Posts: 36,015
Threads: 297
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]I read a small blurb in the Tribune this morning that kinda got my dandruff up. [url "http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8675462"]LINK TO ARTICLE[/url] Seems that a big energy company is proposing a project that they claim will solve a big part of Utah's energy problems...but could be potentially disastrous to the fragile environment of Bear Lake.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Since our own BearLakeFishGuy (Scott Tolentino) was mentioned in the article, I contacted him for his input. Not sure that was a good move. To say the very least, he has some "feelings" on the issue. We can hear those feelings at 10 AM tomorrow on Salt Lake talk radio station KCPW...88.3 FM and 1010 AM. He also mentioned that there was a bigger article in the Logan paper. [url "http://hjnews.townnews.com/articles/2008/03/23/news/news03.txt"]LINK TO LOGAN ARTICLE[/url][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I have reread the articles a couple of times and have listened to Scott's explanation...in biologist terms. Sounds to me like big business is going to throw a lot of money around to get what it wants...and to %$&& with the lake and the fisheries. Sounds a lot like they are proposing a "perpetual motion" situation...pumping water uphill at night and then downhill for power during the day...and somehow making money from it. Who cares about all the eggs, fry and larger fish that are sucked through the system...or the sedimentation? Heck, who needs a blue lake. Brown is more of a "modern" decorator color.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I'm sure that BLFG will chime in here with his better explanation and his true feelings. Stand Back.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 575
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
Reputation:
0
This kind of reminds me of those pumps they put in the GSL in the early eighties... Seems like a really stupid idea.
Why do they have to use Bear Lake? Plus, we all learned that Perpetual motion machines are just a theory.. In reality, they still don't exist.
Seems really stupid to create a reserve for electricity, so they can use it later in peak times.
Also seems like if they want to build a reservoir.. why not build 2 and have it cycle between those..
[signature]
Posts: 36,015
Threads: 297
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]TubeDude's first law of peoples principles:[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Any question that begins with the word WHY...and peoples are involved...is not likely to have a good answer.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 2,504
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Thanks for posting this. Unless the articles are missing something, this sounds like an extremely unwise proposal. I find the claims of net energy production highly suspect. It also sounds like the project would require a separate deal with Rocky Mountain Power to even have a remote chance at profitability.
I would say though that the chances of this project going through are slim. Why? Because of the much maligned Endangered Species Act. With 4 endemic species in Bear lake, if there is even a snowballs chance that these rare species could be threatened by this project, the courts would shoot the project down faster than a spotted owl will devour a mouse. See, "the tree hugging hippies" are good for something. [  ] Nevertheless, it sounds like something that we as sportsmen should fight vigorously.
[signature]
Posts: 264
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
0
Did I miss something or did someone eat the whole "stupid" cake? The project doesn't seem to be a way to create more energy, rather to use lower cost energy to create and equal volume of high priced energy for resale?
I understand the articles may not cover every point, but I believe this is just an exercise in capitalism, nothing more. Doubtful it will go anywhere but better to keep an eye on it.
[signature]
Posts: 2,382
Threads: 5
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
Capitalism at its' finest. Who cares about the fragile ecosystem as long as we can make the almighty $$.
What a joke.
[signature]
Posts: 36,015
Threads: 297
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]When those guys are working the shells and the peas you gotta watch real careful. They are shifty.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]IN THEORY...it will work. The cost of power at night, to pump the water uphill, is cheaper than during the daytime. Then, when they let 'er rip downhill, they generate enough (more expensive) power to make a profit on what they pumped uphill the night before.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]NOW...that is only after they amortize all of the bajillions of dollars they put out to build that wacko thing in the first place. They probably want to get taxpayers to cover that...or sell a bond or something. I doubt that the president of the power company is willing to front the whole shebang on speculation.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Sounds like "gummint" thinking.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Reputation:
1
If they're wanting to do something like this why don't they look to using the Great Salt Lake? Level fluctuations there would be a lot less due to the surface area of the lake as well as the density of the salt water. There are a lot of places around that body of water that would work just as well.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[reply]If they're wanting to do something like this why don't they look to using the Great Salt Lake? Level fluctuations there would be a lot less due to the surface area of the lake as well as the density of the salt water. There are a lot of places around that body of water that would work just as well.[/reply]
My thoughts exactly. They could use the denser (saltier) water from the northern part of the lake, release it in the southern portion of the lake, and actually help balance the salinity.
[signature]
Posts: 1,851
Threads: 42
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
9
I could really go on about this topic, but I'm going to keep it as short as possible. The Hook Canyon pump storage project has the potential to change the entire ecosystem of Bear Lake. It also has to potential to negatively affect every one of the four endemic species of fish in addition to cutthroat and other sport fish. First some facts: the plant would have daily intake/outflows of 18,400+ CFS (cubic feet per second). This is truely an incredible amount of flow. Think of the regular discharge below Flaming Gorge dam (800 CFS), now multiply that by 23 times! Do you think this might trap and kill larval fish? What about adults? (even it there were so-called fish screens over the intake/outflow. Another fact, the tunnel between the reservoir would be 30-40 feet in diameter and discharge/intake the water at about 120 feet in depth. Out of sight-out of mind? I think not. The majority of Bear Lake whitefish live at depths of 120 feet and deeper. Do you think this flow/suction might have an effect on the thermocline? What about ice formation? The entire surface of Bear Lake is supposed to vary about 3" up and down per day. This is a lot of moving water. Bear Lake's surface area is about 112 square miles! Finally, one more fact: The energy company proposing this pump-storage plant's Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O.) is proposing the have the "environmental studies" conducted by the environmental consulting company that he owns! Yes, the energy company is operated by the environmental consultant. Do you think that is conflict of interest? Finally, the plant is 80% efficient if you read the fine print in the company's literature. That means it will consume 20% more power than it produces. The key is it will produce power at high demand times (day time) and that power can be sold for more than what it cost to buy the extra 20% to run it. It is an energy "sink" not a "producer". Seems logical that the only ones who will benefit will be the owners of the plant who can sell energy at higher prices.
I've gave you some facts and a few questions to think about. I did not answer any of the questions since I want you to think about the answers! The enviromental risks are high for Bear Lake which contains 4 endemic species of fish (none of which are currently listed under the Endangered Species Act due to hard work the UDWR) I can only speak for fish, since that is my specialty, but this plant also has the potential to affect wildlife such as sage grouse, deer, etc. The company claims it will give them a place for watering, true, but what about migration routes, extra traffic to and from the reservoir. Will the reservoir be made accessible to the public? I don't know. Will it even be safe if the public had access? I'd hate to be sucked through a 40' diameter pipe! My biggest concern is how are we going to know for certain whether this plant (if permitted) will not negatively affect the uniqueness of Bear Lake? The answer is that I'm not sure it can be done!
The Federal Energy Regulatory Process is lengthy and time consuming. The public can become involved. The first scoping meeting will be held on April 9th in Montpelier, ID in the evening. Also you can go to the FERC webpage and read more about it. [url "http://www.ferc.gov"]www.ferc.gov[/url] The Hook Canyon Plant is docket number #12707. Please let FERC know what you think of this. Now is the time to respond. Bear Lake is too unique and the risks are too great for such a project here. It might be suited better for somewhere else. FERC is a pro-power agency and it looks like we will be spending a lot of time sitting in meetings defending the resources in relation to this proposed plant, rather than doing on the ground work for the betterment of the fishery resources of Bear Lake. A few words come to mind, but I need to remain calm....breath in and out.
[signature]
Posts: 2,504
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Thanks for the good info.
Re: "[size 1]I did not answer any of the questions since I want you to think about the answers!" [/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]The answers seem fairly obvious and scary enough to me.[/size]
Have conservation organizations like TU weighed in on this issue yet? Preserving the endemic whitefish and cisco is part of their mandate and organizing opposition needed to fight this would be something right up their alley. It also seems to me that if this project was proceeding, that organizations like the "Center for Biologic diversity" would petition the courts for emergency listing of the endemic fish under the ESA. I realize there are negatives associated with listing, but it would also help in derailing this dumb project. Any thoughts?
Finally, my father-in-law works as a maintenance manager at IPP in Delta. He told me a couple of weeks ago that the plans to build a 3rd unit out there have been put on indefinite hold. If our state is so hard up for electricity, then it is unimaginable that this plan would be eliminated. Also, plans for 1 or 2 smaller coal plants and a wind powered facility in Millard county are proceeding. I just do not see any justification for this electricity shell game. Let us know if there is more we can do. Keep up the good work.
