Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bazooka_matt t1_ixddqc4 wrote

Reply to comment by flow_man in U.S. regulators approved a plan to demolish four dams on the lower Klamath River and open hundreds of miles of salmon habitat in the largest dam-removal and river-restoration project in the world. by doginasweater39

This is perpetuating the lie that dam owners and power companies keep shoving about these 100+ yearold dams, that providing value to humans at the expense of wildlife and endangered species is always worth it. It's not.

About 75 wind turbines at 42% generation capacity will power the same number of homes. Fairly small solar fields will also do the same. The other fact is that these dams will need full replacement soon regardless and I am also sick of my tax dollars paying for things like public utilities, where the profits go to a private person. We are a long long time being done with oil and gas, but we can do without these dams.

11

flow_man t1_ixdgttv wrote

Yep, I know exactly the article you looked at for this too, (https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-turbine-power) So yes, we build 75 wind turbines at 262 million dollars and that is fine. BUT you also need to have a stable source added for when the wind does not blow. So you need a natural gas plan that can make this energy too. Costs about 400 million to make that plant and then maintenance for both of these systems each is more than the cost for the hydro dam but now you have two of them to deal with. See where this goes? There is a true cost to this decision both monetary wise and environmentally.

We can do a lot of COULDA's. But the fact is this. A clean hydroelectric dam is not being upgraded but rather demolished for a gas electric plant and Environmentalists here seem to be in full support. Sounds like a lot of not in my backyard environmentalism.

2

bazooka_matt t1_ixdiro6 wrote

Sorry bud, I just can't support keeping dams at the expense of wildlife. Also $262M is nothing compared to the cost of renovation and rebuild of these "clean dams".

I get what you're saying about when the wind doesn't blow. A hybrid system is a a must. Also what's going to happen when there's not enough water to turn the turbines in these dams anyway?

7

flow_man t1_ixdlqg3 wrote

262m upfront for only the wind power. You need a dual system with wind because it doesn't blow all the time nor does it meet the hyperbolic curve of power that is needed in a day. you need the 400m gas plant as well and the maintenance of both of these systems is individually is more than the hydro dam. nonetheless combined. Passing the buck onto the future.

The neat part of a damn is the power is there for you whenever you want it. Need more power in the evening, let more water through.

−1

eggnogwithextranog t1_ixdnu26 wrote

Dams require upkeep as well, you seem to be ignoring that. More importantly, how many billions of dollars in ecosystem services have been lost in the decades that the dams have been up? If you're really worried about clean, consistent energy output, you would be a proponent of nuclear over hydroelectric. Or you'd be advocating for increased funding into innovation in large scale battery storage technology so we can store extra energy generated by wind and solar in times of high production. Why argue for dams?

4

flow_man t1_ixdqbp9 wrote

>both of these systems is individually is more than the hydro dam

This is not ignoring. This is directly relating them and saying one is more than the other.

Nuclear power is GREAT. It is the one non oil and gas power source which can generate the power in great supply and usability that rivals Hydro. There is no need to be a proponent of one over the other. They BOTH are the best ways to generate cleaner energy. The funny thing about all large scale battery storage solutions currently is they all make a DAM and pump water to the top of it. Wind is at the ebb and flow of the wind, solar produces during the day when power is not needed as much as it is in the Evening.

1