James Bay Project Is a Series of Hydroelectric Dams on the La Grande River in Quebec, It

NATS 1840 - Lecture 16 - Hydroelectric Power - Canada produces approximately 60% of its electricity with hydro, and has approximately 90GW of installed hydro capacity, making it third largest hydroelectric energy producer in the world (behind China and Brazil) - Norway produces almost 100% of its energy from hydro - The James Bay Project is a series of hydroelectric dams on the La Grande River in Quebec - Other rivers were diverted into the La Grande to increase water flow - When rivers are blocked to create power dams, they flood the land around the river above the dam, creating reservoirs - Some individual reservoirs on the La Grande complex are over 1000 km2 in size, and some dams as tall as 50 stories, this is large scale technology - These rivers were far in the North of Quebec, where populations were sparse, industrialization non-existent, and native Canadian hunting and fishing a prominent part of the local economy - In total, the James bay facility generates approximately 15,000 megawatts, the power of 16 CANDU nuclear reactors - It is part of a larger Quebec electricity system that provides approximately 35,000MW, 90% + of which is hydroelectric power - The facility was not cheap, approximately 20 billion to build - Against initial resistance, the government built roads to the dam sites and eventually paid settlements to Cree and Inuit populations - In 1975 the government signed an agreement with Cree and Inuit, with a cash settlement and fishing and hunting rights to a large area - The project used extensive environmental consultation and analyses, another example of scientifically informed management of nature on a large scale (German silviculture) - This is a “green” project, hydroelectric power is considered, alongside solar, as a clean technology, carbon neutral and thus not a contributor to global warming - This is also a project done with the formal approval of native Canadian populations

Changing Nature - the claim is that environmental concerns were secondary to the motivation of maximizing efficiency and power generation - Flooding from the dams destroyed a wide variety of plant and animal life (beaver, muskrat, hare, otter, birds) - These were hunting areas that had been used productively by Cree for thousands of years. 83,000 km of shoreline was destroyed this way - The reservoir drops in winter when demand is high, and rises in summer when it is low - Dead trees surface to the top of the reservoirs and drift to the banks - Due to the fluctuating levels of water, most plants cannot grow immediately around the reservoir, leaving a large lifeless zone - Tributaries of rivers that are diverted to increase La Grande River flow drop in level, eliminating species such as sturgeon, muskrat and beaver - Heavy erosion of the banks of the La Grande also results from heavier flow of water - Millions of trees have been planted to encourage reforestation and to reduce the impact of erosion, but this only covers a small portion of the total facility - By 1977 the project had hired environmentalists and ecologists to help minimize the impacts, but their approach was cosmetic (moving around topsoil) or simply a technological fix (sills, smaller dams to raise local water level) - Interesting technological fix, rather than clear timber before flooding reservoir, the energy company harvested dead trees and burned them in a floating incinerator - At one point the company employed 45 biologists (in house scientists) in a survey of the area to determine other technological fixes that might minimize environmental impact - Certain species adapted as predicted, caribou were radiotagged and tracked as they established new calving grounds and migrated - In some cases local animal populations were wiped out by local hunters rather than see them die due to the changes in their environment - The flow of water in certain tributaries has to be managed, local populations might ask for increases in water volume - Decisions about managing water are made for fiscal and productivity reasons, in 1984 a redirection of water in the system combined with heavy rains to lead to a herd of 10,000 caribou drowning - The energy company has narrow interests, and thus cannot see all of the potential impacts of its decisions, in this case it did not anticipate the impact on a local migrating animal species - Scott’s point about scientific management applies here, that large scale management to maximize productivity leaves out local information with various costs and consequences - McCutcheon’s point is that changing the physical environment in a significant way can have consequences that you cannot predict, no matter how scientifically informed you are - Ecologists with the company predicted that fish populations would shift, species that thrived in large cold lakes and shallow rivers increased in population - Reduction in biodiversity still occurs even if some populations thrive - Another unintended consequence of the project was the increase in levels of poisonous methylmercury, the result of naturally occurring mercury being converted to a deadlier version by bacteria created from decaying plants - This mercury entered the food chain at the lowest levels, and thus concentrated in certain species of fish higher up the chain - As a result, native populations cannot eat the fish from the reservoirs without great health risks - The energy corporations’ solution to this has been to change native fishing patterns (social fix) to avoid the fish with highest concentrations of deadly mercury Is Hydroelectric Power “Green”? - The energy company makes the claim that the project is environmentally sound, they cite their millions spent on environmental studies - Note that they use science to determine the impact of the project, not to change the direction, scale or management of the project, environmental concerns are secondary to profit and productivity - In contrast to what environmentalists regularly claim, the company argues that northern ecosystems are adaptable to change - There are two reasons to question whether or not this is true, first, it takes time for the full impacts to be felt, and two, there was no independent data on the ecosystem before the project - The land has been changed on a major scale, and its use has been changed significantly for the local population - Making changes of this scale in more populated areas further south would have been impossible due to local resistance - There has also been an overall reduction in biodiversity, something similar to what happened in the case of 19th century German forestry - An important point to recognize is that the energy company was focused on maximizing power output, not minimizing environmental impact, and thus that the adaptation of the northern ecosystem was as much luck as planning