PM's Adviser Seeks To Build Tunnel Linking River, Tak Dam

[webfact]

PM's adviser seeks to build tunnel linking river, Tak dam

The Nation

BANGKOK: -- An adviser to Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra is trying to revive a Bt200-billion project to build an 88km tunnel linking Burma's Salween River and Bhumibol Dam in Thailand's Tak province.

"The investment will be well worth it," Uthen Chatpinyo said yesterday. During the 2011 flood crisis, Uthen chaired the water-drainage committee of the Flood Relief Operations Centre.

Uthen described the project as a solution to both flooding and water shortages.

He said water management at Tak's Bhumibol Dam should be adjusted and the reservoir's water level lowered in preparation for possible rainstorms throughout the year. The dam could then play a role as a water-retention area, he said.

Uthen said the tunnel, when built, would be able to send 3,000 cubic metres of water to the Bhumibol Dam per second.

The volume should be large enough to generate electricity, he said.

The tunnel project won the green light from the Cabinet in 2004 during the administration of Yingluck's brother Thaksin. But the project was scrapped after Thaksin lost power.

Uthen plans to present the project for Yingluck to consider on Wednesday.

"If we don't act fast, Burma and China may invest in the Salween River instead, and Thailand will lose many opportunities," he said.

Meanwhile, Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva yesterday said he hoped the government would be able to answer his 10 questions about its water- and flood-management policies.

One of them was about the accuracy of the mathematical model being used to develop an early-warning system.

"The [government-appointed] Strategic Committee for Water Resources Management has said the system will be ready by January. I would like to ask about the system now," the Opposition leader said.

He was speaking at a seminar held by the Democrat Party, as Yingluck's administration planned a tour of many provinces to tackle flood problems.

Chamadon Chomchoengphaet, an executive at tempura-flour maker Gogi, said at the seminar that he had not yet fully repaired Gogi's factory in Ayutthaya because he was worried that more floods may come.

"I hope the government will improve the early-warning system," he said.

-- The Nation 2012-02-15

[birdpooguava]

Abhisit did nothing to deal with the impending disaster during his term & is now criticising every attempt to find solutions. Where are his suggestions on solving the problem?

[jambco984]

Abhisit did nothing to deal with the impending disaster during his term & is now criticising every attempt to find solutions. Where are his suggestions on solving the problem?

I agree but he wasn't thinking of the future he was thinking of then. It never happened on his watch so of course he can criticize as much as he likes. It is the job of the opposition to bitch and bitch he shall.

[jambco984]

I hope the green light is given as it could be a good thing for the area. No more premonitions from madmen fearing the dam will burst

[animatic]

Abhisit did nothing to deal with the impending disaster during his term & is now criticising every attempt to find solutions. Where are his suggestions on solving the problem?

I agree but he wasn't thinking of the future he was thinking of then. It never happened on his watch so of course he can criticize as much as he likes. It is the job of the opposition to bitch and bitch he shall.

The last serious plan was formualted during Thaksin 1

and then ignored by Thaksin and his proxy parties ever since.

This moit wit seems to think that bringing MORE water to the dam

will somehow fix excessive water flows downstream from the dam....

no clue why he thinks this.

Any amount of water behind the dam can be used to generate electricity.

With the expense of needing to route water flow around Bangkok for furutre floods,and create water catchments and levies around manufacturing complexes in away that doesn't flood habitations, the idea that this Pork reeking boonbdoggle is in the budget is ludicrous. It smacks of special intertests trying to get their old Mega Project restarted so their previously wasted investment can be realized.

Edited February 15, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

I hope the green light is given as it could be a good thing for the area. No more premonitions from madmen fearing the dam will burst

HUH!!!!!!

'Put more water behind for the dam to hold, so that means it is less risk of bursting.'

Another absurdity.

[jambco984]

I hope the green light is given as it could be a good thing for the area. No more premonitions from madmen fearing the dam will burst

HUH!!!!!!

'Put more water behind for the dam to hold, so that means it is less risk of bursting.'

Another absurdity.

Sorry what I meant to say is I hope it brings work to the people of Tak and surrounding areas. Yes I know there are the people who want more easy money but that will never stop. So I've stopped going on about that sort of change.

If people don't like how the country is run then go home. Whether you have been here 1 day or 30 years what do you think it's all about?? ฿฿฿ is all it's about.

I know if work was scheduled up this way then Im guessing my family will get some of the pie, happy family equals quiet life for me.

Regards the tunnel then it would be built to take away from the dam and use another vast resource..... Supposedly.

Only such an ABSURDITY will mean that lives will hopefully be saved if the proverbial hit the fan.

Why should only people in BKK benefit from improvements.

This is only a suggestion I take my posts usually with a pinch of salt, a point of view is all I'm offering.

[whybother]

I hope the green light is given as it could be a good thing for the area. No more premonitions from madmen fearing the dam will burst

HUH!!!!!!

'Put more water behind for the dam to hold, so that means it is less risk of bursting.'

Another absurdity.

Sorry what I meant to say is I hope it brings work to the people of Tak and surrounding areas. Yes I know there are the people who want more easy money but that will never stop. So I've stopped going on about that sort of change.

If people don't like how the country is run then go home. Whether you have been here 1 day or 30 years what do you think it's all about?? ฿฿฿ is all it's about.

I know if work was scheduled up this way then Im guessing my family will get some of the pie, happy family equals quiet life for me.

Regards the tunnel then it would be built to take away from the dam and use another vast resource..... Supposedly.

Only such an ABSURDITY will mean that lives will hopefully be saved if the proverbial hit the fan.

Why should only people in BKK benefit from improvements.

This is only a suggestion I take my posts usually with a pinch of salt, a point of view is all I'm offering.

I think you missed the bit about the tunnel bringing MORE water into the dam.

More water means more chance of bursting, which will mean more water released, which will mean more flooding downstream.

Edited February 15, 2012 by whybother

[tragickingdom]

Abhisit did nothing to deal with the impending disaster during his term & is now criticising every attempt to find solutions. Where are his suggestions on solving the problem?

Was there ever a democrat leader that acted at all? Both Abhisitand Chuan were mostly good in one single thing. Pushing paper from one desk to another, avoiding making any decision that would upset the state quo. You are spot on about the Democrat part, Abhisit and his box Suthep.

[anterian]

I am not sure because the press releases are not clear, but I think the idea is that with an input from a river as back up the dams won't need to be kept at such a high level. I assume the input from the river can be turned off if the dams hold enough water.

Even cleverer would be to fit reversible turbines in the tunnel, so the dam can send water back into the river if the level rises too much. Rather like Dinorwig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station

[jambco984]

I hope the green light is given as it could be a good thing for the area. No more premonitions from madmen fearing the dam will burst

HUH!!!!!!

'Put more water behind for the dam to hold, so that means it is less risk of bursting.'

Another absurdity.

Sorry what I meant to say is I hope it brings work to the people of Tak and surrounding areas. Yes I know there are the people who want more easy money but that will never stop. So I've stopped going on about that sort of change.

If people don't like how the country is run then go home. Whether you have been here 1 day or 30 years what do you think it's all about?? ฿฿฿ is all it's about.

I know if work was scheduled up this way then Im guessing my family will get some of the pie, happy family equals quiet life for me.

Regards the tunnel then it would be built to take away from the dam and use another vast resource..... Supposedly.

Only such an ABSURDITY will mean that lives will hopefully be saved if the proverbial hit the fan.

Why should only people in BKK benefit from improvements.

This is only a suggestion I take my posts usually with a pinch of salt, a point of view is all I'm offering.

I think you missed the bit about the tunnel bringing MORE water into the dam.

More water means more chance of bursting, which will mean more water released, which will mean more flooding downstream.

I did see that but then right at the top of the article it gives you this......

"He said water management at Tak's Bhumibol Dam should be adjusted and the reservoir's water level lowered in preparation for possible rainstorms throughout the year. The dam could then play a role as a water-retention area, he said.

Uthen said the tunnel, when built, would be able to send 3,000 cubic metres of water to the Bhumibol Dam per second.

The volume should be large enough to generate electricity, he said."

Who knows??? All I know is I am not getting involved anymore

[z12]

A catastrophic dam failure will wash Bangkok out to sea.

Catastrophic Dam Failure in Eastern Iowa

http://www.weather.c...iver_2010-07-24

The Banqiao Reservoir Dam is a dam on the River Ru in Zhumadian Prefecture, Henan province, China. It infamously failed in 1975, causing more casualties than any other dam failure in history.

