Mekong Power Plan Will Affect Millions Of Lives : Activists

[webfact]

MEKONG SUMMIT

Mekong power plan will affect millions of lives : activists

By Pongphon Sarnsamak

The Nation

HUA HIN: -- Civic groups, academics and environmental activists yesterday called for the Mekong River Commission (MRC) to revise its 10year hydropower development plan on the river and its tributaries, saying the current plans would adversely affect millions of lives living downstream.

Representatives from Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Burma and China open a twoday MRC summit in Hua Hin today.

The MRC Secretariat's chief executive officer, Jeremy Bird, said the Hua Hin summit would focus on regional cooperation issues and the record of cooperation over the past 15 years.

"They will use this anniversary as an opportunity to assess the achievements, to look at the challenges in the future from the water resources infrastructure and climate change, to reaffirm the commitment from four member countries for basin management cooperation," he said.

Activists rebutted Bird's optimism.

Witoon Permpongsacharoen of the Mekong Energy and Ecology Network and the Foundation for Ecological Recovery, presented a paper called "The Definite Future Situation", at a Chulalongkorn University seminar.

The paper looks at the river five to 10 years from now with the development of cascade dams in China, plus at least 25 more hydropower dams in the tributaries, and concludes that "there will be a permanent change to the river flow regime".

About 200 representatives of environmental organisations and local communities in the six countries except China attended the twoday seminar to raise their concerns over possible problems to be caused by the hydropower development.

Pianporn Deetes from Save the Mekong Coalition said the Mekong drought and China's upstream dam construction demonstrate the need for cooperation among all countries sharing the Mekong River.

"There are better ways to meet water and energy needs and the climatechange challenge, while keeping rivers healthy," she said, adding that China's recent release of water to the Mekong to ease the historic drought was a move in the right direction and would help pave the way for genuine partnership from downstream neighbours.

She urged all countries to share information and forge a cooperative response to work with riverside communities to minimise economic, social and environmental costs.

Another 15 dams to be built along Mekong

China will build four more dams along its section of the Mekong River, which it calls the Lancang, while 11 more will be constructed on the Thai, Lao and Cambodian portions, in accordance with the Mekong River Commission's hydropowerdevelopment plan.

However, Witoon Permpongsacharoen of the Mekong Energy and Ecology Network/Foundation for Ecological Recovery yesterday insisted the plan was not entirely negative.

Once completed, the dams will contain only 10 per cent of the annual water runoff, or 36 billion cubic metres per annum.

Moreover, due to the higher waterholding capacity, the river's water level in some areas could be higher during the dry season.

For example, the water level along Chiang Rai's Chiang Saen district could be 59percent higher than now, or nearly 1 metre higher.

"However, looking at 20 years from now, with more dams built downstream, sandbars, rapids and deep pools could be adversely affected," Witoon said.

In 2008, China completed four dams that have been criticised for causing this year's unusually low water level downstream.

Pianporn Deetes of the Save the Mekong Coalition said not only had the river dried up, but also the water level was fluctuating unnaturally.

While countries in the lower basin suffered from a water shortage, the MRC failed to warn local communities in northern Thailand and Laos about possible flooding in 2008, she said.

"There was a systemic lack of accountability to the public within the MRC," Pianporn said, adding that the MRC should monitor data more efficiently and formulate precautionary actions.

-- The Nation 2010-04-02

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[OzMick]

How do you keep a greenie happy? You can't! Everything you try to do, even if it's nothing, will give them something to whine about.

SAVE THE BLACK LESBIAN WHALES

[webfact]

Dam debate looms large over Mekong summit

by Rachel O'Brien

BANGKOK (AFP) -- Leaders of Southeast Asian nations straddling the shrinking lower Mekong River are set to lean on China at talks Sunday as controversy builds over the cause of the waterway's lowest levels in decades.

Beijing's Vice Foreign Minister Song Tao will join the premiers of Cambodia, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam in the Thai resort town of Hua Hin to discuss management of the vast river, on which more than 60 million people depend.

A crippling drought in the region and the much-debated role of hydropower dams are due to dominate the two-day summit of the inter-governmental Mekong River Commission (MRC) -- the first in its 15-year history.

China, a "dialogue partner" of the MRC, is expected to staunchly defend its dams, which activists downstream blame for water shortages, after the Mekong shrivelled to its lowest level in 50 years in Laos and Thailand's north.

Nations in the lower Mekong basin may press China to share more information on the river, said Anond Snidvongs, director of the Southeast Asia START Regional Centre, which researches environmental change.

In addition, "they will request resources from China, ie, more money. I don't think there will be confrontation, at least from official appearances, but behind closed doors there will be strong debate," he told AFP.

China -- itself suffering the worst drought in a century in its southwest, with more than 24 million people short of drinking water -- says the reason for water shortages is unusually low rainfall rather than man-made infrastructure.

It says the dams, built to meet soaring demand for water and hydro-generated electricity, have been effective in releasing water during dry seasons and preventing flooding in rainy months.

"China will never do things that harm the interests of (lower Mekong) countries," Yao Wen, a spokesman of the Chinese Embassy in Bangkok, said at a recent forum in the Thai capital.

The crisis has grounded cargo and tour boats on the so-called "mighty Mekong" and alarmed communities along what is the world's largest inland fishery.

The chief of the MRC's secretariat, Jeremy Bird, last week hailed Beijing's agreement to share water level data from two dams during this dry season, saying it "shows that China is willing to engage with lower basin countries".

