California Begins World's Largest Dam Removal/River Restoration Projects (msn.com) 135
Four California dams are now being dismantled, reports the Arizona Republic:
Sometime in January, work crews will start drilling a tunnel at the base of a concrete dam on the Klamath River, near the California-Oregon border. The tunnel will begin the process of drawing down the reservoir behind the dam, known as Copco-1, and prepare the site to remove the dam from the river. Time was, removing a dam in the West was unheard of. Dams were built to store water, generate electricity, manage the use of rivers for growers. But environmental activists started telling the story of how dams damage a river and its ecosystem, and Indigenous communities have told their stories of how dams took away traditional resources and food sources. And so, in recent years, we've seen more dams removed. In Arizona, the removal of a hydroelectric dam on Fossil Creek led to the restoration of a sparkling waterway and a habitat for fish, birds and other wildlife.
California's dam-removal project began in June, reports the Los Angeles Time, when the smallest of the four dams was torn down by crews using heavy machinery. "The other three dams are set to be dismantled next year, starting with a drawdown of the reservoirs in January." "The scale of this is enormous," said Mark Bransom, CEO of the nonprofit Klamath River Renewal Corp., which is overseeing dam removal and river restoration efforts. "This is the largest dam removal project ever undertaken in the United States, and perhaps even the world." The $450-million budget includes about $200 million from ratepayers of PacifiCorp, who have been paying a surcharge for the project. The Portland-based utility — part of billionaire Warren Buffett's conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway — agreed to remove the aging dams after determining it would be less expensive than trying to bring them up to current environmental standards.
The dams were used purely for power generation, not to store water for cities or farms. "The reason that these dams are coming down is that they've reached the end of their useful life," Bransom said. "The power generated from these dams is really a trivial amount of power, something on the order of 2% of the electric utility that previously owned the dams." An additional $250 million came through Proposition 1, a bond measure passed by California voters in 2014 that included money for removing barriers blocking fish on rivers.
Crews hired by the contractor Kiewet Corp. have been working on roads and bridges to prepare for the army of excavators and dump trucks. "We have thousands of tons of concrete and steel that make up these dams that we have to remove," Bransom said. "We'll probably end up with 400 to 500 workers at the peak of the work..."
In addition to tearing down the dams, the project involves restoring about 2,200 acres of reservoir bottom to a natural state.
California's dam-removal project began in June, reports the Los Angeles Time, when the smallest of the four dams was torn down by crews using heavy machinery. "The other three dams are set to be dismantled next year, starting with a drawdown of the reservoirs in January." "The scale of this is enormous," said Mark Bransom, CEO of the nonprofit Klamath River Renewal Corp., which is overseeing dam removal and river restoration efforts. "This is the largest dam removal project ever undertaken in the United States, and perhaps even the world." The $450-million budget includes about $200 million from ratepayers of PacifiCorp, who have been paying a surcharge for the project. The Portland-based utility — part of billionaire Warren Buffett's conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway — agreed to remove the aging dams after determining it would be less expensive than trying to bring them up to current environmental standards.
The dams were used purely for power generation, not to store water for cities or farms. "The reason that these dams are coming down is that they've reached the end of their useful life," Bransom said. "The power generated from these dams is really a trivial amount of power, something on the order of 2% of the electric utility that previously owned the dams." An additional $250 million came through Proposition 1, a bond measure passed by California voters in 2014 that included money for removing barriers blocking fish on rivers.
Crews hired by the contractor Kiewet Corp. have been working on roads and bridges to prepare for the army of excavators and dump trucks. "We have thousands of tons of concrete and steel that make up these dams that we have to remove," Bransom said. "We'll probably end up with 400 to 500 workers at the peak of the work..."
In addition to tearing down the dams, the project involves restoring about 2,200 acres of reservoir bottom to a natural state.
Billionaire Saves Money, Clean Power Lost (Score:5, Informative)
Time was, removing a dam in the West was unheard of. Dams were built to store water, generate electricity, manage the use of rivers for growers. But environmental activists started telling the story of how dams damage a river and its ecosystem, and Indigenous communities have told their stories of how dams took away traditional resources and food sources.
Real Reason:
The Portland-based utility — part of billionaire Warren Buffett's conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway — agreed to remove the aging dams after determining it would be less expensive than trying to bring them up to current environmental standards. The dams were used purely for power generation, not to store water for cities or farms.
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely.
They say "only 2%" but it's one (small) project. If they were, say, PG&E owned, then 2% is an extremely large amount of power generation. Were they efficient? Did they produce electricity, free of charge? Did they create wetlands (which are beneficial for flood control and wildlife production, amongst other things)?
Cool Vids (Score:4, Interesting)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I liked the ones from Condit Dam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
But I agree with the starter of this thread, you usually read "costs for improvement are higer than costs for demolishing". Not that it's a bad thing. Sure, clean energy is important, but restoring the ecosystem is as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's really cool.
I have to wonder: will the newly exposed riverside land have increased market value, and does anyone already own it? They don't typically keep the land under the water a part of a platting.
Re:Billionaire Saves Money, Clean Power Lost (Score:4, Informative)
The total power generation involved is almost trivial. The four dams had the following nameplate capacity:
- Copco 1 Dam: 20 MW
- Copco 2 Dam: 27 MW
- Iron Gate Dam: 18 MW
- John C. Boyle Dam: 18 MW
That's 83 MW. These can be inexpensively replaced by a handful of windmills or a couple hundred acres of solar panels. As for your other questions:
Were they efficient? Did they produce electricity, free of charge?
Three of the four dams were built as hydropower plants in the late 1950s to mid 1960s. The other was built in 1922 and probably had its generators replaced at least once. The older the plant, the more money it costs in maintenance and insurance. The plants may also have relied on technologies that are less common these days, meaning extra training time for newer staff that may not be as applicable elsewhere, meaning fewer employees recruited, leading to higher pay requirements, and replacing hydroelectric turbines (which PacifiCorp was facing) can be a costly process. The cost efficiency compared to new projects elsewhere may not have been there, and that's what the company is claiming.
Did they create wetlands (which are beneficial for flood control and wildlife production, amongst other things)?
None of these were meant for flood control. That's handled by upstream dams. The dams have impacted surrounding habitats by limiting sediment flow necessary to address downstream erosion and causing stagnant water in some areas that limits growth. Dams also limit opportunities for wildlife downstream, which impacts surrounding wildlife and vegetation. While this is the largest dam removal at least in US history, dam removals elsewhere have generally seen growth in wildlife in the restored river, not losses, as the water becomes available over a larger area. This could also lead to increased economic opportunity along the river as people get more space for recreation.
Should not remove elec production yet ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The total power generation involved is almost trivial. The four dams had the following nameplate capacity: - Copco 1 Dam: 20 MW - Copco 2 Dam: 27 MW - Iron Gate Dam: 18 MW - John C. Boyle Dam: 18 MW
That's 83 MW. These can be inexpensively replaced by a handful of windmills or a couple hundred acres of solar panels.
That is the sort of calculation one makes **after** a state is no longer suffering brownouts regularly, **after** a state has massively increased the demand for electricity (ex. the switch to EVs). Not **before**. It prematurely to remove electric production. Any new wind or solar projects should be adding capacity not displacing existing capacity, especially **green** capacity. The damns could provide green backup those wind and solar projects, what will the backs be otherwise? Nat gas?
The cost efficiency compared to new projects elsewhere may not have been there, and that's what the company is claiming.
Cost efficiency is also an argument to make after there are no more brownouts and after consumption has massively increased. Its still premature to remove capacity.
Re: (Score:3)
Their intention is clearly to make people use less electricity by making it more expensive and less available.
CA voters go for feels good, not results (Score:2)
Their intention is clearly to make people use less electricity by making it more expensive and less available.
The green movement hates damns, so we get some greenwashing from politicians. Unintended consequences are irrelevant. California voters vote on the feels good intention of a politician, not results nor outcome.
Re: (Score:3)
"A couple hundred acres" of windmills/solar...
That's a huge amount of space dedicated to solar - immensely ecologically destructive.
As opposed to the river dams, which aren't in the least bit ecologically destructive (fish don't swim upriver to these dams to spawn).
Seems like it'd make more sense to build new dams.
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the reason the cost efficiency wasn't there is that relicensing would require PacifiCorp to build fish ladders up and past the dams because the fish swim upriver to spawn. Without the dams, the fish will swim further upriver to previous spawning grounds.
Re: (Score:2)
The dams have impacted surrounding habitats by limiting sediment flow necessary to address downstream erosion and causing stagnant water in some areas that limits growth.
isnt the disctintion arbitrary? dont mosqitoes love stagnant water? the detriment to some species is a benefit to others.
Re: (Score:2)
Two percent times four dams... that's 8% of the total power generation in the state. Which small city shall we brown out today?
Which will eventually translate into about a 30% increase in rates, good ol' supply and demand and the 3x factor that apples to all costs in California.
The wetlands issue is significant. Dams create a huge amount of shoreland habitat that would otherwise not exist (riverbanks are not an equivalent habitat).
Yet another reason I'm glad I moved back to the Northern Wastes.
Re: (Score:2)
But environmental activists started telling the story of how dams damage a river and its ecosystem, and Indigenous communities have told their stories of how dams took away traditional resources and food sources.
The way I look at it, the dam survived a hundred years [wikipedia.org] of productivity, but environmentalists finally prevailed in taking it down.
Re: (Score:2)
The way I look at it,
look harder: https://www.americanrivers.org... [americanrivers.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
almost. yeah, i yield, my answer was a bit of a stunt. i have no idea which of those logos, if any, represents that warren conglomerate. maybe none, maybe a few. maybe guessing that is just as baseless as squarely attributing the fate of such an operation to a river preservation ngo. yeah, have a twisted mind sometimes.
(as an aside i have zero a priori trust in these kind of organizations. i am well aware that there are goodwill people in the world. they don't tend to be in good relationship with power, th
Re: (Score:2)
So the 100 year old dam reached its 100 year lifespan and was cheaper to remove than replace or repair. Where exactly are you finding your conspiracy theory?
His point is quite clear. A billionaire will save money not updating the power generation equipment. Capacity will be lost, **green** capacity in particular. In a state suffering regular brownouts and one that is massively increasing electric consumptions (ex EVs). New wind and solar should be adding to capacity not displacing existing capacity, especially green capacity. You don't remove capacity under the electrification is done, until the brownouts are over. The billionaires will probably built a nat gas
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So yet another reason why Californians will not be able to charge their enviro-friendly EV on those hot summer days in Cali ?
Or will Cali try to import more electricity from other states, like the nuke plants in Arizona? Or the hydro power in Washington-Oregon border?
Coal plants in Utah & Arizona be so yesterday so we sold 'em.
Yeah ! This Is Cali ! We Be GREEN ... cuz we getz our sparks from other states ! Yeah !
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Your time might be better spent lobbying the Texas legislature to stop Californians from Californizing the Texas housing market. https://www.wsj.com/economy/ho... [wsj.com] That
Re: (Score:2)
Your time might be better spent lobbying the Texas legislature to stop Californians from Californizing the Texas housing market.
Texas doesn't need any help to screw their own housing situation. Look at property taxes in Travis county. If you own a home you will literally pay more taxes in much of Texas than you will in California. (If you don't, you'll pay for someone else's taxes, which is even worse.)
Re: (Score:2)
Just how much wind power do you think Texas can export to California?! Texas is on a totally separate interconnect [epa.gov] - there is not real way to move bulk power between them. This is the same reason the 2021 Texas blackouts [wikipedia.org] were so bad - there was no way to import lots of power into Texas to cover the shortfall in generation.
Re: (Score:2)
"They are importing wind power from Texas and Idaho where oiled interests are more than thrilled to have the revenue from the wind turbines installed on their property."
Hell, CA is importing power from Utah. Coal power. We can't produce enough power as it is. Every megawatt should be stretched.
Re: Billionaire Saves Money, Clean Power Lost (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. The fact that CA is purchasing out of state power (and non-renewables, too) doesn't make you scratch your head?
We do not have enough power in our state. And that problem will grow.
I stand by my comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of Norway, they are GREEEEEEN because they have a lot of hydro power.
They also export a lot of oil. But *THEY* don't use it so it's fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah ! This Is Cali ! We Be GREEN ... cuz we getz our sparks from other states ! Yeah !
Funnily similar, and not to pile onto the Democrat states, but I've been watching the news where Chicago keeps claiming how open and welcoming it is to all immigrants, but they are now shouting for state and federal (read: your) funds. It's easy to offer a ride to the airport when you're making someone else to pay for the cab.
Re:Billionaire Saves Money, Clean Power Lost (Score:5, Informative)
PacifiCorp (Score:2)
The full paragraph from LA Times says the owner is PacifiCorp (also Porltand-based), not PGE:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weat... [msn.com]
The $450-million budget includes about $200 million from ratepayers of PacifiCorp, who have been paying a surcharge for the project. The Portland-based utility — part of billionaire Warren Buffett’s conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway — agreed to remove the aging dams after determining it would be less expensive than trying to bring them up to current environmental standards.
This article also names PacifiCorp as the current owner:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The infrastructure was constructed between 1903 and 1962, the first elements engineered and built by the California Oregon Power Company ("Copco"). That company merged into Pacific Power and Light in 1961, and is now the energy company PacifiCorp. PacifiCorp continues to operate the project for profit, producing a maximum of 169 MW from seven generating stations. The company owns all but one of the dams.
Re: (Score:2)
Natural beaver dams (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Power Shortage? (Score:2, Insightful)
If environmental activists are now getting dams removed then exactly what method of power generation are they suggesting it get replaced with?
Re: (Score:2)
If environmental activists are now getting dams removed then exactly what method of power generation are they suggesting it get replaced with?
There's videos on YouTube of people from some environmental advocacy group or another (a group that I'm just kicking myself to remember) advocating for natural gas and nuclear fission to replace hydroelectric dams, videos from TV in the 1970s or so. This was likely before the meltdown at Three Mile Island scared people off nuclear fission since I believe it difficult for any environmental group to advocate for nuclear fission after that, but perhaps I'm mistaken and it wasn't until Chernobyl in 1986 that f
Re: (Score:2)
You prove there is a serious threat to birds and it's not more of the BS pushed out for suckers. Some of it is so did you find some real data or were you suckered?
I do suggest you look up CATS and glass buildings and windows if you actually care about birds so much.
What you don't know is bats actually are harmed by wind generators in a significant way unlike birds. More needs to be done to deter bats.
Snark: no windmill blade ever harmed a bird unless it got stuck in the gears or grindstone... wind generator
Re:Cats vs. eagles (Re:Power Shortage?) (Score:4, Insightful)
Tall shiny glass buildings kill more birds than windmills.
If you actually care about birds, then you need to be campaigning for films or other appliques to protect them from collisions with mirror-finish office buildings if you want to be taken seriously.
You don't, of course. You're just clutching at straws for arguments to use when opposing clean, safe forms of power generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why they need to buy it if they already have (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why they need to buy it if they already hav (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Why they need to buy it if they already h (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly needed seismic upgrades, which are expensive and highly recommended in earthquake territory. A couple down the road that were approaching their hundred year birthday needed upgrading for seismic reasons and while doing that the power houses were upgraded/replaced. Can't find the price quickly for the closest one, it wasn't cheap. The next one down the river cost C$800 million, and ended up producing 114MW (was 105MW). Plus years of road closures.
While a Crown corporation may decide to upgrade, a pr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
From the article you cited: "The model revealed that when the size of the solar farm reaches 20% of the total area of the Sahara, it triggers a feedback loop."
From this [forbes.com] article: "1.2% of the Sahara desert is sufficient to cover all of the energy needs of the world in solar energy".
But I understand that you want to be careful about this, lot's of uncertainties here. So, why don't we *start*
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. It seems that the Forbes article uses a grossly overestimated insolation, probably because the solar irradiance at the top atmosphere was taken as a starting point while the Nature article (after some clicks ultimately behind what you linked) uses a value that seems to be corrected for atmospheric attenuation and other factors.
For the record, the Sahara as a "giant solar farm, capable of meeting four times the world’s current energy demand" already has the 20% area coverage factor in it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Power Shortage? (Score:4, Informative)
This reduces the planet's albedo and effectively increases the temperature of the surface.
Tell us you know nothing about solar panels without telling us.
The backs of solar panels are white. Virtually no fixed installation solar panels are attached directly to the mounting surface, they are on racks. This means there is airflow beneath the panels which carries heat away and, as heat rises, upwards. As the top of the panel is dark, the bulk of near infrared radiation from the hot panels goes upwards as well. Unless trapped by the greenhouse effect, this heat is also radiated away from the planet.
When you put solar panels above a surface, whether that surface is the ground or a roof, that surface receives less insolation. That is to say, it is heated less by sunlight.
No number of fixed rigid solar panel installations will increase global warming. They universally reduce the amount of solar energy stored in the land or buildings below. The only kind of PV solar installation which increases heating of anything is when you use a flexible panel glued (or attached with PSA) to a surface. In many installations an insulating layer is used between the panel and the surface in order to reduce this heating effect.
I would think, that if done properly hydro energy is cleaner than solar... Clearly, Californians think differently.
Lots of Californians think the way you do. And in some cases it might actually be accurate, and it has to be considered on a case by case basis. But there are lots of reasons why a hydro installation has ecological and environmental impact. Dams are made out of a lot of concrete, and generally the kind that emits CO2 while curing. Dams require maintenance that solar farms don't. The vegetation remaining on land covered up by water decomposes anaerobically, releasing virtually all of its carbon instead of sequestering it in soil as typically happens with aerobic decomposition of vegetation. The dams interfere with fish, including the salmon which are a major part of the economic success of the region and which are also of critical importance to indigenous peoples of the coastal region.
The situation is vastly more complicated than you imagine it to be, and there are ample writings online for you to peruse to bring yourself up to speed on these subjects. Go forth and consume them if you want to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
The chemical reaction in making Portland cement releases a lot of CO2, and some more is made from burning fuels in to provide heat for the process. I can't find any place where it is claimed that CO2 is released while concrete cures. In fact, as concrete ages, the cement reabsorbs about 60% of the CO2 released during the chemical process of making it. (none of the CO2 from fossil fuels used in the heating process
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's safe to leave dams that have reached the end of their lives still working, same as nuke plants. Nothing can ever go wrong...
Our oldest hydro dam is 110 years old and still operational, though it is small as these things go nowadays. And it is getting a refit, so it's gonna be providing power for a long time to come yet.
https://www.hydro.mb.ca/corpor... [hydro.mb.ca]
Re: (Score:2)
> If environmental activists are now getting dams removed then exactly what method of power generation are they suggesting it get replaced with?
Many believe we need to de-industrialize and not use power at all.
Many others believe we can power the world with strawmen and trolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should only burn straw men. Expose trolls to sunlight; they turn to stone and can be used in building structures.
Re: (Score:2)
anyone who knows anything about water in the west (Score:2)
knows it's a complete clusterfuck.
Before there was a drought the Klamath river was being overdrawn. Now that there's permanent drought it's really, really overdrawn.
Meanwhile everyone who wants some perspective about dams in the Northwest should read "Salmon without Rivers".
Dams do non trivial amounts of far reaching environmental damage. It's just all baked into our current landscape so everyone thinks 100,000 salmon coming up the Columbia is normal.
it's pretty fucking far from normal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: anyone who knows anything about water in the w (Score:2)
Very little of California is under drought. Certainly not up by Klamath. Sometimes you need to get a new newspaper. Welcome to 2023.
Dams reach end of useful life, get taken down (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, let's all get up in arms over this.
Re: (Score:2)
As is often the case, there's more to the story (Score:4, Insightful)
1. The voters in the area voted by a large measure to oppose this action. [ballotpedia.org] Since it was only able to be an advisory vote, the voters were ignored completely (so keep that in mind next time you hear the advocates for this policy ranting about their love of "democracy").
2. The federal analysis of this plan [klamathrenewal.org] found that it would reduce the water available to fight wildfires in the area, which will increase the severity and damage from such fires in the future (these reservoirs were NOT just used for electric power, they were water sources for fighting wild fires in the region). Of course, under the current political leadership in California, we no longer have wildfires, right?
3. The federal analysis also pointed out that these reservoirs were not DIRECTLY previously used as a water source for residences and crop irrigation, they WERE used as a backup source to make up for supplies when other sources were insufficient, and THAT capacity will be eliminated.
4. The federal analysis found that this will affect the ground water, probably rendering an unknown number of private wells in the area unusable. This will affect the value of private property in the area (as will the loss of "lakefront" status for a bunch of private property and other effects that even the feds did not comment on but which WILL happen to unnamed private people).
Stupid short-sighted political actions like this, taken to appease some vital but small group of partisan political supporters, which are done by political hacks without the brain cells to completely consider EVERY reason people built some particular bit of infrastructure something like a century ago, are almost certain to have side effects that the people implementing the current POLITICAL policy do not anticipate (or perhaps DO anticipate but want everybody to assume were mistakes rather than malicious actions). Certainly there are always POSSIBLE mitigations for side effects for nearly all political policy choices, but there are rarely any enforceable guarantees that the mitigations will be IMPLEMENTED - the mitigations rarely provide political benefits to the political people implementing the policies.
