In writing about the Black Rock project it wasn’t really my intent to trash the notion of a new Yakima basin reservoir. Mainly, I saw the $2 billion miscalculation as an opportunity to chide Eastern Washington voters for constantly complaining about tax dollars flowing East to West (they don’t) when in fact the irrigation, electrification and transportation infrastructure that makes their economy possible was large built courtesy of huge state and federal subsidies.
I understand the imperative to maintain the Yakima region as a productive agricultural center in the face of the increasing strain placed on the water supply by climate change and population growth, so I don’t want to dwell on the negative side of this project without sufficiently educating myself on the details. But an astute observation by HA regular Roger Rabbit deserves broader consideration. In the comment thread Roger asks what should have been an obvious question: “Is Black Rock a Perpetual Motion Machine?”
One of the alleged “benefits” touted by Black Rock promoters is hydroelectric generation. Apart from the 600% error in calculating power sales, let’s examine where the water that generates the power will come from in the first place.
It will be pumped UP to Black Rock Reservoir, elevation 1778 feet, from Priest Rapids Dam, elevation 390 feet. Then it will flow through turbines at Black Rock dam and into the Yakima River, which flows into the Columbia River below McNary Dam, elevation 340 feet.
Someone please explain how you get net power generation from pumping the water that generates the power uphill in order to generate the power? Are these folks saying the water in Black Rock Reservoir will generate more power than is consumed getting the water up there?
[…] When they talk about Black Rock hydropower generation, all they’re talking about is recapturing a small percentage of the energy that was used to get the water up to the reservoir.
The Yakima Basin Storage Alliance originally touted revenue from power generation at $2.4 billion over forty years, but after discovering a calculation error, revised that figure downwards to only $412 million. But if the Black Rock Reservoir sits at a higher elevation than its source, then any power generated by Black Rock’s turbines could only amount to a fraction of the power it takes to pump the water into the reservoir in the first place. Indeed, the Bureau of Reclamation estimates the annual energy costs alone for operating the pumps at $62 million — that’s $2.48 billion over the same forty year period. (I asked my 9-year-old daughter, and she assures me that $412 million is indeed less than $2.48 billion.)
But this post isn’t really about math. It’s about honesty.
Understand that whatever their accuracy, the YBSA’s power revenue projections were put forth within the context of a discussion over recouping the estimated $4.2 billion cost of construction. But since the laws of physics dictate that it will take more energy to pump the water into the reservoir ($62 million annually) than could possibly be generated drawing the water out ($10.1 million annually,) any discussion of energy “benefits” within this context is entirely bogus. And always has been.
Yet it took the sometimes rabid Roger Rabbit to do the minimal legwork necessary to dispel the YBSA’s misinformation — legwork that consisted of little more than browsing the source documents and applying a little logic. For even after the YBSA admitted a 600 percent miscalculation, the journalists covering this story never bothered to challenge the underlying assumption that energy revenues could be used to offset the cost of construction.
I thank my friends in the legacy media for calling this story to my attention. But chalk one up for the blogosphere for setting the record straight.
It took me all of 15 seconds to figure this out, and another 90 seconds or so to type it. Why hasn’t MSM figured it out? Good question, Goldy. An even better question is: Why didn’t the Bureau of Reclamation figure this out in their 85-page report?
All they had to do was look at their own map. The reservoir site is 1,300 feet above the river.
Now does this sound like Roger Rabbit on one of his rants?
A very successful lawyer parked his brand new Lexus in front of the office, ready to show it off to his colleagues. As he got out, a truck came along too close to the curb and completely tore off the driver’s door. Fortunately, a cop in a police car was close enough to see the accident and pulled up behind the Lexus, his lights flashing. But, before the cop had a chance to ask any questions, the lawyer started screaming hysterically about how his Lexus, which he had just picked up the day before, was now completely ruined and would never be the same, no matter how the body shop tried to make it new again.
After the lawyer finally wound down from his rant, the cop shook his head in disgust and disbelief. “I can’t believe how materialistic you lawyers are ,” he said. “You are so focused on your possessions that you neglect the most important things in life.” “How can you say such a thing?” asked the lawyer. The cop replied, “Don’t you even realize that your left arm is missing? It got ripped off when the truck hit you!!!”OH, MY GOD!” screamed the lawyer.
