||| FROM TOM OWENS |||
Removing the Snake River dams is a tough decision. It has two sides. Like many other issues we face, there are merits to both arguments. Hopefully, before final decisions and actions are taken, the public can gain a full understanding of both the positive impacts (more food for orcas) and the negative impacts (more pollution, less renewable energy and loss of barge transportation on the Snake).
The case for removing the four dams is food supply for the Southern Resident Orcas. This case rings true. Some very fine folks support removal so there is strong merit to this side of the issue. Sharon Grace makes this case in her article. These four dams are part of the Columbia and Snake River hydro systems which play important parts in the Pacific Northwest electric generation and transmission system. This system produces vast amounts of electric energy (total capacity is about 29,000 MW). It is clean energy with respect to global warming. Most of
BPA’s energy (and thus OPALCO’s energy) is generated by this hydro system. This energy goes to public utilities (PUD’s and Cooperatives) first, then private utilities (like Puget Power and PGE). At times, some is sold to utilities in the Southwest.
The impact of removing these four dams is, in fact, very significant. They have a maximum capacity to produce over 3,000 MW (when the river flows are high). This is about 10% of the entire hydro system’s capacity. They have operated, on average, at a capacity of 1022 MW since construction. This is the size of a large nuclear plant. All four have fish ladders to allow fish passage. These are “run of river” dams, meaning their outflows are about equal to their inflows. They have only limited storage capacity. However, upstream are two dams (Dwarshak and
Brownlee) with storage reservoirs. As energy is produced at the storage dams, water then flows downstream thru each of the four lower Snake River dams increasing the amount of electricity produced. This amplifies the effect of “storage” in the Snake River system.
The important question is, what is the impact of making up for the lost energy and the reduction of “storage” ability in the hydro system? Certainly, we can reduce our consumption of electric energy, but new demands are going in the opposite direction, especially for all those new EV’s. We can rely on other fossil fuel generating sources (coal and natural gas), but this means more CO2 production. Solar and wind generation can be increased but this will require more, not less, energy storage if they are to be reliable energy sources.
The hydro system can serve as a giant battery. When there is excess solar and/or wind energy, this excess can be “stored” in the system’s storage reservoirs. (At times this is limited, due to operating constraints, like fish conservation, flood control, navigation requirements). Storage is done by reducing the production of hydro-electricity (by reducing the release of water through hydro turbines) that would go to serve BPA loads and using the excess renewable energy (when it is available) for these loads instead. This tends to add reliability to the renewable resources. When more energy is needed, the stored water can be released.
If you produce solar energy at your home, OPALCO takes any surplus energy (like in the summer) and returns it to you in the winter. This is called NET Billing (which is currently a hot issue). To provide this service, OPALCO relies on BPA’s ability to store this energy in its storage reservoirs. It is sure nice to get that summer solar power back in the wet, cloudy cold winter. But even BPA has limits.
OPALCO’s mission, as our very own cooperative, includes delivery of reliable and affordable electricity. The Columbia and Snake River hydro systems provide this reliability and low-cost electric energy. Dam removal would impact OPALCO’s mission. There are no easy answers. I am sure OPALCO is looking at both sides of the issue.
This is a tough tradeoff. A better chance of survival of the orcas on the one hand. More environmental problems caused by the reduction of energy and capacity on the hydro system. We all should understand both sides.
Tom- thanks for the factual and unbiased summary of the complex issues involved with this discussion. It is not as simple as removing the dams and the whales are saved (nothing ever is). It is also a very long, long time frame before any positive results for the southern residents would be realized.
If I were to try to sum up the failings of industrial civilization in one phrase, it would be: POOR LONG TERM PLANNING.
In terms of this particular issue, those dams would never have been built in the first place if there had been any genuine long term planning and any value at all given to the salmon runs and health of the Snake and Columbia river ecosystems. The dams are not the only problem of course, horrific logging practices beginning in the 1800’s in that watershed were devastating before all the dams were built. So there is some real truth to the statement that removing those 4 dams isn’t going to magically bring back the salmon or the health of those river systems. Nevertheless, anything that takes, “…a very long, long time frame before any positive results for the southern residents would be realized.” is going to take EVEN LONGER if we never get started.
