Editor,
Maceo Martinet's column about dams and water was an unfortunate escapade in poor journalism. I believe the theme was that dams are bad, causing social and environmental upheaval and lead only to excess and waste in the consumption of electricity. India is cited as an example of this, where apparently dams have displaced millions of people for the sole purpose of allowing "casino-style cities." Hoover Dam also is an example, its purpose is apparently just to supply electricity to Las Vegas. And finally, dams are redistributing water around resulting in a massive imbalance of water and the slowing of the planet's spin.
What good then are dams? Why not remove all those that are in place and plan never to build more?
Primarily, the column was ranting against hydroelectric dams, dams that only produce electricity. Of course, quite a few dams are for flood control as well as irrigation and many serve multiple purposes. However, to concentrate solely on the dams that provide electricity, I can ask again, what good are they?
Consider the alternative - what if the dams weren't there? According to Martinet, the only purpose for a hydroelectric dam is to cause wasteful urban areas. However, I suspect most of the growth in the world has very little to do with dams. If he dam wasn't there, other methods of generating electricity probably would be used.
I'm certain that they would be neither clean nor sustainable. So what's worse, displacement or acid rain? Dead migrating fish or mercury levels in the ocean going high enough to endanger children? Flooded forest, gas pipe explosion or oil spill? Ah, the response is wind and solar power.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
Let's do some back-of -the-napkin calculations. Hoover Dam is rated at 2,074,000 kilowatts. A square meter solar panel at 15 percent efficiency will generate about 150 watts in full sunlight. So, one kilowatt will require about 6.6 square meters of panel. That means to match Hoover Dam, we will require 13,688,400 square meters of solar panels, or around 5.2 square miles.
Of course, solar panels only work in the day, and each one will require space around it, so say 11 square miles of solar panels, plus all the wiring to make them work, as well as a method to store the energy for use at night. Where are the 11 square miles we're willing to sacrifice? If we use wind turbines, where will we put them? What side effects will they cause?
Of course the idea of new hydroelectric projects in New Mexico is ludicrous. We might as well tap the moon for oil. As with all things, power consumption and production are a matter of tradeoffs. I believe that solar and wind power are a better way than coal plants or dams, but they will still require a substantial investment of resources.
Our consumption of resources - especially water and power - is a serious issue. To address it in any shape or form means taking on a responsibility for getting good, relevant information - not giving glib commentary. I expect better.
Mike Ritthaler
UNM Press network
administrator