“MY ROLEX!!!!!”
The Iranian new Space program looking for a crew. Do you think they will take along Nancy Pelosi for her support on defeating Bush in Iraq?
mms://od-msn.msn.com/3/mbr/Hi_3052_msn.wmv
This isn’t the Far Lefts type of support today.
http://www.jacquielawson.com/v.....1545489532
Good work, Roger. The wingnuts fall for this perpetual motion stuff constantly. Take, for example, “free lunch” supply side economics, or destroying our freedoms will magically grow it in the Middle East.
It all of a pattern. Absolute shameless bullshit to defend the rich and powerful.
“the underlying assumption that energy revenues could be used to offset the cost of construction.”
Was that your assumption Goldy?
I didn’t get that from any of the articles or the full text (85 pages) of the report.
As I posted in the other I believe it is a function of Nonpeak versus peak electicity. You use cheap off peak electricity to pump the water then release it during peak demand periods.
How this effects the other components , IE salmon I don’t know.
Kiroqueen @6,
Did you read the original article I cited?
Kind of hard for the power sales to help cover the construction cost, when it costs 6 times as much to produce the power than it than the revenue it generates.
They’re making a cost/benefit pitch to justify the cost of construction, but ignoring the cost of the operations.
@3 Geez. I heard that one 10 years ago. Get some new material, will ya?
Again, I will start with the disclaimer that I have not researched this. But another issue that will be facing the region with global warming is the the loss of our natural reservoir system, snow pack. Washington does not have the water storage capacity it needs if the winter moisture starts coming from rain instead of snow.
Is this the right project I don’t know, but it is something that needs to be in the calculation.
@5 ‘The wingnuts fall for this perpetual motion stuff constantly.”
For fun, google “abiogenic oil.” The wingers go all ga-ga over this one! Not only do oilfields refill themselves from a deeply buried infinite supply of oil, but doing away with the biological origin of oil also gets rid of evolution.
Pumped hydro is an efficient way to store off-peak energy for peak consumption…but it certainly doesn’t generate new juice. It usually is about 75-80% efficient. If it takes 1MW to pump a certain amount of water up there, generally speaking it will generate .75MW on the way down. Mind, that’s with a closed system, with reversible generator/pumps. Dunno about any other type.
And let me just state once again that I don’t necessarily oppose this project, or some other reservoir project. Though, the first thing we should do is rationalize the region’s arcane web of water rights so that we can provide an incentive to conserve water.
Obviously, BPA will supply power to pump water into Black Rock. That power won’t be available to BPA customer utilities, who will have to buy higher-priced power from other sources — and pass that cost along to residential and commercial customers. So, not only will taxpayers have to subsidize project construction and operating costs, they’ll also get stuck with higher power bills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....lectricity
According to Snohomish PUD
“The cost difference between peak and off-peak power can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars per megawatt-hour in colder weather.”
So it is possible, that even in an open system it could be a cost effective way of moving electricity from non peak to peak use periods.
Which takes us to the topic at hand, does the project have to “defy the laws of physics” to work, like some perpetual motion machine. The answer is clearly no
I think that you can not just dismiss the project out of hand. You will have to look at the details to know.
MORE WIND ENERGY COULD ACTUALLY HELP OUT A LOT HERE. WIND AND HYDRO WORK VERY WELL TOGETHER. EXCESS WIND BLOWING AT OFF-PEAK HOURS IS OFTEN EMPLOYED TO PUMP BACK WATER BEHIND DAMS.
BUT IT’S STILL EXPENSIVE. AND THOSE PUMPS BETTER NOT USE FOSSIL FUELS.
Gym N Jim
Goldy
Have it right. Storing energy as water is VERY efficient, certainly more efficient than using gasoline to generate electricity in a hybrid car and possibly more efficient than using diesel to grow corn and then using more diesel or electricity to turn the corn into diesel.
The cost-of-storage becomes much MORE important if we begin to use wind or solar power. What happens to the volts when the sun goes down? The answer is it needs to be stored.
So, with all due re4spect to Goldy’s brilliant nine year old daughter, the answer is not quite that simple. Of course, this does not mean the original claim was not horse shit.