I appreciate this forum where people can share their understanding.
Before going technical below, on the topic of immediate benefits to Southern Resident killer whales. With the dams breached, or even one or two breached this year, millions of salmon will be spared death on their way to ocean and become nourishment for the orca in the very near term.
Onto the power side.
Per Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and Army Corps source data of actual generation readings:
Lower Snake River dams (LSRD) in 2021:
Jan thru Dec actual generation was 625 MWa. (annual average)
They generated only 20.6% of their nameplate capacity which is 3033 MW.
Well below the generally understood annual average of about 1000.
(LSRD do not generate their nameplate and are not whatsoever expected to)
Or you can tally 2021 by the official method, the “water year”, Oct 2020 thru Sept 2021:
2021 water year actual generation of LSRD was 641 MWa.
This is 21% of their nameplate 3033 MW.
However much of this is attributable to having been a low water year, climate change trends are not going to be improving flows.
The mandated spill significantly impacts generation, and before going down that rabbit hole, it’s worth considering the following. For 2021 Jan-Dec.
37.6% of Total BPA balancing authority generation went to the interchange, in excess of its load obligations.
LSRD were 6.1% of Total generation in BPA balancing authority. Some or all went to surplus.
Their percent to the region is even less. BPA is only a fraction of the region’s power. What I gather from the NW region’s power planning agency (NPCC) is that BPA’s obligation amounts to only 37% of the region’s demand. I don’t know the minutiae of the fate of BPA surplus, but it’s certainly beyond needs in the NW and finds it’s way beyond our borders, deriding the needs of species.
LSRD generation in 2021 might be around 3% of regional generation. What if it’s even less? Find the total NW generation for 2021 and calculate.
The official Northwest generating capability is 33,828 MWa, (not nameplate).
The future’s electricity demand is not set in stone. The proportion of the regional demand for electricity that BPA is obligated to supply is expected to fall from 37% to 32% by 2040. Solar throughout the west, other renewables, efficiencies and technology are fast upon us.
The lower Snake dams are high cost, underperforming projects and lethal to species. Hear hear to lower rates and recognizing we’re able to take care of all stakeholders, which does not exclude species and indigenous peoples.
Let’s try to get a few things straight here and then think about how we all can go about reaching fully understood conclusions.
The lower Snake River dams produce energy from water flowing through their turbines. Each year, flows are different (also with different spill obligations for fish). On average the lower Snake River dams produce about 1022 MW each year. Looking at one single year is misleading.
There is mandated spill on most dams. These mandates are, in part, to produce needed flows for fish as well as proper temperatures. Too much spill must be avoided to prevent nitrogen saturation, which is harmful for fish. The hydro system operates under many restraints. This spill does not, in any way, represent a surplus of water or unneeded generation.
Generation capacity is not always equal to actual production. Capacity should be thought of as the maximum possible generation output from a plant. A coal plant will be able to operate at its “capacity” because it has all the fuel it needs. A dam, on the other hand, can only produce power from the amount of available fuel (water flow in this case). Water flow is often below the amount required for full capacity production. This reduction in capacity does not represent a surplus of generating capacity.
“Renewals are fast upon us”. I certainly hope this is true. Before this comes true, cost and reliability will play a part in the equation.
Reliability is absolutely critical. The electric power system has the unique requirement that it must meet 100% of the load demands place upon it. In other words, 100% of generation must go to meet 100% of loads. There is no room for a shortage or surplus. The East Coast of the US, many years ago, suffered a major blackout. Generation could not meet load demands. The system collapsed and took a number of days to recover.
Reliability is assured by having generation on line and available to meet more than the expected load demands, just in case there is a plant outage or higher than expected loads. The generation that is required must be able to respond to these loads regardless of time of day or wind velocity. Solar and wind do not have this ability (at night and in low wind conditions). Hence they are not reliable.
Before we can fully utilized renewable, we have to find ways to make up for their lack of reliability. Right now, the hydro system can, at times, supply some of this backup. Thermal plants (coal and natural gas) also supply some backup. Batteries are another possible option (hopefully this technology will advance). All this backup represent added cost to operate a system with renewables. So the cost of renewables must include the cost of this backup.
