Damn dams dammit

[BWALKER77]

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 difference being the a coal plant pencils out in most cases after its built. Wind litteraly never pencils out in most of the country.

 

[BWALKER77]

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.

I never said all of them where built in the depression. However the BoR's heyday was during the depression.
The nameplate for lower granite is 850MW. That's megawatts per hour. I think your numbers are off.
FWIW the largest windfarm in the country only puts out 1550mw. And with a very low capacity factor, which is important.

 

[BWALKER77]

Can we assume if these damns are removed that the rivers will be come even a shell of their former selves? Not a rhetorical question btw.

 

[JLS]

Can we assume if these damns are removed that the rivers will be come even a shell of their former selves? Not a rhetorical question btw.

yes

 

[BWALKER77]

yes

I honestly find that hard to believe. I base this on the fact that a series of dams washed out on a small river near where I use to live. The previous river channels were full of silt and with no vegitative cover remotely close to the channels I imagine the water temps where drastically warmer.

 

[JLS]

I honestly find that hard to believe. I base this on the fact that a series of dams washed out on a small river near where I use to live. The previous river channels were full of silt and with no negative cover remotely close to the channels I imagine the water temps where drastically warmer.

LOL I thought you said this was not a rhetorical question. Feel free to disagree.

 

[BWALKER77]

Feel free to disagree.

I didnt say I disagreed. I said I find it hard to believe based on my own observations.

 

[TheTone]

And vegetation has never returned? I’m guessing if they ever do come out we will see a significant amount of effort put into mitigation and restoration along the new(old) river banks

 

[Gerald Martin]

Seems to me that nature is pretty good at healing itself once recurring obstacles are removed.

 

[Irrelevant]

Tell me what I'm missing.

https://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/FactSheets/fs-201603-A-Northwest-energy-solution-Regional-power-benefits-of-the-lower-Snake-River-dams.pdf

yes they are rated for more. 3,033MW total between the four. But they don't operate at near that level.

As I believe I've said before. Especially with this subject you can find data and studies to support whatever you want, if you only read the fact sheet you'd think these dams were the greatest things ever built. But the fact that after the construction of these dams the # of salmon and steelhead have plummeted is simply true, and no amount of industry spin can change that.

 

[idahohuntr]

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

What do they cost to operate and how much revenue do they produce?

 

[Irrelevant]

What do they cost to operate and how much revenue do they produce?

All depends on which set of numbers you want to include. There's so many variables between actual power sales versus comparable power rates on the open market, vs just dam related costs or does it include dredging and levee maintenance. The more I've looking into it shadier it seemed, but at the same time you can easily paint a very rosy picture of them.

 

[idahohuntr]

All depends on which set of numbers you want to include. There's so many variables between actual power sales versus comparable power rates on the open market, vs just dam related costs or does it include dredging and levee maintenance. The more I've looking into it shadier it seemed, but at the same time you can easily paint a very rosy picture of them.

There certainly is a lot of competing information and certainly a lot of it is zealots on both sides distorting the truth. One of the more reasonable estimates I've seen in the last few years:
Annual Costs (O&M + Capital + Mitigation) = $160m
Annual Revenue = $290m

It does get very complicated when we start talking non-power purposes (navigation/dredging - including costs but also revenue and economics of river transportation), potential recreational value of a natural river, cost of replacement resources (particularly if we want carbon free sources), energy prices in the last 2 weeks with oil prices what they are etc.

Bottom line though - I don't believe they are a net economic loser for the ratepayer or taxpayer. People who place an extraordinary value on fish will argue no amount of economic value justifies even slight impacts to fish numbers...and I respect their opinion. I then return to my original point - if we want to remove dams in the Columbia Basin to benefit fish, these 4 are not going to give us the best deal. I understand they are politically the easiest to target, but it does not make sense from an economic perspective and it does not make sense from a fish perspective, in my view.

 

[Dougfirtree]

You can find arguments on both sides of this issue. They were installed for a reason and there was some benefit to building/having the dams. If they are to be eliminated without preserving the original intent or benefit, then the reason they were installed is lost and the time and money spent on them is basically for nothing.
It is in everyone's best interest to find a solution that can mitigate all concerns, or at least minimize the impact. Smart people can surely devise a plan to meat this requirement. Just need to leave big money, bad politics, and hear say personal opinions out of it.

