Living close to the elwa I can assure you the dam removal has yet to be the success story they're claiming it is. The lower tribe was flooded in 2020, and the main purpose, the salmon runs, has only marginally improved.
They don't care. They are going to highest bidder. There are ways to get salmon up stream. But that doesn't help the wind/solar agenda. Damning a river is not as bad as they say. "if you dam a river the water held becomes toxic " that is a FLAT OUT lie. I have no doubt she has a agenda and I'd bet my life she has a very very healthy bank account. These people are all hypocrites
When dams are planned and built properly, they have only very little negative impact on the environment. Also, they're one of the most efficient sources of renewable energy and energy storage(!) out there.
@@k12kyle Just build enough bypass channels or create an artificial lake that, after passing the dam, further downstream feeds into the river that created it. The most serious issue I can see in this video is that the US built most of its dams before the people gave an actual f about the environment and ecosystems. That by itself doesn't make the mere concept of a dam evil or bad, it just shows that poor execution has a negative impact.
Nuclear power plants are a better alternative, they destroy less areas and do not depend on rain or favorable geography, a pity that people are so irrationally afraid of this excellent alternative.
Sure damn damage local environments. But doesn't removing them will just make us rely on other forms of power generation? Which at this point would be coal and fossil fuels. Doesn't seem like a smart trade off, at least not yet
@@mattmccaughen8082 if it's the easiest then it's the cheapest, so way back in the day that was the only way to do it. Don't worry, hyper-inflation will get you back there. Thanks Brandon.
Hydro is FAR from the only renewable power source. It's an important one, though. And, that's why we aren't going to get rid of all of them. The video states that 1,200 have been removed...most likely none of those were hydroelectric dams.
@@ortegazs Not true. Yucca Mountain disposal site would store nuclear waste deep underground in a geologically stable area with no nearby water table. And that waste would be secure for thousands of years until it decays to safe levels.
It all depends on the level of regulation. With sufficient regulation, it's extremely safe (even safer than fossil fuels). Without sufficient regulation, it's a disaster waiting to happen.
@@ortegazs Most nuclear waste is medical waste. The US refuses to recycle fuel and problems multiply. Anti-American eco-wacko communist groups keep litigating to stop nuclear power projects to keep the US of A dependent on foreign fossil fuels. Stupid people keep screaming idiocy about nearly everything. Geoff Who would rather burn atoms than molecules.
The solution is nuclear energy. Low impact and literally millions of times more efficient than any other source. A couple of early mistakes ruined the public image of it forevermore, even though there is no more issue of where to store the waste, because it can all be recycled, put through rebreeders or used for other purposes.
Regarding nuclear waste. In the worst case we can dump in the desert. The volume is tiny and our deserts are massive. Dams destroy far greater areas of nature and disrupt much more plants and animals.
@@madass888 I live in the desert. It took 20 years of fighting plus building a bypass highway before nuclear waste could be buried here. Almost no one wants it in their area. Then they said there would be no accidents in the first hundred years. They had an accident in the first 20. Never underestimate human error.
@@Catlily5 And Egypt and Sudan have threaten all out war if Ethiopia dams the nile. There are no perfect solutions. But far more people, animals and plants are depended on river systems.
Renewables keep getting cheaper too though and in some cases are competitive with nuclear when taking capital costs into consideration. With advances in storage technologies and a mix of many renewables we may not even need nuclear. Nuclear is still far better than fossil fuels though and may be the safer bet in the short/medium term.
There are two types of enviromental impact: local and global. Hydropower (renewables in general) and nuclear have a local impact while fossil fuels have a global impact. To fight climate change we should focus on the first type, so instead of removing dams we should remove coal plants.
There's also the problem of deforestation, dams reduce forests by taling up so much space. So it's actually considered dirty energy. In the long term, we'll get rid of most of them in favor of smaller models and other renewables. I wonder if we could make floating solar farms on the dam lakes.
@@cognozzle I have an uncle who works for GE Oil & Gas, and he once made the straight face argument that dams can damage the ecosystem and environment around it. While this is true depending on the purpose of the dam, how it functions, what it's made of, and how it's built - the fossil fuel industry is still a million times more destructive regardless.
@@jonathanedwardgibson This is a "cow farts" argument. It's a minor source of greenhouse gases which big oil uses as a way to pass the buck. Hydro dams are not a significant source of greenhouse gases. It's fossil fuels. Not hydro dams. Not cow burps. Fossil fuels.
If you want to make it better for fish and humans, then put fish ladders in EVERY dam, and put enough solar panels on floating docks behind each dam to shade the water and cool it to help keep the water oxygenated. That way you get more green energy and everyone benefits. And you get to use acreage for solar panels that would otherwise be wasted.
With spillways there is sufficient oxygenation of the water and they even sometimes have to worry about too much nitrogen. But even if there's any problem with this, there's a lot of ways to passively oxygenate the water with waves, or wind, or many others that I can think of without spending much time on it. And with all the power from the panels you could even run a small compressor with bubblers underneath them.
