Answering in one go the comments of yread and rapsey.
The dams are all really old (50's and 60's) with low power output (about 20MW). Maintaining them costs a lot and I suppose that if the owners agreed and partially funded the demolition is that it was cheaper to do it than to maintain the dams.
It means that if you look at the limited scope of the involved parties: "nature, salmons, energy production and maintenance" this is the best path forward and a win-win situation.
Of course we lose "reliable" power production, but because of the limited power production of these old dams, I for once agree with the ability to replace them with other forms of renewable energy + storage.
The dams are all really old (50's and 60's) with low power output (about 20MW). Maintaining them costs a lot and I suppose that if the owners agreed and partially funded the demolition is that it was cheaper to do it than to maintain the dams.
It means that if you look at the limited scope of the involved parties: "nature, salmons, energy production and maintenance" this is the best path forward and a win-win situation.
Of course we lose "reliable" power production, but because of the limited power production of these old dams, I for once agree with the ability to replace them with other forms of renewable energy + storage.