If we had sustainable energy, we could ignore the goddamn Middle East

Yes, that's why I tried to educate stupid Tom that the Lower Snake dams issue didn't contradict my statement that the Pacific Northwest approves of hydropower dams.

The ecosystems that artificial lakes create are limited and unstable because of huge fluctuations in the lake level. The shoreline can't serve as a habitat for anything because it's alternately high and dry and underwater, unlike a natural lake.

There's yet another consideration: given the reduction in the overall water supply and decreases in rainfall, attention has to be paid to the fact that dams, ostensibly built to store water, actually waste it. The artificial lakes they form dramatically increase evaporation loss; furthermore, water percolates into the surrounding soil. And if a downstream lake is low, filling an upstream reservoir is kind of pointless anyway. 

The take I've seen on hydroelectric dams is that while they do undisputably harm the river ecosystems, the power they generate is clean and we don't have to burn fossil fuels to generate it. So it's kind of a tradeoff.

And of course on the Columbia/Snake system, the dams allow navigation and shipping. Idaho can float all their potatoes downstream.

The title of Kevin's thread is clean energy & claims to be for hydro power  But evidence is presented showing liberals are against hydro power, he waffles. 

Those dams provide clean electrical power for 3m homes, but Kevin is for clean energy except when he is against it. 

"Liberals are against hydro power" is a stupid generalization, and therefore false. Do you mean ALL liberals? SOME liberals?

Here's an illustration for you. People named Tom are rapists.

You disagree? Here's half a dozen rape convictions in Arizona alone. The offenders were all named Tom. So, indubitably, people named Tom are rapists.

You argue like a child.