digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

As Wind Power Grows, a Push to Tear Down Dams

nytimes.com — The rise of wind farms in the Pacific Northwest is seen by some as an opportunity to help save the wild salmon, by removing dams that have impeded their spawning.

Who dugg this? Made popular Jun 13, 2009

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

98 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Ocyris, on 06/12/2009, -4/+43Go Nuclear
  • wjappe, on 06/12/2009, -6/+37Then it shifts to how many birds get killed by the props of the windmills or some other problem - every solution breeds new problems.
  • Junkyarddawg, on 06/13/2009, -3/+27The number of birds killed by wind turbines is low, especially compared to the number of birds killed by, say, flying into windows of houses.

    Also the birds/salmon analogy would only hold if all birds in the area had to either fly through a wind turbine tunnel rotating at 300 rpms, or fly 5000 meters straight up to avoid it. Twice.
  • inactive, on 06/13/2009, -5/+23Nuclear power is the only viable option for the future.
  • Wisgary, on 06/13/2009, -0/+189/10 bears agree, save the salmon.

    Ignore the polar bear's opinion.
  • meridian, on 06/13/2009, -2/+18Not only flood control, but damns provide 24/7 electric generation and can either increase or decrease their energy output's to meet demand, unlike Solar/Wind.
  • marytormey, on 06/12/2009, -2/+18Why don't we just fix the dams to help fish, and cut down on oil and coal use instead?
  • inactive, on 06/13/2009, -1/+16That's because society 'as a whole' is ***** retarded.
  • SeraphIXI, on 06/13/2009, -6/+20Go Go Power Rangers!
  • ousthouse, on 06/13/2009, -2/+16I was on board until I read squelched's comment.
  • S1ngular1ty1, on 06/13/2009, -0/+12Who needs flood control we have wind mills?
  • sustydev, on 06/12/2009, -3/+14So then, what's the compromise we should make? Is it better just to keep the dams?
  • iDoraemon, on 06/13/2009, -2/+12Wild salmon is uber-delicious. Go wind power.
  • inactive, on 06/13/2009, -2/+11Um, flood control anyone?
  • Aethra, on 06/13/2009, -5/+13Go Go Gadget!
  • gren99, on 06/14/2009, -1/+9which shows you how brainwashed 'society' is. nuclear reactor technology has advanced significantly since the 1960s, which is the technological base of most american reactors.

    google 'westinghouse ap1000' sometime to see what i mean.

    we could make nuclear energy viable right now, even just by rebuilding existing reactors to newer standards. but noooo...people with heads up their asses will prevail.
  • b1kerguy, on 06/13/2009, -2/+10we should harness the power of sprint, the human network
  • TheSwashbuckler, on 06/13/2009, -0/+7Funny, there's a program on dams on History Channel at this very moment...
  • cygnus2112, on 06/13/2009, -0/+6This is one of those times where environmentalists clash with conservationists. What's better? Tear down the dams and resort to oil and coal?

    You have to have to make some compromise to achieve a result that benefits all. The movement towards wind turbines is obviously a smart and lucrative endeavor. Dams will get old, dams will eventually deteriorate. Hopefully by the time that repairs are needed, there are other obvious energy solutions to the problem, whether it's nuclear, geothermal, solar, cellulosic ethanol, etc.
  • nborders, on 06/14/2009, -1/+6I live a spit away from the gorge, and this is a partially good idea. There are some evil dams out there, namely the Columbia river John Day dam has decimated a salmon run on the John Day river. The dam backs up warm water miles into the John Day river from the Columbia. Second on my list is the Dalles dam. I know Google might be upset since they put a colo in The Dalles to get efficient power, but I don't know a person who wouldn't love to see Celilo Falls again....

    There are a ton of windmills east of The Dalles. It is an awesome sight. I say they look a hell of a lot better than the cruddy lakes the dams produce. The Columbia River Gorge is a funnel of wind energy. Having wind power there makes sense. It also makes sense for dams, but I think being selective about this may make both sides happy.

    ~n
  • inactive, on 06/14/2009, -0/+5http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor or
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor
    Reprocessing with one of those, which would produce a wast that would be as radioactive as ore in the ground after 300 years.

