Monday, July 13, 2009

Dam Nation

Ny Times Targets Renewable Energy
DamNation!

CHURCHVILLE, VA--Just as congress is set to tax fossil fuels out of the U.S. economy, the New York Times has reasserted its utterly foolish demand that we tear out existing hydroelectric dams--the dams that provide most of our renewable energy in the form of water-generated electricity..

Hydroelectric dams produce 8.5 percent of our power, and it's all carbon-free. That's nearly five times the deliveries from our erratic solar panels and wind turbines. Now we're supposed to tear out hydroelectric dams just as every other key energy source is ripped away by a rapacious congress?

What in the name of glitzy/ditzy Manhattan is the former "national paper of record" trying to do to the American people?

The Times anguished on July 7th that we've only torn out "only" 430 of the nation's evil river-killing dams. It specifically mentions tearing down four power dams on the lower Snake River. The reason? The Times says that will "protect salmon on the West Coast."

Nonsense. Hasn't Andrew Revkin, the Times' science writer, heard yet about the Pacific Decadal Oscillation discovered in 1996? Salmon numbers dropped radically in the Columbia after 1977-- as the salmon catch surged upward in the Gulf of Alaska. The ocean currents had redistributed the fish food in the open ocean, delivering the food species to different destinations in a 50-60 year cycle that shows up brilliantly in the salmon catch records of both fisheries. The PDO also impacts catches of halibut, sardines, anchovies and other fish Pacific-wide. The fish species weren't in danger, though some of the fishermen's livelihoods were.

 [continued]
Last week or so  I watched a documentary on one of the Hitler Channel's about a recent dam removal in Washington, or maybe Oregon or Idaho, I forget.  The project engineer was the same man who just ten years earlier had overseen its restoration  He did such a fine job  that removing it created  unique and difficult problems.  During  interviews, said engineer, while careful not to say as much, was obviously (through his body language and voice inflection) wanting to scream "What the bloody hell are these assholes doing?" 

Exactly.

9 comments:

Chuck Martel said...

They are forgetting something else those pesky hydroelectric dams are good for -- flood control.

So the next time the Cumberland River floods Burkesville or Nashville, remember that it was done for the good of the fish.

Anonymous said...

I belive that's the newly dedicated President Wm. J. Clinton Foot n' Crotch path.

c.umulus n.imbusi

BlogDog said...

That's such a great design for a pond! Where is that?

BlogDog said...

Never mind, I Googled it - Taiwan. Next time I'm there, I'm going to see it.

Scottiebill said...

We've got a bunch of the loonies out here the Pacific Northwest wanting to tear out the some of the dams on the Snake River and on the Columbia "to save the fish".

I believe that if these dams are torn out, then those who are advocating for their removal do without the electricity they provide, regardless of where they live, near the dams or across the various states. Having the courage of their convictions, as it were.

Rodger the Real King of France said...

Without those dams the Manhattan Project was not possible. For you Democrats, that's national defense.

JMcD said...

WARNING: Water is very cold...and deep too.

Josh Fahrni-Barn Army Dog Catcher said...

I've been in each and every one of those Dams. That's what my father does, is rebuild Hydro Turbines from the ground up. Dams create year round jobs for hundreds of people, and temporary (but long, usually 1-9 years) jobs to rebuild them, as contractors. The government or Corps of Engineers jobs are high paying with benefits (high five liberals) and the temporary ones are higher paid than that.

Flood control is obviously a major issue. You take out Dams anywhere, especially on the snake, and you're in trouble. A bunch of little towns, including Twin Falls, Burley, Idaho Falls and probably Pocatello, would be underwater.

But, hey, Idaho went for McCain last year, didn't it?

Josh Fahrni-Barn Army Dog Catcher said...

And just as a side note. Half of the dams that are removed, are removed because they're high risk for accidents and what not. I remember talking to someone when I was younger, his name escapes me, but he says that the cost of regular 'maintenance' (which is more like an overhaul) is something a lot of privately owned Dams are not willing to undertake, because they don't know the political life expectancy of their power stations.

Why sink money into something the dumbasses are just going to force you to tear down later.

Post a Comment

Just type your name and post as anonymous if you don't have a Blogger profile.