Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Eight hundred megawatts or salmon?

The damming question

Posted by Erik Hoffner (Guest Contributor) at 2:58 PM on 15 Mar 2007

Read more about: salmon | dams | energy

It's been 50 years since Celilo Falls in Oregon was buried by the Dalles Dam to create 800 megawatts of power, but the memory of the great salmon runs lost live on through the tribes who migrated again this year to the spot to mourn the day. Orion Grassroots Network member group Save Our Wild Salmon opined eloquently in the Oregonian this week about the choices our society made for green power.

It reminded me that there is a place near my home called Salmon Falls, on Western Massachusetts' Deerfield River, where Atlantic salmon and shad used to come in such numbers that a treaty was needed so that all of the region's tribes could gather and fish in peace. The fact that this small dam and a few others power my entire county with renewable hydropower is something I like, but given the choice between that and salmon, I may have chosen to live in the dark ...

Dams "Green?"

John McPhee wrote a fabulous article for the New Yorker some years ago about the first dam removed for fish (in Maine, IIRC).  It was a good piece and has only become more important as we've come to realize more about what fossil fuels are doing to us.

The noble efforts to preserve the salmon by dam removal campaigns are running smack into the reality that salmon go extinct just as fast (if not faster) when there's no snowpack and the spawning waters dry up or heat up too much.

The 5% Project

helping salmon

Congressman Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) is right to be frustrated -- I guess -- that while over $8 billion has been spent in 25 years to help salmon recover, so far the salmon are still in trouble.  Hopefully the review of the program will arrive at some truly effective recommendations.

I believe that the first harnessing of water as an energy source, other than in navigation, was done by monastic communities in medieval France, Cistercians perhaps, who used water wheels to power mills.  I hope that did not involve the building of dams, and that the energy of the stream's current was sufficient for their purposes.  Anyway, it strikes me as an ideal model, a kind of icon, of how human beings can utilize a river's energy without disrupting its community of living creatures too much.

Here is a lovely way of describing the value of biodiversity, from the Save Our Wild Salmon spokesman's piece in the Oregonian:
<<
When we lose wild salmon, we lose the places of our lives as God gave them to us and us to them. When we restore salmon, we restore our places with theirs. Places to gather, talk and trade, to live, grow up and, in departing, hand on.
>>

I much prefer this sort of writing, to the regrettable paragraph on biodiversity in the Mongabay piece on Peter Raven, in BioD's "Grit your teeth" thread.  To be sure, non-believing environmentalists will not want to endorse a statement that refers frankly to God, and to God's relevance to environmental ethics.  Nor should they be forced to.  On the other hand, I do not see why they cannot be hospitable, if other environmentalists choose to express themselves this way.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

If the dam had never happened

things would be different. Higher electric rates would be the price payed to protect the environment. The result of higher rates would have been conservation of electricity (people use a lot less electric heat where electric rates are high). The result could also have meant more coal, nuclear, or gas power plants. One thing is for sure, nobody would be living in the dark had that dam not been built. There is also a high probability that there would still be salmon runs as well. In other words, the dam should never have been built. It's all water under the bridge (or through turbines) at this point.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Nuclear river-control

JMG wrote:
The noble efforts to preserve the salmon by dam removal campaigns are running smack into the reality that salmon go extinct just as fast (if not faster) when there's no snowpack and the spawning waters dry up or heat up too much.

Nuclear power can keep the rivers running at constant flow-rates and at constant temperature, if you wish.


Bamboo

Bamboo was growing along the river downstream from Oregon's Trojan nuclear plant.  The fish died.

My father has a PhD in fish pathology and spent a lifetime resisting dams.  His original job was to find the cause of cancer in trout.  When he disclosed that the pulp mills were the source he was dismissed rather than step on the big money makers.  It's ok to talk about the environment as long as money is not involved.

RE: If the dam had never happened

Yeah, that's my point, BioD.

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
Speciation versus Extinction


A recent article in New Scientist said that speciation occurs more rapidly in temperate climates than the tropics, the opposite of what was previously thought.   The tropics have a lot of species simply because there is less selection pressure on them to evolve.

