11 ms·
Removing One Maine Dam 20 Years Ago Changed Everything
- ghaff 7y agoLest anyone is tempted to comment "But clean energy!" here's a relevant paragraph: "The dam produced only 3.5 megawatts of power, providing less than 0.1 percent of Maine’s electricity. It employed only a few people and was aging and unsafe, having been breached numerous times. It blocked critical upstream fish habitat, including the migration of endangered sturgeon." Especially in light of how breaching the dam did, in fact, bring the hoped-for environmental benefits and more, getting rid of it was the right thing from a cost/benefit perspective.
- AdamJacobMuller 7y agoHydro power is not green. It may be clean, by some definitions of clean, but it has a huge ecological footprint. The impact is harder to quantify than with other forms of power and is ignored due to that. Now, I'm not advocating against all hydro power, I think it's especially important in a pumped storage/peaking capacity. The projects definitely need to be analyzed on a cost/benefit analysis and as this points out, 3.5MW of power is just trivial and not worth it. As an aside, there are a number of dam removal videos on YouTube which are fun to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yM5m5-1-I0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yM5m5-1-I0
- switchbak 7y agoAn opinionated, yet very educational documentary on the subject being Damnation: http://damnationfilm.com/ http://damnationfilm.com/
- AdamJacobMuller 7y agoInteresting, thank you!
- justinator 7y agoA good, fictional account of blowing up a dam (that's not The Monkey Wrench Gang) is Night Moves. One of the eco-warriors was critiqued by his boss at an organic farm (before he put 2 and 2 together...) that taking down one damn isn't enough - there were 10 more dams on that same river. I guess it's also sobering to think that most all major rivers in the USA are damned up. I think, without looking, save the Yellowstone River. That's it.
- jimktrains2 7y agoBy your definition simply existing is not green. It's not a matter of absolutes, but degrees. Between green and fossil fuels, even account for construction, the damn is "greener" in all scenarios I can think of off the top of my head.
- ghaff 7y agoYou can't compare apples to apples but dams that have big negative ecological effects and don't actually produce much power would seem to be net negatives from an overall "green" perspective. There are also other effects including flood control, recreation, effect on local communities, water supply, etc. that can go in plus and minus columns but dams are absolutely not always net positives.
- jimktrains2 7y agoSure, I'm not saying damns have no consequences. I'm saying that it's silly to declare them "not green" because of the existence of environmental consequences because there are consequences to everything we do. Damns are not a perfect solution, but compared to the ecological costs of coal mining, gas extraction, and burning of Fossil fuels, I feel it's disingenuous to just dismiss them out of hand for not being "green".
- mikeash 7y agoThe comment wasn’t declaring them to be “not-green” because of the mere existence of environmental consequences. It was doing so because of the large magnitude of those consequences. There’s probably a good argument to be made that they’re worth it, but the original statement was fine too.
- WorldMaker 7y ago"Not green by default" might have been a better phrasing? They can still be much more green compared to alternatives. "Green" isn't a binary, and that seems to be the crux of both arguments above.
- ghaff 7y agoAbsolutely fair. It's hard to argue that we shouldn't have done any of the big dams out west. But there's at least a good argument against the Glen Canyon. And, especially with the benefit of hindsight, the seriously proposed dam sites in the Grand Canyon would have been very not good. In the east the proposed Tocks Island Dam was pursued for a long time. Again, especially with the benefit of hindsight, this was also pretty clearly not good.
- smkellat 7y agoNo dam at Boulder City in Nevada and the Los Angeles basin becomes a very different story in terms of habitability. The town of St. Thomas would rise again and we’d find that missing B-29 that ditched into what is currently the very artificial Lake Mead. The Colorado River would regain its natural flow. Silicon Valley would die, though. Where on earth does its water come from? Yes, 85% of the water from Lake Mead. The Los Angeles basin is built up far beyond its natural sustainable water capacity. Unless there is a great leap forward in desalination technology some dams remain a rather necessary evil.