What really needs to happen here is that both sides of this debate must stop focusing on why the other side is wrong, and work to find solutions or at least understandings that will bring us to the best conclusions. It seems to me we are wasting a lot of time and energy that could be better used. Why not have an unbiased study on just how removing the dams would happen. And just how this would impact fish stocks and over what time frame. Perhaps factors such as habitat and fish food sources should be considered. Include the steps necessary to replace the generation and capacity lost. What costs and impacts would these step have? Perhaps there is one out there. If so, it does not seem to have the support of both sides.
Thank you Tom, for your response. I would agree looking at one year would be misleading if it weren’t noted that it’s only one year and if the year weren’t named. Or if it wasn’t acknowledged that it was a low water year. But this was included along with noting ”However much of this is attributable to having been a low water year, climate change trends are not going to be improving flows.” Averaging since construction doesn’t help to understand the flows we can expect to see moving forward or encompass newer operational constraints. And bear in mind, adequacy planning considers the worst year, so more than enough resources exist in that worst case. However, I’ll work on tallying up some previous years we can look at and welcome your suggestions.
The bigger point I laid out is that even 1022 MWa is moot considering the surplus generation. That’s on the annual average. If you’d like to pitch one for peak power during a pinch, I haven’t yet found one of the “LSRD saved the day” claims to be supported by data, but I welcome looking at events you’d like to suggest. They should be reviewed.
There’s concern on a few of your points:
“This system produces vast amounts of electric energy (total capacity is about 29,000 MW)”.
This conflates real life generation with nameplate capacity. Nameplate is far beyond how much plants are expected to make. All combined hydro generation capability in the entire Northwest in total is 16,271 MWa. Its nameplate capacity is 34,652 MWa. BPA hydro’s nameplate is 22,163 MWa.
“They have a maximum capacity to produce over 3,000 MW (when the river flows are high)”
Find when LSRD last did their nameplate capacity and let’s look at it together. Have they? It’s a rating. It says they can get there for only two hours before having to recharge, and only in a few months of the year. If they were to produce their max for a duration longer than 2 hours, it’s less. And this rating apparently doesn’t include all operational constraints so it would be even lower. Regardless, when river flows are high there’s a glut from all the dams.
“It is sure nice to get that summer solar power back in the wet, cloudy cold winter.”
I’m not sure how this is possible. The dams don’t have that kind of storage. Least of all, LSRD. Summer’s water is long gone when winter arrives.
“100% of generation must go to meet 100% of loads.” Prefaced by “Reliability is absolutely critical.”
I’m not sure what is being argued but what’s inferred doesn’t seem applicable.
Who’s load? BPA surplus goes outside of BPA’s load and outside our region. In 2021, 37.6% of BPA generation was in surplus of its load obligations. Imagine a higher water year. I would have to sum generation to give the following as a percent but this is a sample of what BPA says was generated in surplus of its load obligation in 2017 and 2018. If you could assist, let me know of more years to look at.
BPA surplus generation in excess of it’s load obligation in annual average megawatts, Jan-Dec (I can re-calc in water years instead if preferred):
2017- 6,619 MWa
2018- 5,872 MWa
2021- 3,841 MWa. That’s the 37.6% of BPA generation over and above its obligation. (LSRD generated 625 MWa) All of these years are in excess of BPA load obligations. This is why it makes sense to nix LSRD generation that’s among the highest cost to produce. It will lower our rates. They’re also not clean. The reservoirs emit significant methane (PNNL 2013 and 2017 data collected) and the dams leak persistent organic pollutants (POP).
There is a draft study of the system without LSRD being considered by NPCC. The first step should be to evaluate what happens without their generation.
Thank you Tom. Please do check my numbers and I appreciate your interest in this discussion. I know some think of it as controversial but I don’t regard it that way. I consider it intriguing, practical and solve-able.
Better batteries to firm up intermittent solar and wind: from Yale 360
E360 DIGEST
OCTOBER 1, 2021
New Iron-Based Batteries Offer an Alternative to Lithium
An ESS iron flow battery pack.
