Dam removal a real look at cost

[m99037]

Here is a good look at the real cost of removing the four dams on the Snake river. It give a better picture of the true cost to the tax payers.

http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/pubs/fa...s/fs030207.pdf

[Chrome Bumper]

There ya go, dealing with facts again.

[TheRogue]

OH, but it's all lies, right? Coming from BPA, a radical conservative organization who's only focus is killing fish, right

Sorry, had to post something before it turned ugly.

TR

[bulldog]

Originally Posted by m99037

Here is a good look at the real cost of removing the four dams on the Snake river. It give a better picture of the true cost to the tax payers.

http://www.bpa.gov/corporate/pubs/fa...s/fs030207.pdf

Thanks for keeping us posted. Very good analysis. thanks

[Straydog]

Yea, TR, the BPA has a stellar track record of fish recovery, so I guess we should by all means believe every word they say.
Heck, why would one expect the entity who's entire existence depends on those dams today to skew anything to make them look more favorable? Again, especially given their past record of performance.......

More Koolaide????

[FrogPond]

interesting read
So the only benefit of these four dams is their almost 3,500 MW of capacity. Capacity that can be utilized on an hourly basis...?

The final analysis (Corp EIS) says that the aggressive mitigation efforts would be most benefitial to the salmon. That dam removal alone would not recover the fish.

[fishbenk]

Now if BPA and the corps would only operate the dams like they said they would in the EIS. I mean without a federal judge stepping in and doing it for them.

[Straydog]

Originally Posted by FrogPond

That dam removal alone would not recover the fish.

I don't believe I have ever heard anyone say it would.

There is no silver bullet.

But working on the things we can control makes more sense than simply saying "that alone won't save our fish", and doing nothing but watch the runs go away, does it not???

[TheRogue]

Sorry, I want BPA to strive to keep the NW power rates low, within the strictures of the law. That's why they're there. If a judge tells them to do differently, fine.

[freespool]

[quote=TheRogue;1901406]Sorry, I want BPA to strive to keep the NW power rates low, within the strictures of the law. That's why they're there. If a judge tells them to do differently, fine.[/quote

If you look closely at this issue you will see that this situation is really unique.
These four dams were never designed or engineered for the primary function of generating electricity.
They were instead designed for navigational purposes.
So when you add all the extra money associated with navigational maintains on these four locks, it becomes abundantly clear that they are a huge monetary liability for ratepayers.
Dredging is a on going necessity to keep these dams functioning.
And as for BPA's analysis's of the facts for removal, it reminds of letting a college student grade his own term paper.

[drhall99]

Yup, we should decide to ignore doing the right thing because it costs too much money. Never mind the long term affects on the environment. Why should WE pay to fix the problem. We can just leave the whole mess for our children and grandchildren.

I always find it interesting the number of people that will put money before ethics....

Is this really how you want to be remembered?

[TheRogue]

Come up with a viable, consistent, and safe way to generate this "tiny" bit of power, and I'm all for it!! Let's build a couple of nuke plants. If we can build 1,000 acre batteries at no environmental cost, so we can utilize solar and wind realistically on a region wide scale, let's do that!!

This horse is getting beaten again and again. Population is exploding in the Pacific NW. If it was up to me, I'd build a gate and an electric fence at the Oregon border with California, but that ain't gonna happen. So, reality is our power needs are going to increase significantly, year after year. That little 5% becomes huge in the big scheme of things.

[FrogPond]

The need for additional power sources is still present with or without these dams. Their "capacity rating" is only good for short term (as in hours) needs. They will never operate continually at their "capacity".
So build one more nuke and there, your power problem is solved. With 2 nukes you cover their current output plus get over 1000MW of "capacity".

there are other issues to overcome before the dams go away...Power has easy solutions.

[Joe Schwab]

If we had only enough generating facilities to supply the power we need the price would be astronomical!

