A "REAL" SHTF problem....Lake Oroville Hydro Power Plant Shut Down.....no water.

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Sourdough

"Eleutheromaniac"
Neighbor
HCL Supporter
Joined
Mar 17, 2018
Messages
6,100
Location
In a cabin, on a mountain, in "Wilderness" Alaska.
I think there are several other hydroelectric plants on the West Coast that are in danger of shutting down.
 
I saw the news about Oroville yesterday I think. The article I found said it supplied about 80K customers with power. The way things are going in CA who's going to notice. Soon the whole state will be unfit for habitation. Will the last American to leave please bring the flag?
 
I saw the news about Oroville yesterday I think. The article I found said it supplied about 80K customers with power. The way things are going in CA who's going to notice. Soon the whole state will be unfit for habitation. Will the last American to leave please bring the flag?
Hope they don't t come to Tx, are there Americans in Ca?🤔😲
 
Power generating Dam's along the Colorado river that will be impacted are Glen Canyon Dam, (Lake Powell), Hover Dam (Lake Mead), Davis Dam (Lake Mohave), and Parker Dam (Lake Havasu); Total Power Generation at risk on just the Colorado River: 3,773 Mega Watts

Yep if they lost all that they would need a big extension cord.
Other states like Nevada, Utah, and Arizona would also feel the impact...
 
Lake Powell is the one I was trying to remember. Some articles I've read speaks to the cut back of water to pre set levels as the lakes fall for the states that draw their water from certain lakes.
Gonna be bad news if they get thru this summer if winter snows and rains are as little as this past winter was.
 
Power generating Dam's along the Colorado river that will be impacted are Glen Canyon Dam, (Lake Powell), Hover Dam (Lake Mead), Davis Dam (Lake Mohave), and Parker Dam (Lake Havasu); Total Power Generation at risk on just the Colorado River: 3,773 Mega Watts

Yep if they lost all that they would need a big extension cord.
Other states like Nevada, Utah, and Arizona would also feel the impact...

Lake Powell is the one I was trying to remember. Some articles I've read speaks to the cut back of water to pre set levels as the lakes fall for the states that draw their water from certain lakes.
Gonna be bad news if they get thru this summer if winter snows and rains are as little as this past winter was.
It's all global warming!
Now see, if they all just drove electric vehicles, we could lower our carbon emissions and they would be...
(Wait a minute, I can't read my 'green notes' because the lights went off :rolleyes:).
 
Last edited:
Power generating Dam's along the Colorado river that will be impacted are Glen Canyon Dam, (Lake Powell), Hover Dam (Lake Mead), Davis Dam (Lake Mohave), and Parker Dam (Lake Havasu); Total Power Generation at risk on just the Colorado River: 3,773 Mega Watts

Yep if they lost all that they would need a big extension cord.
Other states like Nevada, Utah, and Arizona would also feel the impact...
No thinking ahead, surprised Ca made it this far👎
 
It's all global warming!
Now see, if they all just drove electric cars, we could lower our carbon emissions and they would be...
(Wait a minute, I can't read my 'green notes' because the lights went off :rolleyes:).
If Biden visits he won't be able to read the teleprompter. Guess he can take a nap😁
 
I know this is about hydro power. There is certainly a need to consider other sources of power.

I have always found it ironic that California has a long coast to the Pacific Ocean, and all that water. Sure, it is salt water, but why haven't plants been built to process water for the needs of Californians.

My uncle who was an engineer for a large county in California once said to me, "And Colorado won't give us more water." Like that is MY problem? The decision about how much water California gets from the Colorado River was made more than 100 years ago. He's an engineer, why not figure out how to use some of that water that is on your coast? Too expensive.

The photos of the low water levels really tell it all. It is really not good.

Get your rain barrels filled folks. And whatever other possibilities you have for water.
 
Weedy it has always been easy for Cali to take or "buy" cheap water. You are correct that they , as other countries have, could / should build desalinization plants. Problem is, they are giving too many hand outs so likely its unaffordable. The other issue is simply that without fossil fuels, the power grid would never be able to sustain the demands needed to run those plants. It seems like every other plan a certain group creates. They hated the last president and supposedly voted "en mass" for the new regime. Let them reap what they have sown at this point.
 
Weedy it has always been easy for Cali to take or "buy" cheap water. You are correct that they , as other countries have, could / should build desalinization plants. Problem is, they are giving too many hand outs so likely its unaffordable. The other issue is simply that without fossil fuels, the power grid would never be able to sustain the demands needed to run those plants. It seems like every other plan a certain group creates. They hated the last president and supposedly voted "en mass" for the new regime. Let them reap what they have sown at this point.

Nuclear would be an easy solution, but the cali's would probably rather die than admit it.
 
^ ..Maybe in "The Future"..
Photo-Oct-31-8-41-35-AM.jpg
🤓

..If-only.. THAT's what 'Musk' should be working on.. Oh well, maybe someday..

