> I always assumed they would clear the area of trees first anyways. Why let the wood rot when you can cut it down and use it?
The spaces are often so vast that chopping down the wood could delay a project by impractical lengths of time.
> I get that trees are a store of carbon and if they get submerged they will break down and release it all, but surely over the lifespan of the dam that’s significantly lower than burning coal non-stop? Wouldn’t it be equivalent to a forest fire clearing the area?
My understanding is that microbial breakdown means a lot more carbon is released as methane vs. CO2 from fires — methane being a much more potent greenhouse gas.
Here’s one related paper I found
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/66/11/949/275427...
(I work for a hydro developer but I’m not an expert).