And yet we need to increase reliance on renewables and clean energy. We can’t have our cake and eat it too. We’re going to have to make trade offs when it comes to how we harness energy. I’ll take a dam over a coal-fire power plant any day!
@@Elmer_RedEagle Even at their absolute worst, dams are still only damaging LOCAL ecosystems. Fossil fuels are damaging the GLOBAL ecosystem. You're not ruining the land to save the land, you're sacrificing a tiny bit of land to save the rest.
It would probably depend on the ecological damage caused by hydropower versus other energy sources. Is there any data on the damage caused by dams versus fossil fuels and coal? If hydro causes less ecological damage than other sources than the answer is probably no, we should not remove them.
on the very very short term, if it's badly built, it as "damaging" as fossil fuels, but like I said, on very very short terms, but the O&G companies doesn't care about anything, they just want to gaslight you.
@@Sinaeb Oil and Gas companies have diversified into solar and wind power, which have their own eco-damage issues. Nuclear power usually involves Government and the Electric companies which have different problems and complications.
'Green Energy' in all its forms cannot handle the baseload requirements and cannot even handle the increase in demand for electricity year over year. Green Energy is so poor as an energy source it is rapidly falling behind. We have had hydroelectric for 125 years, solar for 75 years, etc. Where is it all? The ONLY solution is Nuclear Energy. This whole 'green' energy idea is absolutely retarded and will only serve to accelerate the Death Spiral we are currently in. Green Energy Harvesting is the most damaging Environmental Initiative EVER. Bar None. If you love the Environment you need to support Nuclear and nothing else.
@@seanb3516 ah yes, because it’s not like the math has been done that an area around the size of texas would need to be covered in solar panels to power the US. Stop acting like the few renewables we have are supposed to overpower the amount of oil and gas we get and use every year without actually increasing the amount of renewables 😂 you’re argument is just so flawed
Nah we need more and BIGGER dams! We should create the largest dam on earth and name it *The Wall* while putting as many towns and cities below it as possible.
What a bad title. Obviously we shouldn't remove all dams. There are dams in arid areas that contribute to increasing the moisture in the area, preventing desertification. The benefits largely outway the disadvantages
Videos are titled in ways that see the most engagement from the community. In this case, both people who are for and against dams will be interested in watching the video to hear the various arguments and conclusions. Had it just been "All Dams Should be Removed" or "Not All Dams Should be Removed" then the answer's already in the title, no need to watch the video. Truth is, whenever a video title is presented as a question it receives more engagement than it otherwise would've.
Unfortunately those systems are very complex. I have worked in an arid area too and I'm planning on trying to retain more water through restauration. The area has a decent amount of water over the year but it's often heavy rain for short durations (afternoon heavy rain storms). The water usually runs off in flash floods and the rivers fall dry again shortly after. The potential changes regulating the water I could see, would be that flash floods often carry a lot of soil and therfore nutrients/minerals down stream. So what might be beneficial for one region might harm another. Another example would be regreening the Sahara desert. It would reduce dust carried across the Atlantic Ocean which is an important fertilizer for the Amazon rain forest. I wish ordinary people had access to big simulations to make more informed decisions =) What I wanna say is that it definetly heavily depends on each individual case and we have to update our decisions based on the latest and best knowledge we have.
@@Tomatoffel We did though, towards the end. There weren't as many pros presented since the video is about how a lot of dams harm ecosystems, not how they benefit humans. Had the subject been "How Dams Provide Clean Water and Energy" then the video would've been about the pros with some cons sprinkled in at the end. It's hard to fit the whole spectrum of pros and cons into a single video.
@@LewisWallin 1:47 compared to 7:00 like come on. You are contradicting yourself in your own video thats how badly you explain things. And lets be honest one point has way more weight then the other in this video. It was one sided presented. Like why is there need for that?
Maybe removing small or abandoned dams are doable but removing ones like the Hoover or Three Gorges could be treacherous since it could release tons of water running downstream and endanger lives. Still removing dams is a benefit for the environment.
nuclear power near the oceans/ solar panels and desalination with production of salt is the only way dam removals can be successful while providing and allowing for human productivity.
It's weird that you think nuclear power plants should be near the oceans! WRONG. There are quite a few sources of power other than hydro, nuclear and solar. Desalination ain't one of them.
its a so so 50/50 thing. on 1 hand building a dam might destroy the habitat/migration of certain fish populations but on the other hand it also creates new eco systems giving other species a home that got driven away from their natural habitat. technicly its just like beavers flooding areas when they build a dam, just in a bigger scale. while the beaver dam is balanced and the human dam is imbalanced.
It seems like we shouldn't get rid of any dams until all of the fossil fuel plants in the region are gone. Same with the fight against nuclear plants. They both have problems and there are better alternatives, but every dam or nuclear plant closed is a fossil fuel plant (or plants) that remain open instead. And I say this as a someone that makes regular donations to the Nature Conservancy.