[signature]
Posts: 3,614
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
hey dude i think you got some facts wrong! a hydro unit will not dirty the water in any way! lol they dont work that way. you would have a area fenced off and a no boating area around the intake area.. but very little dirt or any other stuff will be sucked up the line.. the turbin runs on water not dirt! they will try and keep as much sedment and other muck out of the turbin.. they dont run good if not clean..your missing point tho! the altrunative is, coal fire,oil fire,nuclur,.. acid rain or 10,000 years of wast..? hydro and geothromerl are the only high out put power plants that dont do great damage to the invironment..
so as upset as ya get about a small part of the lake being messed up by something like this.. it is a good clean power source!
do some home work on lakes that have BIG BUSINESS power plants on them. not coal fire.. hydro units. silverwood and castac come to mind to me in So. Cal.. 2 of the best fishing lakes in So Cal. why? Big Business is takeing care of the lake in every way doing water tests planting fish or paying for the cost! make all kinds of inprovements to make the lake even better.. why so they dont get blamed for anythnig going wrong with the lake that would put they'er turbin in jerpity...
oh and how it works is: it takes 1 1/8 the power to pump the water back up the hill as the turbin will prduce in one day. they will make money!
[signature]
Posts: 2,504
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Re: [size 1] the altrunative is, coal fire,oil fire,nuclur,.. acid rain or 10,000 years of wast..? hydro and geothromerl are the only high out put power plants that dont do great damage to the invironment.[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
This project isn't going to change that at all! It doesn't produce any net power, it just produces power during peak consumption and draws power during off peak times. As BLFG said, it actually consumes 20% more power than it produces. Stuff like this doesn't help us one bit with the net global warming and pollution effects on the environment. It is just a means for a company to make money, providing additional power to the grid during peak consumption at a profit by drawing power to run the system when the electricity costs less.
[signature]
Posts: 117
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
I'll take capitalism over socialism and communism any day of the week my friend.
[signature]
Posts: 3,614
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
even if it's a peaker unit. it will not cost more to pump the water back up the hill.. i work on this typ of equpment all the time all over the world.. don't know where ya got the 20% more in power to pump it back.. someone has they'er fact's mixed up.. it take's 20% of the power produced to pump the water back up the hill..
dont get me wrong. i dont think it's a good idea on bear lake. i think it's a bad idea for that lake.. but the idea is a good one and works well.. as fishermen and outdoorsmen we all should be all for hydro power. it's the cleanest form of power we have right now!
[signature]
Posts: 2,504
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Re: "[size 1]it will not cost more to pump the water back up the hill."[/size]
[size 1][/size]
This is probably true and is what the company is counting on, but the point is cost. It doesn't relate to the net ENERGY of the entire system. The 20% came from BLFG's post and he wrote that he got the figure from the company's own written proposal paper. It would be a heck of a deal if we could get a net positive energy output by these systems, but the darned laws of thermodynamics say that isn't possible.
"[size 1]as fishermen and outdoorsmen we all should be all for hydro power"[/size]
[size 1][/size]
Sure, along with other alternative energy sources like wind, but I don't see that this is a conventional hydro power project like turbines inside a dam of a naturally flowing river.
[signature]
Posts: 3,614
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
in realaty it is much more conventional than one would think.. it is not uncommon in low water areas, subject to drout have 2 lakes one high on a hill one below and pump water from one to run back down the hill.. never have to wory about drout.. on a river the flow of water has to stay the same all the time. in a drout the turbins will not be able to run after the intake is high and dry.
with this system the water is just reused over and over again.. as i say this system is used all over the world and is not a new idea. it works well if done the right way.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
If it were possible to get a net gain of electricity by pumping water uphill to run downhill through a turbine, we'd all have FREE electricity. You could put the power companies out of business. It takes more energy to pump it uphill than it can generate running downhill. The electricity they produce will be worth more than the electricity they use, but they WILL use more than they can produce.
[signature]
Posts: 452
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation:
0
And just when I thought it was safe to go back into the water!
[signature]
Posts: 36,015
Threads: 297
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]Depends on what water you go back into...and what you are doing in the water when you get there...and whether or not it is legal...and whether or not you get caught.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]And that is the whether report.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[signature]
|
