Extreme “greenies” are demanding the destruction of that the four Lower Snake River dams – of course, as a direct consequence of such folly, all the carbon-free energy the dams create would be destroyed as well.
It’s enough to make even Al Gore ask, “Why”?
The demand to destroy the dames comes after a push by the extreme enviros and a political decision handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Michael Simon that “dam destruction must be considered to help salmon.”
Ironically enough, destroying the dams would not only be very expensive, it would also be at the expense of clean energy. The Washington Policy Center’s Todd Myers recently explained via the Seattle Times:
“Annually, the dams generate about 8.3 million megawatt hours of electricity, or 8 percent of Washington’s energy. That is more clean energy than is provided by all the wind and solar facilities in Washington state added together…
“Additionally, replacing the carbon-free energy from the dams would have enormous costs. Using data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, an analysis I completed for an upcoming edition of the University of Idaho Law Review found that replacing the dams would add more than $200 million a year to energy costs.”
As Myers goes on to explain, the consequences of these costs are significant. They include the reduction of potential funding for other environmental protection projects in order and the elimination of “one of the best reasons to move manufacturing and jobs to Washington state — our low electricity costs.”
Extreme “greenies” latest demand is just another example of they often place pure ideology ahead of logic… at the expense of our state’s future wellbeing.
I don’t see anywhere in this article, that the “extreme greenies” are going to get their wish. In fact, the article seems to indicate they will NOT get their wish. But IF this is NOT the case, I hope our leaders understand that it would be a LOT cheaper to fix the “samon issue” than to replace hydro-electric power. So if Jay Inslee suddenly writes an order for their destruction (the hydro-electric damns), I’m hoping someone with some common sense will sit him down and explain the facts of life to him first.
I am VERY “PRO” on hydro-electric, and I am very “CON” on nuclear reactors. Hopefully, everyone here KNOWS that there has NEVER been a single nuclear reactor that actually paid off. The reason they “look good” on paper, is because they get a BUNCH of back door subsidization from the Federal Government. But the reactors actually LOSE money (and a very large amount it is too) if only the income from the users power bills are considered. But I’m getting off on a tangent, and I’m starting to rant. I’ll spare you all from that.
Have a good day.