An ESS iron flow battery pack. ESS
Batteries are needed to store clean power from wind and solar, but the high cost of lithium batteries has slowed their widespread adoption. Companies have long sought to produce alternatives made of cheaper materials, like zinc, and Oregon-based ESS Inc. says it has now developed a more affordable and better-performing battery made with iron, Bloomberg reported.
CSB Energy Corp., a clean-energy firm, is planning to install these batteries at solar projects across the U.S., where they will store surplus power generated during the day and distribute it at night. The company will deploy enough batteries to power 50,000 American homes for a day.
“Unlike lithium-ion batteries, iron flow batteries are really cheap to manufacture,” Rich Hossfeld, CEO of SB Energy, told Bloomberg. “The battery is made of iron salt and water.”
While lithium-ion batteries have gotten dramatically cheaper over the last decade, with prices dropping around 90 percent, their dependence on expensive materials like nickel and cobalt means there is a limit to how far costs can fall. Whereas lithium-ion batteries used for power storage can cost up to $350 per kilowatt-hour, ESS’s iron-based battery could be purchased for as little $200 per kilowatt-hour or less by 2025 and store energy for longer, Bloomberg reported.
Since iron-flow batteries do not work like the lithium-ion batteries used in smartphones or EVs, they have limited applications. Because the electrolytes stored within need to be moved with a physical pump, iron-flow batteries are much larger than lithium-ion batteries — ESS batteries are sold inside shipping containers. But they are still a practical option for grid storage.
“Long-duration energy storage, like this iron-flow battery, [is] key to adding more renewables to the grid,” Venkat Viswanathan, a battery expert and associate professor of mechanical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, told Bloomberg.
I need to clarify what I called “surplus” vs “interchange”. This would be easy if BPA didn’t keep surplus under wraps. They provide readings on generation, load and interchange. Generation minus load equals interchange (they say it’s supposed to, even though there are a few wonky numbers sometimes). But note, there’s some “interchange” power going to load that’s not BPA “load”. Enter Cheshire Cat. Apparently BPA can measure and make known it’s true surplus but refuses to, which is telling. So pardon the ambiguity, and I’ll work on parsing it out. I’m hearing a possible 25ish to 28% 2021. BPA should be transparent about it. Ratepayers are entitled to know. Regardless, we’ve got a lot of surplus, Tier 1 is awash. And LSRD are yes, negligible, underperforming and redundant.
Another issue is the hydro isn’t well matched to seasonal load. It’s said to be built big to meet dead of winter demand and then along comes spring melt with lower temps and big water flows. There is real surplus in winter but apparently in spring, it’s not hard to get to 50% true surplus. Meaning the system is out of sync with demand and would benefit from retiring its high cost hydro in favor of low cost solar that’s more likely to produce power when needed and is becoming abundant. In concert with findings like Janet’s above.
A question for TOM OWENS: Please explain why “Reliability is absolutely critical.”
There is no law of nature that that I know of that says that power generation systems must produce however much power is requested, no matter the cost to ecosystems or long term consequences. Where exactly is electrical demand going to stop? Does it not occur to you that endless growth is unsustainable? And that destroying everything we hold dear in the futile pursuit of endless growth is just about the dumbest proposition ever proposed?
REDUCE the supply, RAISE the price and the demand will shrink. EVERY TIME. Look at the price of gasoline if you need current evidence. Humans must learn to live within an energy budget or we will suffer a head-on collision with the brick wall of reality.
Well, let’s see if we can spread some more light on these points.
If I selected a high number for generation from the lower Snake River dams, you would consider that misleading. A high or low number serves no purpose. What we need is something that is more representative of what might happen. I chose average generation over several decades. While not perfect, it is not misleading.
Energy generated is different from “capacity” especially for hydro units which are flow and mandated spill dependent. Sometimes you will hear “available generation” which takes into account the amount of river flow (less mandated actions). Capacity is different for wind and solar as they are also depend on sometimes unavailable fuel (wind and sun). I think this is pretty clear from what I wrote.
Summer solar energy can be “stored” and redelivered in winter thanks to BPA. OPALCO takes less energy from BPA in the summer (since less is needed due to solar generation). In the winter when load rises, OPALCO takes more energy from BPA and gives solar producers are credit. Since this is happening and BPA is the key, just how does BPA accomplish this without sufficient storage?
