flow_man t1_ixczfkc wrote
Reply to comment by ribcracker 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
you say 2% like its a small number. This is 70,000 homes.... This is a horrible scale to use and is purposefully used to diminish its significance.
Another way to put it this would be this would power 30% of Wyoming. (70/240k homes). This is NOT a small amount of energy.
onemany t1_ixd1l3t wrote
It's like ~170MW according to pacificorp. The dams were built in 1912 and 1960ish. Pacificorp added like 2200 MW of renewable energy since 1980 and has plans to generate 12k MW of renewable energy by 2040.
I'm not sure what's up with the pearl clutching.
flow_man t1_ixdtgw4 wrote
170MW is a crazy high amount of electricity lost to the grid. Who's pearl clutching? This is being replaced by a gas plant.
If your an environmentalist you just advocated for oil and gas over the best and most reliable form of renewable energy production.
ydouaskbeta t1_ixdvplq wrote
Not very renewable if the water levels dropping friend
flow_man t1_ixe31zt wrote
Water levels dropping from drought does not make it a non-renewable or even account for the future. This is incredibly short term thinking. Hydro electric dams are thought of on a centennial scale not a year to year or even a decade.
If such reactionary measures were used consistently we would just ALWAYS have duel systems of renewables and non-renewables in ever case INSTEAD of being able to rely on hydro in a lot of cases solely because it is an incredible stable and long living power source.
onemany t1_ixdz5fr wrote
"Replacing the Klamath River dams' renewable energy won't be difficult, PacifiCorp officials say. The company has developed nearly 1,600 megawatts of new wind energy in the past five years."
JohnSnowsPump t1_ixed63v wrote
It's like he thinks he is the first person to think of this.
The project has been planned for decades, alternatives have been considered and the benefits have been calculated.
DresdenPI t1_ixd1hf9 wrote
But the thing is that these dams aren't producing that much power anymore. They have the capacity to but the river is less powerful than it used to be. The ability of these dams to produce energy is curtailed regardless of what is done with them, may as well get rid of them to eliminate their effects on the river biome.
Super_Crisis_64 t1_ixd4ocg wrote
Those homes are connected to the full grid. They are not isolated to the dam. Those homes will not lose access to electricity
[deleted] t1_ixdfckc wrote
[removed]
crakii105 t1_ixd0xe6 wrote
Wouldn't it be 12% of Wyoming?
Colddigger t1_ixda6mn wrote
For those 12%
flow_man t1_ixdf1s3 wrote
70/240 = 29.2%
Supermichael777 t1_ixdc8ij wrote
Wyoming is like measuring the expected weight of groceries against a family size bag of potato chips
[deleted] t1_ixd2536 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments