Slashdot Mirror


Damming News From Washington State

Trax3001BBS writes "A 65-foot (20-meter) crack has been found in Wanapum Dam, one of the major dams along the Columbia River in southern Washington. Water levels are being lowered to both reduce water pressure and give the inspectors access to the area. 'Earlier this week, an engineer noticed a slight irregular "bowing" above the spillway gates near where cars can drive across the dam. When divers finally took a look under water they found a 2-inch-wide crack that stretched for 65 feet along the base of one of the dam's spillway piers.' The article goes on to say, 'Even if the dam doesn't fail, the significance of the damage is likely to require extensive repairs and that, too, could impact the entire Columbia River system. "All these dams coordinate to generate energy on a regional scope," Stedwick said. "If Wanapum is impacted, that has impacts on dams upstream as well as below." Upstream dams would be required to handle more water; there's only one lower dam (Priest Rapids). After that is the last free flowing section of the Columbia river. I've taken walks along that section, and I've seen it deviate (higher or lower) by amazing amount of water, so it can handle the changing flow rate. Making this situation more complex, a large group of people would like that particular dam removed, as well as the one above and below it (think of the fish!). On top of that, after the Priest Rapids dam (downstream from Wanapum Dam) is the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, once a site for Plutonium production. Either of these issues could generate a ton of attention. Personally, I'd like to give the engineer that noticed a slight irregular 'bowing' my congratulations."

168 comments

  1. WTF? by Sharkyfour · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I know this is going to kill my karma, but WTF?? That is the most poorly written article I've ever seen on here and I'd wager that most would find it completely off-topic for the site. Combined with the new commenting system, and I think my days here are over. It's been a fun ride, but adios Slashdot.

    1. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I have to agree. Why was this posted here? Because a civil engineer spotted a crack? The link between "news for nerds" and a cracked dam is pretty tenuous.

    2. Re:WTF? by PPH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That is the most poorly written article I've ever seen on here

      Stand by ....

      and I'd wager that most would find it completely off-topic for the site.

      Why? It deals with engineering and technology. If it was a crack in a Shuttle SRB seal we'd be discussing it. It may not be cool and sexy like the latest s/w SNAFU, but infrastructure gobbles up a lot of money and its maintenance (or lack thereof) is a major issue in this country and others.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's because the Republicans want us all to die. They killed my mother with a different dam so this is nothing out of the ordinary for Republicans.

    4. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      Um, you know, geeks aren't just interested in the latest software abomination running on 200 incomprehensible layers of poorly documented features to run some game on a cell phone for about a week, you know?

    5. Re: WTF? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      It's because the Republicans want us All to die. They killed my mother with a different dam so this is nothing out of the ordinary for Republicans.

      Washington state mostly voted for a democrat in the last presidential election. Has a democrat for governor. Has six members who are democrat to four republican in the US house of representatives and both senators are democrats. Is 55 to 43 in favor of the democrats in the lower state house. And is 26 to 23 in favor of the dems in the state senate. But the republicans are responsible for this dam? If that's the case, the democrats in that state should all be shot for gross incompetence. Or perhaps the republicans used voodoo? I've heard they do eat their young, on occasion.

      I'm sorry to hear about your mother. But if somehow the government was responsible, then you need to direct your ire toward both parties as there is no way only one party could have done this without the other at least knowing.

      Most likely someone screwed up in the engineering, or something was wrong with a batch of concrete. Worst case, an inspector got paid to look the other way. Or missed something.

    6. Re: WTF? by xyzzyman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless the damn was built after using 3d rendered models and ran through thousands of simulations then it isn't "tech". It took no math or science to build the Erie Canal, the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal. In seriousness this is a better story on the site than a story about outstanding student loan debt. The engineering in projects like this and what it will take to fix it requires the same skills as people who design realistic game environments and physics simulators, etc. Many facets all come into play. Anyone who doesn't see this as "news for nerds" should probably go visit the Hoover Dam or tour an aircraft carrier.

    7. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bull shit. The republicans. Rule Seattle. They make sure a certain percentage of us die of starvation.

    8. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *whoooooooooosssssshhhhhhhh* talk about missing something!

    9. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the conservative vati e apass vole here will never recognize
      That. They want us to die. They hate everyone. They kill and tape women which is ll they want todo. Everyone of those Republicans want us
      To die.

    10. Re: WTF? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It took no math or science to build the Erie Canal, the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal.

      Unfortunately, I had to read the rest of your post three times to make sure you weren't seriously claiming this. It's amazing the number of self-proclaimed nerds who don't seem to understand that technology actually does predate computers.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    11. Re: WTF? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Clearly the dam isn't the only thing that's cracked.

    12. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans malice to seer people die. They alway rape women. Guck those stupid white peiple that worship. The ikjj. So typical if their kid. They're all racist. That is the American way. The Apl want us to siÃcle c that is what they are all like. Death is the Republucan way.

    13. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But crack are the excuse of the KKk. They hate everyone.

    14. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They want chdrwb that don't gave parents that work to due. That are horrible pweor. My bass is one ls them. That are horrible.

    15. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a poorly written statement. You mix sarcasm with "seriousness" and do it in an unclear manner. Best to stick with one or the other in the future.

    16. Re: WTF? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      could somebody beat this guy on the head with a few sliderules?? and then stone him with the beads from a few hundred abacuses??

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    17. Re: WTF? by ALeader71 · · Score: 0

      Agreed. There are supposedly well educated people who believe none of the public works projects like Hoover Dam used private companies to build them. Thankfully a simple search proves them wrong.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
    18. Re: WTF? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Clean out your keyboard chucko. Those Dorito bits are messing things up again.

      And the Red Bull; that stuff is dissolving your brain. Take it from someone experienced in these matters - switch to Dr. Pepper.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    19. Re:WTF? by pigiron · · Score: 1

      It certainly is badly written and factually incorrect. There are free running sections of the Columbia both above and below this particular dam. Think above Roosevelt Lake on the Canadian side of the boarder and below Bonneville for starters.

