Dam scheme omits fundamental question: society
The Yukon government is backwards in its approach to the Next Generation Hydro project, says a report commissioned by the Wild Conservation Society Canada.
By Chuck Tobin on December 2, 2015
The Yukon government is backwards in its approach to the Next Generation Hydro project, says a report commissioned by the Wild Conservation Society Canada.
The 90-page report, released last Thursday, says before the government selects a site for the next major hydro dam, it should first ask Yukoners if they want to dam another major river.
“The territorial government decided that a dam should be built somewhere,” Dr. Donald Reid of the society says in a press release issued with the release of the report.
“But it didn’t start with the more important question of whether such a large dam should be built at all.
“The government’s decision was based on economic considerations, but it is not clear that the economic incentives for a dam outweigh the likely negative effects on fish, wildlife and other resources. That’s a question for a wider debate in society.”
In an interview this morning from his Whitehorse office, Reid said when he learned of the government’s $2-million plan to identify a site for the next major dam, he decided there was a need to get involved in the discussion.
Premier Darrell Pasloski has given the Yukon Development Corp. (YDC) a mandate to recommend one or more sites to the next major dam. The work was to be complete before the end of this year, though it’s expected it will take a few more months. (See story below.)
The society retained Al von Finster, a longtime fish biologist in the Yukon, to assist in the project and write the report.
It points out numerous negative impacts that are known to come with major hydro dams. As well, it raises concerns about the many unanswered questions still out there.
There’s a great deal of information about chinook salmon in the Yukon because of the importance of the chinook, particularly for Yukon First Nations, the report notes.
On the other hand, it says very little is known about the impact on other species like Arctic grayling and bull trout that spend their entire life cycles in the fresh water rivers.
“For example, there is uncertainty regarding which species of char occupy the upper Stewart, Pelly and Frances River drainages,” the report says.
“This is important because some char are species listed as of special concern under the Canadian Species At Risk Act.”
Reid said today while it is up to each individual to reduce his or her energy consumption, he realizes society needs energy. At some point, there has to be a hard look at increasing energy production, he added.
There are some interesting options on the table, said the career scientist, citing the increasing use of renewable wood supplies to generate electricity.
“Whatever we do, we are going to have some environmental impact, but these big dams on these big rivers are just more of a nightmare from the environmental point of view,” Reid said.
Ultimately, he said, the YDC will make a recommendation to the territorial cabinet, but the issue will become a political football.
There’s still a question about whether First Nations will accept a major dam in their traditional territories, he said.
Reid said he believes the proposal for a dam on the Teslin River was dropped because the Teslin Tlingit Council put forward an absolute veto on any notion the Teslin would be dammed.
The project team indicated last week the Teslin River option was dropped in the last cut because it did not stand up to the technical requirements.
Reid pointed out the six options for dam sites still remaining on the project team’s shortlist have all been designed to meet the forecast of energy needs 50 years from now.
“I think there needs to be a discussion around how real are those projects,” he said. He suggested the per capita patterns of rising energy demand today may not accurately reflect the patterns of tomorrow.
Reid said there are also emerging alternatives to electrical energy, such as the interest in using hydrogen to power vehicles.
While the report by von Finster and Reid goes into detail about many of the known impacts on fish and their habitat, there’s still a whole other discussion that needs to be had about the impact on other animals, he said.
Reid said he knows that proposals to flood vast tracts of land to create storage reservoirs will raise red flags among those wondering how flooding will affect the animals they depend on.
Reid and von Finster provided an insight to the work they were doing at a workshop hosted in late October by the Yukon Conservation Society (YCS) to discuss smaller, green energy alternatives to provide for the Yukon’s future energy demand.
The YCS maintains future demand can be met using a bouquet of smaller alternatives that have much less impact than a major dam.
Hydro dams provide renewable energy but it’s not green energy, the society insists.
Reid did note this morning while the development corporation is focussed on a major project, Yukon Energy, its subsidiary, is looking at smaller generating options to provide for growth in demand over the short- to medium-term.
Comments (8)
Up 5 Down 8
Frank de Jong on Dec 4, 2015 at 9:27 pm
I canoed the gorgeous Pelly River last summer from Faro to Pelly Crossing. Destroying the Granite Canyon with a hydro dam would be a travesty -- an unnecessary travesty since green power, conservation and hydro storage can supply the needed electricity. Dams are obsolete. Go green and let the rivers run free.
Up 15 Down 18
Ralph on Dec 3, 2015 at 6:57 pm
I've canoed the Pelly and Granite Canyon twice, so I'm familiar with the watershed. In addition to the tragedy of losing a wilderness jewel, the impoundment will result in nothing less than murder for profit as a result of increased mercury levels in Yukon River salmon. Even a slight amount of mercury can result in cognitive deficits (including ADHD) in humans, which can be deadly in in the winter when a slight misjudgement about ice conditions or necessary clothing can be fatal in seconds, particularly for a child.
The result of the recent Rupert River diversion (part of the James Bay Project by Hydro-Quebec) was described on HQ's web site; it has now vanished from the original page but is still available from the "wayback machine" at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120728085155/http://www.hydroquebec.com/rupert/en/introduction_respect.html
Is this "temporary" effect worth the "advantages" of hydropower? Here are the relevant paragraphs from HQ:
"Creation of the diversion bays submerged a large quantity of terrestrial organic matter that releases methylmercury as it undergoes bacterial decomposition. Consumed by all aquatic organisms, this form of mercury accumulates throughout the food chain.
The expected rise in mercury concentrations is temporary…Mercury levels will peak 5 to 10 years after impoundment of the diversion bays, then return to normal after 10 to 30 years, depending on the species. Mercury content were higher in fish-eating species like northern pike, lake trout and walleye than in species that feed on insects, plankton or benthos, like lake whitefish and sturgeon."
Up 22 Down 20
north_of_60 on Dec 3, 2015 at 5:21 pm
Wild Conservation Society & and a Fish Biologist write a report.
Would anyone expect it to be the least bit objective?
@MM is correct. Small scale green only works effectively in off-grid small scale situations. Most rabid greenies are not engineers, so they just can't grasp the scale of what's needed to meet the demand for electricity Yukoners expect.
Up 27 Down 20
Max Mack on Dec 3, 2015 at 3:41 pm
Small-scale, "green" energy projects are considerably more expensive than hydro, are far less efficient than hydro, and would require many, many, many more miles of cabling to tie into the grid (again, more expensive and disruptive to the environment).
Wild Conservation Society Canada has the attitude that a whack of small-scale "green" projects will have less of an impact than one relatively large-scale hydro dam. I find this to be a highly dubious proposition.
Up 14 Down 16
Next Generation Hydro on Dec 3, 2015 at 8:13 am
Learn more - You can find videos of the speaker events and a series of technical papers on the Next Generation Hydro website, http://nextgenerationhydro.ca/files/uploads/2014/12/Providing-a-Context-for-Next-Generation-Hydro.pdf
Up 13 Down 16
Very negative report that is misleading. on Dec 2, 2015 at 6:05 pm
Just look at Newfoundland's latest project. It is removing a lot of fossil fueled energy on the east coast.
Go to Europe and you will find out that small hydro is not economical.
There is a lot of work to be done and this is very anti development.
Think of our kids future. We can't keep burning fossil fuels.
The project can add environmental, industrial, social and economic benefits to human and animal life just like the ones in Alberta, Quebec, BC, Ontario and NFL just to name a few.
Very anti future for our earth and the Yukon and especially wild life.
Up 38 Down 16
Stu Whatman on Dec 2, 2015 at 5:19 pm
The real question is how we can meet future demand an a cost-effective and environmentally friendly manner. Dams are not the answer and they will be opposed by First Nations.
Nuclear power when produced on a small scale is something people should not fear. Many other types of energy generation including solar and wind and energy from below ground have merit and they should not be dismissed by government.
Up 10 Down 2
Tom on Dec 2, 2015 at 4:41 pm
$847 Million?
How much did it cost to build a whatever power plant in Vancouver or Edmonton?
No, we don't want a dust producing plant here. We have the natural resource water. But it needs to be in a cost relation that makes sense. Common sense.