# Killing the Colorado



## yesimapirate (Oct 18, 2010)

It's not a new topic. I just hope a broader audience will make a difference in water awareness. This special premiers Aug 4th on Discovery channel.

https://corporate.discovery.com/dis...of-the-american-wests-crippling-water-crisis/

**I claim no affiliation to the show.


----------



## Losthwy (Jul 17, 2016)

I'll try to catch it.


----------



## yesimapirate (Oct 18, 2010)

Did anyone else watch this? Curious what others thought.


----------



## pepejohns (Jul 14, 2014)

Also good reading - the series of articles that the doc was based on:

https://www.propublica.org/series/killing-the-colorado

Propublica is one of the few legit journalistic entities left in the US...


----------



## ScottM (Jun 24, 2010)

yesimapirate said:


> Did anyone else watch this? Curious what others thought.


I did, I enjoyed it. The big take away is don't store water in the desert!


----------



## yesimapirate (Oct 18, 2010)

Every aspect is important, but I felt like the only 2 storylines directly related to the CO river got a ton of air time. Crowley, CO selling their water rights was a good point, but not directly about the CO River. I think there are many storylines that didn't get air time. 

But yea, desert storage is a dissipation mess. Let's take Trump's wall budget and build domes over Mead and Powell.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Schutzie watched the show and was disappointed. The message (don't store water in the desert) didn't offer much in the way of real world solutions.

Ironically, Schutzie became intimately familiar with a Swedish solution to limited water resource and demands on hydro power;
As it turns out, hydro dams are most efficient when they are run at full capacity, continuously. The problem of course is that running at full capacity requires a lot more water than is generally available.
The Swedes figured out a solution that is counter intuitive; in fact, Schutzie called a hearty BS when he first heard it.

Anyway, the solution is to pump the water back up, into the reservoir.
Really.
As explained to a very skeptical Schutzie; Hydro dams work best when they run at full capacity; limited water resource makes that impractical however. And, one cannot store the electrical power generated; it's a truly use or loose proposition.
However;
If one uses the excess electrical capacity to move the water back up into the reservoir, two things happen; the dam runs at peak efficiency and has a virtual unlimited supply of water to generate electricity, and the power generated is used, not lost.
And, (Schutzies secret reason to support the idea) rivers can run at near flood, always. 
Imagine, Dolores water is pumped back up to McFee from somewhere around Gateway.
Imagine; Colorado water is pumped back into Powell from somewhere below Mead.
Or, pumped back into Powell from somewhere around Diamond Creek, and again from somewhere below Mead.
Hmmmmmm

Wall? What wall??!! We don't got no wall!! WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKIN WALL!!


----------



## fdon (Jul 23, 2008)

kidding me again shutzie I see. In case you missed the memo, the core problem is long-term and significant decrease of annual inflows. The river systems you cite all are bound to snowfall for success or excess if you will. In AZ a pumpback as you describe has been in effect for decades but, it is in a Damn in the center of a chain of reservoirs that works with that centrist positioned buffer. Can you even start to comprehend the climate adjustment we are facing?


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Hi Schutze,

And then there is that little problem of obtaining a right of way for the return pipelines, which would stretch across a vast stretch of reservation, wilderness, proposed wilderness, and other sundry land holdings...

My bet is that the system you are talking about pumps it right up from close to the bottom of the dam when power/flow balancing requirements are aligned.

FWIW.

Rich Phillips


----------



## Hoops (Apr 30, 2015)

Unless you have a new scoop on physics, there is a net loos to use pump back systems; it was proposed for Storm king on the Hudson in the laTE 1950'S. tHE SOLUTION IS TO LIMIT GROWTH AND CHARGE APPROPRIATE FEES FOR WATER USAGE.


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Not kidding. The core in the show was that the river had been "over allocated". 
Global warming ................. sorry, climate change was barely mentioned.
But, a couple of good things Schutzie learned; Glen Canyon may be uncovered in my life time!


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Well yes, pumping from the bottom of the dam makes a lot of sense, but then that doesn't fill up the Dolores, which is the goal in Schutzies world.
Just sayin ..........


----------



## Schutzie (Feb 5, 2013)

Well, that was my thought, but the Swedes, they swear it works and is cost efficient and all that. Wish I could find the darn article again.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Here you go, just for fun.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/

Rich Phillips


----------



## LongmontRafter (Jun 12, 2008)

I think one importance piece of info that was missing from the documentary is what the farmers pay for their water relative to the rest of us. The documentary portrayed the "poor farmer" struggling to cope with additional costs imposed by neighboring urban centers (San Diego) when the price of water the farmer pays is so much less than what the city pays...Seems to me the onus of conservation should be on the highest consumption users...


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

Schutzie said:


> Schutzie watched the show and was disappointed. The message (don't store water in the desert) didn't offer much in the way of real world solutions.
> 
> Ironically, Schutzie became intimately familiar with a Swedish solution to limited water resource and demands on hydro power;
> As it turns out, hydro dams are most efficient when they are run at full capacity, continuously. The problem of course is that running at full capacity requires a lot more water than is generally available.
> ...


We do that too.

This is a little dated:



> "Pumped storage hydroelectric projects have been providing energy storage capacity and transmission grid ancillary benefits in the United States (U.S.) and Europe *since the 1920s*.
> ...
> *In the U.S., the existing 38 pumped hydroelectric facilities can store just over 2 percent of the country’s electrical generating capacity.* That share is small compared with Europe’s (nearly 5%) and Japan’s (about 10%). But the industry plans to build reservoirs close to existing power plants. Enough projects are being considered to double capacity. (Scientific American 2012)"


Pumped Hydroelectric Storage | Energy Storage Association

A classic is using nuclear power to pump the water back up at night. Low use time and nuclear is available in Cal. Then Hydro is run during high use and therefore high priced times.
This can also be filed under _capitalism_.


----------



## BilloutWest (Jan 25, 2013)

The best trick is to not use rivers for this at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helms_Pumped_Storage_Plant

One lake to another.

Another desirable feature here is:


> "pump-generators which serve a dual role as both pumps which can reverse into generators. "


======

Down side of course is current nuclear technology.


----------



## tanderson (Mar 26, 2010)

I just finished the documentary. It took me two days because I fell asleep. Kind of dry, but what do you expect from a water documentary. I felt like I was watching it for the second Time because it reminded me a lot of the book Cadillac desert. Which is a great book and much better than this documentary


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

I don't know what percent is lost to inefficiency in a pump back loop, but the profit is in working the peak time
Rates. There is a small hydro plant in Boulder that pumps water into the top at the off hours, low rate structure, then runs the generators at peak. 

Must be close to zero water consumption, and whatever energy is lost to friction, is more than compensated by the difference in peak rate prices. 

Of course if you wanted to you could take the excess money earned and spend it to run a play park or whitewater feature, instead of turning a profit, but that would be a tough sell for most capitalists....


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------

