New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

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.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe