> it turns out that Hydro is actually worse than all fossil fuels in terms of GHGs
That's a bad comparison. You can't simply compare them without any context.
Hydro has a one-time high carbon cost, while fossil fuels have a small ongoing cost. You can't simply state that one is better than the other, you need at minimum to restrict the comparison into a time-frame.
(By the way, nobody does a large hydro project without first cleaning out the previous vegetation nowadays. Historical data isn't good either.)
It's not a one time cost is what I'm saying.
The trees in the forest that is flooded decompose slowly, and release methane the entire time.
Specifically to BC, the entire ecosystem also got screwed, the fish in tributaries, up and down from the dams have mercury poisoning.
It is a constant amount emitted, for generating power during the entire lifetime of the plant. While fossil fuel plants emit an amount that is proportional to the power they generate.
How is that helpful though?
They're basing it on the dams actual theoretical use.
If they don't use it, the emissions will still occur, but we get nothing from it.
That's a bad comparison. You can't simply compare them without any context.
Hydro has a one-time high carbon cost, while fossil fuels have a small ongoing cost. You can't simply state that one is better than the other, you need at minimum to restrict the comparison into a time-frame.
(By the way, nobody does a large hydro project without first cleaning out the previous vegetation nowadays. Historical data isn't good either.)