4 ms·

This is another case where some environmentalists can be more emotional than rational, similar to opposition to nuclear energy. Dams provided the cleanest, mos

This is another case where some environmentalists can be more emotional than rational, similar to opposition to nuclear energy. Dams provided the cleanest, most consistent energy of any source. They also are very effective at energy storage via pumping. We can try to mitigate damage to salmon, but honestly, we're just going to have to let some salmon die to not cook the earth. I doubt the US will ever be able to build another dam due to NIMBYs and other red tape. So when we get rid of a dam it's gone forever.

michaelt 3y ago
America isn't the kind of country that would remove dams for purely environmental reasons. The fact is, a lot of these dams have long passed their designed lifespan and they're crumbling, a disaster waiting to happen. And though somewhat productive, they're not so productive anyone is about to write a check to cover the maintenance.
- cbb330 3y ago
  America is the type of country to do negative “human” perspective actions for purely environmental reasons: https://www.government-fleet.com/10193319/military-charging-forward-with-fleet-electrification https://www.government-fleet.com/10193319/military-charging-...
Analemma_ 3y ago
In your rush to dunk on your political enemies, you neglected to read the part of the article where it says the vast majority of these dams being removed do not generate any power and were constructed for water diversion or erosion control.
marssaxman 3y ago
You might want to look at the quantity of power involved before drawing such a conclusion. The article begins with a mention of the dam removal project on the Elwha River: these were the second- and third-smallest hydroelectric plants in the state, generating only 28 megawatts together. In the year that the larger of the two dams was demolished, Washington State installed ten times that capacity in wind power alone. Two thirds of the state's electricity still comes from hydro. The four dams being removed in the Klamath project offer similarly diminutive capacities: 18, 20, 27, and 98 megawatts respectively. By way of comparison, California is currently installing about 4000 megawatts of solar per year. The dams will not be missed.
- nostromo 3y ago
  Solar and wind are great when it’s sunny or windy. We need dams for green energy the rest of the time. Comparing max wind capacity to actual outputs from dams is nonsensical. Wind typically produces 30% or less of its max capacity over any period of time and it does so unreliably. The energy from damns is much more valuable.
  - asynchronous 3y ago
    In addition I see no studies or cited research about how many birds were killed by the increase of wind power, or other environmental impacts that the massive increase in wind turbines may have caused.
  - marssaxman 3y ago
    You'd have a point if someone were proposing to demolish the Grand Coulee Dam, which generates 6.8 terawatts, or Hoover Dam, which generates a little over 2 terawatts, but that just isn't what's happening here. Removing the Elwha River dams reduced Washington State's hydroelectric capacity by a whopping 0.09%, and removing the four Klamath River dams will reduce California's hydro capacity by 0.76%. These are minor rural dams built a century ago, when the long-distance grid was not what it is today, and they simply do not matter anymore.
    - cbb330 3y ago
      1. Your reply to parent said dams’ output is small 2. parent refutes the data 3. You reply again with same message Can you address the parent’s concern that the data you’re reporting is incorrect? (Solar metrics are based on max / theoretical output and not real output)
      - marssaxman 3y ago
        Parent did not refute the data, parent said they did not care that a vastly greater quantity of renewables were being installed than the hydro capacity being removed, due to concerns about capacity factor. My second comment therefore showed that the hydro capacity being removed is insignificant relative to hydro alone, without reference to other renewables.
Quillbert182 3y ago
I think energy created through a massive, man-made ecological disaster is not really "clean." Maybe low in carbon, but there's more to the environment than the atmosphere.
atoav 3y ago
I come from an alpine province with 90% water power. Most environmentalists that have criticism of any particular dam are not against dams per se. They might be against a specific dam because it has significant impact on specific areas above or below it. And those concerns can be very valid. Biodiversity isn't killed in one big action, it is killed by many small ones over centuries. And you can't unkill it easily once it is gone.

michaelt 3y ago

America isn't the kind of country that would remove dams for purely environmental reasons. The fact is, a lot of these dams have long passed their designed lifespan and they're crumbling, a disaster waiting to happen. And though somewhat productive, they're not so productive anyone is about to write a check to cover the maintenance.

cbb330 3y ago
America is the type of country to do negative “human” perspective actions for purely environmental reasons: https://www.government-fleet.com/10193319/military-charging-forward-with-fleet-electrification https://www.government-fleet.com/10193319/military-charging-...

Analemma_ 3y ago

In your rush to dunk on your political enemies, you neglected to read the part of the article where it says the vast majority of these dams being removed do not generate any power and were constructed for water diversion or erosion control.

marssaxman 3y ago

You might want to look at the quantity of power involved before drawing such a conclusion. The article begins with a mention of the dam removal project on the Elwha River: these were the second- and third-smallest hydroelectric plants in the state, generating only 28 megawatts together. In the year that the larger of the two dams was demolished, Washington State installed ten times that capacity in wind power alone. Two thirds of the state's electricity still comes from hydro. The four dams being removed in the Klamath project offer similarly diminutive capacities: 18, 20, 27, and 98 megawatts respectively. By way of comparison, California is currently installing about 4000 megawatts of solar per year. The dams will not be missed.

nostromo 3y ago
Solar and wind are great when it’s sunny or windy. We need dams for green energy the rest of the time. Comparing max wind capacity to actual outputs from dams is nonsensical. Wind typically produces 30% or less of its max capacity over any period of time and it does so unreliably. The energy from damns is much more valuable.
- asynchronous 3y ago
  In addition I see no studies or cited research about how many birds were killed by the increase of wind power, or other environmental impacts that the massive increase in wind turbines may have caused.
- marssaxman 3y ago
  You'd have a point if someone were proposing to demolish the Grand Coulee Dam, which generates 6.8 terawatts, or Hoover Dam, which generates a little over 2 terawatts, but that just isn't what's happening here. Removing the Elwha River dams reduced Washington State's hydroelectric capacity by a whopping 0.09%, and removing the four Klamath River dams will reduce California's hydro capacity by 0.76%. These are minor rural dams built a century ago, when the long-distance grid was not what it is today, and they simply do not matter anymore.
  - cbb330 3y ago
    1. Your reply to parent said dams’ output is small 2. parent refutes the data 3. You reply again with same message Can you address the parent’s concern that the data you’re reporting is incorrect? (Solar metrics are based on max / theoretical output and not real output)
    - marssaxman 3y ago
      Parent did not refute the data, parent said they did not care that a vastly greater quantity of renewables were being installed than the hydro capacity being removed, due to concerns about capacity factor. My second comment therefore showed that the hydro capacity being removed is insignificant relative to hydro alone, without reference to other renewables.

Quillbert182 3y ago

I think energy created through a massive, man-made ecological disaster is not really "clean." Maybe low in carbon, but there's more to the environment than the atmosphere.

atoav 3y ago

I come from an alpine province with 90% water power. Most environmentalists that have criticism of any particular dam are not against dams per se. They might be against a specific dam because it has significant impact on specific areas above or below it. And those concerns can be very valid. Biodiversity isn't killed in one big action, it is killed by many small ones over centuries. And you can't unkill it easily once it is gone.