It's possible that removing these dams could be good for the environment and area tribes, and thus good for certain politicians... but as a general rule I find that when politicians lie in the justifications for their policy choices, lie about the side effects, and lie about who will be affected, it's probably a good idea to look into the details they'd rather you not look at. This is a "done deal", but in the future people need to not be propagandized morons who accept the inevitable bogus claims of "global warming" or "climate change" driving an increase in water problems, or wildfires in the region.
Re:As is often the case, there's more to the story (Score:5, Insightful)
1. The voters in the area voted by a large measure to oppose this action. [ballotpedia.org] Since it was only able to be an advisory vote, the voters were ignored completely (so keep that in mind next time you hear the advocates for this policy ranting about their love of "democracy").
2. The federal analysis of this plan [klamathrenewal.org] found that it would reduce the water available to fight wildfires in the area, which will increase the severity and damage from such fires in the future (these reservoirs were NOT just used for electric power, they were water sources for fighting wild fires in the region). Of course, under the current political leadership in California, we no longer have wildfires, right?
3. The federal analysis also pointed out that these reservoirs were not DIRECTLY previously used as a water source for residences and crop irrigation, they WERE used as a backup source to make up for supplies when other sources were insufficient, and THAT capacity will be eliminated.
4. The federal analysis found that this will affect the ground water, probably rendering an unknown number of private wells in the area unusable. This will affect the value of private property in the area (as will the loss of "lakefront" status for a bunch of private property and other effects that even the feds did not comment on but which WILL happen to unnamed private people).
Stupid short-sighted political actions like this, taken to appease some vital but small group of partisan political supporters, which are done by political hacks without the brain cells to completely consider EVERY reason people built some particular bit of infrastructure something like a century ago, are almost certain to have side effects that the people implementing the current POLITICAL policy do not anticipate (or perhaps DO anticipate but want everybody to assume were mistakes rather than malicious actions). Certainly there are always POSSIBLE mitigations for side effects for nearly all political policy choices, but there are rarely any enforceable guarantees that the mitigations will be IMPLEMENTED - the mitigations rarely provide political benefits to the political people implementing the policies.
It's possible that removing these dams could be good for the environment and area tribes, and thus good for certain politicians... but as a general rule I find that when politicians lie in the justifications for their policy choices, lie about the side effects, and lie about who will be affected, it's probably a good idea to look into the details they'd rather you not look at. This is a "done deal", but in the future people need to not be propagandized morons who accept the inevitable bogus claims of "global warming" or "climate change" driving an increase in water problems, or wildfires in the region.
That's a seemingly well-thought and well-researched rant. And yet... it's made clear that the real reason for this disassembly isn't environmental. It's that it's been found cheaper to remove than repair/replace by its owners.
Don't get bent at the tree-huggers and natives and politicians. It's the corporate interests that are behind this. You've let the journalists twist the narrative to fit your disdain for certain groups, but the details don't support that.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is cheaper to destroy because of _new_ environmental regulations. It was fine under the old ones. As if whatever damage it was going to cause hadn't already happened 100 years ago.
I can't imagine which PAC wrote those new regulations which made these dams financially unviable.
Re:As is often the case, there's more to the story (Score:4, Interesting)
As if whatever damage it was going to cause hadn't already happened 100 years ago.
Ongoing harm to salmon populations and the US Government's treaty obligations to Native Americans--do those count?
The treaties were written before the dams were built.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been there 100 years. Either the salmon are gone or figured out something else.
Why do you think NA don't use electricity and water? You think a dam only works for non-NA people?
Did you know NA have houses and cars and laptops and electric lights and TV and internet and all the same stuff as everyone else?
Re: (Score:2)
Salmon figure out how to not spawn in that watershed. Remove the dams and salmon will return.
Have a read about the Elwha Restoration.
Also, the Treaty obligations are legally binding, and they don't have a sunset date. So it isn't like you can ignore them forever and think there won't be consequences.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:As is often the case, there's more to the story (Score:4, Informative)
It is cheaper to destroy because of _new_ environmental regulations. It was fine under the old ones. As if whatever damage it was going to cause hadn't already happened 100 years ago.
Ah yes, the old "why would I splint that leg, it's already broken" argument.
Look, I know and agree that there's no free lunch. Generating power has an environmental impact any way you do it, and hydro is less destructive than some alternatives. (If I were king I would add fission power as fast as possible, but that's neither here nor there.)