Dams is the way of how we will continue into the future. Dams provides both water and clean energy. And we need both. There is Dams out there which can let water trough.
Nuclear power would actually be the most reliable source for the future, as long as we either switch to liquid thorium fluoride reactors, or learn how to control nuclear fusion. Dams remain costly and cause more harm than it appears.
That's what they say but look at China. They have something like 80,000 dams (the figures vary) but still have catastrophic flooding. The US has something like 75k, and, as mentioned in the video, still has flooding, though not catastrophic like China.
@@RIPPEDDRAGON40k Where are the millions of people going to go? Geoff Who is barely in a flood zone, but that's because the definition changed. My home was not in a zone when I moved in. A quarter of a mile North and I wouldn't be in the zone!
@@perplexingperceptions8888 actually I'm with this person, I thought she was monotone and flat...it detracted from the video. She sounded like she was in a hostage video or was bored.
NO! We also need to address the lies around Salmon and dams... I personally know of manipulative tactics used in research in my area on fish population and dams.
Louisiana loses about a football field worth of land per day due to lack of sedimentation coming through the Mississippi River, and dams greatly contribute this lack of sediment. Many of the cities in southern Louisiana are predicted to start to lose land to the ocean, and this puts the famous bald-cypress bayous at risk of salination from the advancing ocean.
I grew up near a low-head dam which was primarily for flood control, but produced some hydro. There was a fish ladder there, but the salmon would normally just jump the dam. While everything has an impact, is the impact of such dams (per unit of given utility) greater or less than that for the massive dams you area showing on the video? Thanks
what about bilions on lives saved all over the world by creating water reservoirs ,for water consumption , irrigation , flood control, electricity, navigation ....
Of course. Overall, damns help reduce dependency on fossil fuel burning. It's like nuclear energy: the contamination produced by them is vastly lower than that caused by coal, gas, or petrol burning installations
It's the maintenance that we always fail at. They get abandoned. No one is there to adjust the Dams for water level change. It's not the Dams fault. Once again, its us being lazy.
Speaking as someone who has lived in Washington state my entire life, the state with the highest number of hydroelectric dams and the highest amount of hydroelectricity in the US while being one of the most nature-friendliest states in the country, removing all dams is a dangerous notion! There are ways to make sure ecosystems, and fish and wildlife are hardly disrupted when a dam is constructed. Some states don't care about the environment *cough Texas, cough West Virginia, cough Kentucky, cough California, cough New Jersey* So maybe states such as these should be more careful about the environment if they want to alter it. It can be done!
Well there is run of the river hydropower which does not store large quantity of water. Though it will generate less energy. There is always nuclear energy if the waste can be properly disposed which is still much better than CO2 and CO emissions.
yep. all the other TMNT Turtle Lovers are going to be sadden to discover they were "supposed" to find fresh water tortoises in arroyo seco river! not no more! theyre GONE!!! heavy things move toward the end of the stream and sadly the heaviest or moving stuff gets knocked out of the ecosystem by means of the dam closing. and now the world is missing a Rare Variety. probably the Rarest variety of snapping turtles.
glorifying "saving" the ecosystem while glossing over the fact that dams are the most efficient and most widespread source of renewable energy? We need as many dams as possible to lower carbon emissions.
I see a lot of benefit from dams. They mitigate flooding and temper high flows. A lot of species benefit from dams as they act as deep, slow water refuges in winter. Dams are only bad for migratory species, but other species may benefit.
We need electricity. Wouldn't removing dams be removing a source of power? Dams are awful for the ecosystem but there's gotta be situations where the power out weighs the cons
Hi Niba! Great video! There are new in-stream turbines for generating electricity that are fish friendly. This might make some more dam removals feasible. And I think there are inventions coming that will allow easier fish passage past dams. As wind and solar energy develops, we may eventually have enough excess energy that we won’t need hydro power and we might be able to remove some more dams. In 100 years the human population is going to be falling, and as it does we can start tearing down even more dams. It’ll be a time when we replenish and regenerate the earth after all the destruction we’ve created.
Truth is we humanity need energy. Any energy we can get we must take away from environment. There is no way we can generate power (on earth) without hunting environment. Solar eliminate local vegetation, hydro local fish, nuclear is warming up local waters and causes distortions within the local bioms. If anything, we should stop struggling and understand that change is inevitable. We can of course use tech like solar power plant build in space (L2 should be the best spot) and convoyer it back to earth using macers. But it won't fix the problem this way we would deliver more entropy to local system. Change is inevitable.
There are no options that are free of consequences. Can dams be planned better? Most likely, but that does not mean you scrap the entire lot of them. Modify existing ones and plan the new ones better. If you get rid of the existing ones you will incur consequences in ways you do not want and do not see.
the biggest issue isn't the Dam its the unregulated river from everything past the Dam Beaver Dams; built every 5mile ^thicken water ways & increase wildlife&plant life in those regions the issue of stopping & channeling 85% of the stream = bad, but adding beaver dams after?