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Banqiao_Dam

1928 Catastrophic St. Francis Dam Failure, Los Angeles County: Worst American Civil Engineering Failure of the 20th Century

http://www.semp.us/p....php?BiotID=376

Edited February 15, 2012 by z12

[ResX]

Bringing 3000m3/s of water to Bhumibol. dam, I think it is well to ambitious. Annual average discharge for the entire Chao Pharaya catchment is just slightly over 2000m3/s. if you add these two figures then then they become 5000m3/s. During the last year's floods, Chao Pharaya peak discharge was just over 4700m3/s.

I thought they have exhausted of ideas and resources to deal with floods. Surprisingly, they still dare to import "floods" from other nation.

[belg]

yeah but more water to thailand, great idea... last year did not ring a bell.... the only way would be to build a tunnel or whatever (pipeline) from the thai dam's to the sea...

[ResX]

I am not sure because the press releases are not clear, but I think the idea is that with an input from a river as back up the dams won't need to be kept at such a high level. I assume the input from the river can be turned off if the dams hold enough water.

Even cleverer would be to fit reversible turbines in the tunnel, so the dam can send water back into the river if the level rises too much. Rather like Dinorwig http://en.wikipedia....g_Power_Station

Where they are going to put that 3,000m3/s? They can't discharge it since the Chao Pharaya river cannot take additional more than 1,500m3/s most of the time? Even they can find good time to discharge 1,500m3/s taken from Salween river so that they don't have to keep the water in any reservoir, this will make Chao Pharaya river discharge to be at 3,500m3/s 50% of the time. How about if moderate to heavy off season storms strike near BKK and they carry another 1,500m3/s (one third of the last year's discharge)? That makes total discharge through BKK to be at 5,000m3/s. Remember 2011? This is about peak discharge that passed through BKK last year.

Say they are very smart about managing the water (I doubt) and they really can ensure they know how to import the right amount at the right time, how they are going to be sure that Salween river has the quantity that they want?

Basically it is a good deal to buy water from other nations if we really don't have enough. But the decision has to take into account issues that have to be dealt with.

[anterian]

I am not sure because the press releases are not clear, but I think the idea is that with an input from a river as back up the dams won't need to be kept at such a high level. I assume the input from the river can be turned off if the dams hold enough water.

Even cleverer would be to fit reversible turbines in the tunnel, so the dam can send water back into the river if the level rises too much. Rather like Dinorwig http://en.wikipedia....g_Power_Station

Where they are going to put that 3,000m3/s? They can't discharge it since the Chao Pharaya river cannot take additional more than 1,500m3/s most of the time? Even they can find good time to discharge 1,500m3/s taken from Salween river so that they don't have to keep the water in any reservoir, this will make Chao Pharaya river discharge to be at 3,500m3/s 50% of the time. How about if moderate to heavy off season storms strike near BKK and they carry another 1,500m3/s (one third of the last year's discharge)? That makes total discharge through BKK to be at 5,000m3/s. Remember 2011? This is about peak discharge that passed through BKK last year.

Say they are very smart about managing the water (I doubt) and they really can ensure they know how to import the right amount at the right time, how they are going to be sure that Salween river has the quantity that they want?

Basically it is a good deal to buy water from other nations if we really don't have enough. But the decision has to take into account issues that have to be dealt with.

The implication of your comment, as I read it, it that the tunnel will have no control gear to regulate or stop the flow. I think even a Thai engineer would realise the need for this.

[whybother]

The implication of your comment, as I read it, it that the tunnel will have no control gear to regulate or stop the flow. I think even a Thai engineer would realise the need for this.

I think what ResX is suggesting that the flow would need to be stopped basically all the time.

[Thaddeus]

I think I've just worked out what they are trying to achieve.

Make the excessive water weaker by diluting it.

[anterian]

The implication of your comment, as I read it, it that the tunnel will have no control gear to regulate or stop the flow. I think even a Thai engineer would realise the need for this.

I think what ResX is suggesting that the flow would need to be stopped basically all the time.

As I say, I'm guessing because the details are not clear. But Logically the tunnel should enable them to keep the dam half full, then is there is a sudden farming demand for water they can supplement the dam water with the tunnel water.

[whybother]

As I say, I'm guessing because the details are not clear. But Logically the tunnel should enable them to keep the dam half full, then is there is a sudden farming demand for water they can supplement the dam water with the tunnel water.

The problems have been that the dam has been TOO full. There shouldn't be a need to bring water in from elsewhere.

The problem with this plan is that it would be quite expensive for occasional use.

[anterian]

As I say, I'm guessing because the details are not clear. But Logically the tunnel should enable them to keep the dam half full, then is there is a sudden farming demand for water they can supplement the dam water with the tunnel water.

The problems have been that the dam has been TOO full. There shouldn't be a need to bring water in from elsewhere.

The problem with this plan is that it would be quite expensive for occasional use.

Yes the dam has been too full because of pressure from the rice growers. They feared there would not be enough water for their needs.

I agree it would be quite expensive for occasional use, the real question then is are we seeing a climate change which will convert "occasional" into "regular" or "frequent".?Put another way, are you a believer or a skeptic on global warming?

[animatic]

Brining regional jobs for a few years is great, if the end product is not a increased likelihood of

100 times the amount of employed are put out of work when the next major flood is even bigger than this one,

because there is even more water to flood the area below with.

The problem is to increase throughput down stream,

not greatly increase what needs to be moved through upstream.

Edited February 17, 2012 by animatic

[animatic]

As I say, I'm guessing because the details are not clear. But Logically the tunnel should enable them to keep the dam half full, then is there is a sudden farming demand for water they can supplement the dam water with the tunnel water.

The problems have been that the dam has been TOO full. There shouldn't be a need to bring water in from elsewhere.

The problem with this plan is that it would be quite expensive for occasional use.

Yes the dam has been too full because of pressure from the rice growers. They feared there would not be enough water for their needs.

I agree it would be quite expensive for occasional use, the real question then is are we seeing a climate change which will convert "occasional" into "regular" or "frequent".?Put another way, are you a believer or a skeptic on global warming?

And the rice growers feared that too much water release

would wash out their crops just as harvest was coming.

There is an obvious climate shift, and huge vested interests want that observable fact to be muddied into doubt and confusion.

Edited February 17, 2012 by animatic

[ResX]

I get your point clearly. If you want to regulate you must have mean to regulate. If Chao Pharaya river can take up to 3,500m3/s before "hurting" somebody, you can't regulate average flow of 4,500m3/s without violating 3,500m3/s limit.

What I was trying to say is there is no feasible mean as far as I can see to do so. There are two things that you have to have to make the vision works, namely to build another reservoir in Burma and to build another "river" the size of Chao Pharaya. Otherwise you can't channel 3,000 m3/s from Burma safely and economically. Wuth these two things in place then I can assure you that it works. The only problem, as I can clearly see right now the utilization factor is going to be very low. Most of the time whether you don't need that imported water or you can't import it since you have flood problem on you own. Obviously you don't want to import the water just for a sake of channeling it to the second Chao Pharaya.

[ResX]

The implication of your comment, as I read it, it that the tunnel will have no control gear to regulate or stop the flow. I think even a Thai engineer would realise the need for this.

I think what ResX is suggesting that the flow would need to be stopped basically all the time.

Close to that rate. Almost all the time. To be honest, once in every 4-5 years it definitely helps Thailand to deal with drought. If at this rate of utilization is economically feasible, then go for it. The chance is when Thailand gets drought Burma may not have a lot of water to send to Thailand. I don't know that river is super big and you can take for granted at least 1,500m3/s will always be there to serve the purpose.

Remember that average flow dominates at least 50% of the time. For the Chao Pharaya its value is about 2,300m3/s. So you can't take 3,000m3/s, >50% of the time. When Chao Pharaya river flow is running low below 1,500m3/s, says 20% of the time you may or may not require additional water from Salween river. It depends on how much water inside all the dams in Thailand. If you need to draw down you dams for flood control it doesn't make sense to pump water into the dams.

The good news is it works somehow. But the utilization factor could be around 10%. This is calculated by assuming when the time you need it Salween river has what you want.

Edited February 17, 2012 by ResX

[anterian]

The implication of your comment, as I read it, it that the tunnel will have no control gear to regulate or stop the flow. I think even a Thai engineer would realise the need for this.

I think what ResX is suggesting that the flow would need to be stopped basically all the time.

Close to that rate. Almost all the time. To be honest, once in every 4-5 years it definitely helps Thailand to deal with drought. If at this rate of utilization is economically feasible, then go for it. The chance is when Thailand gets drought Burma may not have a lot of water to send to Thailand. I don't know that river is super big and you can take for granted at least 1,500m3/s will always be there to serve the purpose.

Remember that average flow dominates at least 50% of the time. For the Chao Pharaya its value is about 2,300m3/s. So you can't take 3,000m3/s, >50% of the time. When Chao Pharaya river flow is running low below 1,500m3/s, says 20% of the time you may or may not require additional water from Salween river. It depends on how much water inside all the dams in Thailand. If you need to draw down you dams for flood control it doesn't make sense to pump water into the dams.

The good news is it works somehow. But the utilization factor could be around 10%. This is calculated by assuming when the time you need it Salween river has what you want.

My personal feeling is that we have entered a period of unstable climate change, the nice predictable wet seasons and dry seasons are a thing of the past. Globally we are seeing the same thing happening with droughts and floods, resulting in the loss of crops.

Thailand is to all intents a monoculture when it comes to agriculture and so water control becomes a national priority. Thai farmers need to diversify into crops that are less dependent on a massive supply of water.

If we look at the costs of the Thames Barrier and its use since construction we find the total construction cost was around £534 million (£1.3 billion at 2001 prices) with an additional £100 million for river defences. In the 1980s there were four closures, 35 closures in the 1990s, and 75 closures in the first decade of this century. A total of 114 (note they are increasing in frequency). One estimate of the cost of flooding damage, had it occurred, was around £13 billion.

Thus it has definitely paid for itself even though at its inception there were doubts.

This is I think the situation with this tunnel, it is uncharted territory, it may be cost effective it may not, but unless built we will never know.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

This is I think the situation with this tunnel, it is uncharted territory, it may be cost effective it may not, but unless built we will never know.

I hope we can do better than that. The PM's Advisor was talking about reviving a THB 200 billion project. No details, but if that's the 2004 estimate of the project costs, the current prize will be even higher. Without further investigation I would be reluctant to commit that type of money.

BTW the government just approved an emergency decree for THB 350 billion and moved THB 1.4 trillion aside. Finding another handfull of Baht may not be a frugal fiscal approach.

[ResX]

I am not sure because the press releases are not clear, but I think the idea is that with an input from a river as back up the dams won't need to be kept at such a high level. I assume the input from the river can be turned off if the dams hold enough water.

Even cleverer would be to fit reversible turbines in the tunnel, so the dam can send water back into the river if the level rises too much. Rather like Dinorwig http://en.wikipedia....g_Power_Station

Bhumibol dam has reversible turbine as you mentioned. Very big one. If you trace where the waters that flooded BKK last year came from, most likely part of them came from this turbine. The ethic to operate this kind of turbine, given 24 hours period it shall not increase nor decrease total discharge from the dam at least when the downstream is going to be flooded. That is why reversible turbine is there in the first placed. Looking the way they managed the floods last year, with due respect, I don't think they bother to comply with this ethic.

Edited February 17, 2012 by ResX

[lannarebirth]

Bringing 3000m3/s of water to Bhumibol. dam, I think it is well to ambitious. Annual average discharge for the entire Chao Pharaya catchment is just slightly over 2000m3/s. if you add these two figures then then they become 5000m3/s. During the last year's floods, Chao Pharaya peak discharge was just over 4700m3/s.

I thought they have exhausted of ideas and resources to deal with floods. Surprisingly, they still dare to import "floods" from other nation.

I generally enjoy your posts but I think I should point out the error in your last post. You posted as if this was about floods and dams and tunnels and irrigation and reservoirs and hydro power. It isn't about any of those things. It's about looting the country as swiftly and as greatly as possible. I hope that explanation lends some insight.

Edited February 17, 2012 by lannarebirth

[ResX]

Bringing 3000m3/s of water to Bhumibol. dam, I think it is well to ambitious. Annual average discharge for the entire Chao Pharaya catchment is just slightly over 2000m3/s. if you add these two figures then then they become 5000m3/s. During the last year's floods, Chao Pharaya peak discharge was just over 4700m3/s.

I thought they have exhausted of ideas and resources to deal with floods. Surprisingly, they still dare to import "floods" from other nation.

I generally enjoy your posts but I think I should point out the error in your last post. You posted as if this was about floods and dams and tunnels and irrigation and reservoirs and hydro power. It isn't about any of those things. It's about looting the country as swiftly and as greatly as possible. I hope that explanation lends some insight.

Thank you for your remark and your additional information looking from the other perspective.