My daughter works for a gas generating plant owned by the city in California. They buy power off line as much as possible so they can get better rates for their taxpayers. If they need to they can be self sufficient. She and a crew monitor power use 24 hours a day and search the grids for the cheapest power. BPA shunts power all over the grid when they have surplus. None of these plants can operate at peak for long and rely on the continuous flow from many other sources for uninterrupted power.

[AuntyM]

These four dams were never designed or engineered for the primary function of generating electricity.
They were instead designed for navigational purposes.

Careful Freespool. They're liable to read that and start a "redesign" the Snake dams campaign to rebuild them.

[Thumper]

Freespool --- I'd like your take on the Fact Sheet. If there are errors, where are they? And what would you recommend be the approach, having considered this latest input?

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Thumper

Freespool --- I'd like your take on the Fact Sheet. If there are errors, where are they? And what would you recommend be the approach, having considered this latest input?

Jack, right out of the hole BPA claims these dams are producing 3,500 megawatts of power.
This is a true statement, this happens for about a week or maybe two per year, during spring run off.
They average around 1000 megawatts, so right there they are being less than truthful.
This isn't about how viable or valuable these dams are, it's about their effect on ESA listed species, and science says they are extremely unfriendly to salmonics.
We have seen the Spotted Owl tear down the entire timber industry in the Pacific Northwest, we will soon see listed salmon tear down these outdated, inefficient, financially bankrupt dams down.
With the up coming elections, perhaps there will be a different attitude toward following the law, I know the salmon sure hope so.

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by freespool

Jack, right out of the hole BPA claims these dams are producing 3,500 megawatts of power.
This is a true statement, this happens for about a week or maybe two per year, during spring run off.
They average around 1000 megawatts, so right there they are being less than truthful.

They seem to be truthful in saying:

The benefits of the lower Snake River dams go far beyond the 1,022 average megawatts that they generate annually .... The lower Snake River dams also supply almost 3,500 watts of capacity. Capacity is the ability of a power plant to deliver power quickly to meet peak power energy requirements and to follow moment-to-moment changes in loads.

Do you disagree with that?

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Thumper

They seem to be truthful in saying:

The benefits of the lower Snake River dams go far beyond the 1,022 average megawatts that they generate annually .... The lower Snake River dams also supply almost 3,500 watts of capacity. Capacity is the ability of a power plant to deliver power quickly to meet peak power energy requirements and to follow moment-to-moment changes in loads.

Do you disagree with that?

Yes and no, yes they could meet that demand on just a few days out of the year, or not at all during drought years.
These are run of the river dams, they discharge the exact amount of water that enters the impoundments, so during most of the year there is not sufficient water to generate the 3,500 megawatts, thus the 1000 MW number.
So during peak demand periods, like very cold winters, they could not meet anywhere near the 3,500MW mark. They could however do it during peak spring runoff periods, but power demands are down then.

[Thumper]

So basically, they didn't lie on that subject. I assume that you agree.

So where are they wrong?

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Thumper

So basically, they didn't lie on that subject. I assume that you agree.

So where are they wrong?

Is deception a better word?
If BPA was telling the truth, then a federal Judge would not be threatening to incarcerate high level BPA managers, would he?

[Thumper]

Originally Posted by freespool

Is deception a better word?
If BPA was telling the truth, then a federal Judge would not be threatening to incarcerate high level BPA managers, would he?

I may not understand, but my reading of the Fact Sheet discloses no lies about peak capacity and typical output. Maybe there are other issues, but their version and yours, regarding output, seem to be the same.

[Splash]

Several stocks of Lower Snake River salmon and steelhead are already extinct or headed to extinction. Removing the four hydroelectric dams on the Lower Snake River in eastern Washington State is the only way to save the fish.

The Snake River Campaign would restore a 140-mile stretch of natural river habitat through partial removal of the four federal dams on the Lower Snake River, which provide no flood control for the region. Removal of only their earthen portions would allow the river to flow around the remaining concrete segments.
Even such removal is not a silver bullet that will fully solve the problem, but rather the cornerstone of a multi-faceted, long-term effort that will have the best chance of success. The sooner the dams are removed, the better. They are the key barrier to a crucial ecosystem – the pristine fish spawning grounds above the dams and the estuaries that lead to the Pacific Ocean. Environmentalists, Native Americans and commercial and sport fishing interests all have a special interest in the fish and the ecosystem.