Instead of thinking solely of BPA loads and generation, you must think much broader. The electric system is actually a network of interconnected loads and generators. It is call “the grid”. It covers the western 1/3 of the US, BC, part of Alberta and a bit of Mexico. “Load” is the sum of all demands on the grid. “Generation” is the sum of all plants generating to supply the grid.
Electric energy is bought and sold between parties connected to the grid. If BPA or any other party has more generation capacity that is available to operate and that is in excess of their own demand, they will try to find buyers for this energy. This is the electricity market. It operates on an incremental cost basis. Hydro, solar, wind have almost 0 incremental cost. Nuclear is a bit higher. Natural gas higher yet (and it may trade places with coal). Coal is the most expensive, especially rail-hauled coal.
Now consider that BPA can produce more electricity than it needs to meet its own loads. Should they spill the excess or sell it into the market. They will have ready buyers since their incremental cost is very low. I would think they would be sellers (after a price negotiation). This is all a very good thing. Some utility that is using a coal plant to supply its loads could reduce their high-cost generation (perhaps coal) and buy BPA’s electricity. The utility saves money. BPA makes money. There is less CO2 emitted to the atmosphere. Seems like a good outcome to me.
It is incorrect to claim BPA having surplus energy. It will sell any energy it does not need for its own loads.
You mentioned a draft study of the impacts of removing the 4 dams. Certainly, we need to know this. Did NPCC do this study? If someone else did the study, who are they? Who funded the study? I am surprised that this was not done long ago.
While you are working on studies, we should also know what we are going to get if we remove the dams. Will we reach our goal of more fish for orcas? Is there anything that maps out the entire process of removing the dams? Will we recover habitat and food sources? How long will it take to get the salmon to return to the lower Snake? How many fish are we going to produce and in what timeframe? How many of these fish will we get into the Salish Sea and Puget Sound? Will there be enough and will they arrive in time to save the orcas?
Janet, the news of the low cost battery development is great. The typical home might use about 30 kwh/d. I sure hope the price can stay down and the project scaled up. Just what we need.
Ken, I actually agree with your sentiments. It would be great to see far less and falling energy demand. The human species is way over populating the limited earth. The only way I see to do this is to decrease the world population, especially those with high standards of living (which is energy dependent). I also think this is unobtainable. How can we get enough people to give up (or greatly reduce) their high standard of living or simply disappear?
The standard for electric power systems worldwide is reliable energy to as many customers as can be reached. Not all countries have this luxury. So, I am stating a reality.
The demand for more electricity is not going to stop, no matter how much you want it to do so. Not in the US. Not in the world. Wish this was not true, but it likely is true.
Tom – As I alluded to in my criticism of our civilization, long term planning is noticeably absent in the way BPA operates dams. I would hope that OPALCO has more vision. Your insistence that, “The demand for more electricity is not going to stop…” is clearly mistaken. Look at all energy sources; when the price goes beyond a certain point, the demand drops. This has been the dance of oil prices for the last 50 years. Hydropower generation has unique aspects, but the basic principle is exactly the same. If the price of electricity goes up, the demand WILL go down. I propose that, just like the water company, a certain modest amount of electricity is included with the facilities fee and that rates be graduated so that the more you use, the more you pay. As it is, there is very little incentive to conserve electricity and the flat facilities fee is a huge portion of many conservation minded OPALCO member’s monthly bill.
While we are talking about facility fees, WHY do I have to pay the same “share” as a meter that uses twice as much power? Or 100 times the power? Shouldn’t a fair share be related to your usage? Over the road taxes charge far more for heavy trucks than little cars, as they should; trucks cause far more damage to roadways. Similarly, shouldn’t large users of electricity pay for a larger portion of the infrastructure than small users?
OPALCO is critically close to losing members completely if these unfair fee structures are not addressed. At current rates it is an extremely close call whether it is long term more cost effective to go completely off grid rather than walk away from OPALCO. I think there is a serious disconnect (no pun intended) going on with advocacy arising to treat OPALCO like a business. OPALCO is a member owned cooperative, NOT a business. There are fundamental differences and especially in the way they should be operated and managed.