.02
jd
 
If you built the Nuclear reactors and the desalting plants in Mexico, then California could import what they need and keep their clean image (illusion). The cost will be high, but when the water runs out and the lights go dark it will be a little late........

But they can legislate rain.... just vote it in and it will happen... ;)
 
They could always put in "green" nuclear. LFTR reactors are walk away safe and don't produce long lived waste fuel.
 
Today I see that they (the Government) have announced a water emergency for the Colorado River, this is a big deal because it will give the cities a way to divert water from agriculture in the Yuma and Imperial valleys. This will impact the green vegetables grown in the USA this winter... We will start to see this impact our grocery stores sooner than one would expect, crops grow in months but they die in days when you shut off the water......
 
They could always put in "green" nuclear. LFTR reactors are walk away safe and don't produce long lived waste fuel.
And if they actually worked, they would be EVERYWHERE!
https://thebulletin.org/2019/12/fact-check-five-claims-about-thorium-made-by-andrew-yang/
Above said:
Claim: Thorium reactors would be more economical than traditional uranium reactors, particularly because thorium is more abundant than uranium, has more energy potential than uranium, and doesn’t have to be enriched.

False. Although thorium is more abundant than uranium, the cost of uranium is a small fraction of the overall cost of nuclear energy.
Additionally, there is technically no such thing as a thorium reactor. Thorium has no isotopes that readily fission to produce energy. So thorium is not usable as a fuel directly, but is instead a fertile nucleus that can be converted to uranium in a reactor. Only after conversion to uranium does thorium become useful as a nuclear fuel. So, even for a reactor that would use thorium within its fuel cycle, most energy produced would actually come from uranium fissions.
Above said:
Claim: The waste from thorium reactors would be easier to deal with than waste from today’s uranium reactors.

False. A comprehensive study from the US Energy Department in 2014 found that waste from thorium-uranium fuel cycles has similar radioactivity at 100 years to uranium-plutonium fuel cycles, and actually has higher waste radioactivity at 100,000 years.
 
There was a plan, many years ago, to build a pipeline from the Unuk River, near where I am now, to California to provide fresh water.
It's ok. They would just flush it out to the ocean like they do a majority of their water, you know, to save the delta smelt :thumbs:.
https://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hannity-california-water-to-pacific-little-tiny-fish-2020-10
Above said:
[2019]The Trump administration has moved to roll back protections for the fish to direct more water to farmers, who are among the president's strongest supporters in the state.
Unprompted, he said in a response to a question about a Green New Deal touted by some Democrats: "California is going to have to ration water. You know why? Because they send millions of gallons of water out to sea, out to the Pacific, because they want to take care of certain little tiny fish that aren't doing very well without water, to be honest with you. But it's a very sad thing that's happening." ...
A 2015 Wall Street Journal op-ed article said that 1.4 trillion gallons of water had been pumped into the San Francisco Bay since 2008 to support the fish. In 2016, Trump, then a presidential candidate, claimed that there was no drought and that policies redirecting water "out to sea" were harming farmers.
Don't worry, I'm sure they have reversed that and are back to dumping as much fresh water as they can into the ocean, to save the little fishies
flower70.gif
.
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-10-22/trump-weakens-endangered-species-protections-california-salmon-delta-smelt
 
Last edited:
California is a perfect example of UTOPIA, you have environmentalists who fight to stop any projects that "hurt" nature (including power generation, water desalination, and agriculture), you have liberal politicians who want to spend every penny they can find on give away programs while ignoring the basics (including power generation, salt water desalination, agriculture) they want to import their power and divert water 500 miles to avoid spending money to convert salt water into drinking water (like they are afraid of draining the ocean but not the rivers?) and you have illiterate constituents who just want their free everything (todo gratis)..... What could possibly go wrong?

Most preppers know that you need clean Water, Food, Shelter and Power to maintain your way of life, if you don't have these you are hosed.... The people in charge of California are what I would call anti-preppers, they aren't against it, they just ignore all the basics while chasing a fantasy UTOPIA.....

No, the UTOPIA relies on supplies and services from over the horizon and when those supplies dry up Rome will burn....
 
Supervisor,
I don't know where you got your information but in 1965 the first liquid Fluoride Thorium reactor went critical. It was tested for several years and then shut down because the infrastructure had been set up for the high pressure Uranium/Plutonium reactors that could produce bomb material.
The test article at Oak Ridge National Labs was shut down.
The Liquid salt reactors don't use the high pressures of the Uranium /Plutonium water cooled reactors. You don't need to cool the liquid salt reactors and the thorium cycle is completely "walk away" safe. The only way you can make long lived isotopes with Thorium is to use it in combination with uranium and plutonium in a high pressure water cooled reactor. The Thorium cycle operates at near atmospheric pressure and produces no actinides that are not used up in the cycle.
All you have to do is search for liquid fluoride thorium reactor and you can get a lot more real information. HERE is one strong proponent who got his information from the Oak Ridge National lab history.
 
Back
Top