President Bush Plan for Pease according to the New York Times writers, plus they refuse to provide one of their own to win the Iraqi War.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....gewanted=2
But even knowing all that, America cannot simply wash its hands of Iraq and go home. The region’s problems, many of them made worse by this war, are unavoidably America’s problems as well. For starters, Iraq is in imminent danger of violently breaking apart, driving millions of refugees across its borders — who will bring with them their ethnic grievances, and in some cases their weapons — and potentially unleashing a chain reaction of regional conflicts that could draw in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and perhaps others as well.
Maybe they Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran and others as well should work a little harder on fixing their own problems and support the United States in this conflict. Breaking up Iraq may not be just a bad Idea and could solve some of the ethnic grievances. Forget about their weapons for everybody has one over there in the Middle East.
Whatever else happens, Iran has already become more formidable and dangerous. Where it once had a hostile Saddam Hussein on its western border, it now has a friendly Shiite fundamentalist government. Its other longtime enemy, the United States, has had its diplomatic and military clout severely diminished by this war.
They writer opinion they were already on the course of building nuclear weapons before the United States invaded Iraq. By having Saddam on their border or the US Army does not change anything. The United States lost it diplomatic clout when Jimmy Carter botches the hostage crises. Before the War many Diplomatic attempts failed to produce Pease in the Middle East. Now they might reconsider their position is not working and change their mind or face their own self destruction like Saddam.
President Bush Plan for Pease according to the New York Times writers, plus they refuse to provide one of their own to win the Iraqi War.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....gewanted=2
The expanding power of a revolutionary, Shiite Iran is profoundly unsettling to the conservative Sunni-led governments in most of the Arab Middle East, which have been America’s traditional allies in the region. If the United States is to recoup any of its standing and influence there, it will have to find a way to contain the chaos in Iraq. And it will have to do a lot more to address other concerns of these governments and their people, starting with a genuine and sustained effort to mediate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.
The editorial writer really misses the point here. The Arabs do not care about the Palestinians and will deny them plus the Israelis any peace agreement. This would endanger their governments or doctoral countries because they deflect all their problems onto the conflicts in Israel.
If Mr. Bush does persist in sending more American troops to Baghdad, despite Congress’s amply justified opposition, he will have to establish clear lines of command that assure that those troops can enter the strongholds of the Shiite militias responsible for much of the violence without militia leaders’ being tipped off by allies in the Iraqi government.
The New York Times are not in the position to dictate the conditions for ending this War. How the war is fought will be decided by the Generals in the field not an armchair General in New York. The battle will be fought using the Rules of engagement not the rules of the Left Wing.
President Bush Plan for Pease according to the New York Times writers, plus they refuse to provide one of their own to win the Iraqi War.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....gewanted=2
And so long as any American troops remain in Iraq, Mr. Bush must put serious pressure on Mr. Maliki to support the troops’ efforts with a genuine program of national reconciliation. That must include, at a minimum, ridding the police and other security services of killers, torturers and criminals and disarming all sectarian militias.
Not a bad idea but have they done that in New Orleans today? When is the Governor of Louisiana going to clean house in her own State. Don’t expect the Iraqi government to produce the impossible when we can’t even do it in this country.
The government must also assure that Iraqi oil revenues are fairly shared out among the entire Iraqi population. And it must move quickly to offer an amnesty to Sunni insurgents willing to put down their weapons, and narrow the legal restrictions on former Baath Party members so that Sunni professionals can once again fully participate in Iraqi national life.
The writer must be smoking pot in Seattle before he made this statement. We do not share the oil revenues in this country why should that be done in Iraq? Amnesty nice dream but you didn’t offer that option to Serbia after that war and they don’t blow up supermarkets daily over in that country. You still forget everyone over in the Middle East is armed and will not surrender their weapons. Now why should the Sunni be willing to put down their weapons? But do you really mean the al-Qaeda instead of insurgents for the Media likes to blur the two parties together.
President Bush Plan for Pease according to the New York Times writers, plus they refuse to provide one of their own to win the Iraqi War.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....gewanted=2
These benchmarks should be accompanied by fixed timelines. And they must be accompanied with a clear message that the United States is prepared to withdraw its troops if the Iraqis continue to refuse to take responsibility for their own future. Mr. Bush and other American officials need to make clear that as much as the United States will suffer from a complete collapse in Iraq, Iraq’s leaders will suffer far worse from the loss of their American protectors.