I'm not sure there actually is a way to find a win-win here. It sure looks like it's an either/or. One thing I feel confident about: There would be a tremendous economic boon if those salmon runs came back in a big way.

 

[Elkmagnet]

. I then return to my original point - if we want to remove dams in the Columbia Basin to benefit fish, these 4 are not going to give us the best deal. I understand they are politically the easiest to target, but it does not make sense from an economic perspective and it does not make sense from a fish perspective, in my view.

What dams are making the biggest impact to Idaho's remaining salmon runs and where is the info you have to support your claims? (A genuine question)

There certainly is a lot of competing information and certainly a lot of it is zealots on both sides distorting the truth. One of the more reasonable estimates I've seen in the last few years:
Annual Costs (O&M + Capital + Mitigation) = $160m
Annual Revenue = $290m

Keep in mind that way back in 2001 this fishery was bringing over $90 million to Idaho's economy. I am sure if it had stayed healthy it would have surpassed any economic gains these dams have had "290 -160 = 130million ".
Also you have to factor in the trajectory.
Are the future advantage of leaving the dams in place worth the extinction of Idaho's salmon? Not when the trajectory of these dams say they will fail economically and require removal in my lifetime.

 

[idahohuntr]

What dams are making the biggest impact to Idaho's remaining salmon runs and where is the info you have to support your claims? (A genuine question)


Keep in mind that way back in 2001 this fishery was bringing over $90 million to Idaho's economy. I am sure if it had stayed healthy it would have surpassed any economic gains these dams have had "290 -160 = 130million ".
Also you have to factor in the trajectory.
Are the future advantage of leaving the dams in place worth the extinction of Idaho's salmon? Not when the trajectory of these dams say they will fail economically and require removal in my lifetime.

If we limit the discussion to dams in Idaho having the biggest impacts to anadromous fish: Hells Canyon complex (and then dams further upstream) followed by Dworshak Dam. Much more pristine habitat up behind Dworshak right now, but Hells Canyon blocks 85% of fall chinook historical habitat. When massive amounts of habitat, even if not currently pristine, is completely inaccessible - I really have a hard time focusing on dams that successfully pass 99% of adult fish and have downstream juvenile survival rates that approaches undammed rivers such as the Fraser.

You bring up an interesting point regarding 2001. Salmon are boom and bust with natural up and down cycles, and we've had years of good returns with the lower Snake River dams in place...what makes folks think taking these dams out is going to have a noticeable impact on returning salmon considering all the other factors that seem to have orders of magnitude greater influence on returns? Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. NOAA Fisheries measures juvenile salmon survival every year in the Snake/Columbia. For the past decade downstream migration survival from ~ Lewiston, ID to Portland, OR has ranged roughly from 50-60% - in that same time frame we've seen adult returns change by 400-600%. Orders of magnitude difference in adult returns, with nearly stable survival through the dammed portion of the Snake/Columbia. No doubt mainstem dams have an impact on fish, but when folks start pointing specifically to the lower Snake River dams as a major part of the solution to recovering Idaho's salmon and steelhead...I just do not see it...and if we take out the 4 lower Snake dams, and it doesn't substantively improve anadromous fish returns what does that do to future habitat and recovery actions?

To be clear - on balance, I prefer natural rivers and landscapes. My points are based in the pragmatism of a country in need of reliable energy resources and a desire to make science based decisions on actions that provides that energy in a way that minimizes impacts to fish and wildlife.

 

[BuzzH]

I find the comparison of the Fraser and Columbia to be pretty telling...there's 2 major differences between the two:

One returns many millions of fish a year, one is lucky to return even 1 million.

One has, IIRC, 4 dams on tributaries, none on the main stem.

One has 60 total dams in the watershed and 18 on the main stem.

Is there any doubt what the huge dead elephant in the room is causing the problems?

 

[Elkmagnet]

If we limit the discussion to dams in Idaho having the biggest impacts to anadromous fish: Hells Canyon complex (and then dams further upstream) followed by Dworshak Dam. Much more pristine habitat up behind Dworshak right now, but Hells Canyon blocks 85% of fall chinook historical habitat. When massive amounts of habitat, even if not currently pristine, is completely inaccessible - I really have a hard time focusing on dams that successfully pass 99% of adult fish and have downstream juvenile survival rates that approaches undammed rivers such as the Fraser.