    20. Re: WTF? by mikael · · Score: 1

      Modern engineering systems using physics based model that are run on accurate geometric models of the terrain, the underlying rock geology, rainfall and a high resolution model of the proposed construction structure (Finite Element Analysis) . All of that geometry is acquired using laser scanners, radar mapping, geological investigation, geophysics, geomagnetics. Then all that data is used to run the simulation.

      Modern game engines use physics based systems that work with geometric models created by artists and animators.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    21. Re: WTF? by Albanach · · Score: 1

      And he goes on to claim we need "the same skills as people who design realistic game environments and physics simulators, etc." in a comment where he dismissed the importance of student loan debt in the tech. world.

    22. Re: WTF? by prezkennedy.org · · Score: 1
      It took no math or science to build the Hoover Dam?

      Are you stupid?

      It takes math just to put up shelves in the bathroom.

      Also, it's a dam. Not a damn. Damn!

      --
      It started back in Team Fortress Classic
    23. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever been to Seattle? It's a liberal cesspool.

    24. Re: WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you dont buy the its tech argument this for a minute its not like 20K men for $1 a day are going to fix or build a new dam using dynamite and pick axes

      and if its got a 2 inch wide 65 feet it doesnt sound like its a fixable dam

  2. people cheer as world ends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    cloned dinosaurs escape their cages and stampede the earth, sending millions of flesh light users into the depths of the earth, where still more dinosaurs eat them and hang some as tapestries.

    1. Re:people cheer as world ends by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      WTF.. I goggled flesh light thinking it was something I should know but never heard of before. Surprisingly, it's a masturbation product. So why do you think only males who masturbate with a flashlight looking thing will be sent into the depths of the earth and what makes you think there are millions of them?

      I mean hell, I can deal with the dinosaurs.. I just don't know about the flesh light things.

    2. Re:people cheer as world ends by torsmo · · Score: 1

      You have to be hung like a tapestry to understand fleshlights.

  3. Dam it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nt

  4. Well fix the dam thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't just write about it, fix the dam thing! You need to be proud of a water works. Think of the first people who stared at it at its completion. I can see them now, a father and his daughter, and the father says, "That is a fine dam thing."

    1. Re:Well fix the dam thing! by xyzzyman · · Score: 2

      All I see is Beavis asking, "Is this a God dam?"

    2. Re:Well fix the dam thing! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Most of the Columbia River dams were built in the 1950s after Harry Truman strong-armed Congress into passing the Flood Control Act of 1950 due to the second largest city in Oregon being wiped off the map when a levy broke in 1948.

      Unfortunately we don't build things anymore. We barely maintain them.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  5. Sing a long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Bow down to Washington!"

    what, too soon?

    how about "Roll on Columbia, Roll on"?
    "Washington my home"?

    1. Re:Sing a long by PPH · · Score: 1
      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  6. WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can't hey just open up the spillways of the down river dam so they can lower the water level?
    Or is this just some BS about not wanting to waste power generating capacity?

    I'm sure all that money will help you when the dam breaks due to your delaying. Then again, the people deciding these things probably won't even be affected.

    1. Re:WTF by tysonedwards · · Score: 1

      There is this crazy new idea called "wanting to deal with the excess water" should one "just open up the spillways".

      The water goes somewhere, after all. Would probably piss off a bunch of home owners in Beverly should their riverfront homes quite suddenly become riverboat homes.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re:WTF by PNutts · · Score: 2

      Actually, "bring it on". Bonneville (one of the five dams below it) generates a considerable amount of power for my area. On the other hand, we'll need that water this summer if we don't get more snowpack in the mountains.

    3. Re:WTF by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      okay have somebody throw a bottle of water at you kind of hurts right?? Now have somebody do that with say ten thousand bottles??

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    4. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they built their houses right up to the low water level they deserve what they get.
      Generally there should be some amount of flooding taken into account, especially since dams like any man made structure don't last forever.
      The entire point of having spillways is so excess water can be released.

    5. Re:WTF by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      It's more about being able to still have agriculture in the hundreds of thousands of acres that get irrigated from the reservoirs behind the dams. These hydropower projects had three objectives, all wildly successful for the last 50 years:

      1. Flood control
      2. Electricity generation
      3. Irrigation of the high plains surrounding the Columbia River

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  7. I've got nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What did the fish say when he swam into a wall?

    1. Re:I've got nothing by michrech · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it was established that the fish say, "blub blub blub".

      --
      bork bork bork!
    2. Re:I've got nothing by wooferhound · · Score: 1

      Dam . . . There's a wall there . . .

      --
      We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
  8. Lower the river, obviously by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If there is only one dam below Wanapum, this will be easy. But don't miss an opportunity to throw in a totally irrelevant mention of the Hanford nuclear weapons complex - you know, that place that itself gets irrelevantly dragged into any discussion of commercial nuclear power.

    1. Re:Lower the river, obviously by murphtall · · Score: 1

      irrelevant? *blinks* hanford being downstream from a damned leaking dam is irrelevant? (Here's a map ) *blinks* hanford being the one that was leaking just months ago? http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-20...> maybe it's just me but i see the relevance

    2. Re:Lower the river, obviously by PNutts · · Score: 1

      Yes. And we don't have to worry about Trojan anymore. But now that I think about it the containment wessel was shipped to Hansford and buried. It would be a real bitch to see that thing floating back downriver.

    3. Re:Lower the river, obviously by QuasiEvil · · Score: 2

      Hanford, for the most part, sits high above the Columbia. A few feet of rise in the Columbia would almost certainly change nothing in relation to stored radioactive sludge tanks. Any ground seepage that was going on yesterday will still go on tomorrow, but as a bonus, the additional flow will provide greater dilution... It's a total red herring in this discussion.

    4. Re:Lower the river, obviously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hanford is a flood plain, at least as defined by insurance companies. Most downriver communities are as well, some for similar reasons.

    5. Re:Lower the river, obviously by Jawnn · · Score: 3, Informative

      If there is only one dam below Wanapum, this will be easy.

      Not so much. The author of TFS is an idiot. He missed McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville dams.

    6. Re:Lower the river, obviously by riverat1 · · Score: 2

      The interesting thing about the Hanford reach of the Columbia River is that it is one of the few free flowing sections of the river above Bonneville Dam. Because of the Hanford Reservation it is also undeveloped and as wild as any section of the river in the US. It is home to one of the healthiest runs of Chinook Salmon in the Columbia River system.

    7. Re:Lower the river, obviously by brausch · · Score: 2

      Point: there are quite a few Columbia River dams downstream of Wanapum, not just one. There is only one below Wanapum and above the free-flowing stretch of the Columbia, but that is only about 60 miles or so. Then there are a few hundred more miles of river with several more dams.

      Point: there are many buried reactor cores at Hanford. Hanford is large though, over 500 square miles, and they are not subject to flooding even if the dam was gone.

      Biggest concern at the moment is the potential fluctuations in the cost of electricity.

      --
      "Almost every wise saying has an opposite one, no less wise, to balance it." - George Santayana
    8. Re:Lower the river, obviously by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      So on a river with so many dams, including some far bigger than the Wanapum, lowering the Wanapum pool as far as possible is not going to affect the overall flow that much.

    9. Re:Lower the river, obviously by Nethead · · Score: 1

      But Rocky Reach has a cool electrical museum. Anyway I always thought that Wanapum was closer to Matawa than Vantage.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    10. Re:Lower the river, obviously by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Point: there are quite a few Columbia River dams downstream of Wanapum, not just one. There is only one below Wanapum and above the free-flowing stretch of the Columbia, but that is only about 60 miles or so. Then there are a few hundred more miles of river with several more dams.

      There's a number of dams upstream as well - in fact, above the 49th.

      It's kind of interesting since the US has a treaty with Canada over the Columbia river - for a long time, the US has been paying Canada (BC, more specifically) to help control the flow. That treaty hasn't expired yet, but the treaty allows for renegotiation of rates and such, which happens within the next year or so. Naturally, the US doesn't want to pay since they believe the electricity generated north of the border more than compensates for calming the river downstream south of the border.

      Who gets their way? It'll be interesting, since the primary reason for it is to regulate the flow upstream

    11. Re:Lower the river, obviously by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      The author is correct, but he expressed it in a very awkward way: below Wanapum Dam is Priest Rapids Dam, and below that is the Hanford Reach, a free-flowing section of the river. If Wanapum fails, the Priest Rapids reservoir needs to absorb the entire flood; releasing it will cause flooding in the Hanford area.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    12. Re:Lower the river, obviously by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      There's more than one dam downriver. In fact, there are five:

      Priest Rapids Dam
      McNary Dam
      John Day Dam
      The Dalles Dam
      Bonnevile Dam

      But hey, we're only talking about 7.1 cubic kilometers of water behind those 5, right? What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    13. Re:Lower the river, obviously by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      Precisely why lowering the Wanapum pool in a controlled manner before it breaches would dramatically reduce the probability that anything would happen to all those cubic kilometers. There will be increased flow through the other dams for a time until this is accomplished, but no net change in the other pool levels.

    14. Re:Lower the river, obviously by slampman · · Score: 1

      "Not so much. The author of TFS is an idiot. He missed McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville dams."

      Thank you. That really irked me. "the last free-flowing section of the Columbia River." No, not so much.

  9. Moisture inside the dam wall by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    I believe the biggest problem with cracked dam walls is that moisture gets into the interior of the wall and softens the material which is keeping it strong. Then the crack opens a little bit more, more water gets in and you have a nice exponential curve happening.

    There was a rumour about this happening to the hume reservoir in Australia about 20 years ago.

    1. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Informative

      Water doesn't "soften" concrete. H2O is molecularly bound into its structure and is a necessary part of maintaining the strength of concrete. Water invading earthen dams, on the other hand, is a more serious problem.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    2. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A little water can be ok.

      Too much water can be bad.

    3. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't they use rebar in concrete dams? Once the rebar is exposed, especially in an underwater environment, you're pretty screwed.

    4. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by QuasiEvil · · Score: 1

      It doesn't damage the concrete, but it sure as hell damages the reinforcing steel.

    5. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Informative

      The steel is bathed in moisture for decades without weakening. Concrete hardens and is stronger under water. Water cracks concrete via the thaw freeze cycle. Water enters the void, freezes, expands, widens the void. But a 60 foot long crack suggests something shifted under the damn.

    6. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by rhook · · Score: 2

      I don't know about all dams but the Hoover Dam is not reinforced.

    7. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      It has nothing to do with the moisture. It has to do with pressure. A dam represents a boundary layer between high pressure (behind the dam) and low pressure (air in front of the dam. An intact dam's structure distributes those stresses evenly throughout its structure, and transfers them into the mountains/hills at the sides of the dam. A crack shifts the stresses which would've been borne by the cracked section to the uncracked sections, and particularly at the corners of the cracks. The high stresses at the corners cause the crack to grow. Eventually the crack grows large enough that the stresses are more than the uncracked section can withstand, and the dam fails.

      That's what the engineer noticed. The dam was bulging because the uncracked section was holding back so much more stress than its design load that it physically deformed. 65 feet is a damn big crack (no pun intended). That engineer deserves a ticker tape parade in his honor.

    8. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of attention has to be paid to the chemical and pH environment within concrete to stop the rebar from corroding. The steel within the concrete is not "bathed" in moisture in the sense it makes no difference if it is in the concrete or the bottom of a reservoir. It is a serious issue when the rebar starts to corrode from incoming moisture and/or from screwing up the chemistry of the concrete, and the signs of it happening are distinctive and easy to see in some amounts in a lot of constructions. The issue is that long before the corrosion is enough to weaken the rebar, its growth increases the volume of the rebar which eventually causes the concrete to crack. Near the surface, you get a distinctive flaking off of concrete and exposed rusting rebar. Otherwise it is much like the way ice damages rocks, but it is continuous instead of cyclic.