What is it with the Media requiring fix time lines; do the enemies of this county require the same commitment from their leaders? Now the Iraqi Leaders know what is expected of them, but can they produce it under a un- realistic time line? P.S. how many years did the United States stay in Japan and Germany so their governments could succeed?
Mr. Bush should reinforce that message by convening a conference of all of Iraq’s neighbors to discuss how they can help stabilize Iraq — and what they can do to contain the wider chaos should it come. With nearly two million Iraqis already seeking refuge, mainly in Syria and Jordan, it is far past time for American officials to begin their own planning and relief efforts.
What fool would believe that Syria would be willing to work in stabilizing that area when they support many terrorist groups in their own Country. Syria with Iran is providing aid of their own to destabilizing Lebanon today to expand their own influence.
President Bush Plan for Pease according to the New York Times writers, plus they refuse to provide one of their own to win the Iraqi War.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....gewanted=2
If Mr. Bush refuses to deliver this ultimatum to Mr. Maliki, Congress will have to do so in his stead. That’s not the usual division of labor between the executive and legislative branches, but it is one that Mr. Bush has made necessary by his refusal to face realities. The potential consequences of his failed leadership are so serious that neither the new Democratic majorities in Congress, nor the public at large, can afford the luxury of merely criticizing from the sidelines.
Now that is the New York Times view of the world of politics in Washington DC and they have the only solution to create harmony in this world. They NY Times has convince this Country that we are losing the War in Iraq just gain their influence to their reading public.
So far, Congress is off to an encouraging start, holding substantive oversight hearings and asking probing questions of administration officials for the first time in too many years. Similarly encouraging has been the bipartisan character of this reinvigorated oversight. The Congress should continue asking hard questions. And it must insist on real answers before acting on any new requests for money to support Mr. Bush’s plans to send more troops to Baghdad. Congress has the authority to attach conditions to that money, imposing benchmarks and timetables on Mr. Bush, who then would be forced to impose them on the Iraqi government.
Now that is what Congress should have done on September 11, 2001 when they gave the President the right to invade countries that supported terrorist and Saddam for not proving he had no weapons of mass destruction. This writer forgot that you do not win wars with debates and asking hard questions, but by troops engaging the enemies of this country on the battle field.
President Bush Plan for Pease according to the New York Times writers, plus they refuse to provide one of their own to win the Iraqi War.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01.....gewanted=2
One immediate step could be a set of bipartisan resolutions spelling out the broad policy directions Congress expects the president to pursue on Iraq. That would send a useful message to the American people that lawmakers are listening to their concerns, if Mr. Bush is not, and also to Iraq’s leaders.
It’s now up to Congress to force the president to live up to his constitutional responsibilities and rescue this country from the consequences of one of its worst strategic blunders in modern times.
The last two statements should have been thought out before they gave the President the approval to engage the enemies of this country. Would you explain strategic blunders for none of you editor writers understand what Strategic really means? You cannot even provide a war plan that works except after the event has already happen. Your crystal ball is also fogged up producing no valuable solutions just vague statements.
History will surely blame Mr. Bush for leading America into Iraq, but it will blame Congress if it does not act to push him onto a more realistic path.
Would you define in detail what a more realistic path would be today? For with all the words expel in this document you failed to express that path. History will blame the Democrats for not doing their job in the beginning if President Bush doesn’t win this War in Iraq and stabilizing the Middle East. We live in a Country that demands immediate gratification and lacks patience to succeed in a long drawn out conflict. The Media like in the Spanish American War is practicing Yellow Journalism today at the expense of losing this War. Thus denying Nations a chance to form Democracies or Republics in the Middle East.
If it costs 1.00 to make the electricity, and you sell it for .50, you’ve got to make a lot of it ‘cuz you make up the difference on volume.
And Daddy said that when he wasn’t drunk.
None of this is taking account of the energy used during off peak times of power generation during dam operations. So the story isn’t complete. I don’t have a solid grasp of what that yet means but will try to get to the bottom of it. Needless to say, both sides don’t seem to be telling the whole truth. I am interested in Black Rock because I see it’s potential. But at the same time I am skeptical.
Goldy, I think there is a bit more homework to do but you haven’t done any wrong here. In fact, I like seeing the arguements get away from the interested groups. That said, there are some good intentioned folks working on this.
