This comment has been removed by a moderator.

The question should be how much damage does hydropower make in comparison to the alternatives?

The question should be how much damage does hydropower make in comparison to the alternatives?



What alternatives? All the intermittent renewable sources require hydropower to back them up.

This article smells like propaganda. ....

... it's clear that the author is pursuing a narrative that green energy is bad.


Yes, after careful reading of this link, I think you are definitely right about that. This link IS just a load of anti-green energy propaganda and thus not a true science link. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this author has some sort of financial and/or political vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.
If this isn't just a load of anti-green energy propaganda, it would be a big mystery why the author didn't do the OBVIOUS thing of COMPARING the damage done by green energy with that of non-green energy; OBVIOUSLY it is how those two things COMPARE that is relevant here, not the absolute damage from each without comparison.

Of course the author intended to find negatives in green energy, but it doesn't mean what they found was false. We should practice accepting "reality" and not simply deny anything that didn't agree with our believes. Of course, the actual "reality" is much bigger than this one study, the fossil fuel energy itself can destroy every animal & habitat we know today.

Smoke from coal plants kills many more animals than wind turbines do...
...some sort of financial and/or political vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.
...the fossil fuel energy itself can destroy every animal & habitat we know today.
Intermittent renewables are not alternative to fossil fuels, they complement each other in a symbiotic relationship.
So let's face the reality: wind and solar are in bed with fossil fuels, mainly with coal and gas(fracking).