Bonneville Power, Wind, and Surplus Energy

When people think of the Pacific Northwest they may think of Seattle and Portland and their associated populace. They may also think of volcanoes, the spotted owl, old-growth temperate rain forest, or the perpetual battles over dams and salmon in the Columbia-Snake watershed. While there are many things to be said about all of those topics, today I mean to discuss something that less associated with the region (in large part because it is generally an issue only in the sparsely populated Eastern regions of Washington and Oregon), wind power.

While many are probably aware of the presence of dams in the region and their importance to regional electricity generation (and their effect on endangered salmon), it is less well known that there is a growing wind energy sector in the high desert areas of central Washington and Oregon. While both hydropower and wind are generally thought of as "renewable" resources because they do not emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases, most dams are not as environmentally friendly as they are sometimes portrayed (and have a host of complications and serious effects on river health and aquatic animals and plants), though they are on the whole more desirable than coal-fired plants. In the Pacific Northwest the relationship between dams and wild salmon is particularly fraught, with long-running legal challenges and battling scientific evaluations pushing back and forth over which dams should be re-worked, which decommissioned and removed, and how much water must be allowed to flow through to facilitate both up- and down-stream migration of the anadramous fish. When America's inadequate and aging electric grid and an expanding wind sector get dragged into it as well it only serves to complicate all the issues further, but provides a valuable example of why we need to upgrade to a smart grid that is connected to a more diffuse electric generation system.

This particular issue began last spring when the Columbia River had unusually high water levels and the Bonneville Power Administration claimed that it needed to let more water through its generators than normal in order to keep river conditions suitable for newly hatched salmon fry heading downriver to the sea. Because of the way dams are designed, this meant any water let through the generators had to be used to generate electricity (spillways would not have worked in these circumstances the agency claimed because they would have caused too much turbulence for the fry to tolerate). This led to BPA hydropower surging into the grid which would have been overloaded had the agency not ordered local wind projects to suspend operations in an inversion of the usual order of operations (in which dams release more water to generate power during times when the atmosphere is too still). This, naturally, upset the wind project owners, especially since BPA did not make any efforts to direct surplus wind power to fossil fuel driven plants in the grid area, a practice called negative pricing, that is common in other areas of the country.

Now there has been a resolution to the dispute. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruled that the BPA was wrong in its actions and was required to rewrite its rules for handling future occurrences of surplus power. How the monetary damages will be distributed between the wind producers and BPA has not yet been finalized.

While having a truly national energy grid would be greatly helpful in eliminating these sorts of situations, where local production is so great that it threatens to overwhelm the system and cannot be exported because of transmission bottlenecks or other issues, that will not completely solve the problem or eliminate conflicts or risk. Denmark has had problems where its large coastal wind installations have generated so much power the nation's grid cannot absorb it all and it must actually pay its neighbors to take it off its hands. While this is rare in the United States and Canada, it can occur and is common in some areas (as I mentioned above). A national grid run by a unified, central system (whether governmental, intergovernmental, public-private partnership, or concerted private action) will largely eliminate the need for such practices except under the most exigent circumstances (though people still need to agree that power lines can and should be built and then decide where to put them so that they are effective but also do the least harm to both the built and natural environments). Additionally, we must continue to invest in research on ways to store energy produced during daylight or windy hours for use during off-hours that might still have high demands from consumers. This must include traditional ideas of storage like batteries as well as research on more innovative ideas like molten salt reserves, thermal gradients, repurposing, and other methods that may not yet have been devised. And, to show that I am not vilifying BPA, I'll finish by recognizing some of the innovative work it is doing in this area. While that doesn't excuse their behavior (and I feel justified saying that since the FERC smacked them down), or get them out of vigilant monitoring, there are far worse environmental and economic actors out there, especially in the realm of energy production. And it goes to show how complicated things can get when you start combining incredibly powerful and important agencies and laws with unexpected circumstances and infrastructure devised to serve the needs of a bygone era.

Arches

So over New Year's my boyfriend and I went out to Arches National Park in the Red Rocks country of southern Utah. And it was beautiful and relaxing and immensely enjoyable. Far nicer than going to an overcrowded bar and paying way too much for drinks. While there were far more people than I would have expected for the middle of winter, the park was by no means crowded. In fact it was quite easy to avoid people entirely by taking trails that were even moderately difficult or by getting started for the day at sunrise while others waited for it to get warmer. (The weather in December and January is generally quite nice, highs in the 40s and lows in the 20s, much nicer than the regular 100+ days present in the summer season). While I often started the day with several layers, and finished it the same way, once I started hiking and the sun got higher I quickly shed them for lighter gear. Much more pleasant and easier to try to get warm than stay cool, though the dry air, even when cold, dehydrates you faster than you realize.

While we didn't slip and fall this sign is quite accurate, the rocks are very slippery.

For a park that is only three hours from Salt Lake and six from Denver and has a high yearly attendance, going at a time that minimizes crowds certainly is a priority. This is another point in favor of going in the off-season. Many trails are loops or out-and-back and therefore quite prone to congestion and crowding. As it was there was one place, Delicate Arch (famous from Utah's license plate) where the number of people all wanting to get photographed with the formation almost prevented us from getting a quality picture (I snuck mine in during the only 30 second window no one was standing in it). The rest of the park generally had some people, we were only alone on our early hikes, though there was none of the traffic or half-mile car lines waiting to park at some trailheads that some road signs indicated could occur during summer.

 

Delicate Arch

The amenities in the park are quite good. A new visitor center has excellent and interactive geology and wildlife exhibits that are accessible to kids but not boring to adults. There are also, during summer, numerous ranger-led programs including tours of the Fiery Furnace area of the park (off-limits without a special permit and inadvisable to those without knowledge of the area due to its maze-like nature and the fragility of the desert soils). Sadly we were not able to hike in the Fiery Furnace or do backcountry camping or hiking. Those will have to wait until our next visit, perhaps one that will add Colorado National Monument and Canyonlands, both nearby. There is only one campground that is first come, first served in the winter and by reservation in summer. It is quite beautiful (the best views are from the sites 20-25) but could be improved by better enforcement of park policies and the separation of trailers/RVs from tents, but those are minor issues in the grand scheme and were addressed more fully in my most recent post.

Part of the Fiery Furnace

In addition to its stunning geology the park also has the standard desert flora and fauna (we didn't see any rare ones but did see plenty of critters and the beautifully weathered desert plants, especially Utah juniper). It also has easily accessible prehistoric petroglyphs and rock art, as well as markings made by Spanish explorers and settlers. Unfortunately these are faded now because they were vandalized in the 1980s and the restoration process reduced their vibrancy. Still, well worth seeing (and a surprise to us).

Seeing cacti covered with snow was unexpected.

Junipers are long-lived and self-prune dramatically to conserve water leading to their beautiful, weathered appearance.

 

Some of the petroglyphs at Arches

It really doesn't do much justice to the park to describe it or even to post pictures, particularly since when you are there almost everything you see is so stunning you feel the need to photograph it. Indeed, it is difficult at times to put the camera away and just appreciate the place for what it is, but I did manage to do that at least a few times while I was there. I'll post a few more pictures of my trip but you'll just have to go for yourself.

Sunset from our campsite

The famous Landscape Arch

The spectacular Double Arch with Andrew for scale

Me looking off during a break on the Dark Angel trail

Campground Etiquette

On my New Year's trip to Arches National Park I stayed in the only campground in the park. It has nice, well-maintained, spacious sites with spectacular views. They are pretty close together, though some are semi-sheltered by large rocks and juniper trees. In the winter it is only half open, but at peak season it could easily have 300 people or more at any time. As it was, the available spaces were almost filled every night. It also had trash disposal and some recycling collection as well as modern bathrooms with dishwashing space. Unfortunately it also is a mixed tent/RV/trailer site with no designated areas for different types of camping and, at least in winter, little to no enforcement of noise and generator curfews. This significantly detracted from the overall experience, especially since we had initially planned on trying to get a backcountry permit at the park office. They are available but there aren't any designated sites or areas and in the winter we didn't want to deal with that without doing a bit more research. Perhaps next time we are out there.

