The Lead is the GOP’s Largest So Far This Year

At number 3 and the green house gas problem with the deep bore tunnel (DBT), a few facts may provide an additional context as readers way the environmental impacts.

The draft SDEIS for the DBT notes that it will require “239 million BTUs” of energy per day just for lighting and ventilation. (Sump pump requirements for de-watering are not stated.)

Stated differently, and since 3,4131 BTUs equals 1 KWh of electricity, the DBT will consume some 70,026 KWhs of electricity. For simplicity, and as a comparison, that is, lets say, 70 megawatts.

The three dams on the Skagit River hydo system (the Gorge, Diablo and Ross dams) provide a combined total of 711.1 megawatts of power.

Hence, as you can see, the DBT consumes virtually 10 percent of the entire Seattle City Light Skagit River hydro power. That is no small amount.

If you want a worse picture, then with with the Diablo dam producing 159.3 mega-watts of power the DBT consumes 44 percent of its power.

The DBT is one of the largest if not the largest carbon foot print in Seattle history. It is a power hog.

More troubling, the DBT power cannot be interrupted for life-safety reasons.

Oh! And the cost of that power from the WSDOT budget? Depending on the rate structure by SCL, it will probably be some $1.3 million a year, in perpetuity. So, how do you feel about that massive diversion of funds from other needed highway projects such as abating high hazard locations even if you don’t mind the carbon footprint?

Stop the tunnel.

@3 Are you guys planning to contact these groups for comments? Also, what about Federal studies that are needed? Are there any?

I know where I can get you guys some McCain-Palin ’08 bumper stickers.

It’s not too late to hitch your wagon to a rocket train.

Wow that is crazy, I just looked at it and ran the numbers and got something close to yours.

The part that @Chris is referring to is on page 22 of Chapter 2.

http://www.publicola.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/02_Ch_2_Summary_16July2010-text1.pdf

Does this change my support for the tunnel, I don’t know, but it surely loosens it a bit.

But in my daze, I forgot to correct you on a MAJOR error. You jump from kilowatt hours to megawatts (should have been to megawatt HOURS) on your analysis of the portion of output from the dams on the Skagit River. Their output is roughly 700 megawatts, which is instantaneous output, said otherwise, those dams running at that capacity for one hours equals 700 megawatt HOURS.

So the 70 megawatts hours used by the tunnel each day on the tunnel equals about 10% of one hour’s output from those three dams on the Skagit or about .4% of those dams’ daily capacity; or, about 1.8% of the daily capacity of the Diablo dam.

These are still significant numbers and the costs you stated are correct.

And we shouldn’t argue that this is ‘green’ hydro electricity because if it’s weren’t to be used on the tunnel, it could be sold on the open market and somewhere else would burn less coal.

I’m just going to throw it out there –

Hydro power has a relatively small carbon footprint associated.

However, the S/T option that many support here at the ‘Cola would likely lead to a much larger carbon footprint due to the increases in travel times for cars through Seattle.

Yes, the tunnel does the same thing, but to a much lesser degree. That’s exhaust fumes, leaking oil and brake dust right here in the city. That’s decreased air quality, water quality, and dirtier, much more crowded streets (less safe for cyclists and pedestrians).

While it is fun to rip apart the draft of the draft EIS, nobody is talking about the environmental impact of the S/T “option” because it hasn’t been done. Why? It’s not an option, and it’s either a reduced capacity tunnel with transit improvements, or a four lane rebuild. So people can dump on the DDEIS as much as they want, but calling the s/t “option” the green alternative is unproven, and probably false.

I just took a look at a larger, more detailed picture of you. Now I understand why you hate the city, with all of its pretty people, so much.

I’m generally pro-tunnel. I was just doing some math.

For comparison purposes:

Tunnel = 70,000 kWh/day * 365 = 25,550,000kWh/year (or 25,550 megawatt hours/year)

1 megawatt hour powers about 700 homes.

25,550 / 700 = 36.5 homes.

The tunnel will use about the same amount of electricity has 37 typical Seattle area homes.

I think my math is right. Where’s Math Nerd when you need him?

That can’t be right, cause 37 homes would never have a combnied electric bill of over a million dollar. Ugh, Math Nerd, where are you??

I was just piggy-backing on your comment

Actually, my home is “all electric” including, naturally, the A/C and hot water, too. I use per day taking a full years average demand about 36.4 KWhrs. At that rate the tunnel would equal about 1,900 “all electric homes”.

Maybe that comes closer to what you are thinking.

Chris

Is the current viaduct lit on both levels as well as under?
How much juice does that take now?

The air part is a different animal.

It’s pretty clear that Seattle Politicos are reading the handwriting on the wall and looking for some politically correct way to extract their signatures from the tunnel proposal. Look for studies showing the tunnel will cause ADD for kids travelling in the back seat of minivans and other Agenda reasons for putting the kibosh on it.

What about this guy:

http://www.publicola.net/2010/08/30/hybrid-city/

He says American cities smell.

What about concrete? Concrete production is the single largest producer of CO2 in the world.

This comment wasn’t necessary. Smack his arguments around all you want, but there’s no need to directly contribute to the victim mindset with something petty like that.