    9. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 1

      Not sure what you mean by water "invading" earthen dams... but just for the record, earth dams are always full of water that seeps through the component soils to one degree or another. High flow (in cracks say, or because of overtopping) is a problem at it will cause erosion, which may eventually lead to failure, but water "invading" them is not a problem, it's a given.

      That being said, you are correct in mentionning that concrete actually requires water to harden through hydration. The problem with cracks in a concrete dam, is that they propagate, and the pressure of the water will certainly help them do so.

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    10. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well sort of anyway. What water will do is corrode the rebar which swells when the iron oxides accumulate on the rebar. That pulverises the concrete near the rebar thus softening the concrete. These days shist can be melted and formed into rebar which has no iron and will not react to water within the concrete. Rebar made from shist has unusually high strength compared to iron rods and also has far less weight. If the cement is from volcanic sources and shist is used for rebar very long lasting concrete can be created that will even last for centuries when submerged in salt water.
                          I will also say that it is obvious that nuclear reactors have been built in places that never should have been used and these sites are a serious threat to te survival of the human race. Ask Japan what can happen if a reactor is near a beach.

    11. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true. Water only causes rust if there's oxygen present. If there's no oxygen dissolved in the water, then you don't get rust.

    12. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by confused+one · · Score: 1

      The biggest problem with cracking in a concrete dam wall is the stress it creates on the surrounding material, and the concentration of forces created at the crack edges. I know this is /. but might I suggest you read something on crack propagation?

    13. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by wagnerrp · · Score: 1

      Not true. There's oxygen present in the water itself. Pure water tends to not rust iron, as there is no conductivity to drive the electrochemical reaction. River water is not "pure", but will have lots of salts and other dissolved solids that will raise the conductivity of the water and allow the reaction to occur.

    14. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by matfud · · Score: 1

      The Hover dam is not reinforced but is full of 1 inch diameter steel pipes (that were used for cooling)

    15. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. That there is a visible deformation of the surface of the dam indicates that there is much more than just the crack to deal with.

    16. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The core of most dams is not concrete but compacted aggregate of some kind. Since the surface of the dam is visibly deformed, It is highly likely that the core is losing its integrity.

    17. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Not true. Water only causes rust if there's oxygen present. If there's no oxygen dissolved in the water, then you don't get rust.

      Explain fish gills if you would, please.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

      Rebar can sit outside in the elements for decades. I've got some in my backyard now. Ironically, one of the best corrosion preventatives is surface rust. It's when you combine the moisture with water movement, like in a river or pond, the water can not only corrode it but carry away the surface rust exposing new material to oxidation. Buried in concrete, that oxidation isn't going anywhere, no matter how much water is there. The PH of concrete settles down after a while. For example, you can build some nifty concrete decorations for your fishtank but you have to soak them in water for about 3 months before the PH normalizes or it will kill your fish.

    19. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Hover dam is not reinforced but is full of 1 inch diameter steel pipes (that were used for cooling)

      I've seen some of them myself, the pipes are rather small and spaced pretty far apart so they don't count as reinforcement.

    20. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by jkflying · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the rust is larger than the steel that produced it. This expansion can cause cracks in the concrete similar to how ice can cause cracks.

      --
      Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
    21. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by matfud · · Score: 1

      In an inadvertant way they do.

      However they still have the potential to cause similar problems (rust) as reinforcement bars can. That depends on what kind of steel was used and many other things. They do not seem to be a problem at the moment though. The builders also seemed to get lucky as the agregate they used does not react with alkaline moisture which could make it brittle.

    22. Re:Moisture inside the dam wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The steel oxidises. Iron oxide is larger than the original material.
      It fails. You predict the life of a structure in the water by how many inches of concrete between the water and the rebar.

  10. up vs down stream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't the Downstream dams be the ones required to handle the excess water flowing past Wapanum? Someone needs to lookup the definitions for up/downstream.

    1. Re:up vs down stream by Oysterville · · Score: 1

      Not really. Anything upstream would have to take at least part of the load.

    2. Re:up vs down stream by rhook · · Score: 1

      Not if the upstream dams slow down their output. That would lower the levels downstream.

  11. William Mulholland didn't take action by kriston · · Score: 4, Informative

    William Mulholland didn't take action when the St. Francis Dam performed similarly, and after his inspection, killed up to 600 people twelve hours after his inspection.

    --

    Kriston

    1. Re:William Mulholland didn't take action by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      William Mulholland didn't take action when the St. Francis Dam performed similarly, and after his inspection, killed up to 600 people twelve hours after his inspection.

      The situation is just a *bit* more complex than your soundbite would indicate - and any repairs made on the cracks he inspected on the 12th of March would almost certainly have been just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It's almost certain that the foundation on the west end of the dam had already been fatally compromised and the cracks were a symptom of the impending failure rather than the cause.

    2. Re:William Mulholland didn't take action by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's almost certain that the foundation on the west end of the dam had already been fatally compromised and the cracks were a symptom of the impending failure rather than the cause.

      Could the same not be true in this case as well? Even if the dam is irreparably damaged, this will at least hopefully give enough warning to relieve the pressure or in the worst case scenario, evacuate the immediate down-stream area.

    3. Re:William Mulholland didn't take action by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Possibly, but I don't think it likely. The St Francis had numerous cracks and symptoms of problems over an extended period of time. (And if you had read TFA, you'll find they are drawing down the reservoir behind the dam, to relieve the pressure.)

    4. Re:William Mulholland didn't take action by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 1

      (And if you had read TFA, you'll find they are drawing down the reservoir behind the dam, to relieve the pressure.)

      Hate to burst your bubble, but that was in the *summary* and it's actually to allow better access to assess the situation. My guess is the will wait until after the assessment to raise the water level back up.

    5. Re:William Mulholland didn't take action by kriston · · Score: 1

      But Mulholland did not draw down the water behind the St. Francis despite so many warnings of impending failure, and 600 people died as a result.

