Unaweep Canyon - hydro plant being proposed

Another article

ErikaNWwrote:

Another article

Good read, thanks. 

But VanWinkle sees this as yet another trampling of the Western Slope by Front Range interests. 

“This is rural Colorado footing the bill and making the sacrifices for urban consumers. That’s what I see as the biggest issue around all this,” she said.

VanWinkle said residents need to be strategic in the coming years of opposition. They need to find partners, like rock climbers who flock to the canyon and supporters of the scenic highway program. 

Curmudgeon Donwrote:

That’s a beautiful goat. Hope she can take a joke without getting too saa’aad (said in goat’s voice). Wish the cowboy kept his comment up, I was really looking forward to hearing about those first ascents. Oh well, at least he’s happy with people coming out and enjoying the canyon. Last I heard, the canyon was only open to “locals with many first ascents” for top rope soloing purposes only….

(Sorry curmudgeon that I took this comment down, now please continue with whatever your goal is) 

Ahhh man no worries, realistically I probably have some form of awfully uncomfortable ego around developing to others and I'd like to be better about that. I could see how my comment can be perceived negatively. I was simply trying to express the canyon is important to me. Truthfully I wish I could be better at sharing the routes I've had the opportunity to develop. I just find moutain project so toxic and truthfully I'm easily agitated by internet trolling. So I try to avoid sharing as a form of self protection in a world that's increasingly toxic, I dont want climbing to be that for me. Climbing is a space that allows me to feel whole. I hope for you it's the same, you deserve to feel heard and happy as well.

Since no climbing is directly threatened I think climbers and the Access Fund should stay out of this one. How can we shut down projects like this and then feel good about driving our Tacoma's covered in POW stickers. Leave it to the BLM, Xcel, FERC and the local landowners to work through the process.  I'd rather see this than another coal or gas fired power plant. NIMBYISM is going to kill any chance we have at working towards solutions to fight climate change.  

Chris Michalowskiwrote:

Since no climbing is directly threatened I think climbers and the Access Fund should stay out of this one. How can we shut down projects like this and then feel good about driving our Tacoma's covered in POW stickers. Leave it to the BLM, Xcel, FERC and the local landowners to work through the process.  I'd rather see this than another coal or gas fired power plant. NIMBYISM is going to kill any chance we have at working towards solutions to fight climate change. 

Just so you are aware, the local climbing organization (WCCC) is one of those landowners.

Pasquale Verrastrowrote:

(Sorry curmudgeon that I took this comment down, now please continue with whatever your goal is) 

Yeah, the goat got it right. I just wanted to “humbly restrain such rampant egoism” by making a pretty standard joke (with the pristine example shown in your original comment). </s> 

Bonus points for getting a goat out of it! Amazing what fires can be kindled from a little joke.

Winter Soldier wrote:

I would take it a step further and claim that NIMBYS destroy any chance we have at solving *most* issues 

Yeah, those NYMBY Ukrainians should have just rolled over and let the Russians save their country from Nazis like Zelenskyy. Months of explosions, fires, and rotting bodies have contributed more to climate change than Xcel’s proposed project could recoup in 200 years of operation. Those events could have been prevented by allowing our benevolent Mr Putin into their backyards, front yards, homes, and minds.

My point? “NIMBY” is a common accusation twisted into negativity by pro-development forces. The potential environmental benefits of the proposed project are zero when considering all of the costs. 

Hydropower is no longer a viable future source of energy within the United States. Just look at Lake Mead.

Chip Ruckgaberwrote:

Hydropower is no longer a viable future source of energy within the United States. Just look at Lake Mead.

Maybe you should spend 5 seconds looking at what the project is instead of making a competely unrelated comment?

Curmudgeon Donwrote:

Yeah, the goat got it right. I just wanted to “humbly restrain such rampant egoism” by making a pretty standard joke (with the pristine example shown in your original comment).  

Bonus points for getting a goat out of it! Amazing what fires can be kindled from a little joke.

I speak for the gotez. They like Italian Cowboy. They are not entirely sure what to make of you. Try raisins. 

Back on topic, I was heartened to see that the article Erika linked specifically mentioned rock climbers as a user group in the Weep that could be an ally in conservation efforts. Sure, the pursuit of enlightenment and adrenaline via outdoor recreation may be an inherently selfish pursuit. But on the other hand, the average American's overconsumption of water and energy could be described as selfish as well -- how about people show some self-restraint and reduce usage instead of living lifestyles that necessitate potential ecological gang-bangs like this project could be? So I refuse to concede the value of the climber user group's perspective.

