Too Much Hype for Hydropower?

During my morning surfing looking for new topics for this blog, I came across this post regarding hydropower. While this blogger hits on the normal arguments of damage to ecology:

Nevertheless, it seems to me that a much easier argument against hydropower can be made: the adverse effect on ecology. Freshwater streams and rivers were formally populated heavily during the fall season by salmon and seagoing trout (steelhead trout) returning to spawn.

They also add the following article that cites a study from Brazil's National Institute for Research in the Amazon in Manaus. The study goes on to say that hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels.

While the author of the study goes on to say that it is not something to worry about right now, it still brings into question another source of "renewable" energy that the environmental movement brings out to combat new nuclear plants.

I could not agree more with East Cathay's conclusion on how to combat carbon emissions:

Nuclear power is the way to go if you discard the hype, the horror stories about radiation polluting environments for gazillions of years. Nukes are the least environmentally harmful form of power generation.

Environmental arguments debunked yet again.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need more nuclear power in the United States, but I caution getting away from other sources of electricity like hydro. It is vital that we maintain a mix of generation sources so that we are not left "holding the bag" in 20 years when we could need twice the amount of electricity in the US.