      --

      Kriston

  12. Any pictures? by elliott666 · · Score: 1

    Any pictures of the crack? Save the story for later.

    1. Re:Any pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just do a google image search for gapping crack.

    2. Re:Any pictures? by PNutts · · Score: 1, Funny

      For the love of god don't waken the goatse guy.

    3. Re:Any pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the Republicans disagree, he would agree with all of the high caste people I know. The Republicans are trying to destroy that lifestyle.

  13. "Think of the Fish" by Oysterville · · Score: 3, Informative

    That last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River that the OP mentions is also the last stretch of Columbia River that maintains spawning habitat. It also accounts for a very large portion of the salmon that return through the Columbia River estuary every year. If removing this dam would open up more spawning habitat, this would not be a bad thing.

    1. Re:"Think of the Fish" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you stop to take fisheries into account? They release a ton of salmon and other fish every year.

      http://wdfw.wa.gov/hatcheries/...

      While more spawning habitat would not be a bad thing, they're not the only source of fish.

    2. Re:"Think of the Fish" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They release a ton of salmon and other fish every year.

      According to your link, they release about five and a half tons of salmon... every day.

    3. Re:"Think of the Fish" by Jawnn · · Score: 0

      That last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River that the OP mentions is also the last stretch of Columbia River that maintains spawning habitat.

      You mean the stretch that actually has four more dams on it? That free flowing stretch?

    4. Re:"Think of the Fish" by PPH · · Score: 1

      "Think of the Sea Lions"

      FTFY.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:"Think of the Fish" by Oysterville · · Score: 1

      The Hanford reach is what I am referring to. The stretch that isn't dammed because of where it is. That stretch.

    6. Re:"Think of the Fish" by Oysterville · · Score: 1

      Now that we have at least temporarily stopped commercial netting of the sea lion primary preferred food source (smelt), perhaps they will go back to eating those.

    7. Re:"Think of the Fish" by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Losing the 1.1MW of "green" electricity that Wanapum produces might turn out to be a bad thing.

      But hey, that's what we've got the coal generator at Boardman for, right?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  14. Netflix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there is a downstream issues with the water bandwidth, maybe the dam should strike a deal with Netflix as well?

  15. RAF refuses comment by Nimey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Meanwhile, the RAF categorically denies that an Avro Lancaster was seen near the dam earlier that day.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
  16. Obligatory Gallagher joke by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

    Water levels are being lowered to both reduce water pressure and give the inspectors access to the area.

    "This just shows how the government wastes your money. They've even got dam inspectors. We don't need no dam inspectors."

  17. rack off beta by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yes pbeta sucks

  18. could've been huge. hydro failure killed 200,000 by raymorris · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sure glad they caught it. China has a similar series of hydroelectric dams. A failure caused a domino effect and when the Banquai dam failed it killed 200,000 people. I know TFA says the failure of this one dam wouldn't kill that many people, but that assumes the sudden tidal-wave-like flood doesn't effect the downstream dams. A domino failure on the Columbia river would be a catastrophe.

  19. O.M.G by malakai · · Score: 4, Funny

    This is the problem with Hydro power. This is why we should go 100% solar and not use electricity at night. We can't safely use Hydro, it's too dangerous, the pressure levels and engineering is too dangerous and a single mistake could kill an entire ecosystem.

    Think of the children down river from this dam!

    If you have any incandescent bulbs, _YOU'RE_ to blame as well.

    -Francis Candlemaker

    1. Re:O.M.G by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      You joke, but the worst power generation-related accident in history was the failure of a series of hydroelectric dams. About 30x more deaths than estimated by the UN and WHO to have been caused by Chernobyl.

      I don't mean to say coal and oil are safer - they kill far more when used as intended. But the fact that the fuel needs to be delivered to a combustion chamber means you can usually cut off the energy source, limiting the scope of a single accident. That's not the case with hydro - once the water gets moving, there's pretty much nothing anything man-made can do to stop it. All that energy is gonna be released. Likewise, nuclear rates high in risk because the energy density of the fuel is so high - a million times higher than petroleum. Solar and wind would appear to be low-risk, but that's an illusion generated by their low energy density. When you normalize for how many solar panels or wind turbines need to be installed and maintained to generate 1 GWh of electricity, they end up killing more people than nuclear.

      Everything has risk. The question isn't how much risk there is per disaster. It's how much risk there is per unit of energy generated.

    2. Re:O.M.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not impossible to use solar and forms of storage such as hot salts or hydrolysis on industrial scales or batteries on a small scale, but it is not ideal. Wind can offset requirements, of course, but there can still be gaps in provision. No energy generation system is without negative consequences, and it wouldn't be appropriate to put all eggs into one basket.

    3. Re:O.M.G by dbIII · · Score: 1

      and not use electricity at night

      If you look at demand curves it's pretty close to that already unless it's somewhere cold.

    4. Re:O.M.G by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      This is why we should go 100% solar and not use electricity at night.

      Damn. I can't find the link -- maybe this?

      I remember reading an article maybe 5 years ago about how in Europe (Germany?) they were providing subsidies for solar power. During an audit, they discovered one company providing (and billing for) generating solar power at night.

      How? Easy: diesel generators.

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    5. Re:O.M.G by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Actually you do kinda have a point, even though your post is supposed to be a parody of anti-nuclear arguments on safety grounds. It seems that organizations, particularly commercial ones, are terrible at maintaining safety over long periods of time. Safety costs money and the temptation is to just put it off until the individual responsible moves on and it becomes someone else's problem to break the bad news to the people holding the purse strings.

      Fukushima could have been prevented if TEPCO had made the necessary improvements they were told to make, or spent more money training staff for emergencies. Numerous air disasters could have been prevented if the airline had spend more money on maintenance and upgrades, like heated pitot tubes. Design flaws in cars that were known about have killed people.

