Ithaca 37
New member
No, he's a politician. The aluminum industry, etc. are big political contributors. Any taxpayer with a brain would be real pissed off about this boondoggle subsidy.
I just saw three salmon headed to idaho
- Thread starter Delw
- Start date
Tom
New member
"Results available so far suggest the study will conclude that breaching is most likely to achieve fish recovery, may result in very large recreation and existence values, but will have high costs due to lost hydropower and politically sensitive navigation impacts. "
from http://info.ag.uidaho.edu/magazine/winter_2000/salmon.html in Ithaca's google search.
That economics guy, predicted breaching would be a good solution but was worried about some high costs. Has that been settled somewhere?
Here's another economic review where they don't like the estimated costs and benefits so far.
"Our recommendation to the Council and others regarding the economic appendix is threefold: (1) consider the costs of dam breaching estimated in the economic appendix as the best estimate currently available; (2) invest in improved estimates of economic benefits from dam breaching to reduce the range of uncertainty and to improve confidence in them; and (3) in the meantime make decisions based upon the estimated costs, biological feasibility, and other measures of positive outcomes while relying less on the magnitudes of estimated recreational benefits and existence values for salmon and natural river conditions. "
from here, http://www.nwppc.org/library/ieab/drewsummary.htm
It doesn't seem clear at all that breaching is good, except for the salmon people. Where's the net gain/loss spelled out, anywhere?
from http://info.ag.uidaho.edu/magazine/winter_2000/salmon.html in Ithaca's google search.
That economics guy, predicted breaching would be a good solution but was worried about some high costs. Has that been settled somewhere?
Here's another economic review where they don't like the estimated costs and benefits so far.
"Our recommendation to the Council and others regarding the economic appendix is threefold: (1) consider the costs of dam breaching estimated in the economic appendix as the best estimate currently available; (2) invest in improved estimates of economic benefits from dam breaching to reduce the range of uncertainty and to improve confidence in them; and (3) in the meantime make decisions based upon the estimated costs, biological feasibility, and other measures of positive outcomes while relying less on the magnitudes of estimated recreational benefits and existence values for salmon and natural river conditions. "
from here, http://www.nwppc.org/library/ieab/drewsummary.htm
It doesn't seem clear at all that breaching is good, except for the salmon people. Where's the net gain/loss spelled out, anywhere?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Tom,
Yes it has been settled...look the numbers over I provided.
The electricity issue is the most problematic, but still its a no-brainer...in particular long-term.
Wait until some of those runs are listed as ENDANGERED and watch the costs soar.
Did anyone else see the cheese post something...I know I didnt.
Yes it has been settled...look the numbers over I provided.
The electricity issue is the most problematic, but still its a no-brainer...in particular long-term.
Wait until some of those runs are listed as ENDANGERED and watch the costs soar.
Did anyone else see the cheese post something...I know I didnt.
Tom
New member
Where are those numbers from that you posted?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Tom,
Right here:
Taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize electric power production, river transportation and irrigation from the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. With all costs accounted, these three Lower Snake dam "benefits" actually produce a net benefit loss to the economy of $114 million every year. (Section 3, p. 25.)
River transportation on the Lower Snake is expensive and heavily subsidized. Although river shippers pay only $1.23 per ton to go from Lewiston, Idaho to Kennewick, Washington, taxpayers and electric ratepayers pay an additional $12.66. The total cost to ship one ton of goods on the Lower Snake is $13.89. In comparison, rail costs only $1.26. (Section 2, p. 19-21 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 30-32.)
Thirteen agribusinesses pump water from the Ice Harbor reservoir. Together, these farms earn a net $1.9 million per year. But taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize these farms with $11.2 million. If the farms paid their full costs, they would lose $9.3 million every year. It would be cheaper to buy these farms outright and end their production altogether.
Right here:
Taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize electric power production, river transportation and irrigation from the Lower Snake dams and reservoirs. With all costs accounted, these three Lower Snake dam "benefits" actually produce a net benefit loss to the economy of $114 million every year. (Section 3, p. 25.)
