Economic Tradeoffs of the Snake River Dams

thesankers

Active Member
The fact that all carbon generating power stations will be gone from the state by 2045 by regulation means there will be a gap in demand vs baseline power supply. To the extent that studies are underway to consider small modular reactors in the desert to meet projected needs. This regulation is a big win for environmentalists in regard to global warming response. It also makes it far more unlikely that Snake River dams will be removed. You can't have it all. At least not without building nuclear plants.
 

gt

Active Member
If & when the Snake becomes free-flowing, don't plan on accessing much of it - there are few roads & the majority of the land is private, only accessible by boat at present.
before the dams, the railroadway provided unlimited access to great fishing locations along the river. never had a problem with access in my 4 years of fishing and hunting that specific area.
 

gt

Active Member
i also read an article that BPA would go bankrupt if they continued to have to fund those dams which don't pay for themselves. the costs of operation not to mention the continuous dredging of a channel for barge traffic are no small financial matter. shipping grain by rail, as they used to do, adds, from what i have read, about $0.03/bushel.

and in the days of yore, it was all dry land wheat farming, no irrigation required.
 

cmann886

Active Member
It all depends on who does the numbers. The cost of power replacement alone is 80% higher than previous cost to breach the dams... THE COST OF REPLACING POWER IF LOWER SNAKE DAMS BREACHED: GROUPS’ DUELING STUDIES SHOWING VASTLY DIFFERENT NUMBERS
JANUARY 30, 2020
An industry group calculates that removing the four lower Snake River dams would cost the Northwest 80 percent more than a previous study had shown in power replacement costs alone.
 

Old406Kid

Active Member
i also read an article that BPA would go bankrupt if they continued to have to fund those dams which don't pay for themselves. the costs of operation not to mention the continuous dredging of a channel for barge traffic are no small financial matter. shipping grain by rail, as they used to do, adds, from what i have read, about $0.03/bushel.

and in the days of yore, it was all dry land wheat farming, no irrigation required.
Just out of curiosity where do you think all of the silt/muck will go.
I'm thinking at the face of the next dam that should be torn out..and the next and the next.
 

GeorgeV

Active Member
WFF Supporter
Back when, the BPA and Corp of Engineers claimed the Columbia was a good river for dams because the big floods 12k to 15k years ago washed all the sediment out into the ocean, so the channel was all rock and the dams wouldn't silt in. But, what about new silt? Dredging the channel for barge traffic is expensive and on going. Twenty years ago, a lot of petroleum products were barged to Tri-Cities. The information I was given said ability to contain or clean up an oil spill was very poor. Wind, current and the remoteness of the area were the reason. This information came from a pipeline company, that was proposing a new pipeline from the Everett area to Tri-Cities. This was when the pipeline leak and fire happened in Bellingham. The pipeline was never built.
 

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top