Yet questions remain over the impact of the eight planned or existing dams on the mainstream river in China. Vice Minister of Water Resources Liu Ning said Wednesday more were needed to guarantee water and food security.

China should continue to share information on the river, said Carl Middleton, Mekong programme coordinator at the campaign group International Rivers.

"The drought is obviously important but the real question is: what relationship will China have with the MRC in the future?"

Campaigners fear that the settling of political scores could block co-operation over the Mekong -- especially the current animosity between Cambodian premier Hun Sen and his Thai counterpart Abhisit Vejjajiva.

Hun Sen has not visited neighbouring Thailand since the two countries became embroiled in a row late last year over Cambodia's appointment of ousted Thai premier Thaksin Shinawatra as an economics adviser.

"That's what worries me quite a lot, that the debate will be more political, and not even related to water," said Anond.

Thailand has invoked a tough security law and will deploy more than 8,000 troops in Hua Hin to ensure protesters do not disrupt the summit, in light of mass anti-government "Red Shirt" rallies in Bangkok since mid-March.

A year ago, regional leaders were forced to abandon a summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) after demonstrators from the same movement stormed the Thai venue.

-- ©Copyright AFP 2010-04-02

Published with written approval from AFP.

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[Danny79]

How do you keep a greenie happy? You can't! Everything you try to do, even if it's nothing, will give them something to whine about.

SAVE THE BLACK LESBIAN WHALES

I don't want to be rude, but I sincerely believe you have the mental capacity of a 4 year old.

If you just look at the effects of practicaly all the damms China has built, beaides the production of energy there is nothing, but really NOTHING good to say about it.

How many people got kicked out of their houses and didn't even get a cent for it or a replacement for the house they lost.

The more and more upcoming drought on rivers, affecting other countries that won't even have a single profit from China's greediness.

And there is much more...

So please use your brain for one second, if you can, and think before you say something stupid...

Edited April 2, 2010 by Danny79

[OzMick]

How do you keep a greenie happy? You can't! Everything you try to do, even if it's nothing, will give them something to whine about.

SAVE THE BLACK LESBIAN WHALES

I don't want to be rude, but I sincerely believe you have the mental capacity of a 4 year old.

If you just look at the effects of practicaly all the damms China has built, beaides the production of energy there is nothing, but really NOTHING good to say about it.

How many people got kicked out of their houses and didn't even get a cent for it or a replacement for the house they lost.

The more and more upcoming drought on rivers, affecting other countries that won't even have a single profit from China's greediness.

And there is much more...

So please use your brain for one second, if you can, and think before you say something stupid...

Danny boy, you are talking to someone who worked in the power generation industry for more than 20 years. A dam does not affect the TOTAL volume of water flowing down a river, only evens out the flow. If it don't rain, you get less water. currently there is a drought -look it up, it means it ain't raining. In dry periods, as the stored potential energy of the water is used for power generation, they even out the flow. NO WATER IS CONSUMED IN HYDRO-GENERATION. If water is being used for irrigation or industry or just for human consumption, don't blame the dam.

Dams also become fisheries, and wildlife havens. Greenie idiots in Tasmania (let the rivers run free) had to pull their head in when it was discovered that dismantling the dams would kill thousands of platypi, an endangered species that live on river banks, or much larger dam edges.

It is unknown how many lives are saved in India where cheap hydro power is used for cooking instead of burning dried cow dung which gave of carcinogenic fumes, but I'd guess more than a few.

Also in Australia, we use very large (660MW) coal fired generators which require a minimum load. At night they are used to pump water up-hill so that it can be used for hydro-generation during peak load periods, saving building billions of dollars of power stations to cover the peaks.

I expected some moron to start raving about solar power. The only practical application of solar power is to do the same thing. Build huge dams, generate enough solar power for daytime requirements plus the pumping, then use the hydro-generation at night.

Be happy in your ignorance.

Edited April 2, 2010 by OzMick

[OzMick]

"oh bring ye back, in sunshine or in shadow............" :D

[Humphrey Bear]

There are pro's and con's for all types of power generation.

Cheapest to build are coal-fired and gas-fired. Cheapest to run are hydro.

Nuclear are expensive to build, not cheap to run.

Solar and wind power, although developing nicely, cannot do much for the grid yet. Maybe contribute 20% of German power (about the highest proportion in the world) but it is still costly, compared to the alternatives.

The developing world needs energy - otherwise it cannot develop. Here in Vietnam there are at least half-a-dozen new sites opened every year - dirty coal-burners, water-damming hydro systems, gas-fired units. Each has a projected life of 25 years (which will be extended to 40 years) but the full power value will last for less time than that.

So, if there are a hundred power plants in use, another 20 being built, with a projected life-span of (say) 30 years each at good production levels, then there must be four new starts every year just to maintain the status quo - to expand you need to double that.

Wake up and smell the roses - because if you keep trying to limit development you will soon not have the greenhouses to breed the new rose-bushes. Nor to milk the cows, churn the butter, cook the weekly roast. We are on a treadmill of ever-increasing consumption of resources, just to try and get one step ahead. If we stop, we die.

[OzMick]

A bear with a brain! A while back read an analysis on NETT power output - the total expected energy produced after you deduct costs of construction (in energy, not dollars) and operation. Hydro is very good, then gas and coal. Wind does surprisingly badly, mainly because of the quantity of aluminium used, and some nuclear stations are actually negative.

Solar is the big up-and-comer, with the potential to cover a lot of daytime load. The problem is the morning and evening load peaks which are usually outside any real solar generation. As I said earlier, the only energy storage method currently available is pumping water up-hill, so you need a desert with a few thousand spare acres, and a mountain range with a fair amount of water, and then put up with transmission losses to your cities. And of course the capital and political will to do it. For sure there will be some over-educated idiot screaming about loss of habitat of the liver-spotted sand lizard.

[catmac]

With you all the way, OzMick.

Don't get too upset by Danny79, a quick glance at his location should tell us all we need to know about him!

Seriously though, it does irk me when the greenies howl down any attempt to reduce our reliance on fossil-fuel use.

[OzMick]

upset - I love verbal duelling, especially when they bring a knife to a gunfight! God's gift to the stupid, they aren't smart enough to realize that they're stupid.

[TerraPosse]

How do you keep a greenie happy? You can't! Everything you try to do, even if it's nothing, will give them something to whine about.

SAVE THE BLACK LESBIAN WHALES

I don't want to be rude, but I sincerely believe you have the mental capacity of a 4 year old.

If you just look at the effects of practicaly all the damms China has built, beaides the production of energy there is nothing, but really NOTHING good to say about it.

How many people got kicked out of their houses and didn't even get a cent for it or a replacement for the house they lost.

The more and more upcoming drought on rivers, affecting other countries that won't even have a single profit from China's greediness.

And there is much more...

So please use your brain for one second, if you can, and think before you say something stupid...

Danny boy, you are talking to someone who worked in the power generation industry for more than 20 years. A dam does not affect the TOTAL volume of water flowing down a river, only evens out the flow. If it don't rain, you get less water. currently there is a drought -look it up, it means it ain't raining. In dry periods, as the stored potential energy of the water is used for power generation, they even out the flow. NO WATER IS CONSUMED IN HYDRO-GENERATION. If water is being used for irrigation or industry or just for human consumption, don't blame the dam.

Dams also become fisheries, and wildlife havens. Greenie idiots in Tasmania (let the rivers run free) had to pull their head in when it was discovered that dismantling the dams would kill thousands of platypi, an endangered species that live on river banks, or much larger dam edges.

It is unknown how many lives are saved in India where cheap hydro power is used for cooking instead of burning dried cow dung which gave of carcinogenic fumes, but I'd guess more than a few.

Also in Australia, we use very large (660MW) coal fired generators which require a minimum load. At night they are used to pump water up-hill so that it can be used for hydro-generation during peak load periods, saving building billions of dollars of power stations to cover the peaks.

I expected some moron to start raving about solar power. The only practical application of solar power is to do the same thing. Build huge dams, generate enough solar power for daytime requirements plus the pumping, then use the hydro-generation at night.

Be happy in your ignorance.

I too find your initial reply was uncalled for.  If, as you claim, you have a background of 20 years in the power generation industry then you surely should be aware of the facts that large scale dams negative impacts far outweigh any benefits they may bring.  That is not to say there is no place for hydro-power schemes and that they can't be beneficial if done right.  But in an age of profit maximisation nobody wants to spend any cash on mitigating the long-term effects any of their grand dam projects will have, of course.

Not often mentioned but large hydro-electric dams too emit greenhouse gases and for dams in the tropics it can be even more than an equivalent coal-fired power station.  If you like to get a handle on the issues and why most existing large dams have been a disaster for many whilst benefiting only a few then you can read the Report by the WDC (World Dam Commission).

And since you also mentioned India where the construction of large dams too has been very controversial over decades I recommend pause for some thought reading ARUNDHATI ROY's excellent "THE GREATER COMMON GOOD".

But then what do any of us tree-huggers know really...

[TerraPosse]

Solar is the big up-and-comer, with the potential to cover a lot of daytime load. The problem is the morning and evening load peaks which are usually outside any real solar generation. As I said earlier, the only energy storage method currently available is pumping water up-hill, so you need a desert with a few thousand spare acres, and a mountain range with a fair amount of water, and then put up with transmission losses to your cities. And of course the capital and political will to do it. For sure there will be some over-educated idiot screaming about loss of habitat of the liver-spotted sand lizard.

Pump-storage schemes, whilst the most common for now, aren't the only way to overcome this limitation.  Since the best places for larger solar generation schemes are deserts it is unlikely they will be combined with a pump-storage scheme.  

Currently there is an ambitious project underway to tap into the solar potential of the Sahara.  Desertec plans to use concentrated solar power plants (CSP) as opposed to PV.  A proven technology as similar installations have been running in the US and Spain for around 20 years.  Although it's solar generation it will supply electricity 24h.  Part of the generated heat during the day will be stored in heat storages like molten salt (most likely atm but they are looking currently at using the sand which is plentiful of course) which will allow generation during the night.

I do agree with you to some degree on the NIMBY'ism so common particular in the UK.  I sure don't like birds getting killed by wind turbines but even the RSPB admitted that to be negligible (if sited correctly of course) yet people keep harping on about poor budgies getting smashed by turbine blades.  That doesn't stop the same people though from flying to their cottage in the South of France even though more birds are killed by aeroplanes than wind turbines. 

[OzMick]

I stand by the initial post - whatever you try to do, even it's nothing, some greenie will bitch about it. If there's not enough power, bitch. You burn fossil fuels, bitch. You build a hydro dam, bitch. And usually it's coming from idealistic young students who still think they know everything. They enjoy all the creature comforts of a modern society while they whine about development projects that will benefit those at the bottom of the heap. And yes, some get the dirty end of the stick, but I don't believe the proportions are as you describe them.

The Snowy River Scheme in Australia is a great system that saves the people of NSW and Victoria a fortune in power stations that they don't need to build. It cycles the water in the way I have described above.

As for your assertion that a hydro dam gives off greenhouse emissions similar to a coal fired station; it is simply ridiculous and another example of a little science being a dangerous thing. Yes, the dams give off carbon dioxide. Why? Because of the decomposition of vegetable and animal matter washed into them. Because this process happens at the bottom, at at high pressure, it flashes off as pressure is dropped when the water is released. Hasn't it occurred to you that it was going to happen anyway? How else is a body of water going to produce CO2? fish farting perhaps?

And this is supposed to be the equivalent of thousands of tons of coal being burnt. Crap!

Maybe now a tree-hugger knows a little more.

[Garry]

How do you keep a greenie happy? You can't! Everything you try to do, even if it's nothing, will give them something to whine about.

SAVE THE BLACK LESBIAN WHALES

you have something against the blue lesbian whales?

[TerraPosse]

I stand by the initial post - whatever you try to do, even it's nothing, some greenie will bitch about it. If there's not enough power, bitch. You burn fossil fuels, bitch. You build a hydro dam, bitch. And usually it's coming from idealistic young students who still think they know everything. They enjoy all the creature comforts of a modern society while they whine about development projects that will benefit those at the bottom of the heap. And yes, some get the dirty end of the stick, but I don't believe the proportions are as you describe them.

The Snowy River Scheme in Australia is a great system that saves the people of NSW and Victoria a fortune in power stations that they don't need to build. It cycles the water in the way I have described above.

As for your assertion that a hydro dam gives off greenhouse emissions similar to a coal fired station; it is simply ridiculous and another example of a little science being a dangerous thing. Yes, the dams give off carbon dioxide. Why? Because of the decomposition of vegetable and animal matter washed into them. Because this process happens at the bottom, at at high pressure, it flashes off as pressure is dropped when the water is released. Hasn't it occurred to you that it was going to happen anyway? How else is a body of water going to produce CO2? fish farting perhaps?

And this is supposed to be the equivalent of thousands of tons of coal being burnt. Crap!

Maybe now a tree-hugger knows a little more.

As I said it is a little known and rarely mentioned fact but it is contained in the WDC report.  It is not just CO2 but also Methane that is being released.  And yes, whilst it obvious that there will be emissions from dams nobody expected them to be quite as high.  You may find it ridiculous yet the case study in Brazil of the Tucurui dam show, whilst being quite variable year on year, the emissions of GHG were exceeding those of a coal-fired power plant of the same size.  

I have stated that there are places and instances where dams have been largely positive in their impacts but that is a very small number.  Virtually all the large dams the WDC looked at during their study have shown not to deliver on all their projected benefits whilst having disproportionally huge negative socio-ecological impacts.  It has nothing to do with a 'little science' or not 'believing the proportions' are as bad but with having a closer look.  

[OzMick]

But there is still no chemical process going on in a dam that would not eventually occur in a river, lake or ocean. It is simple decomposition.

The energy obtained is completely clean and non-polluting, once the dam construction is completed, and the cheapest available.

I accept that there are sociological consequences, but there will always will be as people drag themselves into the modern world, and cheap electricity is the fastest way to do it. If you took a poll of people in a 50km radius, the only people that would elect a coal-fired station over a dam are those whose homes would be flooded.

Along with the power comes the side benefits - flood and drought mitigation, fishery, wildlife reserve, recreation, a positive effect on the local climate - that tend to be overlooked. Take a look at a map of thailand; there are hydro dams all over the place. How many people are complaining?

Edited April 2, 2010 by OzMick

[OzMick]

How do you keep a greenie happy? You can't! Everything you try to do, even if it's nothing, will give them something to whine about.

SAVE THE BLACK LESBIAN WHALES

you have something against the blue lesbian whales?

Saw a job ad in the paper once for a disabled black lesbian single mother. The position was government quota filler

[TerraPosse]

But there is still no chemical process going on in a dam that would not eventually occur in a river, lake or ocean. It is simple decomposition.

You are oversimplifying here.  Whilst emissions of GHG would certainly also have occurred prior to there being a dam, the dam increases area in which these processes take place greatly and then you have also the loss of current that would allow an undisturbed river to take material along but that now will settle in the dam.

Along with the power comes the side benefits - flood and drought mitigation, fishery, wildlife reserve, recreation, a positive effect on the local climate - that tend to be overlooked. Take a look at a map of thailand; there are hydro dams all over the place. How many people are complaining?

Oh, those 'side benefits' won't be overlooked, the industry behind large dam projects will make sure of that.  After all they need every bit of help they can get to placard over the 100's of thousands displaced and the loss in biodiversity that so often go in hand with their 'little' projects.

There may be a lot of hydro dams around in Thailand but not that many on a really grand scale.  Your logic would also explain why the Chinese aren't really complaining and won't join the MRC.  What concern is it to them if the Mekong runs low in Thailand or Cambodia or pesky Vietnam as long as they get their dams, electricity and irrigation schemes.  If the Mekong delta becomes salinated then that is just though sh*t, right. 