When they do resource planning, they do base it on “something that is more representative of what might happen”. The lowest water year on record. We have or build resources to be ample in that worst case scenario. 2021 was a low water year and we still had lots of surplus power.
Yes, energy generated is different from nameplate capacity. I provided explanation and some numbers.
“Instead of thinking solely of BPA loads and generation, you must think much broader.” -T.O wrote.
Yes exactly, the broader you go, the more inconsequential LSRD become.
Total Generating Capability including all types of generation in the entire NW is 33,838 MWa. (not the higher nameplate capacity).
The 2021 Jan-Dec LSRD 625 MWa generation was 6.1% of BPA. That’s an even smaller % of the regions generation, and becomes a tiny speck as a % of “the grid” or “western 1/3 of the US, BC, part of Alberta and a bit of Mexico”.
““Load” is the sum of all demands on the grid” -T.O wrote.
The FCRPS (Federal Columbia River Power System that BPA markets) is subject to the Northwest Power Act. It is beholden to serve load within our borders, NOT Mexico, US west and Canada. And it is 100% legally constrained to do so without endangering wildlife including fish, and at the lowest cost. It is in complete and utter failure and violation of the first and very obviously of the second. LSRD are high cost, underperforming projects contributing to surplus and out of compliance with the directives of the Act.
BPA is in financial hardship. Its power is losing the competition. Net exporting days are heading to a close. The ones that are dinosaur dams have to go. Even just the LSRD turbine replacements coming due would cost big $$$$. These dams have run their lifespan, on top of their other downsides.
BPA does have surplus. It sells it on the hourly market. It is correct to call it surplus. Again, what the FCRPS generates (that BPA sells) is defined and allowable per the NW Power Act. It is public assets, not privately held for profit. Your never-ending grid idea is very holistic but since humans continue excluding the needs of anything that doesn’t bring in cash, guardrails have to be kept.
“Who funded the study?” -T.O wrote.
Again as I mentioned, it’s a draft study of the NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council) requested by members of the public. It’s a proposal. We fund NPCC, we fund the whole kit and caboodle. All $17 Billion and mounting in fish mitigation, all the decades of studies done and re-done, and process after process to “sort” this out. Ratepayers pay.
“I am surprised that this was not done long ago.” -T.O wrote.
I’m surprised too. Although, it has been done before. And kind of… shuffled off.
And the 2020 CRSO EIS found breaching LSRD would save ratepayers money.
(Columbia River System Operations Environmental Impact Statement)
“what we are going to get if we remove the dams” -T.O wrote.
Yes, more fish for orcas. The science is done. More fish for their own sake of existence, for the natural web of life, for forests. We’ll get immediately less methane emissions, immediately cooler water that actually moves for fish heading both ways, including in the lower Columbia.
Yes breaching has been mapped out. The Army Corps is really really good at that. Removal of the concrete isn’t necessary. Just the berms.
As mentioned, there will be MILLIONS more out migrating fish immediately upon breaching. They’ll make it to the ocean instead of being killed on the spot by infrastructure. Delayed mortality will go down and fish will access cool high elevation pristine spawning grounds.
“[A]nalyses have shown that dramatic increases in SARs are only likely if the lower Snake River dams are breached and spill is maximized at the lower Columbia River dams (Chapter 2 of 2019 CSS Annual Report).
“Comparative Survival Study of PIT-tagged Spring/Summer/Fall Chinook, Summer Steelhead, and Sockeye” report with Fish Passage Center, 2021.
SAR = smolt to adult returns
And the list of science and generation data goes eye-openingly on… After cutting this ball and chain loose, the best equation to solve is how to make conservation viable. And have utilities with courage and creativity working to that end really in earnest.
A few questions.
What are the environmental mental impacts of solar energy production? What about wind energy? Will we be trading one issue for another?
If the dams are removed how will the silt behind them impact downstream? The release of nutrient loads? Will there be an increase in erosion particulates entering the system due to newly exposed shorelines? How would these issues be addressed?
Do the dams in Idaho have fish ladders? How much of an increase in area/habitat will be realized by the removals?
Considering how dire the conditions of the species are why is any fishing allowed for salmon and steelhead allowed?