flow_man

flow_man t1_ixh37ql wrote

Reply to comment by Substantial-Emu-9900 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

When it comes to a power grid, sadly it is.

If a power grid goes below a certain threshold for even as long as 10 minutes. It fails. You do NOT want to have to endure a failed power grid.

1

flow_man t1_ixe31zt wrote

Reply to comment by ydouaskbeta 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

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.

0

flow_man t1_ixdtgw4 wrote

Reply to comment by onemany 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

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.

−7

flow_man t1_ixdqbp9 wrote

Reply to comment by eggnogwithextranog 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

>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

flow_man t1_ixdlqg3 wrote

Reply to comment by bazooka_matt 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

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

flow_man t1_ixdgttv wrote

Reply to comment by bazooka_matt 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

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

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.

−12

flow_man t1_ixcrgms wrote

Reply to 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

So they are getting rid of clean hydro-electicity dams that power 70,000 homes and replacing it with what exactly? Because that type of power generation is a hell of a lot of power.

Like it sounds good if you spin it for the salmon but are we not trying to ween ourselves off oil and gas?

19