[OzMick]

But there is still no chemical process going on in a dam that would not eventually occur in a river, lake or ocean. It is simple decomposition.

You are oversimplifying here. Whilst emissions of GHG would certainly also have occurred prior to there being a dam, the dam increases area in which these processes take place greatly and then you have also the loss of current that would allow an undisturbed river to take material along but that now will settle in the dam.

Along with the power comes the side benefits - flood and drought mitigation, fishery, wildlife reserve, recreation, a positive effect on the local climate - that tend to be overlooked. Take a look at a map of thailand; there are hydro dams all over the place. How many people are complaining?

Oh, those 'side benefits' won't be overlooked, the industry behind large dam projects will make sure of that. After all they need every bit of help they can get to placard over the 100's of thousands displaced and the loss in biodiversity that so often go in hand with their 'little' projects.

There may be a lot of hydro dams around in Thailand but not that many on a really grand scale. Your logic would also explain why the Chinese aren't really complaining and won't join the MRC. What concern is it to them if the Mekong runs low in Thailand or Cambodia or pesky Vietnam as long as they get their dams, electricity and irrigation schemes. If the Mekong delta becomes salinated then that is just though sh*t, right.

There is only a certain amount of vegetable/animal matter being washed to the sea by any river. It's decomposition will happen either in the river, the dam, or the ocean. What does it matter where it takes place? What is the area of the dam got to do with it, and how big is it compared to the ocean that the river flows to? This is greenie BS to discredit a dam. THERE IS NO CHEMICAL REACTION TAKING PLACE IN A DAM THAT WILL NOT OCCUR NATURALLY ELSEWHERE!! Can you not understand that simple fact, or even dispute it if you wish.

There is no water consumed in the generation of hydro-electricity. The only alteration will be a reduction in flow in high flow periods, and an increase in low flow periods. Yes more water may be used for irrigation, but what has that got to do with electricity generation? Stop throwing in red herrings and racial slurs. Quite probably the Chinese don't care about the people down stream. So what? the subject as I understand it is hydro-electricity on the Mekong. I doubt if the thais give a rat's anus about the cambodians downstream, and the cambodians have similar views about the Vietnamese. If you can explain to me where one drop of water will be lost (other than evaporation) to hydro-generation, I'll admit defeat.

[TerraPosse]

But there is still no chemical process going on in a dam that would not eventually occur in a river, lake or ocean. It is simple decomposition.

You are oversimplifying here. Whilst emissions of GHG would certainly also have occurred prior to there being a dam, the dam increases area in which these processes take place greatly and then you have also the loss of current that would allow an undisturbed river to take material along but that now will settle in the dam.

Along with the power comes the side benefits - flood and drought mitigation, fishery, wildlife reserve, recreation, a positive effect on the local climate - that tend to be overlooked. Take a look at a map of thailand; there are hydro dams all over the place. How many people are complaining?

Oh, those 'side benefits' won't be overlooked, the industry behind large dam projects will make sure of that. After all they need every bit of help they can get to placard over the 100's of thousands displaced and the loss in biodiversity that so often go in hand with their 'little' projects.

There may be a lot of hydro dams around in Thailand but not that many on a really grand scale. Your logic would also explain why the Chinese aren't really complaining and won't join the MRC. What concern is it to them if the Mekong runs low in Thailand or Cambodia or pesky Vietnam as long as they get their dams, electricity and irrigation schemes. If the Mekong delta becomes salinated then that is just though sh*t, right.

There is only a certain amount of vegetable/animal matter being washed to the sea by any river. It's decomposition will happen either in the river, the dam, or the ocean. What does it matter where it takes place? What is the area of the dam got to do with it, and how big is it compared to the ocean that the river flows to? This is greenie BS to discredit a dam. THERE IS NO CHEMICAL REACTION TAKING PLACE IN A DAM THAT WILL NOT OCCUR NATURALLY ELSEWHERE!! Can you not understand that simple fact, or even dispute it if you wish.

There is no water consumed in the generation of hydro-electricity. The only alteration will be a reduction in flow in high flow periods, and an increase in low flow periods. Yes more water may be used for irrigation, but what has that got to do with electricity generation? Stop throwing in red herrings and racial slurs. Quite probably the Chinese don't care about the people down stream. So what? the subject as I understand it is hydro-electricity on the Mekong. I doubt if the thais give a rat's anus about the cambodians downstream, and the cambodians have similar views about the Vietnamese. If you can explain to me where one drop of water will be lost (other than evaporation) to hydro-generation, I'll admit defeat.

As I said before this is not some 'greenie BS' but based on studies of large dams and their impacts.  Unless you can point out where these findings have been falsified you will forgive me for placing evidence over your believe of something is not happening.  What the area of the dam got to do with it?  Well for starters you submerge a large area that is full of organic matter which would not decompose in your river as it was.  However that alone can not explain the high GHG emissions from dams in tropical regions.  Anyway you can keep your believes and I'll stick to the science.

I'm not throwing in red herrings.  This is not just about electricity generation.  Why such a narrow focus?  Convenience?  Almost every large scale dam project in this part of the world brings with it the implementation of irrigation schemes and/or industrial developments that will make use of the dammed water.  Now surely, wouldn't you agree that this is water that is not going nowhere downstream (on top of the increased loss through evaporation).

