4 ms·

We really don't need the energy - contributions from Klamath dams have been somewhat minuscule, at 163MW. As for "serious effort protecting wildlife with good

We really don't need the energy - contributions from Klamath dams have been somewhat minuscule, at 163MW. As for "serious effort protecting wildlife with good outcomes", it's worth keeping in mind that the dams are directly responsible for excessive growth of cyanobacteria. Leading to a Klamath that's seriously depleted. (No, the dams aren't the only reason, but they are a large one). The net "benefit" of the dams staying around would be a significantly damaged ecosystem. And let's be clear, they have reached the point where they are no longer viable, unless you externalize costs. PacifiCorp had the option to upgrade them to have less eco impact (salmon ladders etc), and they looked at the cost and said "nah, thanks, let's not". As for stakeholders coming together - that's kind of what happened here. It's not like this was an overnight decision. It's been almost two decades of work by folks involved. As always, in a multi-stakeholder environment, not everybody is happy. And nobody is 100% happy.

margalabargala 3y ago
163MW is 1% of all power generation in the state [0] That's not huge, but it's not nothing either. Feels like enough to not simply hand wave away, especially since that's carbon-free energy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Oreg...
- dzader 3y ago
  [dead]
- groby_b 3y ago
  Note that it's California & Oregon - and 163MW is 0.5% of CA's power generation, so probably around 0.3% across both states. Enough to give up on when it doesn't make commercial sense and destroys an ecosystem, the number doesn't stand in a vacuum.
poulsbohemian 3y ago
Step back from the Klamath dams and read my comments as regarding the issue more broadly, as there are a lot more dams across the PNW being targeted for removal and/or that will reach functional obsolescence in upcoming decades. By everything I've read the Klamath dams were generally viewed by many parties as having reaching their natural end. Other dams with many decades to go are already being studied for removal (including the one I toured on the Snake), and that's where there's conflict.

margalabargala 3y ago

163MW is 1% of all power generation in the state [0] That's not huge, but it's not nothing either. Feels like enough to not simply hand wave away, especially since that's carbon-free energy. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Oregon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Oreg...

dzader 3y ago
[dead]
groby_b 3y ago
Note that it's California & Oregon - and 163MW is 0.5% of CA's power generation, so probably around 0.3% across both states. Enough to give up on when it doesn't make commercial sense and destroys an ecosystem, the number doesn't stand in a vacuum.

poulsbohemian 3y ago

Step back from the Klamath dams and read my comments as regarding the issue more broadly, as there are a lot more dams across the PNW being targeted for removal and/or that will reach functional obsolescence in upcoming decades. By everything I've read the Klamath dams were generally viewed by many parties as having reaching their natural end. Other dams with many decades to go are already being studied for removal (including the one I toured on the Snake), and that's where there's conflict.