Oh yea… now the elevation seems to be a “physics problem” here but before anyone goes making their own observations, one should keep in mind the way they are moving water to LA. Been over the Grapevine lately. It’s a marvel (expensive marvel no doubt). I don’t know what the elevations outside of Patterson are achieving but that is pretty impressive too. So don’t let the elevation change sway you one way or another at this point. There is much to think about no matter your politics. It is really an interesting thing putting Black Rock together. If it balances out to be a viable, albeit a subsidy (most likely outcome), and can provide long term benefits that outweigh economic costs (and that also means subidizing ag – we do it for oil without blinking an eye) then it is worth a look. So keep looking.
BTW, I am not an advocate, I am just interested in seeing the “real” cost benefit over the long term. And I am not convinced by either side yet.
j
Hang on a sec. Though this seems rediculous, the idea of pumping water uphill just to let it flow back down, it’s actually fairly common in power generation schemes around the world. The reason is this: the electricity produced from the dams is fairly constant. The same amount of water flows through the turbines of the dam at midnight as flow through at 6pm. Thus, you have the same electricity generated regardless of time, and therefore, regardless of demand. What these pumping schemes do is use the surplus electricity generated at low-demand times (ie, the middle of the night) to pump water uphill. They then release it at high demand times to increase capacity and bring down prices for consumers. It may sound stupid, but it usually makes good economic sense, especially in areas where hydro power predominates.
Now if I could just step up on my soapbox, I’d like to say that speaking as a Spokanite, I agree that the constant Eastside/Westside arguments need to stop. Seattle is a great city (certainly America’s nicest, in my opinion), and we’re lucky to have it as the economic capital of our region. But do you really think that all of us east of the mountains are just a bunch of stupid hayseeds who don’t understand your slick big-city economics? Because that’s the impression you give. And so maybe, just maybe, the reason Eastsiders always vote Republican (except for me and the rest of central Spokane), is because they feel completely marginalized by the Democratic majorities that have ruled the state for years. So my advice, Goldie, is to quit calling for Statewide unity and an end to East/West bickering, only to deride and insult Eastsiders a sentance later. Maybe instead of trying to respond with a clever blog post about how those stupid Eastsiders have it wrong yet again, you should actually find somebody from Ephrata or Omak and ask them why they don’t vote Democrat, and then address those issues in a post. God knows the state Democratic Party hasn’t.
Maybe instead of trying to respond with a clever blog post about how those stupid Eastsiders have it wrong yet again, you should actually find somebody from Ephrata or Omak and ask them why they don’t vote Democrat, and then address those issues in a post. God knows the state Democratic Party hasn’t.
GREAT Post Derek and your did not hide behind a phony name like Roger Rabbit.
Thank you Klake for pointing out the failures of Bush, and the lack of Republican oversignt. Now if we are all screwed it is 100% Bush, and the Republican’s fault.
We need to find a solution in Iraq. I think the best way would be to put the lying traitors that started this war behind bars where they belong, and then give the new Iraqi government all the help they need to make their country better.
We may also have to try to bring more countries along to help us. You know, the ones that were our allies before Bush told them all to go screw themselves….
goldy at 14
what do you mean by “rationalize” (the water rights)???
Law obeying citizens want to know
Is this bolshevik code for “toss out old laws because they are inconvenient?
ps, new interest in the soundness of gov’t projects…wow, watching for similar scrub of Viaduct, sound transit, etc.
Wingnuts now believe in the abiogenic origen of oil — a theory that was developed in the 1950’s and 60’s in SOVIET RUSSIA.
“Although the abiogenic theory, according to Gold, is widely accepted in Russia, where it was intensively developed in the 1950s and 1960s, the vast majority of Western petroleum geologists consider the biogenic theory of petroleum formation scientifically proven.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....eum_origin
Facts Support My Positions:
We need to find a solution in Iraq. I think the best way would be to put the lying traitors that started this war behind bars where they belong, and then give the new Iraqi government all the help they need to make their country better.
We may also have to try to bring more countries along to help us. You know, the ones that were our allies before Bush told them all to go screw themselves….
Facts Support My Positions says well the Democrats won the election on that dream but forgot the plan. Iraq is the key to peace in the Middle East and the down fall to al Qaida, but requires patience on our part, and no time line. Now a traitor is an open end problem that you could include a lot of people in that statement. You could include left wing, Democrats, Social Democrats, Republicans, right wing, news media, military personnel, and the list could be never ending. Now that could include some of your best friends and maybe your lover, so think before you make a wish.