If people in the MRC and ASEAN are as selfish as you portray them, then they will just get along swimmingly with the challenges of the next decades.

[Jerrytheyoung]

There are several issues;

1- the construction of the dams is recent and I have understood they were not yet full... which means that during the filling less water is going downstream

2- As already underlined, with the dams not only hydro electrics projects are on going but also irrigation ones which means less water downstream as China is using water for irrigation.

3- some studies are available on Internet which show:

a- If Laos balance between rainfalls and evaporation is positive, for Issan (Nonkhai- Nakhon Phanom) the balance is negative which means that some irrigation networks have to be organised

b- In NE issan, underground, at 100m/200m there are some deposits of salt rocks. this is affecting underground waters and make them useless for irrigation (particularly in the area of Tha Phanom)

c- as a first conclusion, Extreme North East Thailand needs Mekong water for irrigation. (And this is something which has to be done and should be on the agenda of the politicians).

An agency must be organised between all the neighbouring Countries of the Mekong, an agreement has to be done and consequently procedures have to be implemented for managing the Mekong waters and dams.

[webfact]

UPDATE

Mekong commission opens doors to civic groups for first time

By Pongphon Sarnsamak

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- To celebrate its 15th anniversary this year, the Mekong River Commission is for the first time welcoming recommendations by civic groups and environmental activists on ways to improve the efficiency of water resources management, Natural Resources and Environment Minister Suwit Khunkitti said yesterday.

"Civic [input] is very important for the MRC and we will welcome all people wishing to help the MRC manage water resources in the mekong River basin," he said.

The commission's doors had previously been shut to civic participation.

People living the river and activists plan to submit a petition to MRC representatives attending the "International Conference on Transboundary Water Resource Management in a Changing World" today in Hua Hin, in order to establish their roles.

Civic groups asked the MRC to revise its organisational structure and open itself to public participation. They also said it should work to establish the real capacity of the mekong and devise appropriate means of reviving its natural resources.

The commission needs to conduct research to mitigate the social impact of negative trends along the river, they said. It should also set up a regional mekong network, with the government of each country in the river's basin being a partner in international law on transboundary water utilisation.

With the media having criticised China for being a major cause of drought and flooding in the mekong basin, Suwit praised the country for its release to the MRC of hydrological data for the dry season. He said this would help countries in the lower mekong basin handle the drought situation.

Previously, the Chinese Ministry of Water Resources of China had provided only hydrological data during the flooding season. This was collected from the Yunjinghong and Manan stations on a regular basis since 2003.

The reporting played a key role in flood control and disaster reduction for downstream mekong countries.

In order to combat drought caused by the extreme weather in downstream riparian countries, China has since March 22 provided dryseason hydrological data collected for emergency use from Yunjinghong and Manan.

"This is a significant step for China to leverage cooperation with the MRC, and all the commission's member counties appreciate the move and thank China," Suwit said.

Meanwhile, Chen Mingzhong, directorgeneral of China's International Cooperation, Science and Technology Department, said as China was the sole upperMekong country, it would never do anything that would have an adverse impact on countries in the lower reaches of the river.

China will also continue its cooperation with countries in the lower mekong over the management of water for sustainable development, he said.

Meanwhile, Jeremy Bird, head of the MRC secretariat, said the plan to mitigate the impact from flooding and drought along the mekong would be the priority topic for some 250 delegates from Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Burma and China during the MRC summit, which began yesterday and runs until Monday.

Biological diversitybased economic development, natural resources, ecological resources and fisheries also are major topics on the summit agenda.

He said participants from the MRC's four member states - Thailand, Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia - and experts from many other countries across different continents would share their experience on how to manage transboundary water resources.

The MRC will also ask its member states to reconfirm their commitment to continued cooperation.

"China and Mynmar [burma] are committed to the MRC as dialogue partners for sustainable development of the Mekong," Bird said.

-- The Nation 2010-04-03

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[OzMick]

HUA HIN: -- Civic groups, academics and environmental activists yesterday called for the Mekong River Commission (MRC) to revise its 10year hydropower development plan on the river and its tributaries, saying the current plans would adversely affect millions of lives living downstream.

Please read the opening statement of the article. I am defending hydro-power dams. Irrigation schemes may be required/wanted but I have little interest in them.

Your logic would also explain why the Chinese aren't really complaining and won't join the MRC. What concern is it to them if the Mekong runs low in Thailand or Cambodia or pesky Vietnam as long as they get their dams, electricity and irrigation schemes. If the Mekong delta becomes salinated then that is just though sh*t, right.

You raised the subject of self-interest. I merely pointed out that self-interest is not only a chinese trait. I am not a sinophile.

Can we go back to chemistry 101 with your GHG? Both CO2 and Methane CH4 have one thing in common. They require Carbon, a basic element - no chemical process produces carbon from other material. If the huge amount of GHG is being given off as your evidence claims, there must be a renewable source of Carbon flowing into the dam, or a huge supply somewhere below the dam. As dams as a rule are built over solid rock and not coal deposits, we will have to assume it is a renewable source apart from the vegetable matter trapped in the initial flooding - a miniscule amount over the 100 year life of a dam. The only renewable source is from the river, and that matter will decay whether the dam is present or not, the dam merely localises it.

A waterfall is a fair analogy to hydro-generation. The potential energy of the water is converted into kinetic, and then heat. In a hydro, the potential is converted to kinetic and then electrical. Neither emit GHG. Your evidence of GHG emissions omits one pertinent question "WHY?" And for a specific reason, they started with the aim of proving that dams are bad.

