs without power and water
Glad to see i am not the only one seeing it
The sediments should have some value .. like a quarry?
Dam it
the fact that they could dismantle a dam with just 750,000 euros is so shocking to me as an American where it would probably cost us 10 million for something as simple as that
How big of a dam are we talking?
they were small dams and there were volunteers.
@@cj.wijtmans for the ones in Finland or US?
Considering the cost of complete damn removal, perhaps just releasing the lower water gates and draining the high level of trapped water is sufficient in many cases while still retaining the road bridge facility. What has not been mentioned is the loss of the reservoir’s water sports and lakeside luxury property industry that can often provide essential tourism dollars to the local area.
fish :(
@@fico1557 no worry fish will still be on plate in restaurant for tourist
I think the key word here is Luxury.
The ones benefiting from such would be the richer minorities, while restoring the ecosystem benefits the planet as a whole.
Also, ask anyone who lives in a turistic location, tourists are the dirtiest, most disrespectful group of people that will kill your endanger animals for a kick photo and care not for what they leave you to deal with. Japan literally banned tourists from whole historic districts because the damage they did to the mental health of the geishas and maikos was not worth the buck.
They are taking Europes water storage away. Already there are never before seen droughts in Europe. Fish and power and flood control are only the side effects of damn. They are there to Store water ... No water no Farming.
Are the waters in rivers with dams really more dead than in "natural" rivers? I think that the ecosystem adapts to the new rythm of waterflows. And I am not a racist when it comes to discriminating against life that thrives thanks to dams.
yes. it has to do with the water height. lakes are not common because water tends to "want" to run to lower altitudes and ends up destroying the sides of a lake through erosion over hundreds if not thousands or millions of years.
and when they're natural most of the water in them flows underground. dams pretty much stop the water in an artificial lake made on a river, which if it is there it's probably because there's some material preventing the infiltration of all that water (not all of it mind you).
This means we're accumulating water and organic matter in a place were naturally it would not occur as the amount of water flowing would clear them up.
this is how swamps are made btw...a river flows into a field or a blockage makes it inundate the surrounding area turning the place into a swamp thus stopping the water and accumulating organic matter which incentivizes the growth of anaerobic bacteria and even makes those nice naturally formed methane reservoirs which then bubble up and you can see videos of people igniting for fun.
@@pedromoura1446 But is there LESS life in artificial water reservoires? Or is there just DIFFERENT life in them? Is there any objective measure of how that change of one perfectly inhabitable environment to another perfectly inhabitble environment "is bad"?
In Scandinavia, forest areas that are industrially clear-cut have much greater ecological diversity than the natural hegemonic pine forest that monotonically covers 95% of the place. Could it be that dynamic human interaction with the environment can actually stiulate its diversity?
CO2 additions to the atmosphere certainly stimulates all kinds of life on the entire planet. Especially in the Arctic and in the deserts. So hydroelectric power plants might be bad in the sense that they compete with accelerated CO2 emissions, I could give you that!
@@bjorntorlarsson on your first question. It depends on how the lake is formed and maintained but generally speaking it's worse because you need to compensate for the damage you caused. You need fish ladders to maintain the current habitats and even then a dam is a barrier preventing local aquatic species from moving around, you need machinery to constantly remove the sediments from the bottom and place them over the dam to prevent problems like bridges falling or beach erosion, invasive water species accumulate in these reservoirs which you then need to remove and eliminate least they spread, all the organic matter from wateaver was in that area is now being slowly decomposing in anaerobic conditions, etc.
But you're also right, It's a different environment, not necessarily a worst or better one. that's a human evaluation of the current local fauna and flora because we know that we can make very rapid changed that most species cannot adapt to. and yes. There is a method to measure that :) it's measured in biodiversity. Generally speaking if something man made increased the number of species in a place without putting a strain in another species. for instance... Imagine you eliminate mosquitoes in a place but your work added 1 or 2 other species of animal to the location, mosquitoes are considered common enough that it wont affect their population and 2 other species moving in means you succeeded in increasing biodiversity of the location. This is a generalization ofc since usually biodiversity increase means you created the conditions for species that feed and control the less desirable or more common ones to move in, you do not eliminate them. The opposite is also true... By knowing we reduced the amount of species in a location we know we did something wrong and we need to repair or at least minimize the damage. I hope this also clears your second question.