Now, what country would you include into this great struggle that are not playing some roll already? France, they are in Afghanistan with NATO along with the Germans, Dutch, Belgians, Italians, Denmark, and many others. These countries are not equipped to move anymore resources into this conflict because they lack it supporting Yugoslavia after Clinton trash that country. Bush didn’t tell them to go screw themselves, but didn’t trust them after the food for oil fiasco in which the received large sums of money for their support of Saddam.
Would this set a precedent for the Southwest to come calling again for
the Columbia? California got over Owens Valley by naming their
scenic drive in LA after Mulholland…hopefully that is the end of such
fiascos. The dispute between Agriculture and sensible expansion, conservation
and preservation of all that makes Washington State supremely livable has
not been adequately addressed.
At least one way of “rationalizing” water rights in the Yak basin might be to give senior water rights holders some incentive to use thier allottments efficiently.
Here, here to your request for the complaints to stop (your show 710Kiro
tonight).
Nothing like a little divide and conquer to keep everybody in the dark till
it’s too late. Throw in a little patriotism and you have a complete free pass
for the despoilers and pollutors with no redress but one “hell of a fight”,
if anyone gives a sh__!
Bush didn’t tell them to go screw themselves, but didn’t trust them after the food for oil fiasco in which the received large sums of money for their support of Saddam.
——
Ahem, most of the bribe money came from American companies. You didn’t see the CEO of Exxon doing time for paying Saddam kickbacks did you?
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/27792/
The Republicans want you to crow about the “French” but it was their (and the Democrats) friends that were padding their bottom lines with Saddam’s discount oil, and paying him the billions in kickbacks.
Just remember, prison is for poor people that break laws, not the leaders of multi-national corporations that break laws.
As far as indicting lying traitors, I meant the ones that lied us into Iraq. Not the ones that voted to authorize force, when the liar in chief said he was only going to use force as a last resort. The ones that voted to authorize force can always claim they took Bush at his word. I know noone will believe them, but Bush did say force would be used as a last resort after telling the Brits when the bombing was to begin. I guess the Democrats are supposed to automatically know when Bush is lying right?
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html
Thank God I don’t have to defend Bush, and his failed invasion, failed occupation, and deadly costly fiasco that there is no good way out of.
The worst thing Bush, and the GOP has working against them is the fact that there are millions of well informed Americans that want to see Bush, Cheney, Rice, and Rumsfeld pay for their lies, and crimes, and will not stop pushing till justice is served once and for all.
God Bless America!!!!
So Klake, will you go so far as to say Bush, and his buddies did not lie in the run up to the invasion?
Will you still claim we invaded Iraq because of “faulty intelligence”?
Facts Support My Positions says
Will you still claim we invaded Iraq because of “faulty intelligence”?
You have to process intelligence in order to call it faulty. Satellite photos will not do because it can’t detect what your enemies might hide under ground. Your Democrat friends have as much responsibility for the outcome of this War as President Bush and his supporters. They also are accountable for what they didn’t do to make the Plan work that was deployed to win in Iraq. Sonny you are pushing the envelope on creating a time line that works for the al Qaida and not our own troops engaging in battles with our enemies. Bush will not be impeached no more than Bagdad McDermott will go to jail for treason. So quite wishing for things that will not happen in your life time.
RE 38: kLAKE — YOU ARE NUTS.
Pumped-storage hydropower is a net consumer of electricity, but is nonetheless economically attractive and widely used to allow “thermal power stations such as coal-fired plants and nuclear power plants that provide base-load electricity to continue operating at peak efficiency while reducing the need for ‘peaking’ power plants that use costly fuels” (Wikipedia).
However, such facilities are built specifically for power production, and Black Rock would not be a true pumped-storage hydro facility because its water utilitzation would be governed by irrigation demand, not power needs. That’s why its projected projected power sales are only 1/6th of the power input, compared to the 75% to 85% realized by the most efficient pumped-storage hydro projects.
A more accurate portrayal of Black Rock’s hydro potential is “recapture” of power from water being released from storage for irrigation use. These releases will not necessarily occur when the power is useful in the grid, as the facility will be managed to meet irrigation needs, not power grid needs.