@@Catlily5 i thought that after ~i missed the point of city usage to the draining of rivers as much as the using it for power beaver dams are used to increase wetlands (that eventually can be turned into a river)
This might be just me, but the audio of the host might benefit from just a fraction of a second longer delay. As it is now it seems like she's moving their lips after the sound.
Should all Dams be removed?
*17 Million Dutch people start Screaming*
Don't forget about the 6 Billion people who would suffer from flooding, starvation, and freezing to death due to lack of energy!
@@PeppoMusic
Even though they are not perfect, should they be removed?
If the Netherlands would flood then i´ll live next to a beach...... worth.
Living close to the elwa I can assure you the dam removal has yet to be the success story they're claiming it is. The lower tribe was flooded in 2020, and the main purpose, the salmon runs, has only marginally improved.
They don't care. They are going to highest bidder. There are ways to get salmon up stream. But that doesn't help the wind/solar agenda. Damning a river is not as bad as they say. "if you dam a river the water held becomes toxic " that is a FLAT OUT lie. I have no doubt she has a agenda and I'd bet my life she has a very very healthy bank account. These people are all hypocrites
It will take time
@@Sur-Ron Or they may be a lot of other factors that contribute to why the salmon runs are poor.
Are you even allowed to fish it? If not, that river might as well be on the moon for all it benefits you.
Love this host, her delivery feels a lot more natural than scripted
Yup. She's awesome. 👌🏻
Absolutely agree!
She is natural like water. Do not keep her in a dam.
I absolutely agree
She's really pretty too
Dams getting taken down
Bevers: Let me fix that
ruclips.net/video/FT0BY_awIvE/видео.html
5:43
Beaver dams are much smaller.
No joke. Up here in Northern Canada, we have them EVERYWHERE. Once we stopped hunting them, they came back and screwed everything up anyways, lol.
What i don't get is why they can't make a new dam that lets 80% or more of the river sediment through and something better for the fish to swim up
What'd the salmon say when he hit the wall?
Dam.
I'll see myself out...
This comment deserves 2k likes 👍at least.
I laughed to hard at this. Take my thumbs up sir
👏👏👏🤣🤣🤣
It’s so funny
🤣🤣🤣
When dams are planned and built properly, they have only very little negative impact on the environment. Also, they're one of the most efficient sources of renewable energy and energy storage(!) out there.
I really don't think they have a small impact. They have a HUGE impact.
my guy, what is a river, what life is in rivers and how can that life swim though a dam?
@@k12kyle Just build enough bypass channels or create an artificial lake that, after passing the dam, further downstream feeds into the river that created it.
The most serious issue I can see in this video is that the US built most of its dams before the people gave an actual f about the environment and ecosystems.
That by itself doesn't make the mere concept of a dam evil or bad, it just shows that poor execution has a negative impact.
Nuclear power plants are a better alternative, they destroy less areas and do not depend on rain or favorable geography, a pity that people are so irrationally afraid of this excellent alternative.
@@giovannirodriguesdasilva646 it's not that I'm afraid of it it's that I don't want it to be a Private Industry controlling it
Sure damn damage local environments.
But doesn't removing them will just make us rely on other forms of power generation?
Which at this point would be coal and fossil fuels.
Doesn't seem like a smart trade off, at least not yet
Not all damns generate power. There are many damns that are there just to hold water.
@@anything399 that dam is to prevent flooding on the lower side
so, dam always have its use
@@vnzandroid yes and no there's many other ways to control flooding dams were just the easiest more destructive ways back in the day
@@mattmccaughen8082 if it's the easiest then it's the cheapest, so way back in the day that was the only way to do it.
Don't worry, hyper-inflation will get you back there. Thanks Brandon.
Hydro is FAR from the only renewable power source. It's an important one, though. And, that's why we aren't going to get rid of all of them. The video states that 1,200 have been removed...most likely none of those were hydroelectric dams.
How about a video about the pro’s and con’s of nuclear power?
Until we can dispose of nuclear waste in a safe way that doesn't endanger the environment for thousands of years, the con's out way the pros.
@@ortegazs as opposed to what we already do? Lol
@@ortegazs Not true. Yucca Mountain disposal site would store nuclear waste deep underground in a geologically stable area with no nearby water table. And that waste would be secure for thousands of years until it decays to safe levels.
It all depends on the level of regulation.
With sufficient regulation, it's extremely safe (even safer than fossil fuels). Without sufficient regulation, it's a disaster waiting to happen.
@@ortegazs Most nuclear waste is medical waste. The US refuses to recycle fuel and problems multiply. Anti-American eco-wacko communist groups keep litigating to stop nuclear power projects to keep the US of A dependent on foreign fossil fuels. Stupid people keep screaming idiocy about nearly everything. Geoff Who would rather burn atoms than molecules.
