5 ms·

I live in one of the Idaho communities that would be most greatly affected by the removal of the Snake River dams. If you're interested in the counter-argument

I live in one of the Idaho communities that would be most greatly affected by the removal of the Snake River dams. If you're interested in the counter-argument, take a look at the Washington Grain Commission's fact sheet: http://wagrains.org/snake-river-dams-facts/ http://wagrains.org/snake-river-dams-facts/ I think the most productive thing that could be done for the debate (assuming you believe that removing the Snake River dams would be a net-positive, as I do), is to focus on solutions that allow farmers to get their grain to major ports, cost-effectively without relying on the dams. Take a look at this fact sheet on the ratio of barges, to trucks and trains required to move the same amount of grain: https://www.pnwa.net/factsheets/CSRS.pdf https://www.pnwa.net/factsheets/CSRS.pdf A single barge-load of wheat going down the Snake would take 538 trucks. Nobody (besides perhaps trucking companies) wants to put that many additional trucks on the road. However, a train car with 140 cars could take the equivalent of a 4-barge run down the Snake. The latest comprehensive economic impact study performed on the issue is this one: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TDDHFUn5eNoQyH251rscHiKvfRSNSjn3/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TDDHFUn5eNoQyH251rscHiKvfRS... - which broadly concluded that dam removal would be a net positive economic impact for the region, but would (as with any major shift) have winners and losers. As long as grain farmers are among the losers, I expect that lower Snake River damn removal will be a non-starter from a standpoint of local support.

bb88 7y ago
I also live in Idaho, but the nasty effect of dams was characterized by Lonesome Larry, the only sockeye salmon to return to redfish lake in 1992. Redfish lake was named for the teems of brightly colored red sockeye salmon that once populated it. As of two years ago, the last time I was up there, it was still mostly devoid of salmon. In effect dams and the subsequent fish farming efforts to save the salmon end up being a subsidy for the farmers. In all fairness I would rather just give farmers a subsidy to transport their grain rather than to try to outsmart nature. In the end we would ask ourselves if the economics of transporting grain from remote areas is worth it economically, and we can leave the environmental issue out of the equation.
- cronix 7y ago
  > In effect dams and the subsequent fish farming efforts to save the salmon end up being a subsidy for the farmers. And everyone else in the region who uses electricity generated from the dams, which is quite a bit.
  - irrational 7y ago
    This was my first thought. I don't ship anything through dams, but most of my electricity comes from dams on the Columbia.
  - bb88 7y ago
    Absolutely correct, but OP only talked about issues related to agriculture. EDIT:. Maybe not as bad as some might think. The 4 lower Snake River damns provide only 4% apparently of the regions power. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/apr/08/replacing-power-produced-by-four-snake-river-dams-/ https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/apr/08/replacing-powe... So while yes the hydropower would need to be replaced it may not be a huge cost to do it.
- ljw1001 7y ago
  > In the end we would ask ourselves if the economics of transporting grain from remote areas is worth it economically, and we can leave the environmental issue out of the equation. Looking at complex issues - especially issues involving the environment - through the single lens of economics is dangerous. It's like deciding that the best way to get someplace is to drive 140 MPH, because it's the quickest. And you can leave safety out of the equation.
maxerickson 7y ago
538 trucks is compared to a "tow", which is several barges linked together. The more instructive comparison would be the number of truck miles currently due to agriculture and the additional truck miles that would come from removing a given dam. That way people would be able to estimate the future situation based on their current impression of how many trucks there are. I suppose for heavily impacted cities, the number of trucks per day would also be interesting.
cronix 7y ago
> As of July 2017, Columbia River Basin hydropower dams have a total nameplate capacity of 34,318 megawatts and produce, on average, 16,254 megawatts of electricity. This is 54.4 percent of the total generating capacity and 55.7 percent of the total average annual energy produced in the Northwest electricity supply.[1] There are also 7 hydro dams on the Snake [2]. I don't see anyone removing them any time soon, without first replacing these major power sources the northwest depends on. [1] https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/columbia-river-history/damshistory https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/columbia-river-history/dam... [2] http://www.cbr.washington.edu/hydro http://www.cbr.washington.edu/hydro
- atourgates 7y ago
  The Snake River dams only account for between 5-13% of that total. The NW Energy Coalition actually sponsored a study recently on what it would take to replace that with a combination of wind, solar, energy efficiency, and demand response. Here's the homepage for the study: https://nwenergy.org/featured/lsrdstudy/ https://nwenergy.org/featured/lsrdstudy/ Some of their findings: * It's doable. * It'd cost about $1/mo on the average residential power bill in the region. * Maintenance for the existing lower Snake River dams runs about $245 million/yr, whereas their proposal would cost around $464 million/yr. * They projected a doable timeline of within the next 10 years.
codingdave 7y ago
> which broadly concluded that dam removal would be a net positive economic impact for the region My concern with such conclusions is that we are measuring different things. Orca survival, and environmental protection in general are not correlated to economic impact. I haven't studied all the issues enough to have an opinion... I just get nervous when economic drivers make environmental decisions.

