Hydro Power - Ubon

[jay-uk]

HYDRO POWER

Plan for massive dam on Mekong

Project likely to draw protests from neighbours, academic warnsPublished on November 4, 2007

The Energy Ministry is conducting a feasibility study on the construction of a massive hydroelectric dam on the Mekong River which could be opposed by countries downstream.

The proposed dam in the northeastern province of Ubon Ratchathani would power a 1,800-megawatt generator for an estimated investment of Bt90 billion.

Prof Prakob Virojkut, president of Ubon Ratchathani University, said the project would be likely to face several major obstacles, especially opposition from Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.

Building the massive structure on the Mekong, an international river, would affect the flow of water and hinder river transport as well as the ecosystem, according to Prakob.

"However, we should wait for the study's findings to see if there are more pros than cons. It won't be easy to implement such a massive scheme since there would be a wide range of impacts domestically and internationally," he said, adding that Laos might be the first nation to oppose the idea because the project would affect its sales of electricity to Thailand.

Panya Consultant and Mako Consultant have been commissioned to carry out the feasibility study on the dam project and complete it by April.

Pinyo Boonyong, president of the Phonaklang Sub-district Administrative Organisation, Khong Jiam, Ubon Ratchatani province, said little information on the scheme had been given to local residents so far.

He said other sub-districts on the banks of the Mekong had only recently been told of the project by the ministry's Department of Alternative Energy Development and Efficiency (DEDE).

They are Huay Phai in Khong Jiam district and Samrong, Phosai and Nhamtang in Sri Moung Mai district.

"Most villagers who live on the Mekong would be negative about such a project, as was the case 17 years ago with the construction of the Pak Moon Dam. If the government went ahead with this project, there would be local residents opposing it due to their previous negative experience.

"In the past couple of years, China has started building dams upstream on the Mekong. Many people have since complained that there is now less water for agriculture, because lots of water is diverted for electricity generation by the Chinese," he said.

Pinyo said the government would also have to thoroughly consider compensation and resettlement programmes for affected villagers if it went ahead with the scheme.

The Nation

[chownah]

I think they are doing this ridiculous study as a way to support their real intention which is to build a nuke. After "all the options" are looked at the only viable project will be a nuke....just wait and see.

[MarcoH]

I think they are doing this ridiculous study as a way to support their real intention which is to build a nuke. After "all the options" are looked at the only viable project will be a nuke....just wait and see.

Ubon own NUKE,,,wow,,that would be somethnig to shew for Mr.Bush..im sure he would like to put some sanctions to thai as well..

[plachon]

I think they are doing this ridiculous study as a way to support their real intention which is to build a nuke. After "all the options" are looked at the only viable project will be a nuke....just wait and see.

Yes.............and no. While the powers that be have clearly stated they want a nuclear power station in any case by 2020 at least, and have set aside vast sums of propaganda money to help achieve that end, the desire to build a big hydropower station is just as strong I'm sure, especially when you labour under the impression that the fuel is free and any impacts can simply be mitigated. There has been a significant industry built around the feasibility study and EIA of hydropower projects for a long time and this is merely an extension of that business. It's a nice little earner for the bureaucrats and politicians and their friends in the study companies employed, with next to no public scrutiny, let alone participation, and opportunities for vast slippage. Plus, they are now nearing the point where they'll argue that China has already ruined the Mekong with its dams, so why don't we just build another one, it won't make any difference now.......or something along those lines.

Edited November 6, 2007 by plachon

[Martin]

This needs watching and studying and, at the appropriate times, opposing.

The first thing that students of electrical power engineering should be taught (but aren't) is : "Don't mess with big rivers".

At first sight, big rivers look to be attractive because it looks as if power can be got for little cost, but that is an illusion. The big costs are the social costs and the unforeseeable later effects and are simply borne by others than the customers of the power utility company.

Big river schemes also look attractive technically, as well as monetarily. The dam wall is low, simple and most unlikely to bring risk of failure. The turbine is simple, too, as its parts are under little stress due to the low pressures involved. As we used to say:"It is easy when you can fix pipework leaks with a dab of putty and a length of duct tape". OK, that was an exaggeration, but there was some truth in the jest.

But big rivers flow relatively gently in flattish landscapes, where people will have got there first and adapted their way of life to the ways of the river. Messing with the river will upset livelihoods upstream and downstream. And to cap it all, impoundment to get the build up to give the pressure is a sure-fire recipe for getting the water to drop some of its silt.

I remember a series of photos (though they may have been mock ups) of how a low-head hydro scheme could convert good meadows into a "most-expensive cabbage patch", as the lake that it formed silted up and the scheme was finally abandoned and cabbages grown on the former lakebed.

The place for hydro generation is up in the hills, alongside fast-flowing, steeply descending tributaries. Expensive to construct and to maintain, but with the costs falling where they should---on the consumers far away in the cities.

Incidentally, the justifications for both hydro and nuclear developments here, also want to be looked at very carefully.

They seem to be based on assumptions that urban areas are going to carry on growing as they have done for the past fifty or so years.

But that only happened because oil and natural gas were gushing out of the ground and could be supplied dirt cheap to power stations, makers of fertiliser, and users of internal combustion engines.

Those times are disappearing rapidly.

It is more feasible now to postulate a big reduction in electricity 'demand' than any increase in it.

('Demand' is the amount that can be sold at the price of the day, not the amount people would like to have if only it were a lot cheaper.)

Thailand can look forward to a good future after the era of excessive consumerism is gone over the next forty years, by the looks of things. But it will be even better for our grandchildren's generation, and later ones, if we don't lumber them with unnecessary generation schemes.

If Thailand has the money to pay for nuclear reactors (in particular), it would do better to keep it and leave it to the coming generations to use for other things.

If, on the other hand, it doesn't have the money, but proposes to borrow it and leave the later generations to pay it back, then that is diabolical.

I am now a greatgrandfather, and I look at my greatgrandchildren here in Isaan and don't want them stuck with bills left by their parent and grandparent generations.

It is bad enough that we have been wasteful with the oil and gas when it was found. As the Shah of Persia said, forty years back, "Oil is too valuable to burn". It should have been reserved for several generations to use as feedstocks, not burnt by just a few.

But that has happened. At least, we mustn't now leave bills for our spree to be paid by the coming youngsters.

[phibunmike]

What a disaster another dam would be. The Chinese dams are doing enough damage, and it certainly is surprising that it should be considered after all the Pak Mun objections and broo-ha. Perhaps Chownah is right.