The solution is nuclear energy. Low impact and literally millions of times more efficient than any other source. A couple of early mistakes ruined the public image of it forevermore, even though there is no more issue of where to store the waste, because it can all be recycled, put through rebreeders or used for other purposes.
Regarding nuclear waste. In the worst case we can dump in the desert. The volume is tiny and our deserts are massive. Dams destroy far greater areas of nature and disrupt much more plants and animals.
@@madass888 I live in the desert. It took 20 years of fighting plus building a bypass highway before nuclear waste could be buried here. Almost no one wants it in their area. Then they said there would be no accidents in the first hundred years. They had an accident in the first 20. Never underestimate human error.
@@Catlily5 And Egypt and Sudan have threaten all out war if Ethiopia dams the nile. There are no perfect solutions. But far more people, animals and plants are depended on river systems.
@@madass888 All of the rivers except one have been dammed in my state as well. Some rivers are both dammed and are contaminated with radiation.
Renewables keep getting cheaper too though and in some cases are competitive with nuclear when taking capital costs into consideration. With advances in storage technologies and a mix of many renewables we may not even need nuclear. Nuclear is still far better than fossil fuels though and may be the safer bet in the short/medium term.
There are two types of enviromental impact: local and global. Hydropower (renewables in general) and nuclear have a local impact while fossil fuels have a global impact. To fight climate change we should focus on the first type, so instead of removing dams we should remove coal plants.
There's also the problem of deforestation, dams reduce forests by taling up so much space. So it's actually considered dirty energy.
In the long term, we'll get rid of most of them in favor of smaller models and other renewables.
I wonder if we could make floating solar farms on the dam lakes.
@@memener8020 maybe not the entire lake then
@@memener8020 I guess it's better than using farmland for solar farms
100% agree, when all the CO2 producing power is removed, then we can start talking about removing some dams. So maybe in 10 years.
@@memener8020 We still have far too less energy without the coal and oil plants sadly.
everyone always talks about the enviromental impact cons of damns, but no one ever talks about the pros
Because 99% of the time, criticism comes from the fossil fuels industry.
@@cognozzle I have an uncle who works for GE Oil & Gas, and he once made the straight face argument that dams can damage the ecosystem and environment around it. While this is true depending on the purpose of the dam, how it functions, what it's made of, and how it's built - the fossil fuel industry is still a million times more destructive regardless.
Alert: the still water held back is major source of methane we need to face up to.
@@jonathanedwardgibson This is a "cow farts" argument. It's a minor source of greenhouse gases which big oil uses as a way to pass the buck. Hydro dams are not a significant source of greenhouse gases. It's fossil fuels. Not hydro dams. Not cow burps. Fossil fuels.
If you want to make it better for fish and humans, then put fish ladders in EVERY dam, and put enough solar panels on floating docks behind each dam to shade the water and cool it to help keep the water oxygenated. That way you get more green energy and everyone benefits. And you get to use acreage for solar panels that would otherwise be wasted.
Awesome idea! Only issue is that covering the surface would decrease the diffusion of oxygen into the water. Unless I'm missing something?
With spillways there is sufficient oxygenation of the water and they even sometimes have to worry about too much nitrogen. But even if there's any problem with this, there's a lot of ways to passively oxygenate the water with waves, or wind, or many others that I can think of without spending much time on it. And with all the power from the panels you could even run a small compressor with bubblers underneath them.
And yet we need to increase reliance on renewables and clean energy. We can’t have our cake and eat it too. We’re going to have to make trade offs when it comes to how we harness energy. I’ll take a dam over a coal-fire power plant any day!
So ruin the land to save the land? Do you not see just how stupid that is?
The sneaky problem of dams is all that still water is major source of methane.
Nuclear power
@@Elmer_RedEagle Even at their absolute worst, dams are still only damaging LOCAL ecosystems. Fossil fuels are damaging the GLOBAL ecosystem.
You're not ruining the land to save the land, you're sacrificing a tiny bit of land to save the rest.
Did you know, You need coal to make concrete?
It would probably depend on the ecological damage caused by hydropower versus other energy sources. Is there any data on the damage caused by dams versus fossil fuels and coal? If hydro causes less ecological damage than other sources than the answer is probably no, we should not remove them.
on the very very short term, if it's badly built, it as "damaging" as fossil fuels, but like I said, on very very short terms, but the O&G companies doesn't care about anything, they just want to gaslight you.
@@Sinaeb Oil and Gas companies have diversified into solar and wind power, which have their own eco-damage issues. Nuclear power usually involves Government and the Electric companies which have different problems and complications.
@@geofftimm2291 and there you are eating the snake's oil.
'Green Energy' in all its forms cannot handle the baseload requirements and cannot even handle the increase in demand for electricity year over year.
Green Energy is so poor as an energy source it is rapidly falling behind. We have had hydroelectric for 125 years, solar for 75 years, etc. Where is it all?