bb88 7y ago

I also live in Idaho, but the nasty effect of dams was characterized by Lonesome Larry, the only sockeye salmon to return to redfish lake in 1992. Redfish lake was named for the teems of brightly colored red sockeye salmon that once populated it. As of two years ago, the last time I was up there, it was still mostly devoid of salmon. In effect dams and the subsequent fish farming efforts to save the salmon end up being a subsidy for the farmers. In all fairness I would rather just give farmers a subsidy to transport their grain rather than to try to outsmart nature. In the end we would ask ourselves if the economics of transporting grain from remote areas is worth it economically, and we can leave the environmental issue out of the equation.

cronix 7y ago
> In effect dams and the subsequent fish farming efforts to save the salmon end up being a subsidy for the farmers. And everyone else in the region who uses electricity generated from the dams, which is quite a bit.
- irrational 7y ago
  This was my first thought. I don't ship anything through dams, but most of my electricity comes from dams on the Columbia.
- bb88 7y ago
  Absolutely correct, but OP only talked about issues related to agriculture. EDIT:. Maybe not as bad as some might think. The 4 lower Snake River damns provide only 4% apparently of the regions power. https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/apr/08/replacing-power-produced-by-four-snake-river-dams-/ https://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/apr/08/replacing-powe... So while yes the hydropower would need to be replaced it may not be a huge cost to do it.
ljw1001 7y ago
> In the end we would ask ourselves if the economics of transporting grain from remote areas is worth it economically, and we can leave the environmental issue out of the equation. Looking at complex issues - especially issues involving the environment - through the single lens of economics is dangerous. It's like deciding that the best way to get someplace is to drive 140 MPH, because it's the quickest. And you can leave safety out of the equation.

maxerickson 7y ago

538 trucks is compared to a "tow", which is several barges linked together. The more instructive comparison would be the number of truck miles currently due to agriculture and the additional truck miles that would come from removing a given dam. That way people would be able to estimate the future situation based on their current impression of how many trucks there are. I suppose for heavily impacted cities, the number of trucks per day would also be interesting.

cronix 7y ago

> As of July 2017, Columbia River Basin hydropower dams have a total nameplate capacity of 34,318 megawatts and produce, on average, 16,254 megawatts of electricity. This is 54.4 percent of the total generating capacity and 55.7 percent of the total average annual energy produced in the Northwest electricity supply.[1] There are also 7 hydro dams on the Snake [2]. I don't see anyone removing them any time soon, without first replacing these major power sources the northwest depends on. [1] https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/columbia-river-history/damshistory https://www.nwcouncil.org/reports/columbia-river-history/dam... [2] http://www.cbr.washington.edu/hydro http://www.cbr.washington.edu/hydro

atourgates 7y ago
The Snake River dams only account for between 5-13% of that total. The NW Energy Coalition actually sponsored a study recently on what it would take to replace that with a combination of wind, solar, energy efficiency, and demand response. Here's the homepage for the study: https://nwenergy.org/featured/lsrdstudy/ https://nwenergy.org/featured/lsrdstudy/ Some of their findings: * It's doable. * It'd cost about $1/mo on the average residential power bill in the region. * Maintenance for the existing lower Snake River dams runs about $245 million/yr, whereas their proposal would cost around $464 million/yr. * They projected a doable timeline of within the next 10 years.

codingdave 7y ago

> which broadly concluded that dam removal would be a net positive economic impact for the region My concern with such conclusions is that we are measuring different things. Orca survival, and environmental protection in general are not correlated to economic impact. I haven't studied all the issues enough to have an opinion... I just get nervous when economic drivers make environmental decisions.