      Mostly we accept these things because we like low prices and the number of people killed is deemed an acceptable cost to maintain them. I would argue that in the case of nuclear and some hydro installations the cost is unacceptable. I don't know enough about this dam to say if that is the case here, but as a general principal I'd say that there has to be some upper limit on risk/cost we are willing to tolerate.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:O.M.G by ALeader71 · · Score: 1

      So we should follow North Korea's example and have a government enforced "lights out" policy? No thanks. I prefer the 21st century over the 18th.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
    7. Re:O.M.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NK is doing a lot better than the rest of the world on the light pollution front. I like being able to look up at a dark sky and see tons of stars and the Milky Way.

    8. Re:O.M.G by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      > I don't mean to say coal and oil are safer - they kill far more when used as intended.

      They save magnitudes more through modern lifestyles than they cost. You can't pick and choose and say "lookee at the deaths!" while ignoring what it saves...vs. dirt-floored existence.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:O.M.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it was "easier" to generate, thus it was first implemented and there has been more hydroelectric plants? I see your comment and I cant stop thinking the reason there may be 30x more deaths is probably because there should be about 100x more plants and most of them are way older than any other massive generation plant.

    10. Re:O.M.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that WOULD be stupid because . . . a leak in a dam is way fucking better than a leak in a nuclear reactor. But don't let reality and economics rain on your fucking nuclear wet dream, Malakai.

    11. Re:O.M.G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They save magnitudes more through modern lifestyles than they cost.

      Coal and oil less so than the other forms of power generation. That's the point of the parent post. The least-deadly form of power generation per unit of energy would have the highest ratio of "saving people through their modern lifestyles".

      You can't pick and choose and say "lookee at the deaths!" while ignoring what it saves...vs. dirt-floored existence.

      No, you can't hand waive around the fact that coal and oil are the deadliest forms of power generation, even controlling for per capita use. You seem to be claiming that because most power comes from oil and coal that it saves more lives than any other form of energy production. But that's irrelevant. If coal had the same market penetration as hydro, it would still be causing more health problems and deaths than hydro power.

    12. Re:O.M.G by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What an asinine comment. Saving people through production of energy has absolutely zero to do with killing people using a specific energy source.

      It's not a question of have/have not.

  20. Spring water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Eastern US has gotten a lot of snow this winter. When it all melts we're going to get epic flooding.

    1. Re:Spring water by torsmo · · Score: 1

      Noah, you won't.

    2. Re:Spring water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eastern US, huh? Good thing the Continental Divide will make it flow the opposite direction from this dam, eh?

      Hint: The entire North American continent doesn't drain through the Columbia River.

  21. Congratulate him for doing his job? by rahvin112 · · Score: 0

    Sure congratulate him for doing his job. But don't think for a minute that this issue wouldn't be seen on major dams because they are, all the time. Dam's are monitored for these issues. Routine and annual inspections are made. This is done precisely to prevent accidents like we've had in the past. Dams must be monitored because water is relentless at finding ways to breach the containment.

    1. Re:Congratulate him for doing his job? by Frobnicator · · Score: 1

      Sure congratulate him for doing his job. ... Dam's are monitored for these issues. Routine and annual inspections are made.

      I think that is why so many people above are disliking the story.

      Inspector does job, discovers the exact issue he is paid to find. Repair crews dispatched. Disaster averted. SUCCESS!

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    2. Re:Congratulate him for doing his job? by PPH · · Score: 1

      I'd like some more information on how these dams' structures are monitored. Embedded sensor networks? Or do they just hope some vigilant employee will notice "something odd"? That would be news for nerds.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:Congratulate him for doing his job? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Disasters do happen between inspections from more sudden and rapid failures.

    4. Re:Congratulate him for doing his job? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It's unlikely that there are any types of embedded sensors in dams built in the 1940s and 1950s. You know, back when we used to actually give a shit about building infrastructure in the US.

      This is likely good old fashioned visual inspection either by drawing down the reservoir, or with divers.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    5. Re:Congratulate him for doing his job? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      An embedded sensor wouldn't do you any good anyway. A dam failure that happened in my state about 20 years (the last) involved water seeping through unknown cracks in the bed rock under the dam that allowed the water to erode a hole in the face of the dam.

      For earthen dams they monitor with visual inspections and survey of the top and sides of the dam. Long before the dam fails there will be erosion visible either directly or through sagging surface elevations. Concrete is far more straightforward, beyond cracks in the concrete or foundation seepage the only other major failure mechanism is erosion around the edges.

      Most people don't realize that dams leak like a sieve under perfectly normal conditions, so the only effective way to monitor them is directly by trained professionals. Someone that can look at a dam, see a sag starting in the middle and realize something is really really wrong like the guy credited in the article. This trained professional then calls in other professional like divers and surveyors that can do a full analysis of what's wrong so that plans can be devised to repair the damage or in an emergency situation the reservoir can be drained in a controlled fashion. Dam engineering is one of the oldest branches of civil engineering (the oldest branch of engineering).

  22. dams down river by wildfish · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are 5 dams down stream of wanapum, 1 above the free flowing hanford reach and 4 dams below that. River "operations" involve a complicated coordination of all the dams and reservoirs to provide adequate flow for fish and year-round power generation. It is an interesting engineering problem - hacking a river. There is also a computer angle here in that several data centers are located in Grant County (which owns the generation rights) to take advantage of the cheap reliable power. Presumably those data centers are watching this closely. Power rates for everyone in the county will rise if they have less power to sell or if they have to buy power from outside the county. The system is dependent upon storage for of moving water down stream the river is very interesting in that water flowing through one dam

    1. Re:dams down river by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're correct. This is an "issue" because it's standard BR procedure, and all federal entities must be notified for this. SOP...