Unless you happen to live in the vicinity, you are going to need to stay somewhere when you visit a park. Generally the options are camping in some form in the park, camping at a BLM, Forest Service, or state park in the area, or staying at a hotel in a nearby community. In the case of Arches, all are options and the town of Moab is actually a neat place, at least in the winter when it isn't overrun by tourists. It even has identifiable local businesses and eateries that actual residents support. However, many people, myself included, view camping as a major reason for visiting a park and an essential part of the experience. While sleeping in a tent and cooking on a stove or fire is real camping, it is not for everyone and there are different degrees of alternatives. Some involve elaborate tent cities and grills. Others involve unpowered camper trailers or truck bed campers. Some people use RVs or powered trailers. All of them do have conceivable uses and some people actually do other things in a park besides sit in or around their vehicles (though I did see some who appeared to spend the entire time in their trailer). But there are some guidelines people should follow to maximize the enjoyment of everyone that come down to basic courtesy and common sense.

• Keep the electronics to a minimum. Yes, I know you really want to listen to the Cowboys game or have a dance party or watch a movie on your laptop, but you can do that at home, or in a motel, or anywhere else. You may not appreciate the experience and the location, but there are many others around you who are trying. Don't disrupt them, and if you cannot last, keep it quiet and use headphones.
• On the same topic, lots of the ridiculous things you might have brought and inexplicably find essential require power. If you use your car or a generator please try to park in a cluster with others in a similar situation and leave at least part of the campground free for those who want a quieter experience and absolutely abide by the posted curfews for shutoff. Yes, it's a drag having to use a flashlight or firelight or even sit in the dark or sleep once the sun goes down, but that's part of the deal. There are great stars in the world's darker places, try looking at them.
• Please keep your pets on leash and clean up after them. I love and own dogs and have gone camping with them, but in a campground even the best behaved ones can create a problem if not controlled, especially if there are several. They love playing and exploring and it can quickly create a culture where other polices slip, waste accumulates, and the quality of the campground deteriorates. Campgrounds, especially in parks, are often islands in a sensitive ecosystem. While many people don't take warnings about fragile soils seriously, animals have no awareness of it whatsoever, nor do they have any reservation about digging or hunting indigenous wildlife. As for the people who have cats in their campers, that's just weird.
• Get your kids involved. Good for you bringing your kids out to experience the natural world, even in one of its Disneyfied, theme park forms. Now try to build an appreciation by getting them to engage with different aspects of the experience. Star gazing. Fire building. Assembling a campsite. Cooking on a stove. Taking nature walks (at Arches there is a great one that essentially leaves from the campground and can take all day if you do it in its entirety, another one gives you a few hours). Get them to do things they couldn't or wouldn't do at home. Kudos to the family that brought their bikes with them so they could take the road through the red rocks. That was much better behavior than our neighbors at the campground who brought their gymboree in their pickup and let their kids watch DVDs all night (probably to alleviate the screaming fury that resulted from any dissatisfaction).
• Clean up after yourself. At Arches the campground was generally pretty clean but I've been to some where there is garbage everywhere (don't burn it, for a lot of reasons) and it is repulsive. Additionally, just because something is food doesn't mean it is "natural" and doesn't mean it will "compost." Composting takes time and some things will not decompose in all ecosystems. You also don't want to attract animals to campgrounds. They can be nuisances and it can be unsafe for people and for the animals (many get hit by cars after being attracted to food). It is also bad to get them acculturated to human food in some seasons only to have it disappear later in the year.
•  Finally, everyone likes sex, but if you must have sex in a campground, remember that it is a semi-public space and you are in close proximity to others with very little sound barrier, so have some discretion. Loud, screaming sex is generally inappropriate for such a campground. If you want to engage in that, pick a remote, backcountry site or a hotel.

So there are some general rules of etiquette for large campgrounds. It's not exhaustive and not particularly original, but you would be shocked how many people don't realize that they are doing anything inconsiderate at all. Perhaps this will help.

P.S. Despite our immediate neighbors, the rest of the experience in the Arches campground was fantastic and I give it (in its winter form) a solid four stars, segregating tents from RVs and enforcing generator limits are the only major things I'd change.

Yet another news roundup

More substantive posts are coming, I promise, now that work is back to a normal level.

This is an interesting development, and one I think is very promising. The federal government is the largest landowner in the nation, and the biggest consumer of energy. Within that, the Department of Defense is by far the biggest, representing 80 percent of all federal energy use and 1 percent of the entire nation's. It has also made clear its desire to move in a more sustainable direction for both economic and security reasons. So it is very promising that they are seriously discussing developing large scale solar installations on DoD lands, many of which are already "disturbed" and therefor unlikely to harbor endangered or threatened wildlife. Whether used to satisfy base needs or sold to the grid (which would require very little new infrastructure as bases already well connected), it would be an excellent way to scale up the idea of the parking lot "solar grove" that has been proposed by other would-be renewables developers. Also, as a massive landowner and supplier/purchaser and research funder, the DoD would be able to leverage a huge gain in solar efficiency and productivity with comparatively small (when looking at private R&D) investment.

Farms (and logging/silviculture) have long been a source of water pollution that is difficult to regulate under the Clean Water Act. CAFOs (feedlots) are generally considered point sources, but the the others generally are not subject to the same permitting and data requirements and so relatively little is known about specific contributions and even less is often done to reduce agricultural runoff, a serious problem that causes huge dead zones at the mouths of major rivers worldwide. While it is only a tentative first step, and doesn't go very far, it is good to see that Minnesota is making a small effort to induce farmers to clean up and reduce their runoff voluntarily. Count me as a skeptic. I hope that it works, I really do, and that it proves to be a wildly successful program that can be a model for other states, but I strongly believe that it will generally be a disappointment for a few reasons. First, the funding is far too low to have any major impact. Second, the funding is uncertain going forward; there really isn't any long-term commitment to keeping this program running. Third, enforcement will be difficult without either more staff to do compliance testing or much better data collection with stiff penalties on those trying to game the system. Good for Minnesota for making a small effort, but it has the ability to do so much more given its position as a 100% headwaters state.

Are you sick of motherfucking snakes in the motherfucking Everglades? (I apologize for that.) If so, you will be happy to learn that the Fish and Wildlife Service is officially listing four species of constrictors as "injurious" and prohibiting their import, export, or transport and/or sale across state lines. While it won't result in the pythons in the Everglades magically dying (though recent cold weather in Florida is certainly a helpful occurrence) it will create a ban with some serious enforcement teeth. From the moment the regulations become active, it will be a crime under the Lacey Act to buy, sell, bring into the US, or transport across a state boundary, any of the four species listed (Burmese python, northern and southern African python, and yellow anaconda). That in and of itself is a positive development. We haven't gotten rid of the invaders yet but we are have now taken real, enforceable steps to stop making the problem worse.

News Roundup

Kind of a lazy post, I have a series of more substantive topics that I hope to post soon but have been very busy this past month (when I wasn't on vacation in beautiful Arches National Park, which I will write about in depth with pictures soon). I'm hoping to write more frequently this year, maybe making that commitment on the internet will help? We shall see.

Why is it so important to protect open spaces and wild places? Because you never know what you will find there. The latest discovery is a brand new species of snake, the Matilda's Horned Viper, recently discovered in Tanzania (the exact location is being withheld from publication due to the rarity of the species and the threat posed by a sudden rush of collectors, trophy hunters, and other miscreants to what appears to be a very small population. Most new discoveries are small organisms, insects or microbes, but there are still large species that turn up from time to time.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has officially extended a moratorium on new mining claims around the Grand Canyon. I wrote about this issue last year in a piece critiquing media coverage of environmental issues. I'm not at all surprised by his decision, though he certainly didn't do much to publicize or celebrate it. In fact it looks like he is trying to hide it based on the timing (right before the New Hampshire primary when all media attention will be directed elsewhere). Look for various mining interests and their shills allies in Congress to continue complaining about this and making absurd claims about jobs created, minimal environmental impacts, and other outright falsehoods.

