You can argue sunk carbon cost, but I’d like to see figures to support your claim. Building a concrete dam is very energy and carbon intensive on several levels. All the vegetation that is now under water rots and releases methane and co2. Additionally all that land is no longer available to grow vegetation to bank carbon. I’ve seen studies that say hydroelectric net is worse than nuke but better than natgas elect generation for climate warming potential.

You can argue sunk carbon cost, but I’d like to see figures to support your claim. Building a concrete dam is very energy and carbon intensive on several levels. All the vegetation that is now under water rots and releases methane and co2. Additionally all that land is no longer available to grow vegetation to bank carbon. I’ve seen studies that say hydroelectric net is worse than nuke but better than natgas elect generation for climate warming potential.

That’s an irresponsible claim. In British Columbia, most of our power is hydro-electric. Not only would this dryer increase my carbon footprint, it would cost more to run. The point is that electricity can be carbon neutral, whereas natural gas cannot.

I’ve got to stop picking apart these articles.

That’s an irresponsible claim. In British Columbia, most of our power is hydro-electric. Not only would this dryer increase my carbon footprint, it would cost more to run. The point is that electricity can be carbon neutral, whereas natural gas cannot.

I’ve got to stop picking apart these articles.