Damn dams dammit

[Gerald Martin]

If there were 20 times the fish that there are now commercial fishing would be sustainable and probably profitable.

I agree that it doesn’t make sense to kill the last remnants to retain a low paying job.

 

[R.K.]

I would like to see what becomes of the Elwha River now that it's two dams were removed. Hopefully they'll eliminate the hatchery supplements and let the wild fish show us what they can do if we just get out of the way.

Once that happens, it gives a lot of teeth to dam removal for salmonid restoration. But eliminating hatcheries (and all those good paying government jobs) is going to be a different issue.

 

[Lasiocarpa]

The spawning habitat in Idaho has enormous potential, but the fish aren't making it there. Now to open the conversation about Dworshak...which would unlock the entire North Fork, the traditional spawning grounds for the B-runs.

Dam removal isn't a silver bullet (we still have to contend with changing ocean conditions, etc) but it is better than doing nothing.

 

[Big Fin]

One has to be careful when comparing wind and solar to other generation sources given both are subsidized.

True, as is coal, oil, and gas. Just subsidized in different forms of subsidy. Not a single energy source in this country is without subsidy. Energy is just too important to our country, economy, and way of life, such that our politicians from both sides are going to pick their favorites in the energy space and do what they can to subsidize them.

 

[bullbugle307]

I would like to see what becomes of the Elwha River now that it's two dams were removed. Hopefully they'll eliminate the hatchery supplements and let the wild fish show us what they can do if we just get out of the way.

Once that happens, it gives a lot of teeth to dam removal for salmonid restoration. But eliminating hatcheries (and all those good paying government jobs) is going to be a different issue.

The great thing about fish is that they have really high fecundity. A salmonid doesn't carry as many eggs as some fish, but they can still rebound very quickly if conditions are right.

 

[geetar]

We should find the balance between using resources and destroying them. Where I live I don’t have a problem with dammed rivers because our largemouth bass and catfish aren’t needing to travel upriver to spawn. If the dam is impeding the natural process of salmon reproduction I would consider those fish a valuable enough resource to look for alternatives to damming the rivers in those areas. Just one perspective.

 

[BWALKER77]

True, as is coal, oil, and gas. Just subsidized in different forms of subsidy. Not a single energy source in this country is without subsidy. Energy is just too important to our country, economy, and way of life, such that our politicians from both sides are going to pick their favorites in the energy space and do what they can to subsidize them.

The differance is in many cases wind and solar woukdnt exist without subsidies.
A good example is the wind farms owned by Wisconsin Electric in the state of WI. They lose money on every single wind turbine as Wisconsin just isnt well suited to wind generation. The only reason WE even bothers with them is they help them meet there state mandated clean energy requirements.

 

[Elkmagnet]

The differance is in many cases wind and solar woukdnt exist without subsidies.
A good example is the wind farms owned by Wisconsin Electric in the state of WI. They lose money on every single wind turbine as Wisconsin just isnt well suited to wind generation. The only reason WE even bothers with them is they help them meet there state mandated clean energy requirements.

If that's the difference where did the money to build dams come from?

 

[BWALKER77]

If that's the difference where did the money to build dams come from?

Born. Many where built as part of the new deal during the depression.
There are some key differences between hydro and Wind. For starters hydro takes a huge initial investment, with limited maintenance costs but eventually pencils out. Hydro is is also dispatch able, which means that you can increase the output based on load. Wind on the other hand takes a relatively modest investment initially, never pencils out in many locations and has to be continuously rebuilt. We could talk about solar, but for most of the country it it even worse than wind in all the factors I mentioned.

 

[westbranch]

Born. Many where built as part of the new deal during the depression.
There are some key differences between hydro and Wind. For starters hydro takes a huge initial investment, with limited maintenance costs but eventually pencils out. Hydro is is also dispatch able, which means that you can increase the output based on load. Wind on the other hand takes a relatively modest investment initially, never pencils out in many locations and has to be continuously rebuilt. We could talk about solar, but for most of the country it it even worse than wind in all the factors I mentioned.