- dahinds 7y agoSilicon Valley gets no water from the Colorado River?
- chrisdhoover 7y agoNo it does not
- nkurz 7y agoConfirming that chrisdhoover is correct, and none of the Bay Area uses water from the Colorado River: https://www.kqed.org/science/14623/bay-area-do-you-know-where-your-water-comes-from https://www.kqed.org/science/14623/bay-area-do-you-know-wher...
- AlotOfReading 7y ago
- WorldMaker 7y agoWe've also gotten as species rather better at understanding downstream repercussions in terms of erosion control and hatchery/vegetation safety since early 19th/20th century dams, such as Edwards. It's not entirely an either/or situation, and there are interesting, growing workarounds such as hatchery creeks and salmon cannons. But yes, building new hydro power should always have a strong ecological assessment done before proceeding, and taking the trade-offs into account. (Disclaimer: I've been working on stream restoration software, but am not a domain expert, don't speak for my employer, and mostly am only commenting because I find it really interesting stuff because I've been working adjacent to it and hearing cool stories about it. Always fun when it comes up on the HN front page.)
- erikpukinskis 7y agoWhat’s the software?
- WorldMaker 7y agoRIVERMorph http://www.rivermorph.com/ http://www.rivermorph.com/
- AmericanChopper 7y agoThe problem with this line of reasoning is that no energy is green by these standards. The solar panel supply chain is not green, solar and wind farms kill birds, dams destroy habitat, nuclear produces waste... if you think any of those things are trivial, just google them and you’ll find plenty of people lobbying against them. If you accept that human are a part of the environment, and that we are going to have some level of impact on it, then as you said, you can look at the RoI/impact of decisions and their alternatives, and come a conclusion that reduces impact. But if your standard is green/not green, then you’re never going to be able to solve any problems.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- lkschubert8 7y agoThey are doing exactly what you are saying though. The point is that the ratio of damage to power for a dam that produces so little power is too high.
- AmericanChopper 7y agoAbsolutely, I think this instance is perfectly reasonable. But then you also have people demanding that something be done about birds dying over solar farms (the only thing that could be done about that is to shut down the plant). That’s why I think the “it’s not green” assessment is never productive. “It’s more green than other things” is reasonable and productive, but “it’s not green enough” is an endless rabbit hole.
- lkschubert8 7y agoI mean isn't the logical route to evaluate everything in terms of measurable ecological and climate damage to power produced and try to minimize?
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
- acidburnNSA 7y agoPeople need to keep this kind of thing in mind when major energy policy proposals like the Green New Deal rely on studies by the likes of M. Jacobsen (the guy who sued his scientific critics), whose 100% renewable scenarios all rely on at least 10x expansion of hydro power in the USA.
- specialist 7y agoTLDR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality I served on an endorsement committee. We made recommendations (or note) to the membership to support candidates, initiatives, referendum, etc. The last big internal food fight was over a levy to renew K-12 school funding. These are usually narrowly won ballot measures. Because some people think taxes is theft, government is evil, yadda yadda. This time something like $100m / year was at stake. Three board members strenuously argued against endorsement. They are local leaders in education policy. Our usual "go to" experts. Committed, knowledgeable, experienced, in the fight. The biggest education boosters you can imagine. The sticking point was ~$55k / year that could potentially be used by charter schools. For something like vans to transport kids to after school care. I don't remember the exact details, but you get the gist. -- I had no idea who Mark Jacobsen is. Okay, he's an influential expert. Being called to task for a report first written in 2009. His cohort is in a pissing match with another led by Ken Caldeira. Some fun. Going out on a limb here: There will be no new dam construction in North America in my life time. Like our current nuclear tech, the (financial) costs are too high, and the timelines are too long. (Wikipedia says we could maybe add power generation to existing unpowered dams, which could be cool.) New Green Deal, or something like it, has to happen. Spoiler alert: You're not going to like most of it. Focus on the positive. Please. If you have to trade support for building some dams (that will never happen) in order to get the programs you support, please just do it.
- acidburnNSA 7y agoI'm a pragmatist. I like plans that make sense. Wishful thinking based on impossible plans is not a useful path forward. Understanding trade-offs and making them is productive and useful. Discussing facts is an important step in this process. To decarbonize at scale we need large scale new installations of dams, nukes, wind, solar, and geothermal. Spoiler alert: many will protest against all of these for a wide variety of reasons. Still, we must find a way to proceed with low carbon energy. We don't have the luxury of choosing which low carbon energy we like best. We need it all. For greens, start liking nukes more. For conservatives, start liking wind and solar more.
- ak217 7y agoThere are plenty of dams, such as run-of-river dams and specific locations with no fauna, where they do not have a significant negative environmental impact, and may create new habitat where previously there was none.
- ahi 7y agoMy community is currently trying to remove its run of river dam. It has mostly come down to removal is cheaper than maintenance. There is added benefits of one less portage and I am not convinced of the upstream habitat argument. It is mostly a stagnant dead zone for most of the summer.
- arethuza 7y agoFun trivia fact: Ranulph Fiennes was thrown out of the SAS for blowing up a dam that offended him using "spare" explosives from training exercises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranulph_Fiennes#Officer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranulph_Fiennes#Officer
- ip26 7y agoIt seems like there's not a lot of resistance from the left to removing hydropower anymore, as the impacts to wildlife and need for regular significant maintenance became clear over the last few decades. There's no rush to tear down young modern damns but the old ones are steadily being retired. Snake River is just a matter of time.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- jakedata 7y agoI can personally attest to the dramatic change in the environment since the removal of the Edwards dam. Of course this year there are so many pogies (Alewife) that you can just about walk across the water. Warming waters down south are causing them to shift northward in search of cooler temperatures. Offering welcoming habitats to shifting populations seems the very least we can do for these species.
- chr1 7y agoIf removing dams is so beneficial, would elimination of natural waterfalls (e.g. Niagara) be beneficial as well? If not why?
- cowsandmilk 7y agoWaterfalls don't change the rate of flow of water. When 1,000 cfs is flowing into the waterfall, 1,000 cfs is flowing out. Rain events result in rises in flow and droughts result in low flows, these are important in a fish's life cycle. Many dams fill up their reservoirs during a rainy season and then slowly release during the dry season. Waterfalls don't do that.
- excitom 7y agoDams represent man-made changes to the environment that often had unforeseen negative impacts. In the case of Niagra Falls, its presence isolates the Great Lakes ecosystem from the Atlantic Ocean. During many millennia a unique ecosystem developed. When the canal was built to allow ship traffic from the ocean into the Great Lakes, it caused a sequence of ecological disasters due to invasive species. The lesson: Don't screw around with mother nature (adding or subtracting)
- hammock 7y agoSerious question, what is unique about the Great Lakes ecosystem, that is not found in, for example the PNW or inland Maine?
- ghaff 7y agoIt's a massive interconnected freshwater lakes system. Much different from even the relatively small lakes in Maine much less the generally very small lakes in the PNW. And it's in a very different area of the country so different ecosystem in any case.
- hammock 7y agoI know where they are located and the size of the lakes. Anything specific and unique you can offer about the biological ecosystem, e.g. flora, fauna?
- burtonator 7y ago> The coalition was made up of the nonprofits American Rivers, the Atlantic Salmon Federation, the Natural Resources Council of Maine, and Trout Unlimited and its Kennebec Valley chapter. BTW... try to remember this when someone criticizes hunting / fishing. A major part of sustainable hunting and fishing is making sure we have an environment that actually produces quality fish and game. Most people DO NOT give a shit about trout for example I'm a trout fisherman and think they're an insanely beautiful species. When I flew into Montana my trout stamp was like $150... non-trivial amount but absolutely worth it.