@@bjorntorlarsson on your 3rd point... Unfortunately no... Co2 is to plants what sugar is to humans.
We use sugar as the most basic energy form to feed our cells but you're only healthy because you have a balanced diet. If someone came and force fed you sugar assuming that because your cells use it then more of it would surely be good then you'd probably fall ill and eventually die. Plants react pretty much the same way to co2 (I can go into more detail about the mechanism by which plants consume co2 and why too much is bad for them if you want but I believe there's some youtube videos by veritaseum or scishow...?... that can illustrate it better than I could in a comment)... They've adapted to the current co2 levels and would take thousands of years for entire species to adapt to today's levels of co2 without facing extinction (especially bad if those provide food for us).
Then there's indirect problems... Higher temperatures increase solubility of some minerals which can atrophy existing mechanisms or diminish the capability fauna and Flora has to absorb those essencial minerals, co2 disolves in water which acidifies it and has pretty much messed up the calcium carbonate (limestone) cycle which not only released more co2 (one of the many ways an increase in co2 concentration causes more co2 to be released) but also prevents animals that rely on shells from growing and reproducing (corals, molusks, zooplancton...) which in turn removed the food that other animals relied upon and with their numbers dwindling those above them in the food chain suffer as well, those animals are also responsible for depositing co2 through their life cycles so removing them also makes it harder to remove co2 from the atmosphere.
And it's also going to make life harder to most of us by removing land mass, agricultural land, increasing the strength of natural disasters, expanding tropical diseases to places that didnt have them, reducing water supplies and even increasing human migrations because 90% of humans live near the coast and if their houses disappear they're not just gonna move inland and call it a day, they're gonna need money to recuperate financially and/or they're just going to move to places they see as both less likely to see that happen again and were opportunity to find a job and remake their lives is easier in their eyes (that means Europe, US, Canada...).
Obviously not everything or even everyone is going to die unless we crank co2 production like a James bond supervillain trying to destroy the world (which, To be fair... I can almost see oil companies do since they are being almost cartoonishly evil...) people with money will live somewere protected and separated from those of us and life will adapt and evolve, even if only extremophiles survived life would find a way... But at the very least millions of human beings will die for no reason other than someone wanting more of a piece of paper for their piece of paper collection and the rich themselves wouldn't be much better in a bunker or a fenced property spending inordinate amounts of money and time guaranteeing the resources they need to survive instead of traveling and enjoying a sky trip or eating luxurious foods (which are also disappearing ironically or not). And it's not only not natural but unnecessary and preventable...
Anyway... Sorry for the rambling by the end... Professional hazard.
@@pedromoura1446 CO2 level has never been as low as now (or 100 years ago, the oil industry has restored a more natural level thanks to recycling carbon to the atmosphere). When CO2 level was more than 4 times higher, a level that the oil industry unfortunately never can achieve, 100 million years ago, we had mega flora and mega fauna. Life was thriving as never before or hence.
Politically manipulated computer models that have been totally wrong in every respect for over 35 years now, are of course nothing but obviously lying propaganda. The climate doomsday fraud is fortunately dying now. In a couple of years no one will even mention global warming or CO2 emissions any more. Now the uneduated looting psycopaths are going for the war economy fraud instead as their means to abolish all human rights and all industrial wealth in the Western world.
What is being done to reserve water supplies? As sea levels rise plus😂 global warming isn't there projected to be a water shortage.
They will force people eat bugs to save water. Or maybe they will find water on asteroids.
Water problems and telling it's because of "climate change" ........
