Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 5820 Location: Flying over the Earth poisoning you with chemtrails
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:26 pm Post subject:
lochsa wrote:
Only a deluded buffoon like you could manage to so completely fail to comprehend the multiplicity of issues surrounding the damming of rivers. Your insistence on some narrow 'scientific' analysis rivals the diminished world view of JB. If you're so afraid to challenge your blinkered view, you're both pitiable and reprehensible. Funny, too, how you complain there's no civil engineering in the cited lit, then go to a reviewer's complaint to challenge not the engineer's credentials but one of the focuses of the book.
But like I said, I don't like to waste time with idiots, so you're left to yammer incoherently to yourself, twit.
Whatever... _________________ Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.
BF's French lady.
Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 2001 Location: aqui y alli
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject:
chemman wrote:
lochsa wrote:
Only a deluded buffoon like you could manage to so completely fail to comprehend the multiplicity of issues surrounding the damming of rivers. Your insistence on some narrow 'scientific' analysis rivals the diminished world view of JB. If you're so afraid to challenge your blinkered view, you're both pitiable and reprehensible. Funny, too, how you complain there's no civil engineering in the cited lit, then go to a reviewer's complaint to challenge not the engineer's credentials but one of the focuses of the book.
But like I said, I don't like to waste time with idiots, so you're left to yammer incoherently to yourself, twit.
Whatever...
Spoken like a true Valley Girl. Was that a Special Engineering certificate?
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 4974 Location: Hol(y)land, MI
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 5:48 pm Post subject:
lochsa wrote:
Only a deluded buffoon like you could manage to so completely fail to comprehend the multiplicity of issues surrounding the damming of rivers. Your insistence on some narrow 'scientific' analysis rivals the diminished world view of JB. If you're so afraid to challenge your blinkered view, you're both pitiable and reprehensible. Funny, too, how you complain there's no civil engineering in the cited lit, then go to a reviewer's complaint to challenge not the engineer's credentials but one of the focuses of the book.
But like I said, I don't like to waste time with idiots, so you're left to yammer incoherently to yourself, twit.
Get back under your viaduct. Petey needs your help to reinflate the doll. _________________ Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil Adonai Eloheinu Adonai echad.
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 7098 Location: Breckenridge CO
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 6:14 pm Post subject:
Certainly, the construction of Hoover dam provided vital depression era jobs that no private sector business was going to provide. One can also argue that it helped regulate the flow of the Colorado and was a vital component in making the desert "bloom". There's no doubt that there is a lot to like about hydro power from a strictly air pollution point of view. Lastly, from a power boaters, jet skiers point of view, places like Lake Mead and Lake Powell are very positive developments.
On the negative side, entire canyons are destroyed the the natural flow of rivers are disrupted. There are impacts well beyond just lost scenery. The natural flow of sediment is blocked which naturally renews the land, making it fertile. The lake of flushing flows disrupts native species of plant and animal life that leads to all sort of economic and environmental costs. (invasive species like the water sucking tamerisk is one example) The entire Colorado delta is now a dead zone when it was once one of the most productive regions in the country, including a very productive fishery. The amount of water that evaporates from these desert impoundments is staggering; on the order of many hundreds of thousands of acre feet.
Lastly, the dams have a life span that is turning out to be shorter than anticipated. Siltation is proceeding rapidly and the capacity of the reservoirs is being reduced. The penstocks will eventually be blocked and the dams will become waterfalls. Even before that, if the drought in the west continues, the capacity to generate hydro power will continue to fall.
So I suppose where someone stands on the issue of these mega hydro dams depends on their point of view and what is important to them. One thing is for sure though, they have their costs and limitations. _________________ Creeds and doctrines are like a raft to get you to the other shore and then to relinquish. Neither cling to the raft or reject it when drowning. Even better, become a strong swimmer.
Certainly, the construction of Hoover dam provided vital depression era jobs that no private sector business was going to provide. ...
Certainly. Just in case there is any confusion, given the current lack of a starboard flank on the good ship WOT, I was just providing a little snarky observation as how thing might be seen from that side of aisle.
Beyond that, got a copy of Sand County Almanac for my 15th birthday in '65 and sat down and read it cover to cover. Very moved by it even in my teenage daze phaze. I figure it's a given that dams, along with a whole looooooooong list of modern technological applications are at best two edged swords - environmentally, economically, socially, and spiritually. I hope no one seriously thinks that point even needs to be discussed.
(I'd also like to apologize in advance for any typos, spelling airs, wrong word usage, and other literary faux pas I may have committed in constructing this post. Additionally, I'd like to thank in advance any kindly souls who will take the time to point them out to me. Always ready and willing to learn, grow, and continue to try and be the best damed me I can bee.)
Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 2001 Location: aqui y alli
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:07 pm Post subject:
NoOneInParticular wrote:
finally an intelligent reply. lochsa just doesn't have it him
It's nice some people have the patience to explain grade-school concepts to adults pretending ignorance, but I doubt it will do a lot of good.
And by the way, among tamarisk's crimes, the 'water-sucking' charges don't stick; they use no more water than the native plants they choke out. And many boaters defend tamarisk for the shade they provide, just as narrowly-focused ornithologists fight tammie removal because the williw flycatcher nests in it. Ecologists, who tend to look at entire ecosystems instead of simply one species, point out the. Irds used to nest in the native veg and will again . . . And of course all the other attendant issues are multi-faceted as well.
But some will just post pictures of smokestacks in simpleminded rebuttal to anything about the drawbacks of dams, but when their silly polarity is pointed out will backpedal into yet more stupidity.
Nice to see JB recognizing a kindred tiny mind and tossing in his meager ante.
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 5820 Location: Flying over the Earth poisoning you with chemtrails
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:01 am Post subject:
NoOneInParticular wrote:
finally an intelligent reply. lochsa just doesn't have it him
I have to agree, look-see seemed to have way to much emotional baggage wrapped up in this thread, clouded his thought and all you know. No loss just a waste of bandwidth.
There are some negative issues associated with hydro and the question would be if it can be overcome. When Hoover Dam was built the impact on the ecosystem was the least of worries, after all manifest destiny was still a major influence on the generation of the time. Still is in some minds. Snail Darters and riparian zones would not even be considered for 2 seconds by the decision makers of the builders. But those were the days.
Honestly I could give a shit less about the environmental impact of a renewable clean source of electricity whose primary purpose is to control deadly and devastating floods down stream. That does not mean I would ignore the data but I would like to hear how it's impact is somehow more detrimental than the impact of a coal fired power plant, or the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
(I have my Lock-Saw insult shield deployed) _________________ Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.
BF's French lady.
Joined: 09 Dec 2004 Posts: 2001 Location: aqui y alli
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:11 am Post subject:
chemman wrote:
NoOneInParticular wrote:
finally an intelligent reply. lochsa just doesn't have it him
I have to agree, look-see seemed to have way to much emotional baggage wrapped up in this thread, clouded his thought and all you know. No loss just a waste of bandwidth.
in your case, a waste of genetic material.
chenman wrote:
There are some negative issues associated with hydro and the question would be if it can be overcome. When Hoover Dam was built the impact on the ecosystem was the least of worries, after all manifest destiny was still a major influence on the generation of the time. Still is in some minds.
in yours, evidently. And in what constructive ways are you manifesting your destiny? What further goals for the great American Empire do you foresee? And you're wrong that 'back then the ecosystem wasn't a concern.' The concern was to create an entirely new ecosystem based on the desires of humans whose previous efforts had failed, due to how ill they matched the ecosystem. Imperial logic demanded population in conquered territory, and the ideal of the yeoman farmer seemed the right way to encourage migration; unsustainable agricultural promises were made, despite warnings from the likes of JW Powell. The giant dams were an effort to deny the realities of the environment west of the hundredth meridian; the impacts were mere collateral damage to foreigners.
chenman wrote:
Snail Darters and riparian zones would not even be considered for 2 seconds by the decision makers of the builders. But those were the days.
Honestly I could give a shit less about the environmental impact of a renewable clean source of electricity whose primary purpose is to control deadly and devastating floods down stream.
hence it would be a waste of anyone's time to talk to you. Your approval is tautological: you like it, therefore it is good. You dismiss the entire Colorado Delta as a few members of a species that does not live there. You don't know that power generation was an afterthought, not a goal of Hoover Dam construction. You confuse the process of replenishing the nutrients of rich and. Ibrant delta ecosystems with 'devastating floods.' You seem not to know that the irrigation promised small farmers to support their scrappy American endeavors went instead to large agribusiness despite the restrictions on the dam's charter. You don't understand the role of the dam in the creation of yet more dams, each one less tenable than the first, each creating yet more unreasonable expectations of unsustainable growth. You dismiss by failing to mention impacts on people below the dam or the resources (including cultural) destroyed by the zeal to create a new reality.
And of course you're uninterested in the rapidly approaching end of the utility you so enjoy, its obsolescence created by its construction and the things 'no one' cared about back then.
So it would be a waste of time to talk to you about these things, as you've decided most aren't worthy of consideration. So enjoy your happiness, and be sure to admire the statues.
chenman wrote:
That does not mean I would ignore the data but I would like to hear how it's impact is somehow more detrimental than the impact of a coal fired power plant, or the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
(I have my Lock-Saw insult shield deployed)
finally an intelligent reply. lochsa just doesn't have it him
It's nice some people have the patience to explain grade-school concepts to adults pretending ignorance, but I doubt it will do a lot of good.
And by the way, among tamarisk's crimes, the 'water-sucking' charges don't stick; they use no more water than the native plants they choke out. And many boaters defend tamarisk for the shade they provide, just as narrowly-focused ornithologists fight tammie removal because the williw flycatcher nests in it. Ecologists, who tend to look at entire ecosystems instead of simply one species, point out the. Irds used to nest in the native veg and will again . . . And of course all the other attendant issues are multi-faceted as well.
But some will just post pictures of smokestacks in simpleminded rebuttal to anything about the drawbacks of dams, but when their silly polarity is pointed out will backpedal into yet more stupidity.
Nice to see JB recognizing a kindred tiny mind and tossing in his meager ante.
not everybody is on the same page. we all have different experiences and backgrounds.
dams do suck, but they have their place, and you have to contextualize them to their time and place when they where built. I think it is safe to say major dam building in the US is over.
and yes the Corp does suck, they try, but can't seem to do anything right.
Last edited by NoOneInParticular on Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:34 am; edited 2 times in total
finally an intelligent reply. lochsa just doesn't have it him
I have to agree, look-see seemed to have way to much emotional baggage wrapped up in this thread, clouded his thought and all you know. No loss just a waste of bandwidth.
There are some negative issues associated with hydro and the question would be if it can be overcome. When Hoover Dam was built the impact on the ecosystem was the least of worries, after all manifest destiny was still a major influence on the generation of the time. Still is in some minds. Snail Darters and riparian zones would not even be considered for 2 seconds by the decision makers of the builders. But those were the days.
Honestly I could give a shit less about the environmental impact of a renewable clean source of electricity whose primary purpose is to control deadly and devastating floods down stream. That does not mean I would ignore the data but I would like to hear how it's impact is somehow more detrimental than the impact of a coal fired power plant, or the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
(I have my Lock-Saw insult shield deployed)
they all have impacts
there is no single solution, a diversified portfolio of power is the only answer
finally an intelligent reply. lochsa just doesn't have it him
It's nice some people have the patience to explain grade-school concepts to adults pretending ignorance, but I doubt it will do a lot of good.
And by the way, among tamarisk's crimes, the 'water-sucking' charges don't stick; they use no more water than the native plants they choke out. And many boaters defend tamarisk for the shade they provide, just as narrowly-focused ornithologists fight tammie removal because the williw flycatcher nests in it. Ecologists, who tend to look at entire ecosystems instead of simply one species, point out the. Irds used to nest in the native veg and will again . . . And of course all the other attendant issues are multi-faceted as well.
But some will just post pictures of smokestacks in simpleminded rebuttal to anything about the drawbacks of dams, but when their silly polarity is pointed out will backpedal into yet more stupidity.
Nice to see JB recognizing a kindred tiny mind and tossing in his meager ante.
but more smoke stacks aren't the answer, as you know....
Obama is touting green energy, and solar panel manufacturing as a job creator, but an executive of a major German utility said the other day, that in 5 years, Germany won't be able to compete with China in manufacturing solar panels.
In many ways this doesn't matter, as long as they are manufactured and used, but it does point out how off base our "green" president is. Then you factor in what the republicans want to do, and the future seems very bleak indeed.
Joined: 07 Dec 2004 Posts: 5820 Location: Flying over the Earth poisoning you with chemtrails
Posted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:42 pm Post subject:
NoOneInParticular wrote:
chemman wrote:
NoOneInParticular wrote:
finally an intelligent reply. lochsa just doesn't have it him
I have to agree, look-see seemed to have way to much emotional baggage wrapped up in this thread, clouded his thought and all you know. No loss just a waste of bandwidth.
There are some negative issues associated with hydro and the question would be if it can be overcome. When Hoover Dam was built the impact on the ecosystem was the least of worries, after all manifest destiny was still a major influence on the generation of the time. Still is in some minds. Snail Darters and riparian zones would not even be considered for 2 seconds by the decision makers of the builders. But those were the days.
Honestly I could give a shit less about the environmental impact of a renewable clean source of electricity whose primary purpose is to control deadly and devastating floods down stream. That does not mean I would ignore the data but I would like to hear how it's impact is somehow more detrimental than the impact of a coal fired power plant, or the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster.
(I have my Lock-Saw insult shield deployed)
they all have impacts
there is no single solution, a diversified portfolio of power is the only answer
That is all to true. The diversity you refer to includes the core coal, gas and nuclear and power system stability often relies on the fact hydro is "quick draw McGraw". Without power system stability the grid is worthless. Only the 8 ball knows what the solution will be.
_________________ Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.
BF's French lady.
Cadillac Desert is also a fascinating book on the development of the west and the role of the Corps. It is written from a biased point of view (aren't they all). However, it provides an interesting view of the subject. Incidentally, the movie Chinatown tackles a lot of the issues described in Cadillac Desert.
Damming the major rivers was generally undertaken as creating projects for the sake of projects. Few of the dams serve an actual purpose. That being said, the regulation of the Colorado and some others has been essential for the growth, and now stability, of the West (opinions on the viability of that aside).
These large public works were essential in keeping the US economy afloat at the time, but may have simply created artificial and unsustainable economies. Would a major public works campaign help the current economy, probably. The question is for how long and whether the improved economy would be sustainable. _________________ "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anais Nin
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