I saw trains, trucks and conveyor belts hauling coal into power stations 24/365. I know where that carbon was coming from, and I agree that it is probably better left in the ground if there is an alternative source of energy. Coal is almost pure carbon, with a little Hydrogen (small by weight) and usually a bit of Sulphur to sweeten the mix. For every 12 tons of carbon (atomic weight 12) add 32 tons of oxygen, and a little SOx and NOx, pollutants covered by govt regulation. Do you know how they keep within the regulation limits? Add a little more air after the furnace to increase the total flow. I vote for the dam.

Jerry, you have a fair point about initial fill, but

Once completed, the dams will contain only 10 per cent of the annual water runoff, or 36 billion cubic metres per annum.

There a quite a few, they don't all come on-line at once, and normal practice is to slowly fill the dam until a high-flow event occurs so that normal river flow is maintained.

[OzMick]

Terra posse - I have downloaded your link to the World Dam Commission report and while I have not yet read all of it, I have read the GHG emissions section starting on Page 75.

As I expected, Tucurui, the dam you nominated as an example, is an absolutely worst case. It is wide, shallow, in a tropical climate, and with very little generation capacity. The emissions measured vary widely, even when conducted by the same people, and no explanation of accuracy or methodology is given.

What seems to have completed eluded you was the statement (PDF format, can't cut and paste) that since no background measurements were taken before the dam was built, the results are TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

As I said before, greenie pseudo-science BS. CRAP!

[TerraPosse]

Terra posse - I have downloaded your link to the World Dam Commission report and while I have not yet read all of it, I have read the GHG emissions section starting on Page 75.

As I expected, Tucurui, the dam you nominated as an example, is an absolutely worst case. It is wide, shallow, in a tropical climate, and with very little generation capacity. The emissions measured vary widely, even when conducted by the same people, and no explanation of accuracy or methodology is given.

What seems to have completed eluded you was the statement (PDF format, can't cut and paste) that since no background measurements were taken before the dam was built, the results are TOTALLY MEANINGLESS.

As I said before, greenie pseudo-science BS. CRAP!

Where us Tucurui a worst case?  It is just one example of a typical dam in a tropical region.  What applies to this dam is likely to take place in other dams in the tropics too.  I stated above that there is great variability in the GHG emissions year on year.  I have read the report and hence am aware of the statement regarding the pre-dam background measurements.  Whilst it would be nice to have them, not having them does not make the measured GHG emission meaningless.  Unless you are trying to suggest that the river pre-dam and it surrounding greenery pre-flooding emitted just as much GHG?  Now, it is known for rainforests to emit some Methane whilst absorbing CO2 but it's unlikely to be on the same scale as those measures.  The report does make it clear more research on this aspect is needed and it cannot fully explain the findings and its causes.

Calling something 'greenie pseudo-science BS' because it obviously does not fit in with your opinions just goes to show the intellectual level you prefer to operate on.  Sorry, but I won't lower myself. 

Big dams in the majority of cases are bad.  The GHG emissions are more of minor point.  The real killer arguments are the medium to long term effects they have on society and the ecology.  And there really is shed loads of evidence around for that (not least in the WDC report).  That said I'm not against hydro power.  I'm all for it...in the right situations and done properly.

[OzMick]

Your source stated that the highest figures were obtained in large, wide shallow dams in tropical regions and that is a perfect description of Tucurui. The reason is obvious, because a wide shallow dam in the tropics will be relatively warm, accelerating decomposition. Also, that then the GHG emission figures became comparable to other sources where these dams have only a small generating capacity. Shut down the hydro and use the dam as a storage/flood mitigation and why would there be any comparison at all? To extrapolate this to all hydro dams is ridiculous, tropical or not.

I have attempted to explain the chemical processes taking place at the simplest level. Did your education not contain any science or chemistry? Or have you simply fried your brain?

Yes, I am saying that a tropical river flowing through/from a jungle emits GHG as the debris burden decomposes. Why is that so hard to accept? Warm oxygenated water will accelerate the process, and if it doesn't happen in the river it will in a lake, dam or ocean. All your report states is that GHG are present at a certain lake, which happens to be caused by a dam. Why not compare them to a natural lake, or even a stretch of the same river.

The intellectual level I operate on is informed scientific analysis. I have asked you to explain your reasoning, to explain where the carbon for these emissions is sourced and your only reply is to resort back to a report which states that it isn't clear. Now that's an intellectual Everest!

[TerraPosse]

Your source stated that the highest figures were obtained in large, wide shallow dams in tropical regions and that is a perfect description of Tucurui. The reason is obvious, because a wide shallow dam in the tropics will be relatively warm, accelerating decomposition. Also, that then the GHG emission figures became comparable to other sources where these dams have only a small generating capacity. Shut down the hydro and use the dam as a storage/flood mitigation and why would there be any comparison at all? To extrapolate this to all hydro dams is ridiculous, tropical or not.

I have attempted to explain the chemical processes taking place at the simplest level. Did your education not contain any science or chemistry? Or have you simply fried your brain?

Yes, I am saying that a tropical river flowing through/from a jungle emits GHG as the debris burden decomposes. Why is that so hard to accept? Warm oxygenated water will accelerate the process, and if it doesn't happen in the river it will in a lake, dam or ocean. All your report states is that GHG are present at a certain lake, which happens to be caused by a dam. Why not compare them to a natural lake, or even a stretch of the same river.

