noharleyyet
Well-known member
Jose, if you, as many here seem to imply, are indeed a barrister, wouldn't "BigWhore" be a term of endearment? 
Salmon Economist Admits Distortions
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Yep Ken,
Jose loves me! He even offered to take me to go see Brokeback Mountain.
Jose, my comment that you would make a good politician was ment as a complement. The way you can argue both sides of an issue is a gift. That skill would come in extremely handy when negotiating with lobbiests. You're Monica L. skills would be usefull as well.
Jose loves me! He even offered to take me to go see Brokeback Mountain.
Jose, my comment that you would make a good politician was ment as a complement. The way you can argue both sides of an issue is a gift. That skill would come in extremely handy when negotiating with lobbiests. You're Monica L. skills would be usefull as well.
snake river rufus
New member
Can you cut your energy use 9-11% without repercussion? Like you, I don't have a horse in this race but people do need accurate figures to make effective long term plans.Erik in AK said:
JoseCuervo
New member
SRR,
The "less than 5%" number is for BPA, the quasi-Fed agency that oversees the power in the basin from the Federal projects. MarvB can explain how they work, as most people can't. The BPA is a net exporter of power from the region, therfore, using simple logic, there is an excess of power in the region. There are some problems with timing issues due to uneven Supply (water going downstream) and uneven Demand (Californians cranking on the AC) and the needs of the fish. (Also, keep in mind, that there is a lot of generation in the region that is OUTSIDE of the BPA).
For the most part though, the Power Production argument is not really an important argument any more. That one has been shot down by everybody with any common sense. The argument against breaching that is holding things up the most is the Barging issue, and that is only because of a few grain farmers in Northern Idaho and Western Montana that like to see a bushel of grain get to Portland for a penny less than if by rail, as the barge trip is subsidised by taxpayers and the rail trip is not.
The "less than 5%" number is for BPA, the quasi-Fed agency that oversees the power in the basin from the Federal projects. MarvB can explain how they work, as most people can't. The BPA is a net exporter of power from the region, therfore, using simple logic, there is an excess of power in the region. There are some problems with timing issues due to uneven Supply (water going downstream) and uneven Demand (Californians cranking on the AC) and the needs of the fish. (Also, keep in mind, that there is a lot of generation in the region that is OUTSIDE of the BPA).
For the most part though, the Power Production argument is not really an important argument any more. That one has been shot down by everybody with any common sense. The argument against breaching that is holding things up the most is the Barging issue, and that is only because of a few grain farmers in Northern Idaho and Western Montana that like to see a bushel of grain get to Portland for a penny less than if by rail, as the barge trip is subsidised by taxpayers and the rail trip is not.
Nemont
Well-known member
BigHornRam said:
My thoughts are that it is a complex issue. I think that having native runs of salmon restored may hold more then just an economic value. I also think that the ranges of "economic benefit" between $7 million and $544 million show that nobody really knows the exact net economic impact/benefit.
If dams are breached there will be a definate big dislocation in the local economies and the salmon runs most likely won't recover fast enough to make up for the loss of the dams in the short run.
If you look soley at power production much of that power could be replaced by wind generation (which has it's critics as well). The value of the power generation does not appear worth the cost of mitigating the impact on Salmon runs. It seems silly to continue to spend a lot of taxpayers money to barge and truck salmon around dams. Breaching them may be more efficient, both economically and socially. As with any government program there will be powerful political interests that will get hurt.
Having had to search my politically and fiscally conservative heart alot lately I am more and more convinced that less government spending the better. I have argued passionately for federal land grazing and a large military budget but even those may need to be dialed back in order to leave our children a legacy other then a huge national debt.
So my opinion in this case is breaching the dams probably would make economic sense, I don't know how you put a value on Salmon fishing for native run Salmon. I do not think all dams are evil and need to be breached.
Nemont
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Nemont,
If we could find honest, knowledgeable, straight talking, big picture seeing, non agenda influenced politicians such as yourself, it would be a breath of fresh air, and a whole lot more problems would be solved then are right now. Thank you.
Problem is nobody listens to moderates. Look at how many threads you kill when you start to talk common sense. The extremists get all the air time. Buzz says "I won't compromise, shut your pie hole, and choke on the facts", then presents a whole series of distortions and half truths to push his agenda. Then some one else says "earth first, we'll rape the rest of the planets later" and the tread takes like wild fire.
Some day I hope common sense prevails.
If we could find honest, knowledgeable, straight talking, big picture seeing, non agenda influenced politicians such as yourself, it would be a breath of fresh air, and a whole lot more problems would be solved then are right now. Thank you.
Problem is nobody listens to moderates. Look at how many threads you kill when you start to talk common sense. The extremists get all the air time. Buzz says "I won't compromise, shut your pie hole, and choke on the facts", then presents a whole series of distortions and half truths to push his agenda. Then some one else says "earth first, we'll rape the rest of the planets later" and the tread takes like wild fire.
Some day I hope common sense prevails.
noharleyyet
Well-known member
Admit it Paul, you just cain't quit Nemont.
Seriously, I too appreciate and respect Nemont's level observations.
Seriously, I too appreciate and respect Nemont's level observations.
MarvB
Well-known member
Just catching up on this one! As stated prior, the economic impacts/benefits/pluses/minuses are definately hard to quantify- primarily since the majority of the "numbers" are EXTREMELY biased by BOTH sides and a goodly amount of the "easy numbers" equate back to a highly volitale (energy) market that changes by the hour. I personally try to toss out the rants of the extremists (I do think that the Northwest Power & Conservation Council does as "decent" a job as anybody of trying to present all sides to the issue) as I'm one who would rather give a little to get something done rather than to constantly go for the home run.
I just dug back into some of my old data, a review of the Corps’ Lower Snake Feasibility Study (Alternative 4), and the annual cost of breaching for that ran an average of $370 million (range of $343M to $400M) while the associated benefits of breaching the Lower Snake Dams was pegged at $154 million annualy. HOWEVER the range of the anticipated beneftis of breaching went from as little as $79 million to over $1600 million per year (That's a lot of ice ). Nearly all of this variance is due to the huge range of estimates of the (get your raft Gunner) non-angling recreation values on a restored natural Lower Snake River.
Again, no easy answers and not an easy thing to analyze with respect to the variables involved (I think Jeff (Nemont) needs to run for office- he's far to rational to not be abused by the masses ) I will banter more later but have got to run to a meeting about another SI topic....Wind Power!!!
I just dug back into some of my old data, a review of the Corps’ Lower Snake Feasibility Study (Alternative 4), and the annual cost of breaching for that ran an average of $370 million (range of $343M to $400M) while the associated benefits of breaching the Lower Snake Dams was pegged at $154 million annualy. HOWEVER the range of the anticipated beneftis of breaching went from as little as $79 million to over $1600 million per year (That's a lot of ice
). Nearly all of this variance is due to the huge range of estimates of the (get your raft Gunner) non-angling recreation values on a restored natural Lower Snake River. Again, no easy answers and not an easy thing to analyze with respect to the variables involved (I think Jeff (Nemont) needs to run for office- he's far to rational to not be abused by the masses
) I will banter more later but have got to run to a meeting about another SI topic....Wind Power!!!
Nemont
Well-known member
Careful now!!!. We don't like that sort of thing in Montana.noharleyyet said:Admit it Paul, you just cain't quit Nemont.
snake river rufus
New member
JoseCuervo said:
First let me say that I was suprised to find there really is a fish passage center
http://www.fpc.org/fpc_homepage.html
Now can you document why Larry Craig, single handedly, stopped funding or are we supposed to just take your word for it?
Now to this post, "using simple logic" (biting my tongue) there is a excessive amount of power in the region.Uh we are an entire nation and the nation always needs power. If one region can export power to anither region, that's a good thing
1) people in your region have all the power they need- shortages are bad
2)Selling excess power is good for the people in your region, if it can be sold for a profit it keeps everyones rates down.
Ssomeday you will have to explain how shutting down performing, paid for, and non-polluting energy sources at a time when our country is desperately hungry for more energy is "common sense".
Wait, from your posts I am pretty sure that the U.S.A. is not your country. Perhaps the republic of buttswanna need energy as well?
JoseCuervo
New member
SRR,
You can do a Google News search on "Larry Craig Fish Passage Center" and find lots of corroboration. Here is one excerpt:
And please learn how to read before you start attributing your false statements to me. I did not say there was "excessive" power, but an "excess" of power. A much different statement.
How does some power generation that raises water temp, degrades the water quality, kills 98% of the smolts in the river be considered a "non-polluting energy source"?
As for your "region" analysis, you might want to learn something about Electricity and transmission of the same.
Any more questions?
You can do a Google News search on "Larry Craig Fish Passage Center" and find lots of corroboration. Here is one excerpt:
And please learn how to read before you start attributing your false statements to me. I did not say there was "excessive" power, but an "excess" of power. A much different statement.
How does some power generation that raises water temp, degrades the water quality, kills 98% of the smolts in the river be considered a "non-polluting energy source"?
As for your "region" analysis, you might want to learn something about Electricity and transmission of the same.
Any more questions?
snake river rufus
New member
Yes several
Whom is your cut and paste attributed to? You seldom cite a source.
Do you have proof that hydro-electric generators "raises water temp, degrades the water quality, kills 98% of the smolts in the river "? Cite it.
I do know something about Electricity and transmission of same, do you?
I did a google as you asked and found one entry. It appears to be a one man blog
http://commonground.typepad.com/commonground/2005/06/sentor_aims_to_.html
Not too impressive.
the google link
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="Larry+Craig+Fish+Passage+Center"&btnG=Google+Search
edited to add google link/srr
Whom is your cut and paste attributed to? You seldom cite a source.
Do you have proof that hydro-electric generators "raises water temp, degrades the water quality, kills 98% of the smolts in the river "? Cite it.
I do know something about Electricity and transmission of same, do you?
I did a google as you asked and found one entry. It appears to be a one man blog
http://commonground.typepad.com/commonground/2005/06/sentor_aims_to_.html
Not too impressive.
the google link
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q="Larry+Craig+Fish+Passage+Center"&btnG=Google+Search
edited to add google link/srr
Ithaca 37
New member
SRR, Here, let me help you. I did the google search Jose suggested and this is what I found.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Larry+Craig+Fish+Passage+Center&btnG=Google+Search
When you're done reading all those articles come back for some more education. For somebody who calls himself "snake river rufus" you sure have a lot to learn about the Snake River.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Larry+Craig+Fish+Passage+Center&btnG=Google+Search
When you're done reading all those articles come back for some more education. For somebody who calls himself "snake river rufus" you sure have a lot to learn about the Snake River.
JoseCuervo
New member
SRR,
If you are too stupid to know how to use Google for optimal search results, don't keep asking us to spoon feed you.
If you really care about the issue, you will be better served by reading the volumes of data there than if I keep spoon feeding you the information. Take some initiative and learn how to edjumacate yourself.
If you are too stupid to know how to use Google for optimal search results, don't keep asking us to spoon feed you.
If you really care about the issue, you will be better served by reading the volumes of data there than if I keep spoon feeding you the information. Take some initiative and learn how to edjumacate yourself.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Ken,
Careful now, I not one of those "brokeback" boys from Missoula.
Marv,
I think you ought to consider being abused by the masses as well!
Careful now, I not one of those "brokeback" boys from Missoula.
Marv,
I think you ought to consider being abused by the masses as well!
snake river rufus
New member
Answer my questions and cite your sources.JoseCuervo said:
BuzzH
Well-known member
SRR,
Have you ever researched anything yourself? Or do just prefer being spoon-fed your mush?
To help answer one of your questions about dams killing smolt (assuming you know what a smolt is) try finding something to do with nitrogen (again assuming you know what nitrogen is).
Also, do you have even a general concept of fish life-cycles, riparian health, or how rivers are supposed to function?
You need to educate yourself before you start asking the tough questions.
Frankly, it would appear you dont have a clue.
Have you ever researched anything yourself? Or do just prefer being spoon-fed your mush?
To help answer one of your questions about dams killing smolt (assuming you know what a smolt is) try finding something to do with nitrogen (again assuming you know what nitrogen is).
Also, do you have even a general concept of fish life-cycles, riparian health, or how rivers are supposed to function?
You need to educate yourself before you start asking the tough questions.
Frankly, it would appear you dont have a clue.
snake river rufus
New member
Listen you simple minded son of a bitch, if you or hosehead post something as fact you need to back it the #*^@#* up. Just sitting on your fat asses and typing bullshit does not cut it.
Frankly when it comes to pretty much anything, it's you two who don't have a clue. You may be used to a bonehead taking your words at face value. I won't.
Frankly when it comes to pretty much anything, it's you two who don't have a clue. You may be used to a bonehead taking your words at face value. I won't.
Similar threads