      This is not a major problem right now, as it could be solved pretty easily. However, 24 miles downstream is the Hanford area, which borders 520 sq. miles of variously polluted soil. A sudden breach of Wanapum could cause a breach of Priest Rapids dam (~10 miles away) and flood the Hanford area, which has small areas of high radioactive contamination, the likes of which are part of a $2 billion/yr effort to clean. This area is generally a plain, with high features (White Bluffs) as it moves towards the Reach, to move water towards Hanford. The breach could spread flooding into these areas, which the US DOE hasn't accurately modeled. The other problem is the Tri-Cities, only 15 miles further downstream. 250,000 people...Their water supply is in danger.

      There is no likely danger of this happening.

      I grew up worrying this same thing, if the Grand Coulee failed.

  23. Only one lower dam (except for the other 4) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > there's only one lower dam (Priest Rapids)

    Um, unless I'm missing something, looking at the map that statement links to shows 4 dams below Priest Rapids: Mcnary, John Day, The Dalles and Bonneville.
    Could the OP possibly be mistaken?

  24. Data centers by gbnewby · · Score: 4, Informative

    The data centers in Quincy are quite large. Microsoft has a major facility, which is undergoing expansion. So does Yahoo, Intuit, Dell, and Sabey. These are major components of the tax base for the town of Quincy and elsewhere in Grant County. The data centers are highly resilient to power loss, with on-site diesel generators, 24x7 staffing, and all the other protections you'd expect. But prolonged use of the generators, if it becomes necessary, could exceed the permitted run time and accompanying pollution the facilities are allowed. Most likely, power from the other dams the Grant County PUD operates (or elsewhere on the regional power grid) could be routed to the data centers.

    There are some other huge electricity consumers in the county. It's the world headquarters of a company that makes photovoltaic components, and also several food processors (all those potatoes from eastern Washington gotta be processed and cooked!). Industrial users might be able to turn down their power usage if there is a regional shortage, but data centers tend to operate at fairly stable 24x7 consumption levels. Major companies like those listed above have redundant facilities, and can shunt processing to other centers if required.

    Site selection for major electricity consumers, including data centers, is a fascinating topic. The State of Washington has had various tax incentives to help businesses to choose to build facilities there. Electricity costs are among the lowest in the nation (under 3 cents/kWh for industrial customers). Plus, it makes extensive use of renewable sources, particularly hydroelectric (i.e., dams) and wind energy. Oregon has a similar story to tell, with their own rivers, dams, tax breaks, etc., and is part of why Amazon elected to put a huge facility there.

  25. Re:Enough with the beta, I am not on a tablet by jpatters · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The beta interface doesn't make sense on any device.

    --
    "Remember, there never were pineapple-almond cookies here."
  26. Re:could've been huge. hydro failure killed 200,00 by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't worry - the only thing downstream from this dam is Portland.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  27. Re:Forgive the OT, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it is. It's usage as verb is quite correct. Look it up in the dictionary.

  28. Misread by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'd like to give the engineer that noticed a slight irregular 'bowing'...

    I first read that as: "Personally, I'd like to give the engineer a slight irregular bowing."

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Misread by dbIII · · Score: 1

      I first read that as: "Personally, I'd like to give the engineer a slight irregular bowing."

      If it was a British engineer they may have said "well bugger me - that looks damn odd".

  29. Is this one of the installations where by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this one of the installations where they discovered Muslims acting suspiciously? I think they should check the cause of the crack carefully

  30. Love the URL chopping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad enough when we can no longer "read" linked URLs. Now, failed URL link attempts mean "we'll never know".

    Thank you, new slashdot, (1) for making me look elsewhere, (2) for helping me get more work done and (3) for all the fish.

  31. Unless by justthinkit · · Score: 2

    Unless you count the 582 miles of cooling pipes.

    --
    I come here for the love
  32. solar panel company buys electricity? that's why. by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > huge electricity consumers in the county. It's the world headquarters of a company that makes photovoltaic

    The company making solar panels buys huge amounts of electricity rather than using their own product? Why?

    > (under 3 cents/kWh for industrial customers)

    Oh, that's why. Using their own solar panels would cost them 35 / kWh, twelve times as much.

  33. Perhaps compounding the issue ... by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    ... much of the region is suffering from drought conditions. While eastern drainages to the Colombia have a fairly robust snow pack, many to west and south of the river are suffering. This would normally suggest the Army Corps of Engineers would want to hold back more water in the reservoirs, but this news impacts such actions. In the mixed new category, storms are currently lining up to dump on the region. Snow pack data is available, here: http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/snow/ 10-day weather forecast maps, here: http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/weather/10_day.cgi

  34. Fixed that for him by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If Wanapum is affected, that has effects on dams upstream as well as below."

  35. Fail. by PhillipNolan · · Score: 2

    this exceeds the excessive inaccuracy ratings for slashdot. It helps if you actually read the links you include in your article. this page: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Pacific_Northwest_River_System.png, linked in the article, shows there are 5 dams below the wanapum. apparently the change in color was too confusing for you? The Columbia is only free-flowing below the Bonneville dam which is just upriver from Portland/Vancouver.

  36. Get government off their Republican backs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This region is one of the most poltically conservative of the nation. While they send congressional delegations to Washington to lower taxes and 'get the government off their backs,' they make their fortunes from the cheap electricity, cheap water, and cheap roads in what was once stinking desert. Let's get the government off their back, and let the costs of electricity, water, and transportation return to what it was before the creeping socialism of such large public-works projects.

  37. software is only a tool ... usually a BAD tool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the collected reading list of a licensed and registered Professional Engineer:

    199307 Engineering Times - Will High Technology Bring Engineering Disaster? [unverified software applied by unqualified users]
    199409 Scientific American - Software's Chronic Crisis, W. Wayt Gibbs [software is being written but not by programmers]
    199409 IEEE Spectrum - Judgment's Subtle Presence [replacing the decisions made by people with pre-programmed ignorance]
    199703 IEEE Spectrum - Reflections on Complexity, Robert W. Lucky [just because you can does not mean you should]

    ... and let us all stand behind the use of software data entry by the lowest paid employee, because the "responsible" corporate partner has much more important crony capitalist things to be doing ...

  38. Re:Forgive the OT, but by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    http://www.merriam-webster.com...

    Pick your dictionary. Do any not list it as a verb?

  39. Re:could've been huge. hydro failure killed 200,00 by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Don't worry - the only thing downstream from this dam is Portland.

    Crap. The resulting sludge will just be coffee with a bunch of knit hats floating on top.

  40. Can the U.S. even build dams any more? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Does the U.S. even have the engineering prowess, industry, money, and political will to perform a major dam repair/construction at this point?

    1. Re:Can the U.S. even build dams any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does the U.S. even have the engineering prowess, industry, money, and political will to perform a major dam repair/construction at this point?

      Engineering prowess? Yes. Industry? Yes. Money? Yes. Political will? Hell, no! People will immediately start yammering about "wastin' r tax dollerzez!" if you suggest such a thing. We have become a nation of fools, tools, and idiots.

    2. Re:Can the U.S. even build dams any more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.usbr.gov/mp/jfp/

  41. Re:solar panel company buys electricity? that's wh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The company making solar panels buys huge amounts of electricity rather than using their own product? Why?

    Are you serious? They are a manufacturing company. They are not seriously hurting anyone, including the down-the-line solar plants, when they buy electricity from a hydroelectric facility.

    Do you expect car manufacturing companies to insist that all deliveries they receive be made in one of their vehicles? Do you think Comcast even blinks when an employee uses WiFi that's serviced by a competitor? Does coca-cola harangue an employee drinking milk?

    It's a manufacturing facility. And nobody really even tries to compete with existing hydro dams. Once they are there, the ecological damage is mostly done.

  42. Re:solar panel company buys electricity? that's wh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The company making solar panels buys huge amounts of electricity rather than using their own product? Why?

    Because MAKING PV cells requires a substantial amount of electricity, and it's an industrial fabrication facility, not an energy production site.

    Oh, that's why. Using their own solar panels would cost them 35 / kWh, twelve times as much.

    Using their own panels wouldn't cost them a thing except lost profits from not having sold the ones they used. But building a solar farm to power a high-consumption fab requires space they don't have and doesn't make environmental or financial sense. Don't be an idiot. You WANT the fabrication process to use electricity as cheap as possible to keep the costs down, and you want to do it somewhere where there is abundant, cheap energy so that you can ship the finished products to areas where there isn't a sustainable power source.

  43. Absolutely, ditto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was this Italian guy named Galileo....he figured out that you could predict exactly how much weight a beam protruding from a building could support. Just tell him the type of wood, how long, how wide, how much weight.....and he could give you the answer. I guess that wasn't "tech", either.
    Some nerds think nothing ever happened before they were born. Or before they got their most recent phone. Maybe Doug Adams was right: "how do you know it's technology? If it comes with a manual,
    it's technology". My spin: "if it doesn't work yet, it's technology". "If it never works, even AFTER you study the manual and apply all the fixes, it's technology". "If it never worked, never WILL work, and COULD never work, but you paid cash for versions 1,2,3,5,7.9, and 13 anyway, and you never got
    ANY of that money credited, or refunded.....it's technology."

  44. Re:could've been huge. hydro failure killed 200,00 by Nethead · · Score: 1

    And Biggs Junction! If that is gone where am I going to pee after driving over Satus?

    --
    -- I have a private email server in my basement.
  45. Re:WTF? The Infrastructure Nerd Challenge by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    infrastructure gobbles up a lot of money and its maintenance (or lack thereof) is a major issue in this country

    You've nailed it. Infrastructure has become invisible, unlauded, boring. Infrastructure is the original stuff that matters.

    Aside from entering some engineering field, there are ways that nerds can make a difference. Take this dam for example, clearly a certain level of routine surveillance had not been performed . If divers discover a 2 inch crack, could there have been a half inch or hairline crack some time ago? And could a more thorough use of remote imaging or even acoustic technology have spotted it? What if someone who reads Slashdot has an idea for some economical and effective way to inspect dams should contact Thomas Stredwick at PUD and offer expertise and propose such a method? At times history favors those who make those phone calls.

    I define a 'nerd' as someone technologically aware who is capable, by the multidisciplinary nature of technology, of useful insight. The biggest problem with nerd-culture today in my opinion is that they tend to be observers who are not out there looking for problems to solve.

    If you consider yourself to be tech-savvy in some field or are just interested in what problems are out there, check out the InnoCentive Challenges. These are a collection of problems to solve, big and little, that someone has documented and put up cash money to solve. Some of the challenges are interesting and very specific. For example, if you can propose a good way to Detect Protruding Nails in a Wooden Pallet that is going past on a conveyor belt, there might be $20,000 in it for you. Also lots of chemistry, medical materials science challenges.

    Infrastructure should be a part of your child's exploration of the modern world. Underground by David Macaulay gives readers an introduction to utilities by presenting awesome ink drawings of incredible perspective and detail. As they start reading. Infrastructure: A Field Guide to the Industrial Landscape is the kind of book you want your children to grow up with and browse long before they understand all the words. Because great books about interesting things deliver the words to them.

    I am an infrastructure maniac.

    ___
    Obligatory bump to the Thorium Alliance and my own letters on energy,
    To The Honorable James M. Inhofe, United States Senate
    To whom it may concern, Halliburton Corporate

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  46. Read the article ignorant jackass by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    The title says it all.

  47. Not a Valid Slashdot Topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I live in Washington state and this news does not belong on Slashdot. Let's keep it tech guys!

  48. *blinks* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *blinks* Stop fucking doing this. *blinks* *beats* *breathes* *shits*

    No, seriously, it's really fucking annoying. *farts*

  49. Re:could've been huge. hydro failure killed 200,00 by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    The Wanapum dam holds back 796,000 acre feet of water. The next dam on the river has a capacity that is a fraction of that (237,100 acre feet), but the one after that is bigger than both of those combined, but not much.

    All told, if we had a domino action of Wanapum and the 4 downriver dams failing, we'd be talking about 5,780,100 acre feet of water flowing past Portland, which would be a devastating event indeed.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.