Live data from Hacker News

The Day We Set the Colorado River Free

outsideonline.com

21–30 of 33 posts

Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free

#21

Really great article. I love the weekend reading on HN. This part of the article really caught my eye: >>> Current “use it or lose it” water laws don’t allow farmers to sell any surplus allotment, so they end up growing as much alfalfa as they can and selling it on the global market. Peter Culp estimates that 50 billion gallons of water—1.5 pulse flows—is shipped to China each year in the form of alfalfa, and even mo…

One of the (supposed) reasons why farmers in the United States get so many privileges, subsidies and water rates at 5% of market rates in some cases, is to promote food security. The theory is, that by ensuring we have a broad set of food stocks that we can potentially draw on should circumstances dictate, then we are capable of maintaining the basic elements of survival. (Energy Security is another one on the list -…

Cattle for food security makes sense only on marginal land, where rain is so scarce that you can't plant crops, and the only thing you can do is extensive cattle ranching. Look at the American West, Australia and so on.

Also, look at Upstate New York and Northern Pennsylvania if you are interested in food security. This used to be the grain basket of the country, but the farmland is all abandoned and reverted to forest, the hilly country is too difficult to farm with large machinery. But it's rain-safe, unlike further out west. I think in the face of climate change, farmland in that area is a most excellent long-term investment.

Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free

#22
post #18

Really great article. I love the weekend reading on HN. This part of the article really caught my eye: >>> Current “use it or lose it” water laws don’t allow farmers to sell any surplus allotment, so they end up growing as much alfalfa as they can and selling it on the global market. Peter Culp estimates that 50 billion gallons of water—1.5 pulse flows—is shipped to China each year in the form of alfalfa, and even mo…

My fathers specialty was alfalfa, and he made a good thing out of not growing any. The government paid him well for every bushel of alfalfa he did not grow. The more alfalfa he did not grow, the more money the government gave him, and he spent every penny he didn't earn on new land to increase the amount of alfalfa he did not produce. Couldn't resist. Not often alfalfa comes up in conversation.

You should mention that this is a quote from Catch-22.

Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free

#23
post #8
post #4

Earlier 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?

Yes, approximately once a year.

Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free

#25
post #3

A 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…

Hydro was not the purpose of making Hoover Dam, so the rest of your argument fails.

Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free

#26
post #10
post #3

A 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: h…

Why only 70 years? Does the dam actually crumble to pieces, or is 70 years how long it takes for maintenance costs to equal construction costs?

Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free

#27
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: h…

Why only 70 years? Does the dam actually crumble to pieces, or is 70 years how long it takes for maintenance costs to equal construction costs?

Some last longer, some die quicker, it depends on the conditions and upkeep for a particular installation. I threw out 70 years off the top of my head to demonstrate that they tend to last a relatively long time. It also depends on what you consider to be "replacement" vs. "repair". Sometimes all you have left is a concrete shell with rusted out turbine husks, in other cases you just need to replace a few parts. Hydroelectric generation (and water-power in general) has been around for a pretty long time, and there are a lot of different local implementations out there when you get into the details.

The badger hydroelectric plant in Wisconsin is 86 years old, and that's just one I happened to know because I collected data on it recently. If you go further east in the states and then across the Atlantic, the plants can get older than that as well. http://www.kaukaunautilities.com/about_us/default.asp?Catego...

EDIT: Oh, and in terms of cost, when planning out capital expenses most hydro projects are assuming a shorter lifespan than actual. I don't have numbers in front of me, but I feel like costs are generally accounted for a 20-40 year lifespan (weighted towards 20), although they do expect the plants to operate for 2-3x as long.

Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free

#28
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: h…

> We have run of river hydroelectric in the states that diverts some water via penstock Do you have wildlife issues to consider in the design? E.g., are the dams on rivers fish migrate up?

Well, run-of-river installations actually don't have dams, and you can prevent most fish with just some mesh, so you're avoiding that impact entirely.

Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free

#29

Really great article. I love the weekend reading on HN. This part of the article really caught my eye: >>> Current “use it or lose it” water laws don’t allow farmers to sell any surplus allotment, so they end up growing as much alfalfa as they can and selling it on the global market. Peter Culp estimates that 50 billion gallons of water—1.5 pulse flows—is shipped to China each year in the form of alfalfa, and even mo…

I submitted this a few weeks ago and it quickly died, but you might find it also interesting: http://www.azcentral.com/news/wildfires/yarnell/arizona-wild...

Re: The Day We Set the Colorado River Free

#30
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We have run of river hydroelectric in the states that diverts some water via penstock Do you have wildlife issues to consider in the design? E.g., are the dams on rivers fish migrate up?

Well, run-of-river installations actually don't have dams, and you can prevent most fish with just some mesh, so you're avoiding that impact entirely.

Ah cool, that's good to hear (so long as flows are sustainable, unlike some of our proposals for 'harnessing all that wasted water')
Post reply on HN