First, background to the Klamath River hydroelectric project. From wiki:
The Klamath River Hydroelectric Project is a series of hydroelectric dams and other facilities on the mainstem of the Klamath River, in a watershed on both sides of the California/Oregon border.
The infrastructure was constructed between 1903 and 1962, the first elements engineered and built by the California Oregon Power Company ("Copco").
That company merged into Pacific Power and Light in 1961, and is now the energy company PacifiCorp.
PacifiCorp continues to operate the project for profit, producing a maximum of 169 MW from seven generating stations.
The company owns all but one of the dams.
As of 2016, four of the project's dams are scheduled for removal by the year 2020, pending approval by the governing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
A fifth is running at reduced output, facing eventual decommissioning.
The project can be distinguished from the Klamath Project which is a set of United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) dams on upstream tributaries of the Klamath, operated primarily for agricultural water storage. The Link River Dam belongs to both.
Now, the most recent update, from NPR, the dismantling of the project.
After I got past the headline, this is yet another example of a huge headline for a small story.
I may get back to this, if I have the time, but it's important to read the entire NPR story closely.
Did I read that correctly? 169 MW?
The ten largest wind farms in the world:
- Jiuquan wind Power Base, China: 20,000 MW (20 GW)
- Jaisalmer Wind Park, India: 1,600 MW
- Alta Wind Energy Centre, US, Kern County, CA: 1,548 MW
- Muppandal Wind Farm, India: 1,500 MW
- Shepherds Flat Wind Farm, US, Arlington, East Oregon: 845 MW
- Roscoe Wind Farm, US, Abilene, TX: 782 MW
- Horse Hollow Wind Energy Centre, Texas, Taylor/Nolan counties, TX: 736 MW
- Capricorn Ridge Wind Farm, TX, Sterling/Coke counties: 663 MW
- Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm, UK: 659 MW
- London Array Offshore Wind Farm, UK: 630 MW
Now, back to that northern California system of dams: 169 MW. Yawn.
No wonder PacifiCorp went along with the plan: shoot, a wind farm with all the tax breaks will more than make up for this decommissioning project. And, oh, by the way, these were very, very old dams. Any one of them "failing" would have devastated the company and the folks living downstream.
More background, link here.
The nonprofit organization working to tear down four hydroelectric dams on the lower Klamath River in southern Oregon and northern California has provided its latest cost estimate for the project to federal energy regulators.
In a filing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on Feb. 28, the Klamath River Renewal Corp. estimates full dam removal will cost $446 million — within the project’s $450 million budget.
KRRC formed in 2016 as part of the amended Klamath Hydroelectric Settlement Agreement to carry out removal of the J.C. Boyle, Copco 1, Copco 2 and Iron Gate dams, opening about 400 miles of upstream habit for threatened coho salmon and steelhead. But first, FERC must approve transfer of the dams’ operating license from PacifiCorp to the KRRC, which submitted its 2,300-page “Definite Plan” for razing the four dams in 2018.
Klamath River, from wiki:
Despite its plentiful flow in California, the Klamath does not supply significant amounts of water to irrigators and municipal users in central and southern portions of the state.
The Klamath Reclamation Project in the Klamath Falls area supplies water to local irrigators, and the Central Valley Project diverts water from the Trinity River to supply irrigation water to the Sacramento Valley.
Other tributaries of the Klamath, including the Lost and Shasta rivers, are also diverted for irrigation. Water use of the lower Klamath—one of the last relatively free-flowing rivers in the state of California—has been debated for decades among conservationists, tribes, irrigators, and government agencies, and its eventual fate is still unclear.
This has literally no material effect on electricity generation in the state of California. Except for local irrigators, it appears it will have no material effect on California agriculture. This is not a huge deal for Warren Buffett / PacifCorp one way or the other. In fact, it is one less ankle-biter Warren Buffett has to address. Something tells me the "recreational" use of the are will change dramatically. Should the state or the Federal government turn the area under the dammed lakes into a national or state park? Why not?
Here's an interesting footnote to the above: Who is PacificCorp? At one time they were a stand-alone (investor owned) utility serving portions of four western states. Where I grew up in northwestern Montana it was our local utility, and a reliable one at that. Today it is a minor part of the energy division of Berkshire Hathaway, so "hello" Warren Buffet.
ReplyDeleteThat is accurate, and I bet Berkshire Hathaway will get a lot of tax credits, other financial incentives for doing this.
Delete