And speaking of hiding from the media while doing something laudable, today President Obama visited the EPA to give a campaign speech pep talk to agency employees on the importance of the work they do and the value of a clean environment. From the brevity and content it sounds to me very much like test driving campaign talking points for use against a republican opponent who will have spent years trying to be more anti-environment and anti-science than any other and not like a president actually praising an agency and its workers (remember, he let his Law and Economics friend and OIRA head Cass Sunstein kill the proposed smog rule based on industry lies and exaggerations about economic impact and without properly considering the value of health improved and lives saved, not to mention jobs created via regulatory forcing (it takes a lot of research and manpower to update all those factories and plants or replace unsustainable capacity)).

This is a light, yet interesting, article about what one of John Muir's great-great-grandsons is up to with the family name.

Yet another reminder that even once renewable energy projects are built or capacity installed it still needs to be connected to the grid and that can be a hassle. Sometimes its logistics, sometimes its infrastructure, and sometimes its corporate resistance or regulatory turf battles. The point is, renewables aren't like Field of Dreams, it takes more than just building it for the power to come.

Update 1/12: Today's NYT has an op-ed today by two fisheries scientists about some of the problems with the General Mining Law and some very needed updates and safeguards. There's not a chance of any of them happening any time soon, but it's important to keep raising these issues and building awareness for when conditions are more favorable. What struck me is how many of their proposals would bring hard rock mining into much closer alignment with coal and how that mining process is managed (the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act is a much more effective statute that raises more revenue for the sovereign, allows more land use flexibility and prioritization, and has much stronger and more effective environmental safeguards. If SMCRA were simply expanded to cover all mining that would be perhaps the biggest public land reform since FLPMA, if not ever and would be a huge accomplishment).

Park Economics

As is all too obvious, we are stuck in a recession/depression that will be very difficult to extract ourselves from given the current desire for savage budget cuts and senseless austerity. I have previously mentioned how a program like the CCC would do wonders to improve park infrastructure and facilities, clearing the massive maintenance backlog, while also providing work and income to thousands of unemployed Americans who are otherwise sitting idle. On the heels of that comes this project by Headwaters Economics to push for more parks and protected spaces generally, arguing that they provide economic boosts to the areas surrounding them. Among the 100+ signers are three Nobel Laureates in Economics, so it's not just a bunch of third-tier hacks pushing this. While this is not the first time that this argument has been made (see this essay from 2004 about Olympic National Park and how community feelings towards it and logging protections in the surrounding forest have changed as one example), it is nice that there is now institutional, academic support for this belief. It's a long way from shaping policy but it's important to lay the groundwork first.

Lake Maria

This post is very late but I'm finally getting around to it. Back in mid-October I went camping with my boyfriend and his dog up in Lake Maria State Park. It's only about an hour on I-94 from the Twin Cities and has a surprisingly large number of trails and campsites for a park its size (though most of the trails do pass by at least a few campsites so if it's busy expect to hear/see lots of people). It also has a number of interpretive programs and trails including geocaching (a GPS based program present in many MN parks). We went up at the height of fall colors but because of the high winds almost all the leaves had been stripped off the trees. Still, it is a very pretty park and a stop on one of the migratory flyways so it is a good location to see migratory birds in spring and fall. The campsites were well maintained and spacious (available by reservation or first-come basis). It also has cabins and group sites. While it has year-round programs, if you aren't a fan of winter camping it might not be the park for you because it is a decent drive out of the Cities for just a few hours, though definitely worth it.
A view of the wetlands.

There is a swan in the center of the frame

 Not one of the rare turtles that live there, but it was sitting right in the middle of the trail (and was very fast in getting away).

 

Izzy the Dog at our campsite.