Comments on: PG&E Doesn’t Just Want Your Money – They Want Your Weather Too

By: Loon

Loon — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 20:50:45 +0000

AND… What is PG&E going to do with this “Extra” water? Generate $ obviously, but does that mean increased flows on the McCloud & Pit and/or filling McCloud & Iron Canyon reservoirs (etc) with more water? Flow studies? Why do I get the feeling PG&E is the only one in the loop , as far as, what lies in the future for these watersheds. How many powerhouses does the Pit have?

By: Tom Chandler

Tom Chandler — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:55:49 +0000

UPDATE: The Mt. Shasta Herald published a followup to their original cloud-seeding story.

I’m my way out again, but wanted to put forth a couple points.

First, this seems like one of those gigs where the damage – if there is any – doesn’t show up right away, but accumulates over years. I wonder what the AgI concentrations are just downstreams of the towers PG&E uses to seed the clouds, and what they’ll be like after years and years of this stuff.

Second, there really does seem to be a public trust issue lurking beneath the surface here; if PG&E is wringing moisture from the air, who’s not getting that moisture down the line? An analogy would be a farmer watching his crops whither a little because his upwind neighbor is seeding and getting more rain.

We think Western water law is arcane and convoluted, and I’m sure “aerial water law” doesn’t even exist.

By: fishhead

fishhead — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 15:14:55 +0000

When I read, "studies are inconclusive"- I smell trouble. That usually means, we are going to do it till we find out otherwise, think FDA. We should all take comfort knowing that cloud seeding had been going on for years and so far no one has seen any ill effects- yet. You might want to consider reinforcing your roof too. Reuters publishedthis article awhile back about a bad day for Russian cloud seeding.

By: The Chile Doctor

The Chile Doctor — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 13:06:51 +0000

I laughed at that part about “warns of potential health effects of silver iodide in their Material Safety Data Sheet”. As a former reactive chemicals safety officer for a major chemical firm (I can’t tell you who, but their name rhymes with cow), I had to look through thousands of MSDS. Guess what: even clean water has stated hazards on its MSD Sheet.

However, AgI isn’t something I’d want to mess around with. The only mitigating factor for you folks? The stuff is bloody expensive! And we’re talking a utility here, some of the strongest misers on the planet. They’ll get tired of it when no effect is shown. And even for the Chinese, who keep trying (and often with materials more toxic than AgI, like melamine), there’s really been no effect noted…

By: Ian H.

Ian H. — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 03:40:38 +0000

As a student in the meteorology department at the University of Utah, a avid backcountry skier, and fishing guide I would like to add a bit of a counter argument to this topic because I too was extremely concerned, and pissed off when Vail and other Colorado resorts similarly announced their cloud seeding projects several years ago. Growing up on the Front Range I was worried resorts downwind of these practices were seeing a negative effect on the snow totals in Boulder and my home resort of Eldora. So, as a student at the U of Utah I spent countless hours researching the effects, practices, and endless studies done on cloud seeding across the western US for a final paper. I was surprised to find report after report done from the early 60s to 1990s finding ‘inconclusive evidence’ any of the seeding even worked. At most they were seeing 10-15% gain of snow totals in spotty locations that could be merely due to the the snow pillow being cross loaded by varying wind directions. Skeptical of this evidence (believing it had a greater effect) I talked to an early pioneer in cloud seeding in the desert SW, and he quietly sat me down and told me (in a whisper) that seeding really has no scientific proof it really works. seriously. Its a pretty expensive hoax.

I also looked into the effect silver iodide has on the environment. Several studies which have been done looking a high alpine lake mud for traces of silver iodide in the Sierras. What they found was minimal, but still that they had found anything was concerning. That is more what i would be worried about that the effect of downwind neighbors. Now i am most definitely not a proponent of the practice of cloud seeding or altering the environment in any way, but figured that i would chime in and give a somewhat educated take on the debate. Rest soundly in the fact that these morons are blowing money on something that has about the same effectiveness as abstinence only sex education.

By: Loon

Loon — Sat, 15 Nov 2008 20:50:02 +0000

I’d like to point out that the Chinese government has done extensive research into cloud seeding, that the Chinese government also has exemplary environmental record, and found cloud seeding to be a very environmentally sound practice. I’m guessing PG&E is just piggybacking on their research, not to mention their style of public involvement.

Seriously, if we can barely predict weather _precisely_ more than a few days into the future even with huge computational resources and complex models then how can we expect to understand what effects a program like this would have — not to mention that silver iodide isn’t exactly orange juice.