4 ms·
The article made it sound like they would lose less than 8% of their 2200 MW renewable generation for a reduction of less than 176 MW. Maybe the article confuse
by rhodozelia 6y ago
The article made it sound like they would lose less than 8% of their 2200 MW renewable generation for a reduction of less than 176 MW. Maybe the article confused the total generation from the 8 plants with and the 4 being removed.
They estimated 450 million to add fish ladders and rehabilitate the facilities for the next 100 years. If it was $450 million for 170 MW $2.6 million / MW is pretty cheap construction cost. I am surprised that it isn’t an attractive investment
- AdamJacobMuller 6y agoCorrect, so, 176MW is the power generation for ALL dams on that river. They are only removing 4 of them of which I think only 2 produce power and I can't find exact figures on the MW output of each of them. 169 was an upper bound and seems VERY small. 450M was the cost of removal according to the article, not the cost of adding new fish ladders?
- rhodozelia 6y ago>This is because to renew the operating licence for these dams, its ratepayers would have to foot an approximately $400m (£308m) bill for upgrades to ensure compliance with legislation (including the installation of costly fish ladders at each dam that would enable migration). Upgrading the dams cost $400m. >Overall, little will be lost in terms of renewable energy generation: the dams represent less than 8% of PacfiCorp’s 2,208 MW current renewable generation capacity, [1] indicates that you are correct and 7 dams produce 169 MW. so indeed these dams produce a relatively small amount of electricity. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klamath_River_Hydroelectric_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klamath_River_Hydroelectric_Pr...