Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday November 11 2016, @08:30AM   Printer-friendly
from the it's-hard-to-back-paddle dept.

Glen Canyon Dam has greatly altered the Colorado River, inundating more than 150 miles of the Colorado River in Glen Canyon and transforming the ecosystem of the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. But Utah State University scientists urge caution in implementing the widely publicized Fill Mead First plan aimed at restoring the canyon. The massive plan calls for partially or completely draining Lake Powell, the reservoir formed by the dam, and collecting the water downstream in Lake Mead, the reservoir formed by Hoover Dam.
...
Schmidt and colleagues identified several significant issues that could cause adverse ecosystem changes in the Grand Canyon. For one, recreating the natural pattern of stream flow in Grand Canyon would be very difficult, unless Glen Canyon Dam is completely bypassed. Similarly, it will be impossible to provide a natural supply of sand essential to restoring eddy sandbars and camping beaches in Grand Canyon, unless the dam is completely bypassed.

Thus, the ecosystem changes in the Grand Canyon may be small or even harmful, says Schmidt, who was among scientists who proposed use of controlled floods from Glen Canyon Dam to mitigate the dam's effects, including the most recent of those floods begun Nov. 7, 2016, and continuing through Nov. 11. A project as large as FMF should not be attempted, he says, until a detailed plan is in place to avoid catastrophic changes to the Grand Canyon ecosystem downstream from the dam.

Hydroelectric is a significant source of renewable power in the American West, but building dams is not so irreversible for the affected ecosystems.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday November 11 2016, @05:31PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Friday November 11 2016, @05:31PM (#425736) Homepage Journal

    Your reaction is exactly what I have come to expect from rabid environmentalists. It is not helpful, it is simply obstructionist.

    - Endangered species? [nps.gov] Let's look at the list. First, it's a remarkably short list, as these things go. Second, most of the species listed are suffering much broader problems - the fact that the Grand Canyon is part of their range is purely coincidental. For example, water flow issues in the Colorado river are hardly the reason that the Bald Eagle is on this list, or the Mexican Spotted Owl, or the Bighorn Sheep. The actual, river-specific endangered species fit on the fingers of one hand.

    - Non-native species are a problem [nps.gov], and are the main reason for the endangered species. However, non-native species are not present because of water management issues. New Zealand mudsnails have spread throughout three continents. Non-native mussels travelled around on ships and boats, and are also all over the place. The non-native fish species spread to the Colorado river before the dam was built. Humans carry critters everywhere, this is a problem, but has basically nothing to do with the current discussion.

    - The biggest impact of hydroelectric dams is, of course, the fact that some valleys disappear under water. Yep, some of that scenery was pretty. What is your alternative? Eliminating the generative capacity is not a valid choice: you must say how else you want to generate that electricity. Dam up someone else's favorite valley? Dig a rare-earth mine for more solar cells? Put ugly windmills on someone else's mountain top? For either of the last two, don't forget energy storage - which might just be hydroelectric. Pick one.

    tl;dr: Human civilization impacts nature. Accept that, because most of us have no desire to go live in caves. The question is how to minimize that impact, and hydroelectric is about as good as it gets. Environmentalists who complain, but offer no realistic alternatives are simply not worth listening to.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Friday November 11 2016, @05:50PM

    by bradley13 (3053) on Friday November 11 2016, @05:50PM (#425746) Homepage Journal

    Last note: I wrote "Environmentalists who complain, but offer no realistic alternatives are simply not worth listening to."

    Just now, in Switzerland, the green brigade has an initiative on the ballot that would force us to shut down all of our nuclear plants, the first of them within the next year. The initiative makes absolutely no mention of where those gigawatts of electricity are supposed to come from, if not from nuclear. The supporters make vague noises about "more hydroelectric", and "imported energy".

    Hydroelectric is what we're discussing, of course. Whose valley they want to flood, well, it's pretty certain that the very same people would oppose any specific plan for a specific new dam. And I love the "imported energy" - meaning let's go mess up somebody else's back yard.

    Or maybe they think electricity is magic, and just comes of out the plug in the wall.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
  • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Saturday November 12 2016, @01:40AM

    by butthurt (6141) on Saturday November 12 2016, @01:40AM (#425891) Journal

    datapharmer> What about the numerous species that went extinct

    bradley13> Endangered species? [nps.gov] Let's look at the list.

    extinct ≠ endangered