By way of preempting a tu quoque rejoinder to that hopelessly idealistic exhortation, I will volunteer this piece of information that will bolster my environmental street cred at the expense of my future romantic life. I've been on the road for 95 days and have taken only 17 showers. Let's just pretend that's intentional for the sake of conservation efforts.

If you want to pursue full electrification, which means killing off all drilling and no more natural gas, than you should be supporting this. Ending the hydrocarbon industry is going to be a war, and wars have consequences. Better to have this than drilling rigs and pumps. Especially since this country will never allow nuclear again.

Me? I'm against electrification. I work HVAC and I see what will happen. But if the zietgiest swings that direction I'll work towards a complete ban on all natural gas so that the proponents of it get to live with the ramifications without having gas as a fall back.

Lincoln Swrote:

this isn't a hydroelectric dam in the way that the hoover dam is. it's a battery that uses gravity as its 'electrolyte'. The pools at the top and bottom of the cliff do not have a silt load, thus there is no problem with a dam silting up.

though I do vehemently agree with your assessment of the necessity of nuclear power plants.

It might not have a silt load from runoff but there will be a silt load, just ask any western slope pond owner. So much particulate is blown in with the spring winds that ponds must be pumped out regularly. If they want this to work long term it needs to be a closed system. That would stop evaporation and blown in silt.

Edit for grammar

and here I was thinking a two pitch bolted 3rd class route was littering in the extreme

The Colorado Sun has a pretty good article about the proposal. See https://coloradosun.com/2022/05/22/unaweep-canyon-dam-hydropower-project/. Here are some quotes:

Xcel Energy sketched its conceptual plan for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as part of an application for a preliminary permit that would allow the company to more closely study the site... If Xcel gets the preliminary permit from FERC, which is likely, the company would study the plan for three years. If Xcel files for a license through FERC, that’s another two to three years and would include environmental review with the Bureau of Land Management... And if that process eventually leads to a licensed project, construction would take another four years... 

The number of feasible sites for a project of this size is extremely limited... The company needs a location that does not impact an active water source. There must be enough land to build two reservoirs. There can’t be too much or too little space between the impoundments. It can’t involve land managed by the Forest Service, which does not allow new utility-scale power plants. The soils and geology have to work. There has to be available water rights. There must be rights of way to allow for many miles of 120-foot transmission towers...

ErikaNWwrote:

Another article

That article says: " Pumped storage hydro facilities consume more energy than they create when they pump that water uphill. So it’s not a very efficient battery. "

Incorrect.  Large Pumped hydro is about 80% efficient, which is highly efficient.  90% in each direction.  Chemical batteries last less long and require large mines for the chemicals.

"The water would follow about 19 miles of new pipeline and it would take about a year to move 6,900 acre-feet into the reservoirs. About 45 days a year the wells would pump an annual 673 acre-feet to replenish water lost from evaporation on the two reservoirs. "

That amount of evaporation for this 140 acres of reservoir is tiny compared to a giant reservoir like Lake Powell, which is 160,000 acres, in a hotter climate, so it has about 1000 times as much evaporation.  Yet it generates about the same amount of power.  Glen Cyn Dam/Lake Powell generated 3000 GW-hr last year.  [edited - I fixed the typo]   A 1 GW pumped hydro project can make 1 GW x 10 hrs/day x 365 days = 3650 GW-hr.  https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-water-powells-looming-power-problem    To stop wasting water with evaporation, focus on the real problem - giant reservoirs.

"It might not have a silt load from runoff but there will be a silt load, just ask any western slope pond owner. So much particulate is blown in with the spring winds that ponds must be pumped out regularly. "

Silt is not a big issue.  The outlet is slightly raised above a small volume used as a silt trap.  The ponds can be vacuumed/dredged like a large swimming pool once every 15 years.

"“This is rural Colorado footing the bill and making the sacrifices for urban consumers. "

Actually rural residents typically have a higher per capita carbon impact than urban residents.  And public land is for everyone, not just certain residents.

Here is a good example pumped hydro project in Washington state.  https://goldendaleenergystorage.com/project.html

tom donnellywrote:

Here is a good example pumped hydro project in Washington state.  https://goldendaleenergystorage.com/project.html

Another example perhaps even more familiar to climbers: Courtright and Wishon reservoirs.

Marc801 Cwrote:

Another example perhaps even more familiar to climbers: Courtright and Wishon reservoirs.

Those are different due to using traditional dams that have a large impact on a river valley.   Lower impact sites do not dam up an entire valley; they just have 2 manmade deep ponds.

