idahohuntr
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2013
- Messages
- 357
Hey...I said 'fiscally conservative congressman'...not fiscally conservative. I agree, big difference.
GOP congressman wants to remove 4 dams to save Idaho’s salmon
- Thread starter Whiptail
- Start date
Irrelevant
Well-known member
they'd need to pop their ears on the way up!
Irrelevant
Well-known member
I have my doubts on the long term viability of getting fish mechanically over high head dams. It hasn't worked well in OR https://deschutesriveralliance.word...und-butte-how-long-will-we-let-this-continue/Folks are working on getting fish past Joseph and Coulee, it may take time but I think it will happen,. However it won't be via dam removal. Goes back to run-of-river dams vs storage-dams. All the high profile dam removal projects in the Pacific Northwest are overwhelmingly run-of-river dams. Storage-dams typically represent a more pronounced connection to water delivery, and since its water that is for fighting and not hydro-power, they stay in.
Reintroduction of anadromous fish above Chief Joseph and Grand Coulee
www.nwcouncil.org
Here is the tool they will likely use at storage-dam projects.
Here is a more scientifical link (you can then download the report) for those disposed to enjoying rocket-surgery and brain-science.
This type of design has really moved the needle big time with respect to improving runs.
Washington’s Baker River Reaches All Time Record—One Million Salmon Are on Their Way to the Pacific Ocean
It's a record-smashing season for young salmon migrating through the Baker River in the North Cascades of Washington State.www.fisheries.noaa.gov
Here are the jobs these projects create as far away as Montana.
Swift Floating Surface Collector – Montana Fabrication Works
mtfabworks.com
And Whoosh seems too small scale.
HighCountryCommando
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2018
- Messages
- 107
Wow, you nailed the low hanging fruit. You must either work for PGE or you fish the Deschutes a lot. I'll assume you fish it.
When dams stay in place they have to be managed and operated properly to benefit fish runs. You can negate flawlessly designed passage systems due to incompatible management and operation of the dam. Unfortunately, this will always be true. If the dam stays in it has to be manged and operated properly to pass fish. In my opinion, Pelton does not manage its project properly to maximize fish returns.
The cause of the consternation surrounding Pelton, is due to the fact PGE changed the way they operated and managed Pelton in the middle of the design process. That would be like telling Ford midstream in the process of designing a gas powered V8 that they are actually designing a turbo diesel V6. Knowing those details earlier designers would have been able to better match up the passage facilities to the management and operation of dam discharges.
That being said, my opinion is that Pelton is an outlier relative to vast majority of other floating surface collector (FSC) designs constructed over the last decade. There are far more that work effectively than do not.
Since we're straying off the topic of this thread you can DM me or we can start a new thread if you want to discuss it more.
Last edited:
Hayduke
New member
I was all in once, too. It ain't as easy as you think.
El Jason
Well-known member
Gosh, glad you brought this up. I'm sure no one has ever thought of this issue....
El Jason
Well-known member
FIFY.
If the Columbia and Snake River dams were wind or solar farms in your state, that were threatening the existence of deer, elk, and antelope, I'm guessing you'd view things differently.
El Jason
Well-known member
My area of expertise is conservation, not energy development. I don't have the answer to your question.
Irrelevant
Well-known member
See post #158 and more importantly go to the Senators page and read for yourself what's being proposed.
HighCountryCommando
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2018
- Messages
- 107
I'm aware of the vast majority of large dam removals in the west. I have not seen a project yet where water rights were cut off or curtailed. Water users have always been able to get their full allotment of water if and when they want it. There are a few (very few) cases where engineering firms botched a design aspect of the new water deliver system, but that's just engineering. Same thing happens with bridges, roads, and buildings, sometimes the engineers make mistakes. Folks still have to do their due diligence when hiring an engineering firm.
I'd like to know what way of life is under attack? Especially given the fact that 3 of the 4 LSDs provide no irrigation benefit at all, to anyone. As I covered in a former post, Ice Harbor provides "incidental irrigation" that delivers water to 35,00-47,000 acres of eastern WA. Which is less than 2% of eastern WA water needs. Dam removal is not a threat to wet-land agriculture. Not only will the government funded irrigation construction deliver the same amount of water to farmers, post removal, it will do so more efficiently. The entire irrigation system for each effected farmer will get an upgrade. Efficiency will result in a lot of savings for each farmer. They may even be able to generate profit if they have the ability to sell excess water to other users. This is not a conspiracy to destroy agriculture, we all need food. Its not an "us or them" scenario. This can be a "we" win for everyone. Farmers get a benefit as do the fish. The farming community already gets nearly $100 billion per year from the Federal Farm Bill. This will just be another subsidy for the agriculture community, one that's focused on upgrading archaic water deliver systems. In fact I see a day in the not so distant future where dam removals are funded via the Farm Bill.
The opposition has done a great job over the years turning dam removal into a water right fist fight, when it doesn't even exist.
www.postregister.com
“Despite what supporters of the plan claim, make no mistake, this is a drastic measure that would forever alter our way of life in the Pacific Northwest, and not for good,” he said. “Idaho Farm Bureau members are adamantly opposed to this proposal.”
I'd like to know what way of life is under attack? Especially given the fact that 3 of the 4 LSDs provide no irrigation benefit at all, to anyone. As I covered in a former post, Ice Harbor provides "incidental irrigation" that delivers water to 35,00-47,000 acres of eastern WA. Which is less than 2% of eastern WA water needs. Dam removal is not a threat to wet-land agriculture. Not only will the government funded irrigation construction deliver the same amount of water to farmers, post removal, it will do so more efficiently. The entire irrigation system for each effected farmer will get an upgrade. Efficiency will result in a lot of savings for each farmer. They may even be able to generate profit if they have the ability to sell excess water to other users. This is not a conspiracy to destroy agriculture, we all need food. Its not an "us or them" scenario. This can be a "we" win for everyone. Farmers get a benefit as do the fish. The farming community already gets nearly $100 billion per year from the Federal Farm Bill. This will just be another subsidy for the agriculture community, one that's focused on upgrading archaic water deliver systems. In fact I see a day in the not so distant future where dam removals are funded via the Farm Bill.
The opposition has done a great job over the years turning dam removal into a water right fist fight, when it doesn't even exist.
Farm Bureau strongly opposes dam removal plan
Idaho Farm Bureau Federation, the state’s largest farm organization, is strongly opposed to a proposal that would result in the removal of four lower Snake River dams that provide amazing
www.postregister.com
“Despite what supporters of the plan claim, make no mistake, this is a drastic measure that would forever alter our way of life in the Pacific Northwest, and not for good,” he said. “Idaho Farm Bureau members are adamantly opposed to this proposal.”
Last edited:
158 has nothing to do with what I asked and the only reference I have seen on replacement sources of power is the mention of "renewable sources".
CoffeeGoat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2020
- Messages
- 141
I think he meant post 122, the National renewable energy lab put out a report indicating commercial, large (20MW+) solar power plants are about 8 acres/MW.
Wind power is more like 60 acre/MW, though that is due to spreading out the wind mills.
The Pacific NW isnt particularly well suited to solar. I havent seen any wind study data, but it very well maybe well suited to wind. The problem is scale. 8700 MW is a huge amount of power. And wind will never, ever be as cheap as Hydro.
For reference Wyoming currently has about 1500mw of wind generation, but it's a prime area for wind development. To get adequate capacity factors it's very likely wind farms in Washington state would have to be much larger than those in Wyoming.
The other thing to consider is, if what Buzz says is true about smelt survival would removing several run of the river dams have much effect on andromanous fish populations?
OverlordBear
Well-known member
Modern nuclear power is the only long term energy strategy humans have until we get cold fusion. I don’t buy wind being worth the cost. And solar is great small scale not large
Nuclear is pretty much a non starter, sadly.
OverlordBear
Well-known member
The sad part, it is a simple math equation if everyone wants electricity then you have to have a large enough supply. If you destroy all the carbon based energy then you are left with a deficit that can only be fulfilled by Nuclear.
BuzzH
Well-known member
SMOLT
Similar threads