BUT ENDANGERED OR EXTINCT FISH ALSO COST TAXPAYERS IN SEVERAL WAYS...


TRIBAL COMPENSATION
The biggest cost to taxpayers is the potential liability for billions or tens of billions of dollars in compensation payments to Columbia River Basin tribes if the fish go extinct. By treaties with a dozen tribes around 1855, the U.S. obtained the land of what is now the states of Oregon, Washington and Idaho. In exchange, the U.S., through Governor Isaac Stevens of the Washington Territory, assured the tribes there would be no threat to their fish-dependent economy. He guaranteed their fishing rights perpetuity. Fortunately, the tribes do not want taxpayer money, and do not want to sue. They want the fish they were promised. They want the salmon that are an integral part of their spiritual, cultural, and economic way of life. But if the fish go extinct, there won’t be many options left.
The treaties are court-tested and the Tribes would most likely win. Compensation would likely be billions or tens of billions of dollars. Who would pay? Federal taxpayers from Maine to California, NOT Northwest electric ratepayers.
Compensation to tribes from similar treaty violations is being paid right now to several other tribes, including these settlements:

• $53 million, plus an additional $15 million per year to the Colville tribes for the construction of the Grand Coulee dam.
• $39 million to the Nez Perce tribe for two dams constructed in the Clearwater River drainage.

BARGING AND SHIPPING SUBSIDIES
A second, smaller cost to federal taxpayers is that they subsidize the full cost of operating and maintaining the navigation waterway on the Lower Snake River, an estimated $35 million per year. According to the Congressional Budget Office, barge navigation receives the highest percentage of subsidy of any form of freight transportation in the U.S., including rail and highway. On the Lower Snake River, waterway users pay none of the waterway costs, even though they are loud voices for keeping the dams.

FISH MITIGATION
In addition, more than $3 billion has already been spent on failing fish mitigation programs in the Columbia River Basin, according to an April 1998 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). Most of this comes from Northwest electricity ratepayers, but a smaller amount from federal taxpayers. Much of this money has been spent on increasingly elaborate and impractical “techno-fixes”. This includes loading juvenile fish onto barges and trucks to carry them around the dams. It simply doesn’t make sense to give boat rides to fish, and then subsidize a costly barge system to move goods up and down the river.
In Washington, DC, it’s no secret that these salmon mitigation programs are costly and ultimately won’t prevent extinction. The Republican-majority House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water stated in 1998: “The Committee has previously expressed its deep concerns regarding the vast sums of taxpayer dollars pouring into this project with little apparent effect. For all its reliance on technological fixes and fish barging, there is no clear evidence that the salmon recovery efforts in the Northwest are, or will become, successful.

ENERGY
Opponents of breaching these dams argue that it’s too expensive to remove the dams, which only generate around 5% of the region’s electricity. But, removing these dams would only add a few dollars each month to regional electric bills, which would still remain the lowest in the nation. Meanwhile, taxpayers from every state, from Alaska to Florida, would be liable for the costs of fish extinction. Adding insult to injury, these same taxpayers have electric bills significantly higher than those in the Pacific Northwest.
The current government decision-making process is too little, too late, and the fish are still declining.
Under court order to devise a plan to save the endangered fish, federal and state agencies have repeatedly delayed doing so. In reality, the most powerful and effective players -- the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Bonneville Power Administration – continue to drag their feet. No decision to remove the dams is likely without overwhelming national public support and media visibility for the issue. Action must be taken now to save the salmon and taxpayers billions.

http://www.taxpayer.net/snake/


This was an interesting read too.

http://ublib.buffalo.edu/libraries/p...ake_river.html

Enjoy.

[Thumper]

Okay, I promise this will be my last post on this thread.

The subject of the thread is the March, 2007 Fact Sheet published by BPA. It attempts to clarify the real costs of removing the four lower Snake River dams.