There is another factor to keep in mind when contemplating the asserted power production benefits of the project, and tht is the “head” factor, which is not as large as appears at first glance. In general, a large elevation difference between the water source and the pumped storage is desirable in a pumped-storage hydro project. At first glance, the 1,400-foot elevation difference between the Columbia River and the Black Rock reservoir seems like a lot of “head” (the distance water falls when going through the power-generating turbines, which together with water volume governs the amount of water pressure available to drive the turbines). However, when you consider this water will be irrigating an area that generally lies 800 to 1,000 feet above the river, you can’t build the power station at river level (the most efficient way to generate power). In actuality, if the power station is built at the dam outfall where water feeds into the irrigation canals, the amount of “head” will only be the depth of the reservoir itself, about 300 feet. This puts the power generation efficiency on a par with the dams on most western Washington rivers — viable, but less than what you’d get from a pure pumped-storage operation in which the water was piped dowm to a powerhouse at river level.
What I’m saying here is the hydro output of Black Rock is incidental, not a primary benefit of the project, and it would be false to compare either the efficiencies or the economic benefits to a purpose-built pumped-storage facility of the same size and cost. In fact, in a case like this, you’d want to look closely at whether recapturing power from the water releases would even pay for the cost of producing it, and whether that power is of any value in terms of helping carrying peak loads for the larger grid, or whether its only usefulness would be pumping water uphill into its own reservoir. In that case, it might be very costly and inefficient power compared to pumping with power from the big dam on the big river below.
My bad!… subtract 400 from the 1,000 and 800 elevations … because I used MSL instead of the elevation difference. The irrigation area is, on average, about 500 feet above the water source, so the maximum potential “head” is about 800 to 900 feet. The actual maximum practical “head” would be realized by building the power station at the lowest elevation where the water feed from the reservoir into the irrigation system can be sited.
Well, here’s what I would say about eastern Washington. First of all, as to deluded Republicans in that part of the state who believe they’re subsidizing western Washington taxpayers, let’s continue to correct that fallacy whenever this falsehood is flung about. Secondly, as to hypocritical Republicans who criticize “big guvmint” while holding their hand out, let’s remind them of the fact they’re net consumers of “guvmint” bennies (in relation to the taxes they pay) as we cheerfully continue to pour shekels into their outstretched palms. Third, and most important, let’s not only remember but try to understand and even fawn over our eastern Washington Democratic brethren — not because it’s lonely over there for them, but because we need them to win statewide elections. Even if they never elect a single county commissioner or state legislator outside of Spokane, their votes are critical in tight statewide contests. We all know Gregoire won by 133 votes, but let’s think about this: She got 438 votes in Garfield County, the state’s smallest county. And that’s only ONE of the 22 eastern Washington counties. So, yes, we need our eastern Washington Democratic voters, even if they can’t win anything locally.
It’s also comforting to know that when I visit eastern Washington, only two-thirds of the population over there is inclined to shoot at me.
Here’s my plan for Iraq:
Put several hundred thousand combat troops on the ground in Iraq for a generation. Maybe 700-800K plus however many support troops. According to the Army’s planning materials, that’s the minimum to suppress the insurgency. We don’t have that many troops on-hand so we’ll need to draft them.
If we’re not going to do that, then we need to withdraw now because anything less (including the President’s continued half-assed efforts) will solve nothing.
Either you support a draft or you support withdrawl. It’s that simple.
Geez… does anybody follow the links?
That’s revenue from power generation of $10.3 million a year. Meanwhile, the Federal Bureau of Reclamation estimates the cost of pumping the water up into the reservoir to be $74.73 million a year ($12.73 million for maintenance and $62 million for energy costs.) Even the cost of maintaining the pumps exceeds the revenues generated by Black Rock’s turbines.
So clearly, my thesis is borne out in practice. There are no energy “benefits” to offset the construction cost of the project. Black Rock’s turbines merely offset part of its operating costs.
(Furthermore, the alternative calls for “pumping water from the Columbia River, when available in excess of current instream flow targets.” This may or may not coincide with off-peak electricity rates. Meanwhile, water will flow out to supply irrigation demand… again at times that might not coincide with peak rates.)
So the point remains, it was dishonest to promote energy revenues as an offset to construction costs when they won’t even cover a fraction of the operating costs.