    Plus it also takes care of the "where will we get the fuel from" question as well.
  • dawa259, on 06/14/2009, -0/+4We don't??? So what is a chicken?
  • inactive, on 06/14/2009, -2/+6Lets suffer constant heavy flooding, rather then risk the highly unlikely, yet fear inspiring and agenda compatible "mega flood."
  • i4mt3hwin, on 06/14/2009, -1/+5Reprocessing?
    Use a railgun to shoot it to the sun for pennies of electricity cost?

    There are tons of way of dealing with the waste, doesnt' matter though. Average US person hears nuclear and they get scared.
  • GaltShrugged, on 06/14/2009, -7/+11What the *****? More energy is a good thing. Dams are far more reliable than wind power. I'm sick of retards that aren't engineers that attack very important energy sources. Wind power can't follow the load of the grid, so it will NEVER BE SIGNIFICANT in power production. I don't care how much you want it. This is the FACTS OF REALITY. Dams will follow load.
  • winterspan, on 06/14/2009, -1/+5I consider myself somewhat of an "environmentalist" from the perspective of taking care of the planet and thinking it's current state is very poor. I also live in the Northwest. But the deal is we need ALL renewable power we can get! Not only keep the dams, but BUILD more hydro power plants! A LOT more! And obviously I'd love to see the whole damn country put up wind turbines (mid-west especially), and the southwest desert to be full of solar-thermal plants..

    The Salmon may have issues with damns in the NW, but they sure as hell aren't worth protecting if it means we can't fight climate change effectively with getting off coal and oil! The salmon issue will *PALE* in comparison to the potential massive devastation of thousands of species of fish and other aquatic creatures from oceanic temperature rise and acidification, causing everything from expanding dead zones and massive algael blooms, to the shells of crustaceans and molluscs dissolving.
  • Zarchon, on 06/13/2009, -1/+5Let me help you out. Nuclear power is viable today. As far as the society as a whole, well, let's admit it is really only those an the **** that don't want nuclear. From what I have read we only need about 300 more plants to be totally free from foreign oil. Not sure if that is true but I am ok with having a plant in my area and finding out.
  • alphaterminus, on 06/14/2009, -0/+4ZPM FTW
  • mecharabbit, on 06/13/2009, -1/+4I think the bigger threat is to a sky-diving James Gandolfini. You know, like in that cinematic classic Terminal Velocity.
  • qerplonk, on 06/14/2009, -2/+5This is more or less a push to get rid of hydro, yet another electricity source that actually produces electricity.

    Right now, there is a Renewable Electricity Mandate working its way through the government that demands we get 15-25% of our electricity from "renewable" energy.

    It only counts solar, wind, geothermal, and some biomass (combined make up less than 3% of our electricity)--- i.e. not hydro.

    If it goes through all I can say is, sucks to be you, Oregon.

    Here's a map that shows how much of your state's renewable electricity qualifies under the mandate and you can see how far you still need to go:

    http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/2009/05/ ...
  • Junkyarddawg, on 06/13/2009, -3/+6It's expensive, and unfortunately that only works for the adults going upstream, the young fish heading down towards the sea go straight through the turbines - and about 95% of them are turned to fish mush.
  • bromac, on 06/14/2009, -1/+4You realize that when you dam a region, you create a permanent flood? It's known as the reservoir.

    Flood control is a joke - you flood out thousands of hectares in the name of flood control, it's like burning down a neighborhood in the name of fire safety. You're also flooding the valley bottoms, which tend to be very fertile. There were communities in the Columbia River valley known for their prize produce that are now underwater.

