forgot to log-in - that comment is mine.
User login
Navigation
Categories
Recent comments
- Geothermal heat pumps
13 weeks 2 days ago - Now that's what I call mad science!
28 weeks 5 days ago - SimCity Societies sneak-peek
40 weeks 2 days ago - Environmental Blogs
51 weeks 11 hours ago - Possible Hazel-Diesel Demo
1 year 3 weeks ago - great commercial :)
1 year 5 weeks ago - Interesting
1 year 11 weeks ago - Bon voyage!
1 year 12 weeks ago - There's an easy solution...
1 year 13 weeks ago - Wal-Mart
1 year 13 weeks ago
Search
Upcoming events
Blogroll
Links
Browse archives
| Su | Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 |
Syndicate


My personal position is this should be carefully evaluated on a case by case basis. If the dam is fairly small, then it may be worth removing. If the dam is relatively large, then firm plans must be developed to replace it with other renewable sources. Simply saying replace it with solar or wind is not sufficient since those are intermittent sources. If dams are haphazardly removed, it is likely they will be replaced with more coal or natural gas plants.
Rane & I had a class debate on this issue - part of the problem is also the water provided for irrigation by the dams. Many of the areas in the NW do not receive enough rain to support agricultural endeavors, thus they rely on irrigation. It is a complicated issue, so I agree with you, Joe, that it makes sense to take it on a case-by-case basis. I wonder whether it is an issue that will have a successful compromise, though, since the participants seem sharply divided and have been for years.