I agree but those fish are already gone (so less urgent).
Currently we have trouble getting fish down stream of hells canyon dam removal of the Hells Canyon dams alone wont fix the issue.
We need to start where the bottle neck is happening first.

You bring up an interesting point regarding 2001. Salmon are boom and bust with natural up and down cycles, and we've had years of good returns with the lower Snake River dams in place...what makes folks think taking these dams out is going to have a noticeable impact on returning salmon considering all the other factors that seem to have orders of magnitude greater influence on returns? Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. NOAA Fisheries measures juvenile salmon survival every year in the Snake/Columbia. For the past decade downstream migration survival from ~ Lewiston, ID to Portland, OR has ranged roughly from 50-60% - in that same time frame we've seen adult returns change by 400-600%. Orders of magnitude difference in adult returns, with nearly stable survival through the dammed portion of the Snake/Columbia. No doubt mainstem dams have an impact on fish, but when folks start pointing specifically to the lower Snake River dams as a major part of the solution to recovering Idaho's salmon and steelhead...I just do not see it...and if we take out the 4 lower Snake dams, and it doesn't substantively improve anadromous fish returns what does that do to future habitat and recovery actions?

To be clear - on balance, I prefer natural rivers and landscapes. My points are based in the pragmatism of a country in need of reliable energy resources and a desire to make science based decisions on actions that provides that energy in a way that minimizes impacts to fish and wildlife.

If you have info of other dams having a greater impact on Idahos REMAINING salmon runs I would like to read it. Everything I have ever read suggests that these 4 have the greatest impact with the least benefits.
Removal of any obstacles in a marathon makes it easier to finish.

 

[idahohuntr]

Its not accurate in my view to say salmon behind these dams are gone. Salmon are very resilient and given their high fecundity and migratory capabilities - they could recolonize any habitat opened up. Steelhead maintain a resident life history and as soon as they had passage would resume an anadromous life cycle, so they would re-establish even more rapidly.

However, if we ignore the dams which have by far a greater impact on salmon and steelhead numbers in Idaho and only focus on dams downstream of Idaho's border (a preferred strategy for some of Idaho's politicians - and I don't mean this as a jab at you or others) - then any of the lower Columbia Dams have a substantially greater impact on Idaho's salmon than the lower Snake dams. Much higher predator concentrations on juvenile fish (avian and fish) and then add in sea lions feasting at Bonneville Dam...its difficult to provide quantitative estimates of the potential impact difference, but the bonus of targeting lower Columbia dams...you are now tackling dams that all 13 ESA listed stocks of salmon in the Columbia must navigate as opposed to the subset of 4 stocks that pass the Snake River dams.

The last part of your statement is true...when comparing lower Snake and lower Columbia dams, the Columbia dams produce much more hydropower benefits.

 

[Dougfirtree]

Its not accurate in my view to say salmon behind these dams are gone. Salmon are very resilient and given their high fecundity and migratory capabilities - they could recolonize any habitat opened up. Steelhead maintain a resident life history and as soon as they had passage would resume an anadromous life cycle, so they would re-establish even more rapidly.

However, if we ignore the dams which have by far a greater impact on salmon and steelhead numbers in Idaho and only focus on dams downstream of Idaho's border (a preferred strategy for some of Idaho's politicians - and I don't mean this as a jab at you or others) - then any of the lower Columbia Dams have a substantially greater impact on Idaho's salmon than the lower Snake dams. Much higher predator concentrations on juvenile fish (avian and fish) and then add in sea lions feasting at Bonneville Dam...its difficult to provide quantitative estimates of the potential impact difference, but the bonus of targeting lower Columbia dams...you are now tackling dams that all 13 ESA listed stocks of salmon in the Columbia must navigate as opposed to the subset of 4 stocks that pass the Snake River dams.

The last part of your statement is true...when comparing lower Snake and lower Columbia dams, the Columbia dams produce much more hydropower benefits.

I would agree that the mainstem dams are doing more damage. Honestly, I think we need to work toward getting rid of as many of the dams as we can and we start with the lower hanging fruit. Some of those Snake river dams are hanging pretty low.