But! In these cases, the dams are getting old and they're relatively small potatoes in the scheme of the grid, so they're operating at a relatively high cost / kWh. And they do have ongoing environmental impact. In particular, 100 years ago we didn't care about whether fish could get upstream of the dams, or really, water quality at all. The river and its geology existed purely as a resource to be turned into money. As time has marched on, people realized that we do care about those sorts of things and want to balance them against the financial gains involved.
So! Are these dams not financially viable because of requirements that we provide things like fish ladders? Or are they not viable because they require things like new turbines, structural maintenance, and expensive staffing to extract energy from a low-value resource? I don't know -- but I do know that CEOs tend to take any opportunity to blame those Job-Killing Environmental Regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
2% is a fair amount of power. It can be the difference between rolling blackouts and not. Having living through the last big round of them, I'll take the extra 2%, thanks.
The harm to the economy was tremendous compared to the cost of fish ladders or a complete turbine rip n replace.
Ok, fine, so we don't need that 2%. Great. What was it replaced with? Nothing. Putting an already sketchy electrical grid that much closer to collapse.
What % would you consider too much? 5? 10? 25? At what point would you
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure the prohibitions on blocking waterways (preventing new dam construction) and the subsidies in favor of solar above all other forms of generation have absolutely nothing to do with the sitaution...
Wuh? (Score:2, Interesting)
In today's world where we need clean energy generation, this is simply brain dead.
You are restoring the ecosystem? What about the existing one? The flora and fauna that has built up around the reservoir, not to mention the much needed drinking water.
I suppose there will be rival eco groups next, one releasing Beavers then only to be immediately dispatched by a group that wants to prevent them making dams?
Someone said that these dams were only used for power generation and not water storage. That the reaso
Clean energy production (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's only insane if the criteria for evaluation are 1) Electricity Production, 2) Carbon Emissions.
Insanity would be to look at the dams from only two criteria, one of which has nothing to do with the environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That lightbulb you have overhead. It used to take 100 Watts to make the same amount of light that now takes 16 Watts.
I'm not doing with less--my pocketbook has a bit more in it now, thank you. No revolution required.
Re: (Score:2)
What about flooding? (Score:3)
I'm lucky enough to live swaddled in the comforts of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Our dams did more than generate jobs and power; They also dramatically reduced our annual flooding. Did this river have a history of flooding prior to the dam's construction?
Re: (Score:3)
No it did not. As was mentioned earlier by several posters, flood control was already being done by other large dams upstream. These four dams in question are only for power generation, and are quite small, not contributing to baseline power much. Obviously these aging dams are expensive to operate and in need of refurbishment and renewal, but that would cost the company owning them much more in the long run than demolishing them and trying to put the river back to its original state.
As for flooding, we'
The reservoir filled with silt (Score:5, Interesting)
I see in the cited articles that "gold mining that scarred the watershed, and decades of logging that left denuded areas".
"The reason that these dams are coming down is that they've reached the end of their useful life," Bransom said.
Probably the reservoir behind the dam has filled up with so much silt that there is relatively little water remaining there for hydroelectric power generation. This is a problem for many dams, and it is the reason they have a finite useful lifetime.
https://acwi.gov/sos/pubs/3rdJ... [acwi.gov]
"the life expectancy of most reservoirs is only 100 to 200 years, and at least 200 of the largest United States reservoirs were more than 40 years old as of 2008"
Also "the dams have allowed nutrient-filled agricultural runoff to fester in lakes, feeding algae blooms" which makes the water undrinkable and you can't even swim in it. But I expect the drained reservoir will be extremely fertile, and they intend to replant it; "nearly 13 billion seeds — 26 tons in all — which will be planted once the reservoirs are drained".
Suicide (Score:2)
No atomic power, no hydro power, no fossil fuels, no windmills on ridges, no solar on deserts.
No power, no population.
Did y'all know Greenpeace was funded by the Soviets as a weapon of social warfare?
And I suppose they have the plan to replace the 2% (Score:2)
I'm sure at the same time there are projects being done to replace the 2% of power lost. You know like having a plan...
God (Score:2)
useless dams (Score:2)
Dams have a finite lifespan due to silt accumulation behind the dam, not to mention maintenance and liability costs.
Farley will drown! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Warren Buffett has always walked the walk and talked the talk. [...] Many CEO types are sociopaths, narcissists, or just megalomaniacs who seem to never consider the costs to society for their success.
https://www.jacksonville.com/s... [jacksonville.com]
https://www.thestreet.com/opin... [thestreet.com]
https://markets.businessinside... [businessinsider.com]
https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]