Not All Hydropower Is Climate-Considerate

While some hydropower facilities release almost no greenhouse gases, others can actually be worse than burning fossil fuels.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Solar. Wind. Hydropower. These renewable energy sources are all much better for the climate than fossil fuels, right? Well, yes for wind and solar. But it turns out that the picture for hydropower is more complicated than we think.

A new study by the Environmental Defense Fund analyzed the climate impacts of 1,500 hydropower facilities across the globe. That accounts for about half of hydropower generation worldwide. The researchers looked at whether the facilities behave as a greenhouse gas sink or as a source. To figure this out, they investigated all the different components that help determine a hydropower facility’s greenhouse gas emissions.

“There are so many factors that contribute to greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower—but essentially, the majority of greenhouse gas emissions arise from the reservoir itself, as vegetation and soils are submerged underwater in the dam that is used for the hydropower generation.”   


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Ilissa Ocko, a senior climate scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund and co-author of the study. As the submerged vegetation decays, it releases methane or CO2.

“The larger the surface area of the reservoir, the more greenhouse gases are going to be emitted from that reservoir. Also, the temperature plays a role as well—how warm the reservoir is will affect how much greenhouse gases are produced and emitted from the reservoir.”

Through their analysis, Ocko and her co-author Steven Hamburg, also with the Environmental Defense Fund, discovered that the climate impacts of hydropower run the gamut. The good news is that some facilities perform just as well as wind and solar. But shockingly, more than 100 facilities are actually worse for the climate than fossil fuels. The study is in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. [Ilissa B. Ocko and Steven P. Hamburg, Climate impacts of hydropower: Enormous differences among facilities and over time]

This finding doesn’t mean we should forget about hydropower.

“But we just need to be careful to make sure that we have climate benefits. There are a lot of situations where hydropower can be on par with wind and solar. So it really depends on the specific facility.”

—Annie Sneed

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe