Hard to imagine that the economy cannot survive dam removal... that seemed a bit over the top, especially with wholesale electric prices at historically low (even negative at times) levels.
The Columbia River once had the largest salmon runs in the world, around 16 million. Then, we built as many dams as possible and many of the runs are now extinct and others are hanging on by a thread. Hydropower may seem "cheap" but it depends on how you measure the cost and damage done. Best option would be to remove as many dams as possible and give the salmon a second chance. Rail could replace the barges. Power could be replaced by natural gas/wind/solar without a lot of disruption or extra cost. But, the salmon are irreplaceable as part of the fabric of life.
NWEC white paper concludes region does not need power generated from the 4LSRD's, WA state and region have enough electricity if dams are removed and all fossil plants could be shut down also and we have enough power along w/ a free flowing SR and salmon/ steelhead have the best opportunity to return to abundance
Hmmm. Seems overly human economy focused. The line about supplying enough electricity to power Seattle is a bit misleading and needs clarification (the dams provide that level of power only briefly in the spring when power demand is fairly low).
A study of what is happening from the moment fish leave the river and enter the ocean needs to be undertaken. There are so many things that dams do to negatively impact fisheries but the dams and associated water behind each dam and their effects are not always clear. The one thing that stands out in my view, of how fish move to the ocean is detrimentally effected, is the time it takes, the energy it takes the fish to get there. When there is a free flowing river a few things come to mind. The water is cooler in general, the speed of the water is considerably faster, the food sources are much more predictable and there is far less predation. A fish that moves downriver utilizes the river flow for nearly all its progress, therefore requires less energy to get where they are going. When using less energy there will be less body mass depletion by the time they reach the ocean. The fish will arrive at the ocean in really good physical shape in contrast to the ones that travel through the slack water of present. A healthy fish has very little trouble out maneuvering predators, whereas a fish that travels the present method is going to be much depleted in muscle mass and is going to be tired out. This present scenario results in easy predation on the fish.
I personally enjoy fishing for salmon and steelhead for sport and tablefare. I want salmon and steelhead to thrive like it used by back in the old days. My great grandpa used to tell me stories of how the fish numbered in the millions back then. Now we are lucky if we get a couple thousand of these fish to return home. Honestly I could give a fuck less about these dams. I want to see these beautiful fish return and thrive back to their original numbers. So if the dams get removed I say good riddance.
I say keep the dams; therefore, there is a backup for the power grid when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. Then, down the road hopefully batteries or hydrocarbon fuels will be a supplement for wind and solar. There won’t be any salmon if climate change keeps occurring and the columbia keeps having historically high temperatures. I am aware that dams create reservoirs that do warm up the water; however, the climate is going to warm and glaciers and springs will disappear in the northwest causing an even greater crisis if we do not cap carbon emissions now. Spend the money elsewhere on improving water quality from runoff in places like Seattle and Tacoma (look up videos such as Drained: Urban Stormwater Pollution). Keep dam removal as a long term goal but until there are better and reliable options for carbon free electricity then I say no.
Hard to imagine that the economy cannot survive dam removal... that seemed a bit over the top, especially with wholesale electric prices at historically low (even negative at times) levels.
The Columbia River once had the largest salmon runs in the world, around 16 million. Then, we built as many dams as possible and many of the runs are now extinct and others are hanging on by a thread. Hydropower may seem "cheap" but it depends on how you measure the cost and damage done. Best option would be to remove as many dams as possible and give the salmon a second chance. Rail could replace the barges. Power could be replaced by natural gas/wind/solar without a lot of disruption or extra cost. But, the salmon are irreplaceable as part of the fabric of life.
No one has liked your comment Because your right they do the same thing to me
NWEC white paper concludes region does not need power generated from the 4LSRD's, WA state and region have enough electricity if dams are removed and all fossil plants could be shut down also and we have enough power along w/ a free flowing SR and salmon/ steelhead have the best opportunity to return to abundance
Our economy can't survive our defense budget. #FreeTheSnake
Why not build canal systems around dams to allow for safe fish passage.
Hmmm. Seems overly human economy focused. The line about supplying enough electricity to power Seattle is a bit misleading and needs clarification (the dams provide that level of power only briefly in the spring when power demand is fairly low).
A study of what is happening from the moment fish leave the river and enter the ocean needs to be undertaken. There are so many things that dams do to negatively impact fisheries but the dams and associated water behind each dam and their effects are not always clear. The one thing that stands out in my view, of how fish move to the ocean is detrimentally effected, is the time it takes, the energy it takes the fish to get there. When there is a free flowing river a few things come to mind. The water is cooler in general, the speed of the water is considerably faster, the food sources are much more predictable and there is far less predation. A fish that moves downriver utilizes the river flow for nearly all its progress, therefore requires less energy to get where they are going. When using less energy there will be less body mass depletion by the time they reach the ocean. The fish will arrive at the ocean in really good physical shape in contrast to the ones that travel through the slack water of present. A healthy fish has very little trouble out maneuvering predators, whereas a fish that travels the present method is going to be much depleted in muscle mass and is going to be tired out. This present scenario results in easy predation on the fish.
I personally enjoy fishing for salmon and steelhead for sport and tablefare. I want salmon and steelhead to thrive like it used by back in the old days. My great grandpa used to tell me stories of how the fish numbered in the millions back then. Now we are lucky if we get a couple thousand of these fish to return home. Honestly I could give a fuck less about these dams. I want to see these beautiful fish return and thrive back to their original numbers. So if the dams get removed I say good riddance.
Bac this vid
WWWW
Choose Salmon people are so overrated anyway
I say keep the dams; therefore, there is a backup for the power grid when the wind is not blowing and the sun is not shining. Then, down the road hopefully batteries or hydrocarbon fuels will be a supplement for wind and solar. There won’t be any salmon if climate change keeps occurring and the columbia keeps having historically high temperatures. I am aware that dams create reservoirs that do warm up the water; however, the climate is going to warm and glaciers and springs will disappear in the northwest causing an even greater crisis if we do not cap carbon emissions now. Spend the money elsewhere on improving water quality from runoff in places like Seattle and Tacoma (look up videos such as Drained: Urban Stormwater Pollution). Keep dam removal as a long term goal but until there are better and reliable options for carbon free electricity then I say no.