    What's done is done, and I actually support harnessing the power of the rivers, but I'm aware of the fact that dams are not some magical eco-friendly energy source. They have serious effects on the river system, and the lands around it. Having two dozen or more lined up like dominos produces some concerns about a cascade effect flooding everything from Trail, BC to Portland Oregon. If several reservoirs worth or water goes at once, I doubt any of the dams could hold without at best overflowing, or at worst failing completely.
  • Junkyarddawg, on 06/14/2009, -0/+3Not all dams are the same. Some are just old and inefficient and poorly constructed - and those tend to be the ones which do the most damage to migrating fish.
  • zanzzz, on 06/14/2009, -1/+3Nuclear energy is a very expensive way to generate power. According to industry estimates the costs to build and maintain a nuclear plant have rapidly increased in recent years. It takes at least 8-10 years for plants to be built under typical conditions. Some additional plants would make sense but for the cost why not invest in solar thermal and other alternatives as well?
    If you look into the true costs of nuclear energy- construction, fuel costs, storage and waste, security, and decommissioning; it is one of the most expensive ways to generate energy ever devised.
    By the way, no insurance company would ever insure a nuclear plant, so the Price-Anderson amendment makes the taxpayer the ultimate insurer!
  • Johnagain, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Fish Ladder.
  • Junkyarddawg, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Except nothing like that happened in Europe.
  • MWeather, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2That's serious. No coal plant has ever single handedly decimated an entire ecosystem the way dams do.

    Pollution isn't the only way to destroy the environment.
  • Gemfinder, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2We can get that and more with oceanic tidal generators.
  • Gemfinder, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Sucks to be us?

    W. Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska and Arizona came in with great big candy-coated goose eggs. Hell, NM Governor Richardson had renewable energy as one of his bigger campaign planks last year and we still came in before them.

    California's the only state in the nation with double digits and only they, Colorado, Minnesota and Iowa top Oregon.

    I wouldn't call landing in the 90th percentile suckacious.
  • blapierre, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2Dams are generally built for flood control, power is just an additional benefit. So I'm not sure what wind power has to do with tearing down dams.
  • Johnagain, on 06/14/2009, -0/+2You will never make both sides happy. The 'sides' you refer to are way off on the fringes, disciples of one idea or another.
    We need hydro power, and the controlled irrigation and flood control they also provide. We also need windpower. We are simply too big for the planet we currently live on.
    Everyone is yapping about dams killing salmon, wind farms killing birds...
    What does coal plant byproducts do to birds and salmon?
    Think about this: if we all quit having so many kids, the world's population would decreased, and we would not have this extreme need for energy. If we all quit wanting to live in a 5000sq.ft. houses, we would have a much lower demand on the planets resources.
    But nobody will consider these options. Face it, the world is headed for a rude awakening, and very few people see it coming. So much denial...
  • rif42, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1@Spetz
    This is a just rehash of the same tired arguments you came with on 2009-03-28. Please read my answers from that discussion.

    http://digg.com/world_news/Three_Mile_Island_Nucle ...
    http://digg.com/world_news/Three_Mile_Island_Nucle ...
  • squelched, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1no i think al gore is a moron, and an elitist
  • rif42, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1"With nuclear you control the input and the output."

    Well mr. power engineer, you can NOT control the output of nuclear power to follow the peaks and through through the day, you can just run at a fixed rate. So to run exclusively on nuclear power would be a massive waste of energy.
  • artwhite, on 06/15/2009, -1/+2clearly you think Al Gore is a scientist.
  • dirtkahuna, on 06/15/2009, -0/+1Sounds like bogus science cooked up by the petroleum industry. FWIW, it's been very, very windy in central Michigan this spring.
  • clark24, on 06/14/2009, -1/+2Facts of reality are the best kind!
  • Bloodwine, on 06/14/2009, -0/+1enjoy your tapeworms!
  • rif42, on 06/20/2009, -0/+1@Spetz
    You have not been following what is happening in renewable energy, not even in your own country. You have only been talking about wind farm in the north while completely disregarding the development of the London Array wind farm that will be situated 100 km east of London in the Northsea.

    Supergrids with HVDC connections between countries are well underway in the northern part of Europe.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HVDC_projects ...
    Britain has the best wind resources available in Europe and could be a leader in wind energy. However it is only very recently that things have begin to happen on a larger scale. I am looking forward to see more focus on renewable energy and also energy saving efforts in Britain in the coming years.

    And yes, I do have a master of science in engineering.
  • inactive, on 06/14/2009, -1/+2Correction, U.S, society won't except nuclear. The French get 85% of their power from nuclear. Also the states probably will.

    Your point is already proven wrong. I already saw it fall to pieces in 07-08. When gas hits $5 and it become plainly obvious that wind will be able to supply 10% of our energy at 10x the cost I guarantee you they will go nuclear.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 101 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.