The ONLY solution is Nuclear Energy. This whole 'green' energy idea is absolutely retarded and will only serve to accelerate the Death Spiral we are currently in.
Green Energy Harvesting is the most damaging Environmental Initiative EVER. Bar None. If you love the Environment you need to support Nuclear and nothing else.
@@seanb3516 ah yes, because it’s not like the math has been done that an area around the size of texas would need to be covered in solar panels to power the US. Stop acting like the few renewables we have are supposed to overpower the amount of oil and gas we get and use every year without actually increasing the amount of renewables 😂 you’re argument is just so flawed
Most cities depend on a lake for a water supply. Larger rivers need dams with locks for navigation
Nah we need more and BIGGER dams! We should create the largest dam on earth and name it *The Wall* while putting as many towns and cities below it as possible.
What did the fish say when it hit a wall?
Nothing, of course. It's a fish.
Some dams should be removed since they serve no purpose and are falling into disrepair. (Like some in USA for example)
Others however should be kept.
You can't have your cake and eat it. Removing dams and generating all electricity from renewables are mutually exclusive.
What a bad title. Obviously we shouldn't remove all dams. There are dams in arid areas that contribute to increasing the moisture in the area, preventing desertification. The benefits largely outway the disadvantages
Videos are titled in ways that see the most engagement from the community. In this case, both people who are for and against dams will be interested in watching the video to hear the various arguments and conclusions. Had it just been "All Dams Should be Removed" or "Not All Dams Should be Removed" then the answer's already in the title, no need to watch the video.
Truth is, whenever a video title is presented as a question it receives more engagement than it otherwise would've.
Unfortunately those systems are very complex.
I have worked in an arid area too and I'm planning on trying to retain more water through restauration. The area has a decent amount of water over the year but it's often heavy rain for short durations (afternoon heavy rain storms). The water usually runs off in flash floods and the rivers fall dry again shortly after.
The potential changes regulating the water I could see, would be that flash floods often carry a lot of soil and therfore nutrients/minerals down stream. So what might be beneficial for one region might harm another.
Another example would be regreening the Sahara desert. It would reduce dust carried across the Atlantic Ocean which is an important fertilizer for the Amazon rain forest.
I wish ordinary people had access to big simulations to make more informed decisions =)
What I wanna say is that it definetly heavily depends on each individual case and we have to update our decisions based on the latest and best knowledge we have.
@@LewisWallin only that in this video we didn't realy get to talk about the benefits of damns.
@@Tomatoffel We did though, towards the end. There weren't as many pros presented since the video is about how a lot of dams harm ecosystems, not how they benefit humans.
Had the subject been "How Dams Provide Clean Water and Energy" then the video would've been about the pros with some cons sprinkled in at the end. It's hard to fit the whole spectrum of pros and cons into a single video.
@@LewisWallin 1:47 compared to 7:00 like come on. You are contradicting yourself in your own video thats how badly you explain things. And lets be honest one point has way more weight then the other in this video. It was one sided presented. Like why is there need for that?
This video is advocating the removal of dams and construction of coal power plants in order to save salmon
Maybe removing small or abandoned dams are doable but removing ones like the Hoover or Three Gorges could be treacherous since it could release tons of water running downstream and endanger lives. Still removing dams is a benefit for the environment.
nuclear power near the oceans/ solar panels and desalination with production of salt is the only way dam removals can be successful while providing and allowing for human productivity.
It's weird that you think nuclear power plants should be near the oceans! WRONG.
There are quite a few sources of power other than hydro, nuclear and solar. Desalination ain't one of them.
You get it
Nuclear is da wae, especially safer smaller scale plants
Judging by your statement you probably don't even know the impact of Desalination on marine life and environment in general.
The only way sounds very limiting, like 100 years back. There's many ways, depends on the needs of the region and the goals being set
its a so so 50/50 thing. on 1 hand building a dam might destroy the habitat/migration of certain fish populations but on the other hand it also creates new eco systems giving other species a home that got driven away from their natural habitat.
technicly its just like beavers flooding areas when they build a dam, just in a bigger scale. while the beaver dam is balanced and the human dam is imbalanced.
It seems like we shouldn't get rid of any dams until all of the fossil fuel plants in the region are gone. Same with the fight against nuclear plants. They both have problems and there are better alternatives, but every dam or nuclear plant closed is a fossil fuel plant (or plants) that remain open instead.
And I say this as a someone that makes regular donations to the Nature Conservancy.
Concern over the Mulla Periyar Dam Issue, Kerala India.
Dams is the way of how we will continue into the future. Dams provides both water and clean energy. And we need both. There is Dams out there which can let water trough.
Nuclear power would actually be the most reliable source for the future, as long as we either switch to liquid thorium fluoride reactors, or learn how to control nuclear fusion. Dams remain costly and cause more harm than it appears.
