Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 55

Thread: Susitna-Wanata Hydropower project

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, Washington
    Posts
    1,210

    Default Susitna-Wanata Hydropower project

    Yesterday, (July 18) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order on the Susitna-Wanata Hydropower Project in the upper Mat-Su Valley. The order resolves a dispute between the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Alaska Energy Authority, and the Commission's Director of Hydropower Licensing regarding the need to conduct a study on climate change as part of the licensing process for the Susitna Project.

    The link is here: http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-m...071813/H-2.pdf

    The order is 11 pages of bureaucratic prose, which can be difficult to wade through. However, it provides a snap-shot of where the Susitna Project is in the licensing process. That is, they are determining what studies to conduct as part of the environmental review. Once the studies are done (a couple years), the environmental review process begins (a major environmental impact statement). That will take at least a year, and likely far more. So the process still has a long way to go. However, the project has gone alot farther than I ever anticipated.

    In short, the order says that AEA does not have to conduct a study on climate change, as requested by NMFS, as part of the licensing process.

  2. #2

    Default

    I feel encouraged that FERC isn't buying into the mumbo jumbo.
    Mike
    Mike
    www.alaskaatvclub.org
    There is a faster way off the mountain, might hurt a little though.

  3. #3
    Member DannerAK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Whiskey River
    Posts
    1,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Echo View Post
    I feel encouraged that FERC isn't buying into the mumbo jumbo.
    Mike
    What are you referring to as "mumbo jumbo"?
    "The North wind is cold no matter what direction it's blowing"

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    AK
    Posts
    4,034

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cohoangler View Post
    Yesterday, (July 18) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued an order on the Susitna-Wanata Hydropower Project in the upper Mat-Su Valley. The order resolves a dispute between the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Alaska Energy Authority, and the Commission's Director of Hydropower Licensing regarding the need to conduct a study on climate change as part of the licensing process for the Susitna Project.

    The link is here: http://www.ferc.gov/whats-new/comm-m...071813/H-2.pdf

    The order is 11 pages of bureaucratic prose, which can be difficult to wade through. However, it provides a snap-shot of where the Susitna Project is in the licensing process. That is, they are determining what studies to conduct as part of the environmental review. Once the studies are done (a couple years), the environmental review process begins (a major environmental impact statement). That will take at least a year, and likely far more. So the process still has a long way to go. However, the project has gone alot farther than I ever anticipated.

    In short, the order says that AEA does not have to conduct a study on climate change, as requested by NMFS, as part of the licensing process.
    Thanks for the info, should be entertaining to watch this thread..

  5. #5

    Default

    I have mixed feelings about this project. I am in favor of renewable resources, and I know that there are claims that this dam would not have an impact on the fish and wildlife, but I have my doubts. Here is why.

    #1) A major dam over the Susitna River will drastically change the chemistry of this drainage system. Salmon and other anadromous species migrate to their natal streams by recognizing the odor of the streams, which is based on the chemistry of the streams. How is that not going to affect the salmon? Sorry, but I can't see the logic here. I understand the dam is above Devil's Canyon but it still affects the stream chemistry.

    #2) How is a large reservoir that will be created behind the dam going to affect other wildlife in the area like the Nelchina Caribou Herd? I admit I don't know much about where the herd travels to for their calving grounds, but I think it is a fair question that needs to be addressed.

    #3) How do the architects of this dam plan on preventing the silt from this river from completely filling in the reservoir behind the dam? I believe their will be a huge amount of maintenance involved in keeping this reservoir clear from sediments depositing behind the dam.

    These are my main concerns. Anybody else have any input or thoughts on this project?

  6. #6
    Member mainer_in_ak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Delta Junction
    Posts
    4,078

    Default

    there is a major fault line near the proposed dam site. The cost of the dam will be well over 5 billion dollars. Nobody wants to invest in this project. 5 billion state dollars.........time to smile at the property tax increase! nobody will have lower electric bills after a 5 billion dollar state-funded project.

    there's a couple more jack.

  7. #7
    Member SockeyeOne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Adirondack Mountains
    Posts
    172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bushwhack Jack View Post
    #3) How do the architects of this dam plan on preventing the silt from this river from completely filling in the reservoir behind the dam? I believe their will be a huge amount of maintenance involved in keeping this reservoir clear from sediments depositing behind the dam.
    They are going to dredge them out from time to time and sell the silt by the bucket load to folks from California to smear on their faces to reduce the signs of aging. I'd get in on the ground floor if I were you. IF it takes off like I think it will you will have extra money around to help pay that new electric bill.

  8. #8
    Supporting Member Hoyt-Hunter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Mat-Su Valley
    Posts
    449

    Default

    The more we civilize this great frontier, the more people will continue to come. More people, more civilizing, more people, more problems, more civilizing, more people, more problems. No end to the calamity. Pretty soon, no great frontier, just another over- populated state ruining it's resources.

    Leave it alone. If you don't like it, leave.

    Sorry, didn't mean to think out loud like that. I will retract all said above. What we need is money, money, money. Now I'm onboard with everyone.
    If you think you're free, there's no escape possible.

  9. #9
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DannerAK View Post
    What are you referring to as "mumbo jumbo"?
    Climate change garbage.

  10. #10
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    Greens can't have it both ways. They piss and moan about the environment and green energy and THIS is what you get. A $5 billion old school dam. It is what it is. They're never happy. You want green? Here ya go. Of course, it's not good enough...

