According to Wikipedia, the Elwha Dam had a hydroelectric capacity of 14.8 MW, which is about five wind turbines. For reference, the US currently has more than 71,000 wind turbines, and on average the US installs 3,000 wind turbines per year, which is 8 per day.

This is a great comment to visualize how little power is being lost here.

I thought comparing capacity factor instead of capacity would be more fair, but I got roughly the same result. Elwha's capacity factor was, at one point, 39% [0], and capacity factor for wind turbines in the US is ~35% [1]. However, we're still comparing a source of on-demand power to a source of intermittent power.

[0] https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/6536093 (page 14)

[1] https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=52038

Could you elaborate why this specific dam removal project reveals that?

Count me as extremely skeptical of the climate change "movement", but even I don't understand what kind of connection you're implying here.

> The vast majority of removed dams have been small, either check dams or those used for water diversions, said Warrick. Little dams can be taken down by a small team with a backhoe, Tullos said.

These dams aren't generating any electricity. Try to read the article before taking the headline as an opportunity to get cheap shots on the outgroup.

Perhaps you'd talk about the connection between dams and a climate change movement a little. I'm a little familiar with both and don't see a connection.

Dams provide clean energy. Getting rid of them is bad for climate change.

Many of these dams are actually causing ecological damage and have also outlived their usefulness and are not sustainable to continue operating and may even cause significant environmental problems if left in place.

Do you know of an example of one of these dams being replaced with coal or gas plants?

Ahh ok we aren't talking specifics but more of a "general feeling about dams" from the layperson perspective.