But it's because of cloud seeding removing dams ect .............
Removing the carbon and the carbon is you Bill Gates.... 🐑💉🧬💀
@@lol32scbw you will eat the bug and reducing carbon and the carbon is you Bill Gates..... 🦋🐑💉🧬💀
It will be a cold day in hell when the land of thousand lakes runs out of water.
Power came from what after demolition
Finland’s nuclear plant. Electricity prices went negative when it came online…
@@DrRock2009Also for the most part they were either extremely small dams or dams beyond their usefull life
We don't talk about that part,. it ruins the narrative.
@@illbeyourmonster5752 Or the dams barely produced any power...
@@joaquimbarbosa896 Any RE power is better than no RE power.
I think this is fantastic! And, for those talking about Fish Ladders, it's about more than just repopulating Salmon. I can't wait to see the changes these removals bring.
None to the cities, where majority of people never go and see natural world
What is $6.2M in cost in the long term. It's absolutely nothing in the life of a dam in terms of the revenue "generated."
It's all for those stupid salmon???
We have fish farms for those.
Why can they just build a fish ladder?
I heard something about salmon "pens".
When I was born, salmon was a special luxury. Now it's like hamburger. And with that blessing we have to listen to greener-than-thou idiots who get pouty about raising fish in pens. "Hey tree huggers! Should we outlaw cattle raising and go back to hunting buffalo on horseback????"
How are you going to charge a 76 kilowatt Testla when the average house uses maybe 6 kilowatts per day if you remove the hydro dams and shut down the nuclear reactors. That's 11 times more power needed for electric cars. I know, ban cars. That's next. watch.
What's a Testla?
@@ThenakedfinisherTesla company
Время назад!
Africa was once a rain forest 🫢 Guess what really happend 😂
africans destroyed it?
Green energy doesn't hurt the environment
You keep using big words, but every example you give is a small, local dam, that control a water of small, insignificant river and produce power for a single village. If it produce power at all. Anything about really big dams on the big rivers? The ones that have noticible impact on national power grid or flood safety?
Also - at some point you say there is 150k dams in Europe. Than, you say that there is 150k OBSOLETE dams in Europe. So what, every single dam in Europe is obsolete? Or you are just boolshiting us?
You give us a number of removed dams. How many of them are trully removed for good, and how many will be (or already was) replaced by new ones? How many new ones was builded in general?
I'm not saying that there aren't places where dams harm the ecosystem, but what cannot be done is pressure for all countries to do the same without taking into account that there are dams that help alleviate drought and that they are in rivers where they cannot. There are fish that need to have free passage. Something similar has happened in the United States, in semi-desert areas, where beaver habitats have been restored, and by recreating their dams, the vegetation has been recovered.
Couldn't agree with you more!! Spain is comitting suicide by leading all European countries in the massive destruction of thousands of their irrigation dams, arduously built over the last 4 centuries, particularly in the driest southern two-thirds of the Iberian Peninsula. Utter nonsense!! (There are "water steps" devised for fish, so that they can climb even the largest and tallest dams since the 18th [Yes! Eighteen Century Spain, King Ferdinand VI, commencement of construction of the Canal of Castille, and many other hydraulic projects that came afterwards, all planned with extremely sound common sense], as you and anyone aware of some basic History in general know (or should know): The benefits of conserving water in a drying-up country + the benefits of keeping rivers alive).
The explanation to the super-fast destruction of dams in Europe and particularly in Spain, and the 4-decade long blockage of the connection of the most important Spanish watersheds nationwide is thus clearly political - we all know the end sought by them global politicians with the help of illiterate local prime ministers: The killing of Europe (& the West in general) by way of the destruction of its component parts, i.e. the established European nation-states, and by the by, as many of their native citizens as possible).
Is this really about restoring nature and salmon and rivers, fairy rings and unicorns?
Wouldn't have anything to do with reducing hydro-electric power and promoting wind installations and solar panels instead, would it?
Both.