Consumer Energy Report is now Energy Trends Insider -- Read More »

By Russ Finley on Feb 24, 2016 with 2 responses

Ecosystem Restoration Takes Precedence Over Renewable Energy Projects

The front page of last Sunday’s edition of the Seattle Times had an article titled Elwha: Roaring Back to Life. It’s an update on the many positive impacts to the river ecosystem after removal of the Glines Canyon and Elwha hydroelectric dams. Google the term “Seattle Times Elwha” to get the whole history. It’s rare to find such positive news in this age of the sixth extinction event …just wanted to share.

MissingDam

Remains of Elwa Dam (photo courtesy Nina Finley)

Alwell2

Emptied Lake Bed Behind the Elwha Dam (photo courtesy Nina Finley)

DeadSalmon

Salmon Carcasses are an Important Part of the Food Chain for Eagles and Other Wildlife (photo courtesy Nina Finley)

A Pair of Bald Eagles Along the Elwha River (photo courtesy Nina Finley)

A Pair of Bald Eagles Along the Elwha River (photo courtesy Nina Finley)

Rather than rehash what has already been said in the Times article, I’ll use this opportunity to discuss the “renewable energy trumps local ecosystem protection” argument used to defend environmentally destructive energy projects: expansion of agriculture for biofuels, new hydroelectric dams, solar projects like Ivanpah that not only usurped desert tortoise habitat but also incinerates birds, and wind farms placed in sensitive bird or bat habitat.

 The following comment found under a Sierra Club article about some of the 72 dam removals that occurred in 2014:

I was under the impression that hydroelectricity was a renewable green energy source. With so many dams being taken down where does the new power come from? Coal? Nuclear? Just sayn!

Huh, wonder who gave him that impression? One obvious answer would be to replace existing coal baseload power plants which already have power lines and attendant infrastructure, with nuclear baseload power plants, using wind and rooftop solar to minimize the amount of natural gas needed to stitch all three low carbon sources of energy together …just saying. Nuclear may not be renewable, but then, neither are dams, which will all eventually silt up and become useless. The definition of a renewable green energy source is apparently whatever you want it to be.

 So, does the “renewable energy trumps local ecosystem protection” argument pass the logic test? Although it’s promoted under the auspice that climate change is the overarching concern facing humanity, requiring every form of low carbon energy at our disposal regardless of its immediate negative environmental impact, those promoting it are ironically, hypocritically, and almost universally, rabidly, anti-nuclear energy. So, no, it doesn’t pass the logic test. It’s irrational.

 

Decommissioned Enloe Hydro Electric Power Plant

Video of Decommissioned Enloe Hydro electric Power Plant

 

Above is a video I took a few summers ago of the abandoned Enloe hydro electric power plant. The turbine house and wooden penstock are still in place. Salmon that had reached the end of the road were collecting in a pool below the dam and were being illegally jigged by a handful of shady looking characters.

 A river is analogous to an artery. When you block it, or severely restrict it (with fish ladders in the case of a river), you have eliminated hundreds, if not thousands of smaller streams (capillaries), many too small to name, that salmon would have spawned in. A dam like this one disrupts the entire ecosystem food chain deep into the adjacent forests and grasslands.

 Although the anti-nuclear energy crowd will use the closure of any given nuclear power plant as evidence that nuclear power is economically noncompetitive, they seem unaware that the country is dotted with hydroelectric plants that were decommissioned when they became uneconomical to operate.

 

Damaged Wanapum Dam

Damaged Wanapum Dam

Sign Restricting Access to the River while the Water Levels Were Lowered

Sign Restricting Access to the River while the Water Levels Were Lowered

I took the above photos of the Wanapum dam which developed a crack last year that forced the utility to lower the water level behind it until a repair could be made. From the Capital Press:

A 65-foot-long crack, 2 inches wide at its widest point, was discovered at the base of the dam Feb. 27, 2014. The PUD lowered reservoir levels 26 to 30 feet while investigating and repairing the dam. The PUD determined the concrete dam’s inability to withstand five decades of water pressure due to a design miscalculation, causing the crack.

 The 1,092-megawatt hydroelectric dam was opened in 1963 and cost $93.3 million to build.

 The next reservoir upriver, behind the Rock Island Dam, also had to be lowered and orchardists had to extend irrigation intakes along both reservoirs to obtain water.

 Wanapum Dam was stabilized by drilling 37 shafts 16 inches in diameter from the top of the dam down more than 185 feet into bedrock below. Tendons 200 to 250 feet long and 12 inches in diameter were fed into the shafts, grouted into bedrock at the bottom and stretched taunt with 2.5 million pounds of pressure, Allen said. Each tendon is made up of 61 steel cables. The tendons are inside watertight sheaths, allowing them to expand and contract, and are capped at the top.

 Tendon installation was finished in early March and remaining work will be finished in June, Allen said. Recreation sites along the reservoir, closed for a year, will reopen this spring, he said.

 At the peak, 120 people worked on the project, Allen said. Kuney-Goebel, of Spokane, was the contractor. Repairs, associated costs and partial loss of power generation were initially estimated at $61 million but now are estimated at $69 million, Allen said.

 Two-thirds of the cost is borne by a new bond issue, he said. A previously scheduled rate increase averaging 2 percent across all rate classes went into effect Jan. 1 for the PUD’s 45,000-plus customers.

 Note that there was no group demanding that it be permanently shuttered in the name of safety as is typically the case when a nuclear power plant goes off line for repairs.

Native American Petroglyph

Native American Petroglyph

 This particular dam also displaced native Americans and their ancient salmon fishing weirs. The native American rock art pictured above was found at a visitor’s center not far from this dam, which is also where I shot the video below of a herd (flock?) of big horn sheep.

 

Big Horn Sheep

Video of Big Horn Sheep

 

  1. By Forrest on February 25, 2016 at 9:38 am

    Your premise or narrative is very misleading. Your rough shod hit piece the same tactic employed by anti nuclear crowd. Playing loose with information. A dam doesn’t destroy an ecosystem as we learn a nuke accident doesn’t either. Their will be displacements and maybe some empowered species such as the wolfs hunting rare elk upon oil sand development roadways. If a water way is expanded correctly the water species will likewise increase, displacing some of the land animal habitat. Up north the native Indians sued to get control of the Chippewa dam. Not because they hated dams, but because they liked the dam and the great flowage it created. Fishery improved dramatically, wetlands increased, spawning areas, water foul, property taxes, and the water utilized to subsidize the down stream hydro power. It’s a gigantic battery, rated so valuable upon our power grid. You post of unlucky fishes stranded below the dam, unable to traverse. I witnessed this. It’s a common phenomenon well understood, but not as you imply. Fish are drawn to the oxygen rich turbulent water and the wonderful feeding frenzy it provides. Trout for example love down stream of beaver dam. They could easily jump or flop up past the dam, but prefer the deep oxygen rich water and the food the spills over.
    Sure, some bad dams that flood to much land and shallows will heat water to much. This will promote weed growth and low quality fish. But even that is good for water foul, minnows, reptiles, and amphibians. The worst condition would be a shallow pool with no outlet or shade that will heat up to much and per rotting matter and oxygen depletion. Basically, a no water change mud hole. Nuclear power is good. That industry should be maximized per the gambit of well documented benefits. I think nuclear like hydro is suffering from the lack of diversity upon government regulators. The far left activist that come with a boatload of biases are way over employed that will eventually align with the usual corrosive politics of Unions. Media too, is run by Union employees that have a agenda. We need balance upon education, information, and government agencies. This area suffers from corruption. The funny part is if you talk to a millennial about corruption they automatically have been trained to think were talking of capitalism and corporations. It is so sad to witness this generation so infatuated with Bernie easy solutions and excuses. I guess they love Chavez style government. Venezuelan politics have brought the country to it’s knees, but still they stand proud of such solutions. Bible has much to say about pride. Not of it good.

    [link]      
  2. By Forrest on March 5, 2016 at 5:20 pm

    Environmentalist often express amazement upon natures ability to adapt. Aristotle, claimed “Nature abhors a vacuum.” Meaning nature will soon adapt to change. Remember the improvement of Yellowstone per the forest fire. The destruction spurred an avalanche of biological activity. Same with the destruction per a nuclear accident that damages will soon succumb to the forces of regrowth and rebirth. Most of our human efforts dedicated to the task of protecting us from nature corrosive elements. Protecting us from wind, rain, temperature extremes, wild animals, corrosion, rotting, lack of natural light, etc. So, nature is a powerful force that we need to heed.

    Elwa dam removal was a radical change to the Eco system, why are we shocked that nature was also radical? It’s not that the dam destroyed the environment to quickly recover, it was the radical change that nature had to cope with upon blowing up the dam.

    Like all human activities, we learn to make better choices and apply our skills more effectively. Engineering of hydro dams is no different. Like nuclear, coal, solar, and automotive technologies, we learn to become more efficient and invent less damaging devices to minimize environmental harm. Hydro dams are no different. We should plan a course of action to remove old dams and construct better dams. Hydro dams are not inherently bad for the environment. However, we do need to engineer and site them more carefully, much like wind turbine technology.
    We have modern computer analysis to access dam site factors. Check out this http://lowimpacthydro.org/ for better siting, and operation of hydro power.

    [link]      
Register or log in now to save your comments and get priority moderation!