3 ms·

You misunderstood me a bit, though I was pretty vague. I was just remarking on how we have enough local, renewable power locally, and yet burn coal. We could ea

by pkulak 6y ago

You misunderstood me a bit, though I was pretty vague. I was just remarking on how we have enough local, renewable power locally, and yet burn coal. We could easily get our power from hydro AND send the majority to LA, but instead we don't. Probably because LA is willing to pay so much more for it.

dan_quixote 6y ago
I don't know the political climate in Oregon about hydro, but it's starting to turn a bit in Washington. Dams are pretty awful for salmon and so much of our ecology is salmon-based as well as the culture/livelihoods of Native Americans. The biggest story in recent years was the Elwha dam removal. It's stunning to see how much the landscape has changed since: https://therevelator.org/elwha-dam-removal/ https://therevelator.org/elwha-dam-removal/ And a recent story about a Skagit river dam: https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/seattles-skagit-river-dams-hurt-salmon-orcas-and-native-american-culture-agencies-say/281-d4e483c2-1178-4af1-b8db-634e3b4009f7 https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/seattles-s...
- xxpor 6y ago
  I don't think anyone's seriously proposing getting rid of any of the major electricity producing dams though, just the minor old ones that are doing nothing of significance.
asdff 6y ago
In raw economics terms, the price LA pays is lower than the cost of them opening their own coal plants, otherwise they would do just that. Therefore, it is for some reason cheaper to open a coal plant near portland (maybe closer to the coal source) and run a wire down to LA, than it is to come up with some other source of peak demand electricity for those 3 million people in LA who rely on this capacity. A private market does what is profitable, ultimately. Maybe if we had public utilities, however, we would actually invest in 'unprofitable' nuclear energy and save our planet in the process, since we wouldn't be beholden to making shareholders a profit.

by pkulak 6y ago

dan_quixote 6y ago

I don't know the political climate in Oregon about hydro, but it's starting to turn a bit in Washington. Dams are pretty awful for salmon and so much of our ecology is salmon-based as well as the culture/livelihoods of Native Americans. The biggest story in recent years was the Elwha dam removal. It's stunning to see how much the landscape has changed since: https://therevelator.org/elwha-dam-removal/ https://therevelator.org/elwha-dam-removal/ And a recent story about a Skagit river dam: https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/seattles-skagit-river-dams-hurt-salmon-orcas-and-native-american-culture-agencies-say/281-d4e483c2-1178-4af1-b8db-634e3b4009f7 https://www.king5.com/article/news/investigations/seattles-s...

xxpor 6y ago
I don't think anyone's seriously proposing getting rid of any of the major electricity producing dams though, just the minor old ones that are doing nothing of significance.

asdff 6y ago

In raw economics terms, the price LA pays is lower than the cost of them opening their own coal plants, otherwise they would do just that. Therefore, it is for some reason cheaper to open a coal plant near portland (maybe closer to the coal source) and run a wire down to LA, than it is to come up with some other source of peak demand electricity for those 3 million people in LA who rely on this capacity. A private market does what is profitable, ultimately. Maybe if we had public utilities, however, we would actually invest in 'unprofitable' nuclear energy and save our planet in the process, since we wouldn't be beholden to making shareholders a profit.