Alternative energy

There is also a debate between preserving rivers for their aesthetic value versus meeting the energy needs of thousands of people. The latter has prevailed. Today "there are 600,000 river miles impounded behind dams. In contrast, only 10,000 river miles (not even half of 1%) are permanently protected under the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System." The only undammed river in the US that is longer than 600 miles is the Yellowstone .

Hydropower may be better on the environment than fossil-fuel sources, but its future is so uncertain that we may need to focus on other alternatives. According to the National Hydropower Association, "an increasing array of statutes, regulations, agency policies and court decisions have made the hydroelectric licensing process costly, arbitrary and time-consuming. A typical hydropower project takes 8 to 10 years to find its way through the licensing process. By comparison, a natural gas fired plant, which emits significant carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) gases, can typically be sited and licensed in 18 months. Given this uncertain climate, few investors are willing to risk their capital on new hydropower development. Furthermore, some project owners and operators contemplate abandonment of their projects rather than proceeding with relicensing."

Relicensing is a complex process in which private dams are re-evaluated every 30 to 50 years. The Federal Energy Regulatory Committee "considers anew whether it is appropriate to commit the public's river resources for private power generation FERC is now required, when deciding whether to issue a license, to consider not only the power generation potential of a river, but also to give equal consideration to energy conservation, protection of fish and wildlife, protection of recreational opportunities, and preservation of other aspects of environmental quality." Relicensing was infrequent until 1993, when hundreds of licenses began to expire. "The Hydropower Reform Coalition formed in 1992 to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to restore river ecosystems through the relicensing process." To the Coalition's dismay, a new bill is being considered called the Hydroelectric Licensing Process Improvement Act, which if passed, "would limit the abilities of federal agencies to protect natural resources," making relicensing easier for dam operators.

Some people favor dam removal so that healthy rivers and riverside communities can be restored, but American Rivers reports that most of the larger dams in the US "are not likely candidates for removal." In that case it may be wasteful not to use them to their full potential as long as they are still sturdy. A hydropower assessment conducted by the US Department of Energy found that 4,087 sites could be developed without constructing a new dam. "The assessment consider[ed] such values as wild/scenic protection, threatened or endangered species, cultural values and other non-power issues. If all of this potential were to be developed 22.7 million metric tons of carbon could be avoided." But this savings in carbon emissions pales when compared to the tonnage of silt and other material that must be handled if the river is to be restored to a freely-flowing state. All rivers will eventually silt up the dam. At this point future generations will have the choice to either keep the useless dam or remove it. Keeping the poorly consolidated silt and mud behind the dam is potentially dangerous. Removal costs will often exceed the value of power produced over the dam's lifetime.

Unlike other renewables such as wind and solar power that receive more praise than criticism, hydropower is a highly controversial issue. While it does have many merits, it too is like so many other sources of energy if we ignore the critics' warnings, we may not realize its full impact on our natural resources until it is too late.