> Power company PacifiCorp built the dams to generate electricity between 1918 and 1962. But the structures halted the natural flow of the waterway that was once known as the third-largest salmon-producing river on the West Coast. They disrupted the lifecycle of the region’s salmon, which spend most of their life in the Pacific Ocean but return to the chilly mountain streams to lay eggs.
> At the same time, the dams only produced a fraction of PacifiCorp’s energy at full capacity, enough to power about 70,000 homes. They also didn’t provide irrigation, drinking water or flood control, according to Klamath River Renewal Corporation.
The dams were providing immaterial value, and that power generation can trivially be replaced. Chesterton's Fence reminder.
Take a look at the MW and age of the dams they removed. They were relatively small (big like 4 wind turbine for one) and at the end of life. The owners clearly stated that it was not economically feasible to keep upgrade them to meet the current regulations.
Yes they can provide base load, but I would be more nuanced than "not serious about climate change".
Dams are more important than they were in decades past. Existing dams are by far the easiest and cheapest source of on-demand peaking power. 10GW that you're not doing anything with, can provide load balancing for 20GW-50GW of wind and solar somewhere else. Perhaps half the country away and in a different grid entirely through the use of HVDC transmission lines.
That's not to say that the ecological consideration is nonexistent. It's not that difficult to build dams that make small sacrifices in cost and throughput to permit fish navigation. We just didn't care about that _at all_ a hundred years ago.
How come the reservoirs have significant greenhouse gas emissions? I did a curious and googled it, it looks like the reservoirs have a lot of dissolved co2 and methane (probably from natural decomposition?) but it's released when the water is churned through the turbines and spillways. Never really considered that, but then, wouldn't that also happen naturally with lakes and rivers?
Anyway the article I read says they're looking into capturing it somehow, which would reduce the emissions a bit.
> At the same time, the dams only produced a fraction of PacifiCorp’s energy at full capacity, enough to power about 70,000 homes. They also didn’t provide irrigation, drinking water or flood control, according to Klamath River Renewal Corporation.
It kind of implies that these dams weren't really important to begin with, which makes the tradeoff a lot easier. Second, they were built in the early to mid 1900s, at this point they had to decide between repairing, replacing, or demolishing them; it looks like they weren't worth repairing or replacing.
Anyway, your comment deals in some absolutes / false dichotomies and generalizations; climate change is not fixed by keeping these dams around. Climate change is also but one problem, there's other causes for mass extinction - e.g. spawning grounds being inaccessible due to dams. There's many different renewable energy sources, hydroelectric being a big one, but they have to be built in a way that doesn't disrupt nature, which wasn't yet a thing when these were built.
TL;DR, you can have both hydroelectric dams AND access to spawning grounds.
> It kind of implies that these dams weren't really important to begin with...
On a second reading, I don't think you were actually saying "it was pointless to build them to being with", but apropos my initial misreading --
It's worth noting that US per capital electric usage has increased ~10 fold since 1950; when these dams were built, 70,000 homes probably would have been 700,000.
Hydroelectric dams are great as long as they displace someone else.
The oldest continuously habited place in North America (for 10K years) is now submerged because of a dam. Not only was it a loss of a lot of archaeological value, but real people who were living there had to be displaced.
(Also a loss in the natural world - the most voluminous waterfall in N America was submerged there as well).
Dam removal in the PNW enjoys widespread bipartisan support from both lefties and righties. I know many conservative outdoorsmen who know EXACTLY how much damage these dams have done to their life and livelihood. Many of the dams being removed are obsolete and produce negligible amounts of electricity, but their removal quickly results enhancing and preserving local fishing, hunting, and other outdoor recreational activities for current and future generations of outdoorsmen.
This was a project spearheaded by the local indigenous tribes, not the "far left." It's been a major cause the tribes have been fighting for literally a century.
These dams were not providing very much electricity in their heyday and were at the end of their life. They needed either significant maintenance or destruction and maintenance most likely would have been more costly.
Their presence caused several environment issues.
Because of all of the above, dam removal was/is a generally popular project with a lot of people, not just the "far left."