So, if you want "diversity" you must apply pressure.  Extinction is part of the growth of nature.  Just worrying about extinction per se is not interesting.  We're really talking about rates of adaption.

For example, although having lots of McDonalds around might be tragic for one body type in one generation, there are people who can happily eat McDonalds and thrive.   So the next generation will be lots of high consumption skinny people.

In a sense, that's a much easier solution to the problem than completely remaking our food supply.


Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

Now, picture a future

where we are trying to restore rainforests after having destroyed them for biofuel production. Attempts are being made as I write to restore some tiny areas of the coastal forests in Brazil (95% gone) decimated by development and sugarcane.

It isn't always possible to fix mistakes.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

Dams are NOT green power

Can't believe anyone would say they are, especially on the Columbia/Snake.  That said, it's doubtful the Dalles Dam is a good candidate for removal now that it's there.  On the other hand, the four lower Snake River dams could be removed, and if planned well in advance, it could actually help the Northwest's power reliability and economy.  Not to mention restore four species of Snake River anadromous fish to the last, best, most extensive salmon habitat remaining in the lower 48.

Snake river dams...

On the other hand, the four lower Snake River dams could be removed, and...restore four species of Snake River anadromous fish

(from a paper by Alan Berryman, Emeritus Professor of Entomology and Natural Resource Sciences at WSU)

"A dramatic collapse of the steelhead population occurred in 1973-5 with only 12,000 fish climbing Ice Harbor dam in 1974. This collapse occurred 2-3 years after the closure of Dworshak dam on the North Fork of the Clearwater River...

Since both A and B runs pass over all the dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers, and since there was no evidence of a collapse of the A run, we are lead to conclude that the collapse was mainly caused by the closure of Dworshak dam, an event that caused the loss of all steelhead spawned in the North Fork of the Clearwater River...

It is surprising that none of the other dams showed any impact on returning steelhead populations. The only other large decrease in the B-run was in 1951, prior to the major dam-building period. In fact the Bonneville steelhead counts have remained remarkably steady for almost 60 years...

Our analysis, as well as simple logic, suggests that the wild B-run is in greatest danger because the construction of Dworshak dam removed most of the spawning habitat for this strain. It is not clear if the low dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers are a real threat to the wild populations. "

Common sense is an oxymoron...

RE: Dams are NOT green power

mgarrity: Big hydro in the west and old school hydro in the colonial east are two extremes. My post contrasts the two: I lament the loss of the free flow of the river and its many species in Oregon, but the Deerfield River in my neighborhood is a whole different situation. It has tiny reservoirs if any at all at the various places it's dammed, and the migratory fish species were all killed off long ago when the dams were erected to power this country's original mills. So, green here is a shade of green, but green nonetheless.

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more
The saddest part

The fact that this small dam and a few others power my entire county with renewable hydropower is something I like, but given the choice between that and salmon, I may have chosen to live in the dark ...

This choice is really unecessary.  Much more hydro power could be generated without damns.  With generating devices located along rivers that do not impeded fish, wildlife, or navigation.

Once again "conventional wisdom" prevents the use of renewable energy and destroys natural biodiversity.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Over-unity hydropower via run-of-river

Amazingdrx wrote:
Much more hydro power could be generated without damns.  With generating devices located along rivers that do not impeded fish, wildlife, or navigation.

The potential energy in a river is simply river-water mass * elevation. How are you going to generate more hydropower via run-of-river than via a continuous string of dams?


Impossible

"...a continuous string of dams?"

Economically, navigationally, ecologically, and physically.  Impossible even to build one more dam in the US due to environmental objections.

In fact most of presnt dams ought to be removed and replaced with side gates in rivers to manage flooding by shunting flood waters into wetlands.  Depleted aquifers need replenishment, restoring wetlands is the way to do it.  Floods provide the water.

The reason that devices that harvest energy all along the river can dwarf the power from dams is that it is impossible to build anymore dams.  But devices that do not have the drawbacks of destroying fish and hindering navigation can be placed all along rivers, tapping the flow that dams cannot.

Distributed hydro power generation.  A huge untapped renwable resource.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks