6 ms·

The Day We Set the Colorado River Free

191 points by frankydp 12y ago

hhsnopek 12y ago
This is amazing! It's unfortunate that we can't have the dams constantly open or at least a few to keep some water flow. I would love to fund something that would allow us to do this yearly or even more frequently
- ISL 12y ago
  If you're a US citizen, you already do fund such an entity with your taxes. If it's important to you, let your legislators know, and vote accordingly.
  - dchest 12y ago
    You "already fund" something, but need to vote for it to be funded?
    - spullara 12y ago
      You can always stop funding something.
    - masklinn 12y ago
      No, you need to vote for it to take the decisions you'd like taken.
    - mayneack 12y ago
      Yes, approximately once a year.
scythe 12y ago
A common misconception is that hydroelectricity has the advantage over other renewables of requiring less land. This is not the case. The surface area of Lake Mead is 640 square kilometers -- this much ecologically viable land was destroyed to make way for hydroelectricity. The power generation capacity afforded by the Hoover Dam on this lake is roughly 2 GW. A solar panel produces roughly (we're lowballing) 100 watts per square meter. Solar panels to produce 2 GW -- the power output of Lake Mead -- would cover about 20 million square meters, or 20 square kilometers. If we assume the solar panels only operate at capacity for a third of a day, that's 60 square kilometers. If we also assume that only half of the used land is actually light-capturing, that's 120 square kilometers. Even under the most pessimistic of assumptions, solar still uses five times less land than hydro. Realistic solar installations would probably be significantly more efficient than I've assumed. Batteries are also significantly more space-efficient than hydroelectric storage.
- hdevalence 12y ago
  Interesting. I suppose it makes sense, in a way: solar power captures solar energy directly, whereas hydro captures solar energy only indirectly, through the water cycle. Do you have any ballpark ideas about how the cost of producing the dam (most concrete, I guess) compares to the cost of producing 120 km^2 of solar panels + 'enough' battery capacity, in terms of some kind of ecological footprint? My intuition is that the ecological capital costs of solar panels greatly exceed the capital costs of the dam, but I have little faith in my intuition....
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - snowwindwaves 12y ago
    Ballpark cost of developing small high head hydro plants with a weir (no dam) is 3-5 million dollars per MW. But these usually flood a minimal area like 10000 square meters. Public companies that develop hydro power projects annual reports is a good place to look for this type of information.
- jqm 12y ago
  Yes, but Lake Mead serves an additional valuable function as a water storage facility. I'm guessing that is it's primary value. The power generation is secondary.
- cwal37 12y ago
  It's also a misconception to equate huge-reservoir hydro with all hydro. The Norwegians have incredibly high head, phenomenally efficient hydro in the mountains with minimal environmental impact. We have run of river hydroelectric in the states that diverts some water via penstock, as well as canal-based systems and those that utilize Army Corp dams. In fact, there is significant non-powered dam resource available: http://nhaap.ornl.gov/content/non-powered-dam-potential http://nhaap.ornl.gov/content/non-powered-dam-potential I'm actually working on national-level hydro assessments at a national lab. We don't really predict more huge reservoir installments, but there is plenty of capacity out there. These set-ups (particularly non-powered dams) are also generally pretty cheap per kWh generated over their lifetimes (which in some cases reaches 70+ years).
socialist_coder 12y ago
Really great article. I love the weekend reading on HN. This part of the article really caught my eye: >>> Current “use it or lose it” water laws don’t allow farmers to sell any surplus allotment, so they end up growing as much alfalfa as they can and selling it on the global market. Peter Culp estimates that 50 billion gallons of water—1.5 pulse flows—is shipped to China each year in the form of alfalfa, and even more to Japan. An open water market would allow both cities and environmental groups to pay farmers far more than they currently make growing alfalfa. <<< Terrible! The US West has been fighting water scarcity problems for 10+ years and we're exporting billions of gallons of water overseas? There is also a new documentary out called DamNation which looks quite interesting. http://damnationfilm.com/ http://damnationfilm.com/
- ghshephard 12y ago
  One of the (supposed) reasons why farmers in the United States get so many privileges, subsidies and water rates at 5% of market rates in some cases, is to promote food security. The theory is, that by ensuring we have a broad set of food stocks that we can potentially draw on should circumstances dictate, then we are capable of maintaining the basic elements of survival. (Energy Security is another one on the list - it's why we have aircraft carriers in the middle east). Those farmers might be shipping Alfalfa to China right now, in the face of that thing called "Free Markets", but faced with a food stock collapse in the United States, it would take little more than a few strokes of the pen to require that same alfalfa go to American cattle.
  - HarryHirsch 12y ago
    Cattle for food security makes sense only on marginal land, where rain is so scarce that you can't plant crops, and the only thing you can do is extensive cattle ranching. Look at the American West, Australia and so on. Also, look at Upstate New York and Northern Pennsylvania if you are interested in food security. This used to be the grain basket of the country, but the farmland is all abandoned and reverted to forest, the hilly country is too difficult to farm with large machinery. But it's rain-safe, unlike further out west. I think in the face of climate change, farmland in that area is a most excellent long-term investment.
acbergan 12y ago
>>> hamburgers are a particularly stupid thing to make out of the Colorado. Each hamburger takes about 500 gallons of water. I will be eating fewer hamburgers after reading this.
- josephjrobison 12y ago
  Yea ~1500 gallons of water for every pound of beef

