Stephanie Phillips, Associate Editor
Ideology: Environmentalist | Writing From: Portland, Oregon
December’s Impacted Community Profile: For this month’s Impacted Community Profile, I am changing tone. While past series have been chastisements of the fossil fuel energy industry and calls to action to stop bad practices or shut down facilities, this month’s series will look at the impacts of hydroelectric power, a problem about which I am personally conflicted as to the answer. Because significant environmental benefits are associated with hydropower as well as consequences, I am not advocating for a shutdown of the hydro-system in this article. Rather, in the name of spreading awareness about the impacts of our energy consumption (even the cleanest energy), I will present both sides of the issue and encourage readers to reach their own conclusions.
Region: The Columbia River – The Pacific Northwest.
While I have chosen to highlight the Columbia River, hydroelectric facilities have similar consequences wherever installed.
Energy Type: Hydroelectric Dams
Problem: Hydroelectric facilities are largely responsible for the dwindling number of salmon in the region. Salmon are an historical part of the Northwest and the Columbia River Basin and many communities rely upon them for economic and cultural well being.
Hydroelectric power currently accounts for approximately seven percent of the total US energy supply. In the Pacific Northwest, hydropower accounts for a much larger portion (in Oregon it accounts for approximately 40 percent of total generation), in great part due to the power and proximity of the Columbia River and its tributaries. There are 14 large hydroelectric dams on the Columbia River itself (11 in the US) and many more of varying sizes in the watershed.
Hydroelectric dams use the momentum of a fast flowing river, or waterfalls, to generate electricity. In damming the river, the water is blocked and the force is directed past turbines, turning them and subsequently generating power. Hydropower has many benefits. Dams are crucial in flood prevention and ship navigation. They emit no pollutants, require no commodity input after they are built, have a very long lifespan and provide a very stable source of electricity. Also the power is not base-load power – meaning that it can respond well to the needs of a region. While some power (like coal and nuclear) are difficult to shut down and thus must run all of the time despite potential lower demands or increases in renewable sources, the amount of electricity produced from a dam can be controlled. If, for example, demands were low in a region, the dam operators can stop letting water through, storing the potential energy for later needs. This also allows for an easy switch to weather dependent green power and is why wind power has been so successful in the Pacific Northwest. If the wind is blowing, the wind turbines installed in the Columbia River Gorge can meet more of the power demands and parts of the dams can be shut down immediately.
Despite the benefits, however, there are many consequences of hydropower. When a river is dammed initially the water is stopped in its flow and thus builds up behind the wall of the dam, effectively turning the river into a lake. What was once a fast-flowing narrow Columbia River of beautiful waterfalls is now a slow moving wide river. After a dam is built, any fish traveling up and down the river must pass through it, where it will likely meet its death in the turbine blades. Salmon species have been particularly affected since they are an anadromous species, meaning they move from the freshwater of the river to the ocean and back during their lives and thus must pass through the dams. The Columbia River was once teaming with salmon species – to the point where Native American fishermen could put nets out into waterfalls and catch fish. Now, species are at a fraction of what they once were, largely due to the presence of the dams. Every salmon species in the region has been put on the Endangered Species List. It is a constant fight to improve habitat and manage fishing as to ensure their continued minimal survival. While federal and local laws have forced the installation of fish ladders and other fish saving techniques at dams, as well as off-site mitigation projects (preserving hatchery habitat for example), without the removal of hydropower on the rivers of the Basin, it is unlikely that the fight to save the fish will ever be won.
Many people may look at this problem and see the death of salmon species as a price worth paying for a continued stable, cheap supply of green energy. And they may be right. However, there are groups of people who depend upon the salmon and their continued survival, and they should not be forgotten. These are the communities impacted by hydropower. Wild Pacific Northwest is coveted in restaurants around the country and there are entire coastal fishing communities in Oregon and Washington whose lives and economies are centered on the commercial fishing of salmon. When runs are low, and when fish species dwindle, they suffer directly. Simultaneously, the Native American tribes of the region have an ancient history centered on the salmon species – many of them based their livelihood off of the salmon for centuries. Because of this, tribes of the region have been granted historical fishing treaty rights to fish the salmon on the Columbia in a traditional fashion. This is an integral part of their culture and offers a very tangible connection to old ways. Considering the significant suffering the indigenous peoples of the United States have felt at the hand of modern civilization, it is difficult to sweepingly state that the extinction of the salmon is an acceptable price to pay.
I don’t know what the solution should be. While we should all continue to advocate for mitigation strategies, habitat restoration and improvement of technologies, the dams will always have an effect on fish species. Simultaneously, the dams offer a very clean source of stable energy, allow for river navigation and prevent flooding. If any power source is phased out in the region, I would prefer to see coal and natural gas go.
Ultimately, what this issue demonstrates is that there is no such thing as “green power” when our demands for electricity are so high. To meet our needs, we generate huge amounts of power in huge projects and they will always have an effect. Even solar and wind, often championed as completely renewable, have negative environmental effects associated with the manufacturing process.
What the complexities and lack of a decent answer in this profile provide is a continued justification for reduction in consumption. We simply need to use less energy. This can be met from changes in lifestyle (moving closer to work, not driving, etc) and from increased efficiency in technology. This is something we should all continue to strive for, as we acknowledge the effect of our energy use.
—
Impacted Community Profile series – the purpose of this monthly series is to draw attention to the more local environmental problems associated with our excessive and inefficient use of energy in the United States. We are all aware of larger global problems of climate change, as both posed solutions and predicted consequences threaten to impact all of us. However, we are less aware of the more local impacts both in the United States and abroad associated with the resource extraction, energy generation and pollution necessary to feed our energy needs. Energy generation, has a wide-range of local consequences – consequences for economies, for health and for the environment. Outside of your perspective on climate change and your opinion about its relevance, it is important to be aware of these undeniable immediate impacts of our energy consumption.
—
Interesting article – we need to consider the consequences of our consumption, no matter how we’re getting our energy.
Environmentalism is a mental disorder.