River transportation on the Lower Snake is expensive and heavily subsidized. Although river shippers pay only $1.23 per ton to go from Lewiston, Idaho to Kennewick, Washington, taxpayers and electric ratepayers pay an additional $12.66. The total cost to ship one ton of goods on the Lower Snake is $13.89. In comparison, rail costs only $1.26. (Section 2, p. 19-21 and Appendix for Section 2, pp. 30-32.)
Thirteen agribusinesses pump water from the Ice Harbor reservoir. Together, these farms earn a net $1.9 million per year. But taxpayers and electric ratepayers subsidize these farms with $11.2 million. If the farms paid their full costs, they would lose $9.3 million every year. It would be cheaper to buy these farms outright and end their production altogether.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Tom, heres the mitigation costs to grain transport and irrigation from the above total: The cost of replacing the lost power, the cost of upgrading the existing rail line for grain transport, and buying out the 13 corporate farms drawing water from Ice Harbor Reservoir....all there.
Providing electric power and river transportation
Replacement power ................................ $115.6
Alternative transportation ............................ $4.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss of irrigation
Purchasing lands ........................................ $2.0
Loss of net crop returns ............................... $1.9
Providing electric power and river transportation
Replacement power ................................ $115.6
Alternative transportation ............................ $4.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loss of irrigation
Purchasing lands ........................................ $2.0
Loss of net crop returns ............................... $1.9
T Bone
Well-known member
1st, let me say I'm all for natural rivers and more salmon.
Removal of the electric generation will be the primary obstacle IMO. I'm coming from the background a short career in the electric utility industry.
California's fiasco with deregulation from 98 - 2001 did damage to the push of removal of Northwest dams. The artificial shortage made everyone gun shy of the thought of removing generation.
Now, a few years later, older plants scheduled for mothballs. Private and Investor owned utilities are reluctant to build new generation because of questionable fuel pricing and questionable rate recovery mechanisms from the state PUC's. Water levels are low. If the drought continues, the Northwest will be in a big shortage in the near future, this time very real.
One can pull some numbers off a study and put X pricetag on replacement power, but if there isn't the generating capacity out there, the price is invalid. Additional generating assets would have to be built. We're talking thermal generation, likely natural gas as the fuel, since the hurdles of coal fueled generation are high and many in the green northwest. Private firms and Investor Owned Utilities won't be incented to jump in. It'd have to be Federal.
Buzz, do you know any of the background of the $115.60 pricetag?
T Bone
Removal of the electric generation will be the primary obstacle IMO. I'm coming from the background a short career in the electric utility industry.
California's fiasco with deregulation from 98 - 2001 did damage to the push of removal of Northwest dams. The artificial shortage made everyone gun shy of the thought of removing generation.
Now, a few years later, older plants scheduled for mothballs. Private and Investor owned utilities are reluctant to build new generation because of questionable fuel pricing and questionable rate recovery mechanisms from the state PUC's. Water levels are low. If the drought continues, the Northwest will be in a big shortage in the near future, this time very real.
One can pull some numbers off a study and put X pricetag on replacement power, but if there isn't the generating capacity out there, the price is invalid. Additional generating assets would have to be built. We're talking thermal generation, likely natural gas as the fuel, since the hurdles of coal fueled generation are high and many in the green northwest. Private firms and Investor Owned Utilities won't be incented to jump in. It'd have to be Federal.
Buzz, do you know any of the background of the $115.60 pricetag?
T Bone
SageGhost
New member
best out of 3???
fishing tourney??? best out of 3 ?? LMFAO>>>
fishing tourney??? best out of 3 ?? LMFAO>>>
BigHornRam
Well-known member
T-Bone,
Buzz's replacement costs are calculated with 1.87 cent per kilowatt electricity. His "facts" and figures are just a bit out of date. His B. S. is starting to get Tom to bite however. One red vote at time, Buzz should make dam breaching a reality in the year 2510!
Buzz's replacement costs are calculated with 1.87 cent per kilowatt electricity. His "facts" and figures are just a bit out of date. His B. S. is starting to get Tom to bite however. One red vote at time, Buzz should make dam breaching a reality in the year 2510!
Tom
New member
I was asking for the source, like Wild for Salmon, PATH, the USFWS, who came up with them and when? I guess they're from Missoula, so they must be right?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Buzz,
We've been over this ground several times now and your still singing the same old song. This brings me to only two possible conclusions.
One: That you are an idiot that can not understand even the simplest of economic realities. This is why you continue to parrot false and out of date information provided by.....
Two: You are a lying agenda driven weasel that is knowingly promoting false and out of date information to further your agenda.
So which one is it Buzz? One or Two?
We've been over this ground several times now and your still singing the same old song. This brings me to only two possible conclusions.
One: That you are an idiot that can not understand even the simplest of economic realities. This is why you continue to parrot false and out of date information provided by.....
Two: You are a lying agenda driven weasel that is knowingly promoting false and out of date information to further your agenda.
So which one is it Buzz? One or Two?
cjcj
New member
When is the Salmonman march?
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR,
Do you actually read...or do you just flap your chops.
Look, I was giving Tom the basics of the controversy...you have to start somewhere.
Dont you think it would be pretty tough get into all the fine details when he doesnt even understand the problem?
Also, please read where I put down the disclaimer of the data being out-of-date.
But, that doesnt change the fact, that a small amount of power comes from those 4 dams, irrigation from only ONE, and that tax-payers are subsidizing the electricity being produced.
Theres a mountain of info on where the alternative electricity could/would come from if the dams are breached, alternative after alternative has been brought up. I'm not going to spoon-feed you your mush...if its that big of a deal for you...find it and post it...trust me the data is out there.
Of course things have changed and when the dams are breached a few years down the road, the current data you provide TODAY will be equally out-of-date. Sorry that your simple mind cant grasp that concept.
If shrub has his way...by the time the dams are breached, he should have a whole bunch of new nuclear power plants up and running...making the electricity produced by the fish-killing dams on the Snake and Columbia a non-issue.
Thats the problem with providing CURRENT data today....its worthless tomorrow.
Oh, and thanks for being concerned with one part of a very complex problem...
Do you actually read...or do you just flap your chops.
Look, I was giving Tom the basics of the controversy...you have to start somewhere.
Dont you think it would be pretty tough get into all the fine details when he doesnt even understand the problem?
Also, please read where I put down the disclaimer of the data being out-of-date.
But, that doesnt change the fact, that a small amount of power comes from those 4 dams, irrigation from only ONE, and that tax-payers are subsidizing the electricity being produced.
Theres a mountain of info on where the alternative electricity could/would come from if the dams are breached, alternative after alternative has been brought up. I'm not going to spoon-feed you your mush...if its that big of a deal for you...find it and post it...trust me the data is out there.
Of course things have changed and when the dams are breached a few years down the road, the current data you provide TODAY will be equally out-of-date. Sorry that your simple mind cant grasp that concept.
If shrub has his way...by the time the dams are breached, he should have a whole bunch of new nuclear power plants up and running...making the electricity produced by the fish-killing dams on the Snake and Columbia a non-issue.
Thats the problem with providing CURRENT data today....its worthless tomorrow.
Oh, and thanks for being concerned with one part of a very complex problem...
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Buzz,
Why don't you be intellectually honest for once, knock off the "shrub this, shrub that, blah, blah, blah (you look like a dipshit to anyone with a clue that reads your blather), and comment on T Bone's comments. I bet you can't do it. Start with his comments on the drought in the Columbia Basin:
"Water levels are low. If the drought continues, the Northwest will be in a big shortage in the near future, this time very real."
Any solutions to this real concern Buzz? How about the rest of T Bone's comments?
Why don't you be intellectually honest for once, knock off the "shrub this, shrub that, blah, blah, blah (you look like a dipshit to anyone with a clue that reads your blather), and comment on T Bone's comments. I bet you can't do it. Start with his comments on the drought in the Columbia Basin:
"Water levels are low. If the drought continues, the Northwest will be in a big shortage in the near future, this time very real."
Any solutions to this real concern Buzz? How about the rest of T Bone's comments?
JoseCuervo
New member
Paul,
Are you trying to look like a moron and stoop to the Cheese's level, or do you have a clue? Do you really advocate we make decisions based on THIS year's snowpack???
Un-friggin' believable....
Are you trying to look like a moron and stoop to the Cheese's level, or do you have a clue? Do you really advocate we make decisions based on THIS year's snowpack???
Un-friggin' believable....
Erik in AK
New member
Tom.
to address your question about smolt migration to the sea. Chinook smolts are about 4 inches long when they head downstream. Unlike the adults who will take to the surface to go over obstacles, smolts tend to travel at mid-depth and straight down the main current, avoiding the surface, current seams and eddies--all places where smolt predators lurk. This formally successful survival strategy now causes virtually all smolts to be sucked into the turbine intakes when they reach a hydro dam.
It would take an extensive, fairly elaborate, and most likely labor intensive contraption to catch smolts without killing them and transport them over the dam.
If Buzz's data is even close to correct then the dams should go, but unfortunately political inertia is a terrible thing to overcome.
to address your question about smolt migration to the sea. Chinook smolts are about 4 inches long when they head downstream. Unlike the adults who will take to the surface to go over obstacles, smolts tend to travel at mid-depth and straight down the main current, avoiding the surface, current seams and eddies--all places where smolt predators lurk. This formally successful survival strategy now causes virtually all smolts to be sucked into the turbine intakes when they reach a hydro dam.
It would take an extensive, fairly elaborate, and most likely labor intensive contraption to catch smolts without killing them and transport them over the dam.
If Buzz's data is even close to correct then the dams should go, but unfortunately political inertia is a terrible thing to overcome.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Jose,
The Apple Pickers and Californacators will be getting a trial run of post dam breaching supply and demand this summer, you can bet on that. My guess is there will be A LOT of whining and demanding of why scrub allowed this to happen. You going to lay off your a c this summer to help them out?
The Apple Pickers and Californacators will be getting a trial run of post dam breaching supply and demand this summer, you can bet on that. My guess is there will be A LOT of whining and demanding of why scrub allowed this to happen. You going to lay off your a c this summer to help them out?
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR,
The problem with anadromous fish is a lot more complex than just electricity...if you dont realize that, you're an assclown.
Yes, there are solutions to mitigating the power loss (which from the 4 Snake river dams represents about 2% of the NW's power)...you can use the 100 million a year savings from the dam breaching to solve that problem....
You know do things like increase efficiency of other dams, etc. etc. etc.
Why do you struggle with such simple things? Must have to do with becoming a 'rooter.
The problem with anadromous fish is a lot more complex than just electricity...if you dont realize that, you're an assclown.
Yes, there are solutions to mitigating the power loss (which from the 4 Snake river dams represents about 2% of the NW's power)...you can use the 100 million a year savings from the dam breaching to solve that problem....
You know do things like increase efficiency of other dams, etc. etc. etc.
Why do you struggle with such simple things? Must have to do with becoming a 'rooter.
JoseCuervo
New member
Uh Paul,
I pay a premium to Idaho Power each month to buy Green Power. So I can run my AC all I want. Those of us who actually work for a living (AND PAY TAXES) can afford a small bump in electricity costs in order to save the Salmon. I can understand the concern in energy costs of people like yourselves who contribute nothing to society.
I pay a premium to Idaho Power each month to buy Green Power. So I can run my AC all I want. Those of us who actually work for a living (AND PAY TAXES) can afford a small bump in electricity costs in order to save the Salmon. I can understand the concern in energy costs of people like yourselves who contribute nothing to society.