According to Google, there are over 91,000 dams in the United States, 1200 of them removed is around 1.3% of them
The lead lady has a great voice
Yeah. Really awesome voice!
Dam, I hope we find an alternative, does waterwheel still effective?
ruclips.net/video/FT0BY_awIvE/видео.html
Netherlands: Hmm, interesting proposal
After few years: Netherlands the new atlantis
ruclips.net/video/FT0BY_awIvE/видео.html
Some places dams need for flood control, it's true?
That's what they say but look at China. They have something like 80,000 dams (the figures vary) but still have catastrophic flooding. The US has something like 75k, and, as mentioned in the video, still has flooding, though not catastrophic like China.
Or just don't build in flood zones
@@RIPPEDDRAGON40k Where are the millions of people going to go? Geoff Who is barely in a flood zone, but that's because the definition changed. My home was not in a zone when I moved in. A quarter of a mile North and I wouldn't be in the zone!
Dams also prevent annual remineralization of soils.
Those damn beavers making their own dams
All these people posting comments without even watching the whole video. Shmucks.
The presenter has a really nice voice.
ruclips.net/video/FT0BY_awIvE/видео.html
You took the words straight out of my mouth
She has a bland & boring voice.
@@perplexingperceptions8888 You want an exciting voice? I don't know about you, but i need a clear voice, not some really highs and lows.
@@perplexingperceptions8888 actually I'm with this person, I thought she was monotone and flat...it detracted from the video. She sounded like she was in a hostage video or was bored.
What about Beaver dams don't cause that much harm
NO! We also need to address the lies around Salmon and dams... I personally know of manipulative tactics used in research in my area on fish population and dams.
Louisiana loses about a football field worth of land per day due to lack of sedimentation coming through the Mississippi River, and dams greatly contribute this lack of sediment. Many of the cities in southern Louisiana are predicted to start to lose land to the ocean, and this puts the famous bald-cypress bayous at risk of salination from the advancing ocean.
Dams help prevent flooding
- You have salmon ladder, look it up. its a side stairs made for salmon to swim up, and that actually use it.
Great host! Now the question is, which is worse coal or damns?
I grew up near a low-head dam which was primarily for flood control, but produced some hydro. There was a fish ladder there, but the salmon would normally just jump the dam. While everything has an impact, is the impact of such dams (per unit of given utility) greater or less than that for the massive dams you area showing on the video? Thanks
what about bilions on lives saved all over the world by creating water reservoirs ,for water consumption , irrigation , flood control, electricity, navigation ....
I guess dams are bad for the local ecosystem, but aren’t they beneficial to the overall climate?
They do cause increases in heavy metal accumulation in local fauna that can be spread further due to migratory patterns.
Being bad for local ecosystems means something is also bad for overall climate.
Of course. Overall, damns help reduce dependency on fossil fuel burning. It's like nuclear energy: the contamination produced by them is vastly lower than that caused by coal, gas, or petrol burning installations
I've Always thought that dams for power should be built after waterfalls. As the impact of the dam only really go's back to the falls.
Hydro power at Niagara Falls New York, USA, by-passes the river and helps prevent erosion of the Falls into rapids.
It's the maintenance that we always fail at. They get abandoned. No one is there to adjust the Dams for water level change. It's not the Dams fault. Once again, its us being lazy.
Everything that you have stated applies to the Three Gorges and Aswan dam. When should they be removed?
I feel like I just watched a Vox video! 🤔
Speaking as someone who has lived in Washington state my entire life, the state with the highest number of hydroelectric dams and the highest amount of hydroelectricity in the US while being one of the most nature-friendliest states in the country, removing all dams is a dangerous notion!
There are ways to make sure ecosystems, and fish and wildlife are hardly disrupted when a dam is constructed.
Some states don't care about the environment *cough Texas, cough West Virginia, cough Kentucky, cough California, cough New Jersey*
So maybe states such as these should be more careful about the environment if they want to alter it. It can be done!
Well there is run of the river hydropower which does not store large quantity of water. Though it will generate less energy. There is always nuclear energy if the waste can be properly disposed which is still much better than CO2 and CO emissions.
ruclips.net/video/FT0BY_awIvE/видео.html
It is difficult to safely dispose of nuclear waste, unfortunately.
technology has improved past the point where all the benefits and services they provides , can be replaced, time to take them out
Thanks for answering our dam questions.
Well, I won’t be damned after all!
What about Beaver dams
yep. all the other TMNT Turtle Lovers are going to be sadden to discover they were "supposed" to find fresh water tortoises in arroyo seco river! not no more! theyre GONE!!! heavy things move toward the end of the stream and sadly the heaviest or moving stuff gets knocked out of the ecosystem by means of the dam closing. and now the world is missing a Rare Variety. probably the Rarest variety of snapping turtles.
Still better than oil rigs and oil pipelines. Get rid of those oil refineries first.
here for the Dam joke
Produce green energy to save humanity and the planet
Vs
Stop disrupting a few species
Choose one.
