Summary
The removal of four hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River, completed in October 2023, is the largest dam removal project in U.S. history. The dams had blocked salmon migration, disrupted ecosystems, and worsened toxic algal blooms for over a century.
Decades of advocacy by tribal groups, environmentalists, and locals led to their removal, marking a significant environmental milestone. Early recovery signs include salmon returning to the upper basin for the first time in 60+ years.
The project also restored sacred lands to the Shasta Indian Nation and opened 400 miles of habitat for native species.
Challenges like sediment-clearing and climate impacts persist, but stakeholders celebrate it as a model for ecological renewal.
Huh, Klamath… I remember it from Fallout!
Wonder how that Gecko cave is doing these days…
I didn’t see it in the article, but what of the power these dams generated? Did they run lines from a farther city? Did these communities have a say?
I’m all for reducing impact on the environment and these dams were truly messing things up (water full of algae so deprived of oxygen it turns black?). This is one of those uncomfortable trades we’ve made across the world with hydro dams. They alter rivers, and make reservoirs. They destroy salmon routes and cause flooding above them when they’re not fast enough to drain. -But humans demand electricity. It’s become essential for homes and health, and now even transportation infrastructure is becoming reliant on it. It seems like these 4 dams couldn’t be producing much if the local people were able to demand them gone and Berkshire give in.
That’s a good question, actually so I looked it up and found a few articles talking about it.
“At full capacity, the Klamath River dams can produce enough electricity to power about 70,000 homes, though in reality, they produce about half that, says PacifiCorp spokesperson Bob Gravely. The reservoirs do not provide drinking or irrigation water.” Source
As for what the electricity would be replaced with, it would be from other sources that would are aggregated by the power company.
I actually think the research for this dam removal was done quite thoroughly after reading this article: [https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/a69884b685ef49bbba26f9a1d377cbe4](Link here)
Someone crunched the numbers and the dams were not efficient, aging and getting to be a liability so I believe the removal was an overall net positive
Looks like 700Gwh/y, so 80Mw. That’s not insignificant. A wind turbine produces about 2.75Mw, so you’d need 30 to just make up the nameplate capacity. But it’s probably actually twice to three times that amount, since hydro is very consistent, and wind isn’t. Need to add on batteries for storage too.
http://www.klamathbasincrisis.org/settlement/articles2010/howwillpowerbereplaced120310.htm
https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/how-many-homes-can-average-wind-turbine-power
In the GW range batteries aren’t a great storage solution. At that point you’re basically sitting on a bomb with that much chemical energy storage. Before you get into all the losses from having to temperature stabilize the system. The most efficient/preferred solution is an artificial reservoir. Pump water uphill when you have excess power, run the generator when you need power.
Dams also aren’t permanent structures. There’s been a growing concern for awhile now about dams being managed by financial entities. Because local governments couldn’t/wouldn’t run them after their expected lifespan ran out in the 80s/90s they were seen as a reliable investment. Especially if you cut costs. On a dam basically the only costs to cut are maintenance.
Dams being decommissioned instead of failing is a better strategy.
Pumped hydro seems like it’d have even worse ecological concerns than a dam since you’d need to make a high up reservoir. But hopefully it can be much smaller to even put the peaks in wind power, rather than generating the power directly?
Thanks for addressing this concern I guess it’s not a bad thing after all I’ve changed my mind
ah my formatting didn’t work :'(
It needs to be
[words](url)You got one link right!
It’s going to be really cool seeing what this river looks like in a few years.
Now the salmon can swim freely while dying from climate change.
Baby steps
This is so stupid. It’s going to reduce the amount of hydroelectric power. I miss the days when environmentalists were rational.
There’s not much point having live electricity if the planet is dead.
You’re the one being irrational.
The amount of hydroelectric power produced by those damns was negligible. All four combined produced less than 200MW, less than 2% of Pacificorp’s total generation capacity.
They’d only have to build 20 or 30 wind turbines to make up the difference, and that’d be far less damaging to the environment than leaving these dams up and probably cheaper than the maintenance they were past due on anyway.
One thing to consider is not power generation, but power storage. Hydroelectric dams are giant batteries.
And save the forests, restore the salmon population, and allow proper watershed restoration.
Hydro is the worst renewable; nuclear is infinitely better.