Several here have immediately accused the BPA of lying. I am trying to determine if the Fact Sheet itself includes lies.

There. All done.

[CATCH AND EAT]

Okay, I'm a conservative turning more liberal every day. I don't really understand why those 4 dams were built in the first place. Take them down. Painful for me to say bu they need to go.

come up with a viable plan to produce the same or more energy at roughly the same cost and I'll sign on the dotted line.

[TheRogue]

Originally Posted by CATCH AND EAT

come up with a viable plan to produce the same or more energy at roughly the same cost and I'll sign on the dotted line.

Yup, the same thing I've been saying all along.

[Lead Bouncer]

Originally Posted by CATCH AND EAT

Okay, I'm a conservative turning more liberal every day. I don't really understand why those 4 dams were built in the first place. Take them down. Painful for me to say bu they need to go.

come up with a viable plan to produce the same or more energy at roughly the same cost and I'll sign on the dotted line.

Liberal and conservative? If youre talking about dams, that is a bed with all kinds of folks. Warren Magnasun is primarily responsible for the cowlitz dam and Scoop Henry Jackson was the other senator. I dont know if he voted for dams or not. Some of those dams were works projects for the depression. I wont trade barge traffic for fish anymore. Thats not liberal.

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Lead Bouncer

Liberal and conservative? If youre talking about dams, that is a bed with all kinds of folks. Warren Magnasun is primarily responsible for the cowlitz dam and Scoop Henry Jackson was the other senator. I dont know if he voted for dams or not. Some of those dams were works projects for the depression. I wont trade barge traffic for fish anymore. Thats not liberal.

Again, the four dams in question are located on the lower Snake River, there are no plans to remove any mainstem CR dams.
It's 150 miles from Lewiston to Pasco Wash., the grain could be loaded on barges there. There is already a rail line between the two locations, upgrades would be required, but it is doable.

[Straydog]

"Cheap power" is a very relative thing.

It seems some see power as cheap as long as they don't have to change their habits and don't see their power bill bill go up rapidly or dramatically.

I, and I believe a fair number of others, see the other costs and cringe. I don't want to leave an Oregon with no Salmon. That is a price that I can't put an exact price tag on, but for me it is worth a heck of lot more than the privilege of going about my business of wasting and taking for granted electricity.

Further, I don't like the 'cost' to me in terms of seeing my business and my pay check dwindle from the lack of salmon, lack of free flowing river recreation, lack of healthy water, increase in build up of silt, increased taxpayer cost of dredging, etc. etc. etc.

I don't accept as ok the cost of losing our heritage and culture to those that insist on paying the least amount possible to waste power. I have no problem for paying more for the power I waste (and yes, I too am guilty), if it can help save our Salmon.

To me, 'costs' go way beyond my wallet and savings account but, as I say, these views are all very relative to one's value system and there in lies the difficulty of overcoming our obstacles.

[Okie]

Recently seen a system for generating power in rivers with out dams. It looked like a new invention that could be placed in the river and generate power from the flow of water with out dams. If this is possible this would solve the problem of dams.
The only reason to have a dam would be to help control flooding. Which could be a major problem without dams.

Good Luck

[Straydog]

Originally Posted by Okie

Recently seen a system for generating power in rivers with out dams. It looked like a new invention that could be placed in the river and generate power from the flow of water with out dams. If this is possible this would solve the problem of dams.
The only reason to have a dam would be to help control flooding. Which could be a major problem without dams.

Good Luck

The dams in question are not flood control dams.
Not all dams are created equal. Some dams make flooding worse for those behind them.


Education, education, education..........

[freespool]

Originally Posted by Straydog

The dams in question are not flood control dams.
Not all dams are created equal. Some dams make flooding worse for those behind them.


Education, education, education..........

With this critical issue being in the spotlight for nearly a decade now, it's surprising how little most folks know about the issue.
This could clearly be the tipping point where we actually see ESA listed runs increase, instead of the steady decline we have now.
My hope is that after the next general election, there will be a fish friendlier Whitehouse and Congress.