Hydro in Nepal is a different kettle of fish, as your hiking in the middle of nowhere, you see these tiny metal shacks next to steep glacial streams, with power lines connected. These streams would create a fair chunk of power, which was then sold to India. The near by village had to struggle on solar, whilst the government made money selling the electricity to others for a profit
Nepal is actually a great example of the problems that hydro power can have. For those not aware of the details, Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world and suffers from severe energy shortages. Even in the two largest cities the the grid cannot provide continuous power even when scheduled, and all shops and businesses have their own generators.
However, a huge proportion of Nepal's income comes from tourism. There are two main areas - hiking and mountaineering, and rafting and kayaking. There has been a massive push to generate as much electricity as possible by hydro power, which means many of the rivers are now dammed. The Marsyandi, for example, used to be widely regarded as one of the best white water rivers in the world. Assuming the second dam has been finished on schedule, it is no longer possible to paddle it. The drive for more hydro-electricity is not just damaging the ecology, it's destroying one of the main sources of the country's income.
In most cases the lakes and reservoirs created by damming increase biodiversity in the areas they replaced (lakes filled with fish and water birds that otherwise wouldn't habitate the rivers they've replaced).
Firstly, do you have any evidence to support yet another unfounded claim? Secondly, you do not appear to understand what biodiversity actually means. It doesn't matter that there may be a higher number of species living in the area afterwards if the species that were there originally no longer have anywhere to live and go extinct. Biodiversity isn't just a local function, it's a global one. Loss of biodiversity is one of the main arguments against hydro power, and is why proposals such as the Severn barrage keep getting turned down. I'm sure there would be plenty of species that would enjoy living in a lake created by that, but the ones that rely on the wetlands and mudflats that currently exist would die. While I personally don't think that's enough of an argument in that specific case, you cannot simply pretend to the argument does not exist at all.
They also provide recreational areas for local residents.
You mean the local residents who have just had their entire towns drowned? Or just the ones that are lucky enough to be near the edge and only need to worry about the occasional flooding?
That's if they need to. Niagra falls for instance doesn't suffer from any of the afflictions you've mentioned???
The Niagara falls are not a river, it's a waterfall. I don't know if the Niagara
river suffers from any major problems caused by the hydro plant there, but if not that would be because it only diverts a small proportion of the water rather than damming the whole thing. On the other hand, if you look at examples such as the Three Gorges Dam or the Aswan dam things are rather different.
I pointed out in my other post how dirty comparable nuclear is.
No you didn't, you merely claimed this as fact without providing a shred of supporting evidence.
I'm not sure what else could be built in the same area to replace a hydro dam that comes anywhere near being as clean.
Yes, it seems clear that you are not sure. However, since you appear to have nothing to base your opinion on other than bare assertions backed up by more bare assertions, what you're not sure of does not appear particularly relevant.
I think this is not necessarily true, though its certainly true for the forseeable future.
Why do you think that? The only way to produce energy from matter/anti-matter annihilation is to start off with matter and anti-matter. Since anti-matter is not the sort of thing you find just floating around the place in large, easily mined deposits, the only way to get any is to produce it ourselves. It's exactly the same situation as hydrogen currently has, where you have to make it out of water because there isn't any hydrogen lying around. The difference is that there is a fair bit of hydrogen in space if only we could get to it easily, whereas there simply aren't large amounts of anti-matter anywhere.