There has been a ton of federal funding and favorable financing involved in building coal, gas, and nuclear power plants. Then add in R&D that continues to get direct cost sharing payments. How well would they have penciled out if the current publicly traded companies were not given these funds or a lot of these assets from the New Deal or other gov't funding? Or some of the giant contractors like Bechtel that got there start on projects that were funded by the gov't.

Seems bit more complicated than this:

The differance is in many cases wind and solar woukdnt exist without subsidies.
A good example is the wind farms owned by Wisconsin Electric in the state of WI. They lose money on every single wind turbine as Wisconsin just isnt well suited to wind generation. The only reason WE even bothers with them is they help them meet there state mandated clean energy requirements.

 

[Irrelevant]

Born. Many where built as part of the new deal during the depression.

Construction began for...
Ice Harbor in 1955
Lower Monumental in 1961
Little Goose in 1963
Lower Granite in 1965

I could you refresh my memory as to which depression occurred in the 1950's and 1960's?

Those four dams require between $227-313 million a year in maintenance and required mitigation (depends on which study you want to go with).

They average 1,000 mega watts of production per year.

 

[JLS]

Construction began for...
Ice Harbor in 1955
Lower Monumental in 1961
Little Goose in 1963
Lower Granite in 1965

I could you refresh my memory as to which depression occurred in the 1950's and 1960's?

Those four dams require between $227-313 million a year in maintenance and required mitigation (depends on which study you want to go with).

They average 1,000 mega watts of production per year.

The subsidy argument is pure bullshit.

If we wanted to do right by anadromous fish, we'd clear the Snake River tomorrow.

 

[Irrelevant]

The subsidy argument is pure bullshit.

If we wanted to do right by anadromous fish, we'd clear the Snake River tomorrow.

And the clearwater...

 

[JLS]

And the clearwater...

Agreed.

On a different and happier note, there is a very real possibility of having salmon in the upper Columbia River again. Maybe they can apply the same technology to get fish above Dworshak.

 

[Irrelevant]

Agreed.

On a different and happier note, there is a very real possibility of having salmon in the upper Columbia River again. Maybe they can apply the same technology to get fish above Dworshak.

Sure. But they have access to the Okanogan, Methow, Entiat, Wenatchee, and Yakima, and those runs continue to crash. I've lost all hope that my kids will be able to fish for salmon in WA as adults.

 

[idahohuntr]

If anandromous fish are the primary concern - I can't wrap my head around putting the four lower Snake River dams on top of any list of dams we should focus on removing. Lets start with areas that completely block salmon before we even begin discussions about dams with relatively advanced fish passage measures $.02.

 

[Irrelevant]

If anandromous fish are the primary concern - I can't wrap my head around putting the four lower Snake River dams on top of any list of dams we should focus on removing. Lets start with areas that completely block salmon before we even begin discussions about dams with relatively advanced fish passage measures $.02.

Considering they cost us more money to operate, as is, then they produce, they're near the top of mine.

 

[BuzzH]

If anandromous fish are the primary concern - I can't wrap my head around putting the four lower Snake River dams on top of any list of dams we should focus on removing. Lets start with areas that completely block salmon before we even begin discussions about dams with relatively advanced fish passage measures $.02.

Lots of the issues are not related to adult fish getting back, its smolt getting DOWN to the salt.

 

[Irrelevant]

Lots of the issues are not related to adult fish getting back, its smolt getting DOWN to the salt.

Yes and No. Some years it's actually the temps coming back that are the bigger hindrance. There's some recent data by the PNNL that shows out migration may be a smaller factor that other studies have indicated.

 

[TheTone]

The spawning habitat in Idaho has enormous potential, but the fish aren't making it there. Now to open the conversation about Dworshak...which would unlock the entire North Fork, the traditional spawning grounds for the B-runs.

Dam removal isn't a silver bullet (we still have to contend with changing ocean conditions, etc) but it is better than doing nothing.

I’ve never quite figured out why dworshak is so rarely mentioned in the removal conversation. Flooding issues with orofino seem like a long shot but are mentioned. It would wipe out a good smallmouth and Kokanee fishery and some recreational boating, but that basin has a ton of anadromous habitat