191 points by frankydp 12y ago

This is amazing! It's unfortunate that we can't have the dams constantly open or at least a few to keep some water flow. I would love to fund something that would allow us to do this yearly or even more frequently

ISL 12y ago
If you're a US citizen, you already do fund such an entity with your taxes. If it's important to you, let your legislators know, and vote accordingly.
- dchest 12y ago
  You "already fund" something, but need to vote for it to be funded?
  - spullara 12y ago
    You can always stop funding something.
  - masklinn 12y ago
    No, you need to vote for it to take the decisions you'd like taken.
  - mayneack 12y ago
    Yes, approximately once a year.

scythe 12y ago

A common misconception is that hydroelectricity has the advantage over other renewables of requiring less land. This is not the case. The surface area of Lake Mead is 640 square kilometers -- this much ecologically viable land was destroyed to make way for hydroelectricity. The power generation capacity afforded by the Hoover Dam on this lake is roughly 2 GW. A solar panel produces roughly (we're lowballing) 100 watts per square meter. Solar panels to produce 2 GW -- the power output of Lake Mead -- would cover about 20 million square meters, or 20 square kilometers. If we assume the solar panels only operate at capacity for a third of a day, that's 60 square kilometers. If we also assume that only half of the used land is actually light-capturing, that's 120 square kilometers. Even under the most pessimistic of assumptions, solar still uses five times less land than hydro. Realistic solar installations would probably be significantly more efficient than I've assumed. Batteries are also significantly more space-efficient than hydroelectric storage.

hdevalence 12y ago
Interesting. I suppose it makes sense, in a way: solar power captures solar energy directly, whereas hydro captures solar energy only indirectly, through the water cycle. Do you have any ballpark ideas about how the cost of producing the dam (most concrete, I guess) compares to the cost of producing 120 km^2 of solar panels + 'enough' battery capacity, in terms of some kind of ecological footprint? My intuition is that the ecological capital costs of solar panels greatly exceed the capital costs of the dam, but I have little faith in my intuition....
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- snowwindwaves 12y ago
  Ballpark cost of developing small high head hydro plants with a weir (no dam) is 3-5 million dollars per MW. But these usually flood a minimal area like 10000 square meters. Public companies that develop hydro power projects annual reports is a good place to look for this type of information.
jqm 12y ago
Yes, but Lake Mead serves an additional valuable function as a water storage facility. I'm guessing that is it's primary value. The power generation is secondary.
cwal37 12y ago
It's also a misconception to equate huge-reservoir hydro with all hydro. The Norwegians have incredibly high head, phenomenally efficient hydro in the mountains with minimal environmental impact. We have run of river hydroelectric in the states that diverts some water via penstock, as well as canal-based systems and those that utilize Army Corp dams. In fact, there is significant non-powered dam resource available: http://nhaap.ornl.gov/content/non-powered-dam-potential http://nhaap.ornl.gov/content/non-powered-dam-potential I'm actually working on national-level hydro assessments at a national lab. We don't really predict more huge reservoir installments, but there is plenty of capacity out there. These set-ups (particularly non-powered dams) are also generally pretty cheap per kWh generated over their lifetimes (which in some cases reaches 70+ years).

socialist_coder 12y ago

Really great article. I love the weekend reading on HN. This part of the article really caught my eye: >>> Current “use it or lose it” water laws don’t allow farmers to sell any surplus allotment, so they end up growing as much alfalfa as they can and selling it on the global market. Peter Culp estimates that 50 billion gallons of water—1.5 pulse flows—is shipped to China each year in the form of alfalfa, and even more to Japan. An open water market would allow both cities and environmental groups to pay farmers far more than they currently make growing alfalfa. <<< Terrible! The US West has been fighting water scarcity problems for 10+ years and we're exporting billions of gallons of water overseas? There is also a new documentary out called DamNation which looks quite interesting. http://damnationfilm.com/ http://damnationfilm.com/

ghshephard 12y ago
One of the (supposed) reasons why farmers in the United States get so many privileges, subsidies and water rates at 5% of market rates in some cases, is to promote food security. The theory is, that by ensuring we have a broad set of food stocks that we can potentially draw on should circumstances dictate, then we are capable of maintaining the basic elements of survival. (Energy Security is another one on the list - it's why we have aircraft carriers in the middle east). Those farmers might be shipping Alfalfa to China right now, in the face of that thing called "Free Markets", but faced with a food stock collapse in the United States, it would take little more than a few strokes of the pen to require that same alfalfa go to American cattle.
- HarryHirsch 12y ago
  Cattle for food security makes sense only on marginal land, where rain is so scarce that you can't plant crops, and the only thing you can do is extensive cattle ranching. Look at the American West, Australia and so on. Also, look at Upstate New York and Northern Pennsylvania if you are interested in food security. This used to be the grain basket of the country, but the farmland is all abandoned and reverted to forest, the hilly country is too difficult to farm with large machinery. But it's rain-safe, unlike further out west. I think in the face of climate change, farmland in that area is a most excellent long-term investment.

acbergan 12y ago

>>> hamburgers are a particularly stupid thing to make out of the Colorado. Each hamburger takes about 500 gallons of water. I will be eating fewer hamburgers after reading this.

josephjrobison 12y ago
Yea ~1500 gallons of water for every pound of beef