    I could really care less about the dam; probably not the best idea, but I just want cheap energy. Lets burn coal. Those who don't favor Su-Watana dam; tell me why you're against coal too.

    Tim

  11. #11
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Im all for burning coal, as long as the power plants are in Anchorage and Wasilla. I dont have and will probably never have electricity at my place so I could care less about power shortages. But the dam will affect where and how I live, with the changes it makes to the river.

    I still have not seen any definitive description of how the Su-Wat dam will affect the river volumes on a month to month or seasonal basis. Does anyone know how it will change the river? More flow in winter? Changing channels? Even out the flow during late spring/early summer? No affect whatsoever?

    I think Mainer has a good point too. Who is going to fund this thing? 5 billion dollars in state money? We could quit screwing around and just build a gas pipeline for that kind of money!!

  12. #12
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tccak71 View Post
    Climate change garbage.

    Im a skeptic in all things, just ask my wife...but at what point do you see what is happening on a worldwide basis, and say "Something is changing?"

    For me, I dont KNOW what the reason behind it is, but "Something is changing!"

  13. #13
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    Good point about the funding. It's state funded, but I don't know specifically where it's coming from. Capital budget? CBR? General fund? All 3? Property taxes? Idk... good question. Don't know about the numbers, but you're probably right about a gas line too.

    Haven't seen any hydro/flow info for the dam either...

    Must be nice not being a slave to the power grid!! I don't care where we get it, but I just want cheap energy. It's crazy that the Railbelt doesn't have the cheapest energy in the nation. We have the coal and the natural gas...

    Tim

  14. #14
    Member tccak71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    2,174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkwarthog View Post
    Im a skeptic in all things, just ask my wife...but at what point do you see what is happening on a worldwide basis, and say "Something is changing?"

    For me, I dont KNOW what the reason behind it is, but "Something is changing!"
    I know it's changing but I don't think we should have to be paying higher energy prices or be taxed on carbon because of it. Sure, it's changing, but they need to find a solution that doesn't involve my wallet. The only thing believable about man-made global warming is the term that's man-made itself.

  15. #15
    Member dkwarthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Mat-Su
    Posts
    2,150

    Default

    I agree, that for a place with the some of the best energy resources in the world, it makes no sense that the railbelt is suffering for lack of generation....

  16. #16
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dkwarthog View Post
    Im a skeptic in all things, just ask my wife...but at what point do you see what is happening on a worldwide basis, and say "Something is changing?"

    For me, I dont KNOW what the reason behind it is, but "Something is changing!"
    The Greenlandic Vikings looked around them as their farms failed and their harbors stayed iced-over longer and Olaf said, "Ya, ya, sumding sure changing, by golly, Sven. Dey must not be burning enough carbon fuel back in da old country, by yimminy.".

  17. #17
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Cool Looking back . . wistfully . . and impotently . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    The Greenlandic Vikings looked around them as their farms failed and their harbors stayed iced-over longer and Olaf said, "Ya, ya, sumding sure changing, by golly, Sven. Dey must not be burning enough carbon fuel back in da old country, by yimminy.".

    The Vikings inhabited Greenland before the Inuit. The Vikings were an agricultural society, and as the climate changed for the worse for their crops and livestock, they couldn't adapt. They could have learned to survive as did the Inuit, but their Church authorities forbade contact with the heathen.


    The great lesson there is that times change . . then and now . . nothing stands still.


    Adapt or die . . it's that simple . . nothing remains the same . . you can't go back . .



    Into my heart an air that kills
    From yon far country blows:
    What are those blue remembered hills,
    What spires, what farms are those?

    That is the land of lost content,
    I see it shining plain,
    The happy highways where I went
    And cannot come again.

    A. E. Hausman

  18. #18
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,788

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcus View Post
    The Vikings inhabited Greenland before the Inuit. The Vikings were an agricultural society, and as the climate changed for the worse for their crops and livestock, they couldn't adapt. They could have learned to survive as did the Inuit, but their Church authorities forbade contact with the heathen.
    Quite possibly, and conversely, the Inuit had lived in Greenland before the Norse, and before it became warm, but they couldn't adapt their seal hunting culture to the warmer climate and went north and west after their main prey animals. And along came Sven and Oly.

  19. #19
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Soldotna
    Posts
    5,639

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    Quite possibly, and conversely, the Inuit had lived in Greenland before the Norse, and before it became warm, but they couldn't adapt their seal hunting culture to the warmer climate and went north and west after their main prey animals. And along came Sven and Oly.

    No, not "quite possibly" but historical fact. Inuit culture is circumpolar, spreading from west to east, and had not reached Greenland before the Vikings, whose culture spread from east to west.


    Your "Sven" and "Oly" are imaginative examples of people stuck in stasis. Lot's wife was another as was Nicodemus (John 3:10).


    They, like their ilk whenever and wherever, those enamored of the past, were ground into the dust-bin of history.



    "That is the land of lost content . .
    I see it shining plain,
    The happy highways where I went,
    And cannot come again."

  20. #20
    Member Tearbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,986

    Default

    And here I've always pictured Vikings as seagoing pirates, who raided and plundered other settlements, heathens themselves...Which all has a whole lot to do with a Hydropower project
    "Grin and Bear It"

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •