[cube]

What about this?

China planning nuclear blasts to build giant hydro project

BEIJING, October 22, 2000 (The Telegraph) -- CHINESE leaders are drawing up plans to use nuclear explosions, in breach of the international test-ban treaty, to blast a tunnel through the Himalayas for the world's biggest hydroelectric plant.

The proposed power station is forecast to produce more than twice as much electricity as the controversial Three Gorges Dam being built on the Yangtze river. The project, which also involves diverting Tibetan water to arid regions, is due to begin as soon as construction of the Three Gorges Dam is completed in 2009.

If this works the world will be "warming up" to the idea of using peaceful nuclear explosions for engineering projects.

[PolestaR]

What about this?

China planning nuclear blasts to build giant hydro project

BEIJING, October 22, 2000 (The Telegraph) -- CHINESE leaders are drawing up plans to use nuclear explosions, in breach of the international test-ban treaty, to blast a tunnel through the Himalayas for the world's biggest hydroelectric plant.

The proposed power station is forecast to produce more than twice as much electricity as the controversial Three Gorges Dam being built on the Yangtze river. The project, which also involves diverting Tibetan water to arid regions, is due to begin as soon as construction of the Three Gorges Dam is completed in 2009.

If this works the world will be "warming up" to the idea of using peaceful nuclear explosions for engineering projects.

That is interesting. Anyone who knows basic hydro understands the further the water falls the more power it generates. Why not just build a man made lake on the top of everest and make it fall 8KM to the ground? Now that's power.

[Starvid]

What an insanely great project!

To bad it's in Africa and will never amount to anything.

[lorenzo]

Think of it this way. Us westerners pretty much have completely screwed up every last bit of our environment. We're working hard on saving a tiny little bit of it mostly so that we have somewhere nice to take pictures and lie to ourselves that we're saving the world.

Then we see a story about how africans who still sort of have a natural environment around them want to get on the bandwagon and do the same thing we have. It would be kind of us to warn them about whats going to happen don't you think?

For each kilowatt the Inga brings, you save a pristine rainforest tree. As you know, the Congolese cut their beautiful forests because they don't have electricity. Inga will partly stop this environmental destruction.

Also, the Inga will offset millions of tonnes of CO2. It is going to be recognized as a Clean Development Mechanism project. So it's saving us all, a bit.

[Specop_007]

Specop, it's not just trading one coal-fired power plant for a single damn. It's trading in 80 coal fired power plants for a single damn. Or 40 nuclear plants!!! Simply stunning.

I was just putting it in persespective as a general statement.
ANYTHING we do leaves a footprint. The goal is to meet our needs while minimizing the footprint we leave.
Would you rather have a wind farm and chop a few birds up, or have a coal plant dumping God knows what all day and night?
Either way you get your power. I'll take the wind farm.

[CARVER]

Americans and the Arabs are all feverishly visiting the country these days. They're talking about multi-billion investments, about annual growth predictions for Congo of 10 to 12% (currently: 7%), and of the chance to rapidly lift the population out of poverty - China style.

I had not heard of it before, but I'm sure there will be a lot of interested foreign engineering contracters who want to get those multi-billion dollar contracts. And I'm sure they will want to present very optimistic growth figures to get the funding. But there might be a danger that those growth figures don't materialize and then the country is left with a huge debt (foreign loans) which it cannot repay (debt trap). But then again the DR of Congo already is in debt up to its eyeballs. I believe they already get debt relief? What are the chances that we will come to collect and that the proceeds will not go to the locals that live in poverty? When we experience increasing inflation and a population demanding to be compensated at home, how likely is it that we will still be giving debt relief?

This is illustrated by the comment on his country’s debt made after the G8 summit in Okinawa in 2000 by President Obasanjo of Nigeria: “All that we had borrowed up to 1985 or 1986 was around $5 billion. So far we have paid back about $16 billion. Yet we are being told that we still owe about $28 billion. That $28 billion came about because of the foreign creditors’ interest rates. If you ask me what is the worst thing in the world, I will say it is compound interest.” When President Obasanjo spoke out, the developing world was spending $13 on debt repayment for every one dollar it received in foreign aid and grants. (link)

The dam project sounds very impressive and I'm sure many would benefit from it, but I doubt it will be the local poor, sadly.

[turtleT]

Yes, let's all applaud the fact that with this pie-in-the-sky dream, the Congo can grow out of it's poverty. You dipshits! This is exactly the wrong direction we should be going. Living a third world lifestyle is not inherently bad. It's called living simply, sustainably. Yes, Africa has political problems and human rights abuses that need attention, but it is also a beautiful home to many people that are living peacefully. This idea that we need to pull all peoples of the world out of their poverty stricken lives is absurd. A more sane view is that we need to pull all the goddamn idiotic first worlders out of their SUVs and consumptive lifestyles.

Lorenzo, dams affect more than the immediate environment of which they drown. There are always down-stream effects. Always. This is not a project without major environmental impact. Historical proof lies in the history of the dams of the western U.S. Yes, it may be better than coal plants. But what is best? Learning to live with less energy. Growth is not requisite for the human species. Only our culture makes us think that it is.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the making of a dam of this scale will make someone very rich. Those that stand to gain monetarily will thus make the project sound as necessary, useful, benign, and altruistic as they possibly can. Don't believe the hype. Our at least question it. That doesn't go for you Lorenzo, as you are the hype.

[thor]

Actually, the Congolese don't really care what spoiled white brat pumpkin thinks.

Spoiled white brat pumpkin wants the Congolese to stay poor forever, eternally caught in their 'pristine' environment, like noble savages out of touch with modernity - so that spoiled white brat can watch them on National Geographic and project his hidden racism and his nostalgia for 'pristine' nature, on them.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the Congolese and their river do not merely exist to feature on National Geographic and to satisfy your ultra-conservative desires.

You have dammed every single creek you could dam, so why should the Congolese not dam theirs? Just because you don't like it? Well, if you don't like it, please get together with your fellows and start collecting the money to pay the Congolese for not taking the opportunity of damming the Congo and for not enjoying the development perspectives that it represents.
We're looking at a few hundred billion dollars. If you're ready to go collect some, and to give it to them, then fine. If not, I kindly suggest you keep your racist environmentalism for yourself.


Sorry to be this hard on you, but I'm pretty tired of the hidden racism that underlies so much of the environmentalists' discourse. (Not saying you share that racism, but I took your condescending statement as a starting point to show what this kind of debates often comes down to.)

Sweet Jesus, Lorenzo, don't give that racist bullshit. I'd object to such a monstrosity of a dam anytime anywhere.

[Spartan2]

Let's look at the numbers:

The Inga dams produce 42,000 MW of electric power. That is 42e6 kW * 365 * 24 = 368e9 kWh of electric energy.

According to this source, the world's electricity consumption in 2002 was 14.28e12 kWh.

So the Inga dams could produce about 2.6% of the electricity consumed in the world in 2002.

That's a lot of energy but it won't save the world from an energy crisis. Though, it is good for Africa's development.

[frankthetank]

The Inga rapids and dams are located on the Congo River, the world's second largest river.

largest watershed? Actually looks promising, except its in Africa and you'd have to run some long ass power lines to get that power anywhere.

[lorenzo]

I'd object to such a monstrosity of a dam anytime anywhere.

I wonder if you were to say the same if your income were US$ 110 per year, and if you've never enjoyed the magic of having electricity in your home.

You are talking from the perspective of someone whose electricity bill is many times bigger than the average Congolese's entire yearly income. You're also talking from the perspective of someone whose country has dammed all its own rivers long ago. The mere fact that you have the luxury to criticize such a project at all, is because your country "ruined" its environment ages ago, built countless dams ages ago, consumes vast amounts of energy on a daily basis, and has become wealthy and spoiled because of it.

It's a bit easy to criticize other people's projects, while you yourself have enjoyed the benefits of similar projects for ages. By the way, I bet that the electricity running your computer partly comes from hydropower.

Why don't we make a deal: we support the Congolese to get higher living standards through Inga, and once they have achieved those, and have become entirely bourgeoisified, we support them in their gratuituous efforts at condemning... err... someone else's dam plans.

[jaws]

Cheap electricity is not going to solve Africa's poverty problems. It is an institutional problem, not a material problem.

[Starvid]

Yes, let's all applaud the fact that with this pie-in-the-sky dream, the Congo can grow out of it's poverty. You dipshits! This is exactly the wrong direction we should be going. Living a third world lifestyle is not inherently bad. It's called living simply, sustainably. Yes, Africa has political problems and human rights abuses that need attention, but it is also a beautiful home to many people that are living peacefully. This idea that we need to pull all peoples of the world out of their poverty stricken lives is absurd. A more sane view is that we need to pull all the goddamn idiotic first worlders out of their SUVs and consumptive lifestyles.

Lorenzo, dams affect more than the immediate environment of which they drown. There are always down-stream effects. Always. This is not a project without major environmental impact. Historical proof lies in the history of the dams of the western U.S. Yes, it may be better than coal plants. But what is best? Learning to live with less energy. Growth is not requisite for the human species. Only our culture makes us think that it is.

Another thing to keep in mind is that the making of a dam of this scale will make someone very rich. Those that stand to gain monetarily will thus make the project sound as necessary, useful, benign, and altruistic as they possibly can. Don't believe the hype. Our at least question it. That doesn't go for you Lorenzo, as you are the hype.

If living in low energy Africa is so great, why don't you move there?

Dipshit.

[turtleT]

If living in low energy Africa is so great, why don't you move there?
Dipshit.

Wow, Starvid, you really got me on that one didn't you.
Actually, I have family there and plan on moving there in about a year. So in fact I can walk the talk.

[thor]

Also, the Inga will offset millions of tonnes of CO2. It is going to be recognized as a Clean Development Mechanism project. So it's saving us all, a bit.

Would it? Lets look at the article http://www.energybulletin.net/4500.html

"Hydroelectric dams produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane, and in some cases produce more of these greenhouse gases than power plants running on fossil fuels."

Gigantic man-made reservoirs can produce large amounts of methane. The environmental argument is therefore moot.

[lorenzo]

Fair point about the methane in certain reservoirs.

But as I said, the Inga's lucky, as its reservoir lies on a surface of pure bare rock. No tree around in a radius of several tens of kilometres. It's basically a moon landscape.

You can see it from space, if you're really interested:

http://maps.google.com/?t=k&om=0&ll=-5. ... 4,1.257935

http://maps.google.com/?ll=-5.497754,13 ... 4&t=k&om=0

Zoom as much as you want.
The extension of the reservoir will come west of the existing one. As you can see, it's a moon landscape there too.

Compare it to a forest patch further north:
http://maps.google.com/?t=k&om=0&ll=3.6 ... 4,0.314484

You see the difference.

Anyway, if you study the Inga, you see that it's actually a pretty extraordinary complex, as it is based on an existing natural reservoir...

I'm pretty certain that the immense amount of power the Inga can produce, and the CO2 it thereby offsets is astronomically big compared to the methane its reservoir will release.

Don't forget that the advantage of the Inga is that it's basically a natural rapid, the head of which was already 150 metres high before anyone touched it. It's just a miracle of nature. And we can enhance it to serve millions of people.

[Starvid]

If living in low energy Africa is so great, why don't you move there?
Dipshit.

Wow, Starvid, you really got me on that one didn't you.
Actually, I have family there and plan on moving there in about a year. So in fact I can walk the talk.

And of course you are going to live in a mud hut without electricity, sanitation, running water, modern medicine or, gasp, a car?

No, powerdown is the way. African style.

[lorenzo]

If living in low energy Africa is so great, why don't you move there?
Dipshit.

Wow, Starvid, you really got me on that one didn't you.
Actually, I have family there and plan on moving there in about a year. So in fact I can walk the talk.

And of course you are going to live in a mud hut without electricity, sanitation, running water, modern medicine or, gasp, a car?

No, powerdown is the way. African style.

Well, I think we can now all agree that those who advocate a powerdown give the example, and that those who advocate a mass die-off, start by dying-off themselves.

We can then continue our discussion on the pro and cons of the Inga dam.

[PolestaR]

If living in low energy Africa is so great, why don't you move there?
Dipshit.

Wow, Starvid, you really got me on that one didn't you.
Actually, I have family there and plan on moving there in about a year. So in fact I can walk the talk.

Haha, nice one. Always good to see yet another soul own Lorenzo and his cronies.

[Een_Franse_Vervald]

Unfortunately, I don't believe that there could be a large dam in Africa, save for a few tiny ones operated by Whites or Chinese like over the M'bé river in Gabon.



(From Race differences in Intelligence: An evolutionary analysis, by Richard Lynn)

These figures are to be scaled to an industrial society, of course. For example, if Subsaharians score around 67, Africans in America nonetheless get it substantially better at roughly 85. So environnement matters and certain level of development is reachable. Also, please remember that you cannot guess anyone's intelligence just by his race, these are averages and very smart Africans do exist, though much rarer.

Yet it will not change the intractable fact that Africans cannot operate a dam. However, I would like to think like Lorenzo and I believe that a limited amount of biofuel can get cropped in Africa because of the availability of extremely cheap labour. But not in Congo. I lived in Gabon and obviously Lorenzo never put a foot into the hearth of darkness, except maybe for holidays or with an NGO. Reality compels to hard facts.

(Sorry, non-English maternal language)