Mmmm if we eat all the salmon?
Problem solved 🙄
Eventually remove when new sources of energy available
That pond rat: Wait honey, the apes had finally let my beard shaved 5:24
glorifying "saving" the ecosystem while glossing over the fact that dams are the most efficient and most widespread source of renewable energy? We need as many dams as possible to lower carbon emissions.
Oh dayum! 😲
I'm not removing that one! 🙃
I see a lot of benefit from dams. They mitigate flooding and temper high flows. A lot of species benefit from dams as they act as deep, slow water refuges in winter. Dams are only bad for migratory species, but other species may benefit.
Answer: no. The japanese will grill all the remaining scp 3000 colossal eels.
Frankly my dear I don't give a Dam!
We need electricity. Wouldn't removing dams be removing a source of power? Dams are awful for the ecosystem but there's gotta be situations where the power out weighs the cons
Now are there any dam questions?
Where can I get some dam bait?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Let's remove all hydrodynamic dams. Who needs renewable energy anyway?
Have you even watched the video?
@@HamedEmine yes I did. Maybe my irony didn't come through...
@@chrisX1722 Your intelligence did.
if you can deal with relocating a lot of people
The most important question is how can we build dams keep it going for humans and enabling it to not change the ecosystem for organisms
Yeah. We could maybe burn stuff to make electricity instead.
Did she repeat wat dude exactly said? “It’s unrealistic to remove all dams” no duh
Hi Niba! Great video!
There are new in-stream turbines for generating electricity that are fish friendly. This might make some more dam removals feasible. And I think there are inventions coming that will allow easier fish passage past dams.
As wind and solar energy develops, we may eventually have enough excess energy that we won’t need hydro power and we might be able to remove some more dams.
In 100 years the human population is going to be falling, and as it does we can start tearing down even more dams. It’ll be a time when we replenish and regenerate the earth after all the destruction we’ve created.
So they removed the dams and beavers came back and did what? Builded new dams.
Again a story about "not in my backyard" but green electricity is ok.
Pondering the potentials : galore- the beavers used to be 600 pounds , gaint rodents nibbling threw sequoia s , lake Mississippi
*Now this is where the fun begins*
That damn dam damage...
Who is the dam removal videos are addictive for some unknown reason
the Elwha dams where there to power the mills in port angeles I used to live there
Bruh weren't we supposed to be working on green energy and not destroying it? These people must work for the oil company 🤣
So we need to build more energy dense nuclear, so that we can remove more dams
Truth is we humanity need energy. Any energy we can get we must take away from environment. There is no way we can generate power (on earth) without hunting environment. Solar eliminate local vegetation, hydro local fish, nuclear is warming up local waters and causes distortions within the local bioms.
If anything, we should stop struggling and understand that change is inevitable.
We can of course use tech like solar power plant build in space (L2 should be the best spot) and convoyer it back to earth using macers. But it won't fix the problem this way we would deliver more entropy to local system. Change is inevitable.
Yes and we should all start riding horses again too.
We should start mining the moon for helium 3. This will surely bring us sustainable fusion energy!
we should if we could
@@user-cj4fu8qq9b Nasa is planning for a permanent moon base in 2025.
@@UtraVioletDreams yeah but what about transporting it back to earth?
If the Dams are bad then why Biewer 🦫 building its own ??? 🤔
Dam ! You Biewer 🦫
5:24 that boy clean 😤🥶🦫🦫
The dumbest question to ask!
So takeaway: salmon cannon is a thing. Just awesome takeaway.
There are no options that are free of consequences. Can dams be planned better? Most likely, but that does not mean you scrap the entire lot of them. Modify existing ones and plan the new ones better. If you get rid of the existing ones you will incur consequences in ways you do not want and do not see.
Watch. The. Video.
Lots of comments from ppl who didn't even watch.
Watching the video would get in the way of them screaming their bullshit. They are not here to discuss with a set of video.
How many cherries are in that bowl?
the biggest issue isn't the Dam
its the unregulated river from everything past the Dam
Beaver Dams; built every 5mile ^thicken water ways & increase wildlife&plant life in those regions
the issue of stopping & channeling 85% of the stream = bad, but adding beaver dams after?
Beaver dams are much smaller. I don't even think beavers build dams on big rivers, but correct me if I'm wrong.
@@Catlily5 i thought that after ~i missed the point of city usage to the draining of rivers as much as the using it for power
beaver dams are used to increase wetlands (that eventually can be turned into a river)
How much energy and water have been used for that expensive Arc'teryx jacket on PhD student "eco" militant girl?
No, small hydroelectric plants are helpful.
Everyone makes a difference 💜
sure, we can remove them if we wanna stop using electricy
This might be just me, but the audio of the host might benefit from just a fraction of a second longer delay. As it is now it seems like she's moving their lips after the sound.
ANSWER AT 6:30