I wouldn't be so quick to chalk up NOAA's recommendations on dam removal to a plot to build more nuclear and coal-fired power plants. I looked into both NOAA's and the World Commission on Dams (WCD, from the Hague, Netherlands) reports on the topic, and much was missing from the discussion here. Such as: 1) (full disclosure) -- I like to fish, both for food and for enjoyment, and I am involved in conservation efforts for native fish that are now endangered. I am not involved in salmon fishing, there are none in my state. (and full disclosure) Please DO NOT generalize about how all fishermen are against all dams....that is completely untrue....in many places, dam tailwaters have produced some the USA's premier cold-water fisheries, and their impoundments have produced premier warm-water fisheries. 2) The majority of dams slated for removal in the US are insignificant in their power output or have no power output at all, and are obsolete (low-head, many are 6 feet tall or less and have no hydro generating capability). Some are up to 200 years old, wearing out, and dangerous to local communities. In the majority of cases where dams are currently scheduled to be removed, the dam owners approve -- the dams are expensive to keep up, and the companies that own them want them gone, too....they are not making money by producing electricity. 3) Most of these dams to be removed were built before the word 'ecosystem' was even invented. No environmental studies were done before the dams were built. Their impact on wild anadromous (sea-run) fish populations was devastating, to the point where many wild fish populations are no longer self-sustaining. Without stocking programs, some species would now be extinct. This happened so long ago that most people have forgotten how their local commercial fishing economies were devastated, since those workers have long since moved away. 4) Fish and dams are not completely incompatible....ever seen a 'fish ladder'? However, poorly-designed dams built before migratory fish were even understood ecologically are absurd, especially if they do not produce electricity. 5) I was shocked to find out how low a rate people in the US Pacific NW pay for electricity. It's less than half what on-grid people in Colorado pay, due to lots of hydro power up there in the NW. However, folks in Colorado who signed up to voluntarily pay more per kW/hr for wind- generated electricity got a big surprise this year -- they are now paying LESS for electricity this year than their neighbors, due to price spikes in natural gas. 6) How many kW/hrs of electricity is worth the extinction of a native species? DAN
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Does your company feature in the microhydro business directory at http://microhydropower.net/directory ? If not, please register free of charge and be exposed to the microhydro community world wide! NOTE: The advertisements in this email are added by Yahoogroups who provides us with free email group services. The microhydro-group does not endorse products or support the advertisements in any way. More information on micro hydropower at http://microhydropower.net To unsubscribe: send empty message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/microhydro/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
