The Day We Set the Colorado River Free
outsideonline.com
The Day We Set the Colorado River Free
1–10 of 33 posts
Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free
#2This is amazing! It's unfortunate that we can't have the dams constantly open or at least a few to keep some water flow. I would love to fund something that would allow us to do this yearly or even more frequently
Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free
#3A common misconception is that hydroelectricity has the advantage over other renewables of requiring less land. This is not the case. The surface area of Lake Mead is 640 square kilometers -- this much ecologically viable land was destroyed to make way for hydroelectricity. The power generation capacity afforded by the Hoover Dam on this lake is roughly 2 GW.
A solar panel produces roughly (we're lowballing) 100 watts per square meter. Solar panels to produce 2 GW -- the power output of Lake Mead -- would cover about 20 million square meters, or 20 square kilometers. If we assume the solar panels only operate at capacity for a third of a day, that's 60 square kilometers. If we also assume that only half of the used land is actually light-capturing, that's 120 square kilometers.
Even under the most pessimistic of assumptions, solar still uses five times less land than hydro. Realistic solar installations would probably be significantly more efficient than I've assumed. Batteries are also significantly more space-efficient than hydroelectric storage.
Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free
#4This is amazing! It's unfortunate that we can't have the dams constantly open or at least a few to keep some water flow. I would love to fund something that would allow us to do this yearly or even more frequently
If you're a US citizen, you already do fund such an entity with your taxes.
If it's important to you, let your legislators know, and vote accordingly.
Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free
#5A common misconception is that hydroelectricity has the advantage over other renewables of requiring less land. This is not the case. The surface area of Lake Mead is 640 square kilometers -- this much ecologically viable land was destroyed to make way for hydroelectricity. The power generation capacity afforded by the Hoover Dam on this lake is roughly 2 GW. A solar panel produces roughly (we're lowballing) 100 watt…
Interesting. I suppose it makes sense, in a way: solar power captures solar energy directly, whereas hydro captures solar energy only indirectly, through the water cycle.
Do you have any ballpark ideas about how the cost of producing the dam (most concrete, I guess) compares to the cost of producing 120 km^2 of solar panels + 'enough' battery capacity, in terms of some kind of ecological footprint?
My intuition is that the ecological capital costs of solar panels greatly exceed the capital costs of the dam, but I have little faith in my intuition....
Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free
#6A common misconception is that hydroelectricity has the advantage over other renewables of requiring less land. This is not the case. The surface area of Lake Mead is 640 square kilometers -- this much ecologically viable land was destroyed to make way for hydroelectricity. The power generation capacity afforded by the Hoover Dam on this lake is roughly 2 GW. A solar panel produces roughly (we're lowballing) 100 watt…
Yes, but Lake Mead serves an additional valuable function as a water storage facility.
I'm guessing that is it's primary value. The power generation is secondary.
Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free
#7A common misconception is that hydroelectricity has the advantage over other renewables of requiring less land. This is not the case. The surface area of Lake Mead is 640 square kilometers -- this much ecologically viable land was destroyed to make way for hydroelectricity. The power generation capacity afforded by the Hoover Dam on this lake is roughly 2 GW. A solar panel produces roughly (we're lowballing) 100 watt…
Interesting. I suppose it makes sense, in a way: solar power captures solar energy directly, whereas hydro captures solar energy only indirectly, through the water cycle. Do you have any ballpark ideas about how the cost of producing the dam (most concrete, I guess) compares to the cost of producing 120 km^2 of solar panels + 'enough' battery capacity, in terms of some kind of ecological footprint? My intuition is th…
[deleted]
Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free
#8This is amazing! It's unfortunate that we can't have the dams constantly open or at least a few to keep some water flow. I would love to fund something that would allow us to do this yearly or even more frequently
If you're a US citizen, you already do fund such an entity with your taxes. If it's important to you, let your legislators know, and vote accordingly.
You "already fund" something, but need to vote for it to be funded?
Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're a US citizen, you already do fund such an entity with your taxes. If it's important to you, let your legislators know, and vote accordingly.
You "already fund" something, but need to vote for it to be funded?
You can always stop funding something.
Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free
#10A common misconception is that hydroelectricity has the advantage over other renewables of requiring less land. This is not the case. The surface area of Lake Mead is 640 square kilometers -- this much ecologically viable land was destroyed to make way for hydroelectricity. The power generation capacity afforded by the Hoover Dam on this lake is roughly 2 GW. A solar panel produces roughly (we're lowballing) 100 watt…
It's also a misconception to equate huge-reservoir hydro with all hydro. The Norwegians have incredibly high head, phenomenally efficient hydro in the mountains with minimal environmental impact. We have run of river hydroelectric in the states that diverts some water via penstock, as well as canal-based systems and those that utilize Army Corp dams. In fact, there is significant non-powered dam resource available: http://nhaap.ornl.gov/content/non-powered-dam-potential
I'm actually working on national-level hydro assessments at a national lab. We don't really predict more huge reservoir installments, but there is plenty of capacity out there. These set-ups (particularly non-powered dams) are also generally pretty cheap per kWh generated over their lifetimes (which in some cases reaches 70+ years).