Here we go again!!!!

[TheRogue]

Once again, it's time to bash BPA for publicizing how many $$$ each year are "accounted for" by fish survival/recovery/mitigation. Liz Hamilton has a short letter in the Oregonian today, which she starts by saying:

To the communities, tribes, men and women who are dependent upon healthy salmon populations...

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">and goes on to lambast BPA for them daring to show the actual "costs" of salmon survival. On the next page, is a letter from a L&C law professor who does the same thing, only in greater detail.

So what's wrong with showing the public EXACTLY how much is spent on fish?? Shouldn't we all want to know that?? Don't you want to know that 20% of your power bill is directly related fish-type costs? (just a WAG on the number, but likely in the ballpark).

At the same time, I'd like to know EXACTLY how much Columbia River salmon are worth to the NW. Sure, it's HUGE $$$, and likely dwarfs the amount spent by BPA.....but there certainly aren't even any realistic ballpark guesstimates out there which make sense to me.

So why keep the BPA quiet about salmon costs? Is it because most of the NW, which could quite frankly give a rat's ptootey about fish, would revolt if they really knew how much their power would cost if salmon were out of the equation??

We have the cheapest power rates in the world, thanks to the NW hydro-power system. To answer the quote from Liz up above, I would start my letter with:

To the communities, tribes, men and women who are dependent upon very low electricity rates....

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Do I believe that if the dams were torn out, the fish would be much better off! YOU BETCHA!! However, I also really don't want my $100 monthly power bill to become $200, or more; and I'm pretty sure I'm in the LARGE majority here.

I love fish, and love to catch (and eat) them. However, I'm also a realist; I really believe that if it came down to fish or high power bills in the NW, the fish are going to have to find a different river to swim in. And with the current slash-and-dash administration, the treaty power of the Indians is probably the only thing that will continue to force BPA/COE to pay any attention to the problem at all.

And the whole idea about buying "healthy" or "fish-safe" power by checking something on your power bill?? Bunch of Hoooooey....the lines and infrastructure which carries that power, the investment $$$ which caused the wind generators/solar panels/etc. to come into being comes from the hydro power base. Please, PGE, don't insult my intelligence by asking me to by "safe" power.

My rant for the day....I'm at home with a screamin' backache(maybe the muscle relaxers caused this post )

TR

:depressed: Bummer about your back :depressed: , constant pain is not good to live with.

[Straydog]

Rogue,

I didn't read Liz's piece but I did read the other one and think you have missed the point.

Yes, it makes sense to let people know what the cost of helping the fish is. But, dosen't it then also make sense to let them know the cost of other activties such as irrigation and barging? If we are to have open disscussion of the costs of power, it should not be limited to the cost of power vs fish only.

I agree it needs to be quantified what the true benefits of these fish are.

Also, I fear you have boughten into BPA's cheap electricity mantra...... don't lose sight of the fact that only 5% of our power comes from those hydro projects. Also don't forget to include the other costs beyond the money for that kilowat..... it is kind of like our "cheap" oil syndrome. My guess is that 1.47 for regular seems much more expensive to any parent that has lost a kid fighting for control of that oil..... just how cheap is that gas to those folks? No one has lost a child fighting for hydro, but lots of other costs are involved, the loss of the fish only being one.

[TheRogue]

Straydog....

You need to check your numbers. BPA hydropower supplies about 48-49% of the power in the NW power grid. Other entities supply several more percent, bringing the total to over 50% of the power used in the Pacific NW.

I believe you're talking about the percentage of power that comes from the 3 Lower Snake River dams....this is approximately 4% of the power grid. Which, by the way, is all that kept us from rolling blackouts here in the NW last year (of course, the Enron market manipulation is the real culprit behind the power crisis, but we won't go there).

Yes, I'm saying just what you are. Let's get all these costs out on the table, and let everyone see what they are!! Maybe people here in the NW would think of the dams differently if they knew the real costs associated with them....but I doubt it.

You're right about the gas, also. $1.50 gallon is going to seem downright ludicrous if we loose a few thousand men over there fighting Saddam.

TR

[Straydog]

Rogue,

As per usual, you and I are on pretty close to the same page.

Thank you for setting me straight on the fact that the numbers I used concerned only part of the dams. The 4% number is contrary to what I have read at 2% but your point remains valid.

I do though, have to take issue with you saying those dams prevented rolling blackouts except you don't want to go to the Enron fraud thing...... there in lies our problem in my mind.

Why not go to the real source of the problems? Why accept that we all know the so called shortage of power was completly false and the manipulation of supplies by the big boys was what was going on. If we refuse to go for the truth and continue to say those dams saved our bacon when our bacon was not really at risk, we will never get to the truth and therefore real solutions!

I about threw up at the irony when the so called power shortage was first reported in the Oregonian. In the very same issue that reported this fraud, there was another article praising the fact that the Ronald McDonald house had added 400,000 lights to its Christmas display!!! Hello??? We gotta kill fish for a fraudulant power shortage yet praise this wanton diregard for our natural resources?

It is much like the logging situation. The mantra of the resource extractors is "well, you live in a wood house don't you, why should not everyone have that privelidge?" They should but consider that I live in a house under 2,000 sq. ft. (and it is bigger than I really need) and it is considered bungalow next to the 5, 6 and 7 thousand sq. ft. houses that are going up all around us!! Who needs a house this big and the waste and such that comes with it!?!?!?

I realize I am getting off subject to a degree but the point is, we need to reduce these arguments down to the detailed facts if we are to find solutions in my mind.

[TheRogue]

The reason I didn't want to go into the Enron debacle is just that I didn't want to go down a tangent. I agree completely....how many smolts were killed last summer due to the extra water going through the turbines for power generation - that quite probably wasn't even needed!!! We know what has gone on with so many of the big corporations in the last few years....I bet we're going to continue to find out more in the years to come.

Let's face it, the population of the NW isn't getting smaller. Power use will continue to rise each and every year....from that aspect, getting rid of the Snake dams doesn't make sense, eventually, we will NEED that 4% those dams churn out.

Personally, I'd be happy as a clam if we didn't add a single person to our wonderful area. Heck, we could even get rid of about a million, that would be great. But that's not reality, and I think we all know it.

The wind generation facilities that are popping up here and there are a start down the right road for new sources of power. One of the problems there is that when power is most needed/used...very hot summers and very cold winters... the wind won't blow regularly!! Many of these facilities won't operate with winds above 30mph, tears up the equipment.

As usual, I think we agree on the big picture, it's just some of the little details in the corners that we're still working on!

TR

[Straydog]

Yup, I agree.... (and 'they' laughed at Tom McCall!)

I am holding some hope for the development of cost effective power from the ocean's waves as well as wind power.

I would be happier if we heard more about conservation as well. It seem we can all agree it will get worse but aren't getting far in working towards minimizing the impact....

Time will tell.

Have a good day!