It seems to me that hydropower is one of those renewable energies on the fringe of those energy sources considered green, i.e. having minimal impact on the environment.  Humans have been harnessing water power in one form or another for centuries.  But let's face it our sheer numbers and technological advancements are crowding out nature with deleterious effects. Here in America, many hydropower projects are quite controversial, especially for people who love the outdoors and like to enjoy nature in its undisturbed form.  I can certainly relate. 

In my opinion, Iceland may be a unique case in this regard.  With only 300,000 inhabitants in a country approximately the size of Kentucky, open wilderness is not a pressing issue.  I know first hand.  Once you leave the capital city of Reykjavik, there are few other cities of any notable size and lots of open spaces in between.  In fact, the interior of Iceland is almost entirely uninhabited and probably never will be. 

Iceland is a country blessed with a massive abundance of renewable energy, especially hydropower and geothermal.  And, Icelanders have been utilizing hydropower for over a century now.  Many of the countries hydroelectric plants are relatively small scale producing between 28 - 270 MW.  Compare that with a massive plant like the Hoover dam power plant which produces over 2000 MW.  But recently, a very controversial power plant was completed which sparked a lot of controversy and reignited the environmental debate in Iceland, especially hydropower.  That project was the Kárahnjúka hydroelectric power plant (690 MW), completed in 2007, which was built to supply electricity to the new Alcoa Fjaardal Aluminum Smelter in East Iceland.  This plant was built in the highlands of Iceland and flooded a large area of pristine wilderness including a long, deep canyon. 

Those opposed felt that the government was selling Iceland's pristine nature to outside entities for little real economic gain for the masses.  On the other side of the argument were those who were looking to monetize one of Iceland's few natural resources to grow the economy in the face of dwindling fish stocks, once Iceland's chief source of foreign currency.  Let's face it, every other country is doing so.  Whether that natural resource is oil or natural gas or coal or timber or agricultural land.  But Iceland has none of those assets.

Therein lies the dilemna. Can Iceland survive as a pristine toursist destination, thriving on tourism and the related service industries?  Or should it capitalize on its abundant hydropower and geothermal power potential, selling energy to power intensive industries like aluminum smelters and the like?  The answer may be somewhere in between.  If handled properly, this tiny island nation could very well steer itself through the choppy waters of industrial growth in a way that few other countries have.  And, in that sense  may end up being a model for other nations.  Time will tell.  But there is evidence that the government of Iceland is trying to strike this balance with plans to develop hydrogen to fuel its cars, trucks and fishing boats and strict environmental regulations. I am not saying that Iceland is perfect and that they have all these issues handled. But, because this nation is a relative newcomer to industrialization, coupled with small population numbers and a remote location, they may be able to learn from the disastrous mistakes that other nations have made and come out in better shape.