Martin le Rouxwrote:

The Colorado Sun has a pretty good article about the proposal. See https://coloradosun.com/2022/05/22/unaweep-canyon-dam-hydropower-project/. Here are some quotes:   It can’t involve land managed by the Forest Service, which does not allow new utility-scale power plants. 

I wonder why that is.  I suspect they are confusing traditional hydro impacts, which used to be built by damming a valley.  Unlike projects like this which build small ponds below and on top of a large hill.   I have seen a map floating around on the internet that purports to show all the great pumped hydro locations.  It is quite faulty because it focuses on places to build traditional dams, which are not likely to be approved.  So that could be what the Forest Service is thinking of.    And that map fails to show simple locations that just require digging & lining the two ponds, with no huge riparian impact.  

tom donnellywrote:

That article says: " Pumped storage hydro facilities consume more energy than they create when they pump that water uphill. So it’s not a very efficient battery. "

Incorrect.  Large Pumped hydro is about 80% efficient, which is highly efficient.  90% in each direction.  Chemical batteries last less long and require large mines for the chemicals.

"The water would follow about 19 miles of new pipeline and it would take about a year to move 6,900 acre-feet into the reservoirs. About 45 days a year the wells would pump an annual 673 acre-feet to replenish water lost from evaporation on the two reservoirs. "

That amount of evaporation for this 140 acres of reservoir is tiny compared to a giant reservoir like Lake Powell, which is 160,000 acres, in a hotter climate, so it has about 1000 times as much evaporation.  Yet it generates about the same amount of power.  Glen Cyn Dam/Lake Powell generated 3000 KW-hr last year.  A 1 GW pumped hydro project can make 1 GW x 10 hrs/day x 365 days = 3650 GW-hr.  https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-water-powells-looming-power-problem    To stop wasting water with evaporation, focus on the real problem - giant reservoirs.

"It might not have a silt load from runoff but there will be a silt load, just ask any western slope pond owner. So much particulate is blown in with the spring winds that ponds must be pumped out regularly. "

Silt is not a big issue.  The outlet is slightly raised above a small volume used as a silt trap.  The ponds can be vacuumed/dredged like a large swimming pool once every 15 years.

"“This is rural Colorado footing the bill and making the sacrifices for urban consumers. "

Actually rural residents typically have a higher per capita carbon impact than urban residents.  And public land is for everyone, not just certain residents.

Here is a good example pumped hydro project in Washington state.  https://goldendaleenergystorage.com/project.html

You are making a number of incorrect statements.

For one, more energy is required to pump a volume of water up a pipe than is generated when it slides down the same pipe. We don’t live in a frictionless universe.

For another, Glen Canyon Dam generated 3 GWh, not “3,000 KW-hr” last year. (You’re off by a factor of 1,000.) The drawing-board calculations for Xcel’s proposed project come up with an annual “capacity” of 2.78 GWh. Would it ever operate at full capacity? I’m assuming that it will generate electricity only when solar and wind are not, which may be 35-40% of the time, so total annual generation could be around 1 GWh. Said “capacity” is just theory at this point, and could be rounded up to influence shareholders, rate payers, regulators, and the remaining public. As one of those rate payers, I would get to subsidize this project. 

George Bracksieckwrote:

You are making a number of incorrect statements.

For one, more energy is required to pump a volume of water up a pipe than is generated when it slides down the same pipe. We don’t live in a frictionless universe.

For another, Glen Canyon Dam generated 5 GWh last year. The drawing-board calculations for Xcel’s proposed project come up with an annual “capacity” of 2.78 GWh. Would it ever operate at full capacity? I’m assuming that it will generate electricity only when solar and wind are not, which may be 35-40% of the time, so total annual generation could be around 1 GBh. Said “capacity” is just theory at this point, and could be rounded up to influence shareholders, rate payers, regulators, and the remaining public. As one of those rate payers, I would get to subsidize this project. 

This isn't a dam.  It's not flooding a river valley.   It's a liquid battery that is charged from renewable energy and dispatched when renewables aren't available. Battery storage is a requirement if we're going to move off of fossil fuels so we stop cooking the planet. 

To provide storage to power things like hospitals, grocery stores and all the other things that we take for granted requires infrastructure. If we don't want infrastructure it means we live in the dark and drink warm beer. Power just doesn't miraculously happen to appear when you want to flip on the light switch.

The largest battery that we have in Colorado is only 4 MW with a 4 hour dispatch time.  This project would produce 800 MW for 8-10 hours on a nightly basis and doesn't require a shit ton of lithium or other mined materials.

 I would argue aridification and wildfire risks due to climate change are much bigger threats to Unaweep than this project which is trying to mitigate those things.