- tkjef 7y agotrout is my favorite fish to watch & to eat. i've also thrown back quite a few. fun fact: in a pinch if all you have is a little bit of pringles shake them up into little crumbs, prepare the fish, sprinkle the pringles crumbles inside the fish, cook wrapped in tin foil near a fire's embers and you have some good eating with a bit of seasoning.
- rxhernandez 7y agoI know an upvote usually suffices but thank you for sharing the tip; it's much appreciated.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- nullwasamistake 7y agoThis... Is a prison recipe :). Fish, chip coating, cook in the chip bag in microwave. Not saying it's bad, I've done it. Chips are a great substitute for bread crumbs.
- 11235813213455 7y agoMy problem with the catch and throw, is it seriously hurt fishes
- hairytrog 7y agoI wonder if rehabilitation is always possible. The Italian region of Südtirol, in the alps, is completely hydro powered with large exports. And there are basically no fish. What happens if they undam it all today? What if they undam it in 500 years? Does it just take a decade or two for a pretty complete rehab?
- Retric 7y agoStocking fish is common in much of the US. Presumably, the same basic strategy would work on any non polluted river.
- shawnee_ 7y ago> The Kennebec hadn’t run free here since 1837. Interestingly enough, it was Thoreau's inventory of species in these very streams and tributaries as documented in _The Maine Woods_, which can tell us how we're doing with the restoration of the waterways today. Thoreau's book was comprised of notes from three visits in 1846, 1853, and 1857, and he had a pretty early and close insight as to how bad the damage was from the get-go. At the end of the book, in the appendix, he noted several introduced species. Since he often used "Indian" guides to help him navigate upstream, he also had the opportunity to learn a bit about what species were native and what were brought in by the newcomers. (Disclaimer: my mother was one-quarter indigenous to one of the tribes Thoreau mentions, so I've studied these texts pretty thoroughly). Several interesting musings on the encroachment of the white man into these lands; this one especially: > Tahmunt said that he traded at Quebec, my companion inquired the meaning of the word Quebec, about which there has been so much question. He did not know, but began to conjecture. He asked what those great ships were called . that carried soldiers. " Men-of-war," we answered. " Well," he said, " when the English ships came up the river, they could not go any farther, it was so narrow there ; they must go back, go-back, that 's Que-bec." I mention this to show the value of his authority in the other cases. [146 THE MAINE WOODS: https://archive.org/stream/mainewoods00thorrich/mainewoods00thorrich_djvu.txt https://archive.org/stream/mainewoods00thorrich/mainewoods00...]
- aaron695 7y agoI'd like to see the figures. 3.5 MW would be work $350ish/h? So around 3 million a year. Increased land value alone could make that work. Assuming we haven't created a flood zone. Still when they argue people drowned on a dam, I assume because they were using it, I think they are making stuff up here. An asset so well used 9 people have lost their life in it must be very valuable to the community. We need to shape the world for 10 billion people. That means we need a lot of infrastructure. Tearing stuff down is nothing to be proud of. But sometimes might make sense.
- gerikson 7y agoJohn McPhee describes the demolition in The Founding Fish.
- acd 7y agoWater dams are not good for the eco system down stream. My country has close to 99% green electricity but a lot is from water power. Water power is not that green because the dams prevents the eco system down stream to function normally. Also fish can not reproduce because they need to be able to climb up and down the river which has dams which blocks movement. Further the 99% green electricity is causing a lot of big clouds data centers to be located here. But the clouds run on water power.
- tropicalia 7y agoNothing against the dam removal - but I wish someone would think of something to "Change Everything" so that one day we'll see fewer clickbaity article titles.
- cbsks 7y agoAlso note the dams removed from the Elwha River in Washington: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elwha_Ecosystem_Restoration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elwha_Ecosystem_Restoration