Thread: Hydroelectric power on the Big 4

If the Corp adheres to its rule curve on lake levels, l don't see how it's practical.

Originally Posted by rockmike

If the Corp adheres to its rule curve on lake levels, l don't see how it's practical.

Yep.....I don't see how it would be on a flood control lake.......looks like the cost would exceed any benefits because of irregular current flow

It works on Toledo Bend. It is twice as big as Grenada.It's is the best big bass lake in the country.

Toledo Bend Reservoir - Toledo Bend Dam and Generating Station

Originally Posted by jig rig

It works on Toledo Bend. It is twice as big as Grenada.It's is the best big bass lake in the country.

Toledo Bend Reservoir - Toledo Bend Dam and Generating Station

Exactly JR, Toledo Bend is probably 3-4 times the size of Granada, if not larger. They generate power from the generators only when they release water - a steady current is not necessary as some claim to sustain such a project. Conservation is the key, and you're right, Toledo Bend is the number one bass lake in the country. As far as generating x power to x amount of homes with a given amount of x dollars to build such a project, one must consider the payout after 10 years or so. Simple business sense. I often wondered why folks didn't install them when building a dam. They do in Texas.

I would say it may be possible. It's just one of those things where some people work out a scheme to get rich.It does not matter if its practical or needed. You start a company and work up some bogus numbers to show its viable,lobby some congressmen to support it. They manipulate some bills for some pork...job gets funded,some people get rich and politician gets some type of kick back you will probably never hear about. Taxpayer is stuck with the bill and cost of operation from now on. Even if it loses money.

10 years later some reporter is running article"Hydropower project in Mississippi is not fulfilling promise for cheap and sustainable power."

Does not matter...guy who conceived it put a million he skimmed off of it in an offshore account...sent two kids to an ivy league college...and bought a vacation house in Palm Beach Fl and a big yacht and does not work anymore. Mission accomplished.

Originally Posted by doggone

I would say it may be possible. It's just one of those things where some people work out a scheme to get rich.It does not matter if its practical or needed. You start a company and work up some bogus numbers to show its viable,lobby some congressmen to support it. They manipulate some bills for some pork...job gets funded,some people get rich and politician gets some type of kick back you will probably never hear about. Taxpayer is stuck with the bill and cost of operation from now on. Even if it loses money.

10 years later some reporter is running article"Hydropower project in Mississippi is not fulfilling promise for cheap and sustainable power."

Does not matter...guy who conceived it put a million he skimmed off of it in an offshore account...sent two kids to an ivy league college...and bought a vacation house in Palm Beach Fl and a big yacht and does not work anymore. Mission accomplished.

Could not have been said better!

Meanwhile.....they have to tear out a new cleaning station and can't figure out how to install a floating dock at Sardis. This will be another comedy of errors.

Originally Posted by doggone

I would say it may be possible. It's just one of those things where some people work out a scheme to get rich.It does not matter if its practical or needed. You start a company and work up some bogus numbers to show its viable,lobby some congressmen to support it. They manipulate some bills for some pork...job gets funded,some people get rich and politician gets some type of kick back you will probably never hear about. Taxpayer is stuck with the bill and cost of operation from now on. Even if it loses money.

10 years later some reporter is running article"Hydropower project in Mississippi is not fulfilling promise for cheap and sustainable power."

Does not matter...guy who conceived it put a million he skimmed off of it in an offshore account...sent two kids to an ivy league college...and bought a vacation house in Palm Beach Fl and a big yacht and does not work anymore. Mission accomplished.

Epic post.

One thing you left out: In the event that flood control AND power generation trump the old faithful disclaimer of, "These lakes are for flood control, not fishing.", I cannot see how the fishing would NOT be hurt to some degree. Grenada is shallow and, if you do some reading, is not silting in as bad as originally predicted, but I would imagine that regular, strong current flows would increase siltation. Therefore the reservoir's lifespan would be drastically reduced? It certainly wouldn't help things.

That is why Ross Barnett is such a luxury for Mississippians: the environment those fish live in is so much more stable than the COE lakes. I can't see how adding one more factor to the COE equation (constant, erratic current flows) would increase fishing success, and thereby increase the economic boom-town that Grenada and surrounding areas turn into during spring. Size/pole limits? Yes, THAT increases the lore of the area's lakes, but even more erratic conditions? (As a disclaimer: I fully believe the COE reservoirs serve their purpose, and, as designed, should always put the safety of MS citizens over the safety of a fish any day of the week. It is the nature of the beast, and it is the challenge of uncertain conditions that draws me to these lakes.)

But, to add to the post above, once again, the citizen-taxpayers and their local economy risk taking a very very big hit in the wallet over the long-term.