The intellectual level I operate on is informed scientific analysis. I have asked you to explain your reasoning, to explain where the carbon for these emissions is sourced and your only reply is to resort back to a report which states that it isn't clear. Now that's an intellectual Everest!

I don't need you to to explain the chemical processes of decomposing organic matter to me.  I've had a well rounded education and are familiar with the subject matter.  'Informed scientific analysis' doesn't need to communicate on the gutter level, that is if it is informed...scientific and analytical.

In your estimated opinion are you seriously suggesting that the level of GHG emissions in a pre-dam river that doesn't ever contain the organic matter of many square kilometres the dam will cover are identical to the ones of the dam?

Whilst there sure is more research needed to identify the reasons behind the great variability and what exactly those figures are pre-construction that doesn't change the findings as they are so far.  Some more data on other dams of various ages in the tropics too would be nice but I'm sure we'll get some of those in years to come.

And frankly unless you can point out some research that contradicts those findings I don't quite understand your fervour in disputing this.  It is one of many side effects where large scale dams (in the tropics in this case) are found wanting.  It just was one nobody really expected though. 

[webfact]

China ready to fully cooperate in solving the drying of the Mekong River

BANGKOK (NNT) -- The People's Republic of China has expressed its readiness to collaborate with all country members to resolve the ongoing drought crisis of the Mekong River, according to the Minister of Natural Resources and Environment, Suwit Khunkitti.

Mr Suwit revealed today that the Chinese authorities have expressed their positive cooperation to provide all information and recommendations relating to the solution on the drying of the Mekong River during the First Mekong River Commission (MRC) Summit. It was earlier claimed that China's construction of dams at the upper part of the Mekong has contributed to the drought and water shortage experienced by countries in the lower basin this year.

The MRC Summit is currently taking place in the seaside province of Prachuap Khiri Khan from 2-5 April and is attended by foreign leaders and delegates from five nations including Cambodia, China, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar.

-- NNT 2010-04-04

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]

[mythBuster]

The problem with almost ALL Asian countries is that they do not give a dam_n about others. They are totally non caring. They see only business and short term gains. Take EGAT who only calculated the money that could be made with the pak moon dam. Take Chuan wgho as a Prime Minister simply refused to compensate the people according the agreements made by the Chavalit government. Now their is a dam thanks to Chuan and there is no water to farm, no fish anymore and only EGAT is making some money.

Shame on the bureaucrats from China to Vietnam.

[george]

Southeast Asian river countries meet China over dam fears

by Rachel O'Brien

HUA HIN (AFP) -- Southeast Asian nations on the shrinking lower Mekong River began talks with China Sunday amid fears that its dams are further depleting the waterway's lowest levels in decades.

A Chinese delegation was due to hold talks in the Thai coastal town of Hua Hin ahead of a Monday meeting to be attended by Beijing's Vice Foreign Minister Song Tao and the premiers of Cambodia, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam.

Leaders will discuss management of the vast river, on which more than 60 million people depend, amid a crippling drought in the region and controversy surrounding the role of hydropower dams, said summit spokesman Damian Kean.

"This is to reaffirm the countries' political commitment to transboundary cooperation on managing the water resources of the Mekong basin," said Kean.

"New challenges such as climate change and new hydropower dams" are high on the agenda, added Kean, of the inter-governmental Mekong River Commission (MRC) that was organising the first summit in its 15-year history.

Leaders began arriving in Hua Hin on Sunday morning and were due to gather for a gala dinner ahead of Monday's meeting, where they will sign a joint declaration of their aims, said organisers.

Myanmar will also participate as a dialogue partner at the top-level talks.

The MRC has warned that the health of the Mekong Basin and the river's eco-systems could be threatened by proposed dams and expanding populations.

China is expected to staunchly defend its own dams, which activists downstream blame for water shortages, after the Mekong shrivelled to its lowest level in 50 years in Laos and Thailand's north.

The crisis has grounded cargo and tour boats on the so-called "mighty Mekong" and alarmed communities along what is the world's largest inland fishery.

Nations in the lower Mekong basin are likely to press China for information on the river as well as financial help, said Anond Snidvongs, director of the Southeast Asia START Regional Centre, which researches environmental change.

China -- itself suffering the worst drought in a century in its southwest, with more than 24 million people short of drinking water -- says the reason for water shortages is unusually low rainfall rather than man-made infrastructure.

It says the dams, built to meet soaring demand for water and hydro-electricity, have been effective in releasing water during dry seasons and preventing flooding in rainy months.

The Chinese Embassy in Bangkok last week said China would "never do things that harm the interests of (lower Mekong) countries" and has agreed to share water level data from two dams during this dry season.

Yet questions remain over the impact of the eight planned or existing dams on the mainstream river in China.

Vice Minister of Water Resources Liu Ning said Wednesday more were needed to guarantee water and food security, while 12 dams in lower Mekong countries have also been proposed.

Thailand has invoked a tough security law and has deployed thousands of troops in Hua Hin to ensure protesters do not disrupt the summit, in light of mass anti-government "Red Shirt" rallies in Bangkok since mid-March.

A year ago, regional leaders were forced to abandon a summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) due to protests.

-- ©Copyright AFP 2010-04-04

Published with written approval from AFP.

[newsfooter][/newsfooter]