WI: Rampart Dam Built

Delta Force

Banned
Underwater logging (no, really - it's a thing) would mitigate that. And, of course, the dam would take much longer than three years to build and fill, so at least some could be removed by traditional means.

From what I've read, only around 3% or so of the lumber would have been possible to extract before inundation. I'm not sure why, but I suppose having as many trees as Alaska logged in three years spread across an area at least the size of Lake Erie had something to do with that. However, apparently the prevailing water currents would have pushed most of the floating logs to one bank of the river for easy collection, which would have provided enough lumber to operate a sawmill for a few years.

Not saying it won't be an issue, but it wouldn't be the biggest. Now, completely buggering up salmon migrations on the Yukon... that would be problematic.
I think that might be possible to mitigate, although it would have been quite expensive though, raising the price of power by several mills (tenths of a cent). Table 14 on Page 23 of the official environmental impact statement for Rampart illustrates this, as the price would have gone from 3.0 mills per kWh without mitigation in the first case to 5.4 mills per kWh with mitigation, and from 2.4 mills per kWh without mitigation to 4.2 mills per kWh with mitigation in the other. Rampart would have been the largest dam built under the environmental regulations of the 1970s, so it might have been possible to build it better for that than the dams that had to be retrofitted.

That said, there probably isn't any good way to mitigate the inundation of Yukon Flats.
 
RLBH said:
It actually turns out to be quite inefficient - you're restricted by how fast water evaporates from the Mediterranean.
I never said it was practical.;) The idea of the Med ending up dry...:cool: (That, and the fact Gene did it in the novelization of "ST:TMP".;))

A slightly OT question: given there was a demand for the power, when is the earliest the Rampart project could've been built? And given the gov't is prepared to ignore the enviro effects?
 
Last edited:

Delta Force

Banned
A slightly OT question: given there was a demand for the power, when is the earliest the Rampart project could've been built? And given the gov't is prepared to ignore the enviro effects?

The Alaska Railroad would have to be expanded to the dam construction site to make it easier to bring in workers, heavy machinery, concrete, etc. However, it's possible that some of the supplies could be brought down the Yukon River. As for the construction itself, I'm not sure. Hydroelectric dams have been built in Alaska before (Salmon Creek Dam being completed as the first constant-arch concrete dam in 1914) as well as Siberia, but perhaps not so far inland. Tundra and permafrost might be an issue.
 

Delta Force

Banned
As for power consumption, I figured out why such high transmission loss rates (around 50% or so) were being cited in the 1967 project proposal. It was probably planning to use conventional alternating current. However, the Bonneville Power Administration itself was doing work on the Pacific DC Intertie to California, where one of the lines featured high voltage direct current. HVDC was and still is rare in the United States and the Pacific Intertie was built with Swedish technology, but it's worth noting that the BPA didn't bother to point that they were working on a system that could dramatically cut transmission losses out when asked to consult on the study. The study included improvements in power plant technology, but didn't include improvements in transmission technology. :rolleyes:

Wikipedia says that some HVDC systems lose only 3.5% of their power across 1000 kilometers and Fairbanks is 3735.29 kilometers from Portland by the Trans-Alaska Highway, so 87.53% of the power would make the journey (12.46% losses).
 
Delta Force said:
The Alaska Railroad would have to be expanded to the dam construction site to make it easier to bring in workers, heavy machinery, concrete, etc. However, it's possible that some of the supplies could be brought down the Yukon River. As for the construction itself, I'm not sure. Hydroelectric dams have been built in Alaska before (Salmon Creek Dam being completed as the first constant-arch concrete dam in 1914) as well as Siberia, but perhaps not so far inland. Tundra and permafrost might be an issue.
Yeah, keeping the sides of the reservoir intact would be good.:p So would preventing leaking around the dam...:eek::eek::p
Delta Force said:
As for power consumption, I figured out why such high transmission loss rates (around 50% or so) were being cited in the 1967 project proposal. It was probably planning to use conventional alternating current. However, the Bonneville Power Administration itself was doing work on the Pacific DC Intertie to California, where one of the lines featured high voltage direct current. HVDC was and still is rare in the United States and the Pacific Intertie was built with Swedish technology, but it's worth noting that the BPA didn't bother to point that they were working on a system that could dramatically cut transmission losses out when asked to consult on the study. The study included improvements in power plant technology, but didn't include improvements in transmission technology. :rolleyes:

Wikipedia says that some HVDC systems lose only 3.5% of their power across 1000 kilometers and Fairbanks is 3735.29 kilometers from Portland by the Trans-Alaska Highway, so 87.53% of the power would make the journey (12.46% losses).
I can't say much on the specifics, but AIUI, in the domestic U.S. grid at large, about two-thirds of the power generated is lost in transmission.:eek: Lots of that is to heat: something as simple as improved wire, which lost less to heat (I've read about something called glass-core wire; I can't say any more than that;)), would actually save the economy enormous amounts: nobody's actually installed any, AFAIK.:rolleyes::mad:
 
I can't say much on the specifics, but AIUI, in the domestic U.S. grid at large, about two-thirds of the power generated is lost in transmission.:eek:

Err.. What? ???
http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3 said:
EIA estimates that national electricity transmission and distribution losses average about 6% of the electricity that is transmitted and distributed in the United States each year.1
Note, too, that that is transmission and distribution, so includes all the transformers ramping voltage up and down, and the less than efficient local transmission (last mile, as it were).
 
Top