Thailand Pushes Xayaburi Dam

[webfact]

Thailand Pushes Xayaburi Dam

Written by Our Correspondent

Despite reservations from Mekong Basin countries, construction continues

BANGKOK: -- Over the opposition of environmental groups and the governments of other countries in the Mekong Basin, the Thai government is pushing ahead with the construction of the controversial Xayaburi Dam, environmentalists say.

Although the Cambodian and Vietnamese governments have expressed concerns about the dam and work was supposed to stop until further study has been completed, preliminary construction on the giant dam deep inside Laos, is continuing, according to International Rivers, which opposes the structure.

Large numbers of workers have been on the job for two years to build access roads and facilities for the project, said Pianporn Deetes, Thailand Campaign Coordinator for International Rivers. Ch. Karnchang, Thailand’s largest construction company [more...]

Full story: http://www.asiasenti...4280&Itemid=437

-- asiasentinel.com 2012-03-01

[Reasonableman]

The dam, 810 meters wide and 32 meters high, is opposed by 263 NGOs from 51 countries. Thousands of people in the region have urged that it be cancelled. Its primary objective is to generate, along with electricity, foreign exchange earnings for financing socio-economic development in Laos, a landlocked and obscure country of 6.8 million mostly poverty-stricken people. Laos is seeking to develop its way into prosperity through extensive investment in dams, mines and plantations, hoping for jobs, rising incomes and revenues to end poverty

[Joel Barlow]

So, to become a regional water transport hub, um, well, um, let's see... rats, maybe I've been here too long...

[zakk9]

This is stupidity beyond imagination and a destructive behavior towards neghbouring countries (Cambodia and Vietnam) that is almost beyond belief. It's very unfortunate that Stories like this don't reach the headlines of western newspapers, so that western tourists would think twice before spending their hard earned money in the Land of Greed.

[DeepInTheForest]

This is stupidity beyond imagination and a destructive behavior towards neghbouring countries (Cambodia and Vietnam) that is almost beyond belief. It's very unfortunate that Stories like this don't reach the headlines of western newspapers, so that western tourists would think twice before spending their hard earned money in the Land of Greed.

It is also very unfortunate that stories like this don't garner much attention on ThaiVisa. Obviously, the latest political convolutions occupy more of the mental space of posters here. So far, what, three posters have spoken up? Hmm.

The Xayaburi dam story is an unfolding tragedy, in this poster's view. The discourse posted above, that it is intended to raise Laos out of poverty, is, as we should all know, a crock. Large dams are huge windfalls for the pocketbooks of society's elites. And the Mekong has been a breadbasket for millions for time immemorial. "Why not screw it up for a short-time gain?" seems to be the operating principle here, the same one that saw the ravaging of Thailand's forests.

I think of the bounty of the river, which still supplies 80% of the protein of the people in some areas of Cambodia; I think of the fishermen following the migration of the riel upstream and netting 600 lbs of that small fish in a matter of minutes. They used to watch the moon; they knew that the fish migratory patterns were ruled by it. I think of the local management techniques that Ian Baird documented and sought to encourage. Of course I also think of the commercial exploitation of the fishery as well, the overfishing of a resource with the capacity to provide two million tons-- two million tons!! of high-protein food.

http://www.gapeinternational.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Strength-in-Diversity.pdf

There are the age-old rhythms of life, that humans adapted to and used to good advantage to thrive. I think of all that being tossed away so that people in a city can have neon lights and all the garbage that comes with modernity. Of course there is nothing essentially evil in modernity. But capitalist excesses, the growth economy, have trashed so much of the world. This survived through the ages.

There are thought to be over 1500 species of fish in the Mekong-- a fabulous menagerie, a wondrous array that we should be happy to study for just about forever.

Why do we have to kill it now?

[tlansford]

This is stupidity beyond imagination and a destructive behavior towards neghbouring countries (Cambodia and Vietnam) that is almost beyond belief. It's very unfortunate that Stories like this don't reach the headlines of western newspapers, so that western tourists would think twice before spending their hard earned money in the Land of Greed.

It is also very unfortunate that stories like this don't garner much attention on ThaiVisa. Obviously, the latest political convolutions occupy more of the mental space of posters here. So far, what, three posters have spoken up? Hmm.

The Xayaburi dam story is an unfolding tragedy, in this poster's view. The discourse posted above, that it is intended to raise Laos out of poverty, is, as we should all know, a crock. Large dams are huge windfalls for the pocketbooks of society's elites. And the Mekong has been a breadbasket for millions for time immemorial. "Why not screw it up for a short-time gain?" seems to be the operating principle here, the same one that saw the ravaging of Thailand's forests.

I think of the bounty of the river, which still supplies 80% of the protein of the people in some areas of Cambodia; I think of the fishermen following the migration of the riel upstream and netting 600 lbs of that small fish in a matter of minutes. They used to watch the moon; they knew that the fish migratory patterns were ruled by it. I think of the local management techniques that Ian Baird documented and sought to encourage. Of course I also think of the commercial exploitation of the fishery as well, the overfishing of a resource with the capacity to provide two million tons-- two million tons!! of high-protein food.

http://www.gapeinter...n-Diversity.pdf

There are the age-old rhythms of life, that humans adapted to and used to good advantage to thrive. I think of all that being tossed away so that people in a city can have neon lights and all the garbage that comes with modernity. Of course there is nothing essentially evil in modernity. But capitalist excesses, the growth economy, have trashed so much of the world. This survived through the ages.

There are thought to be over 1500 species of fish in the Mekong-- a fabulous menagerie, a wondrous array that we should be happy to study for just about forever.

Why do we have to kill it now?

We don't.

But the project could be killed...

[OzMick]

This is stupidity beyond imagination and a destructive behavior towards neghbouring countries (Cambodia and Vietnam) that is almost beyond belief. It's very unfortunate that Stories like this don't reach the headlines of western newspapers, so that western tourists would think twice before spending their hard earned money in the Land of Greed.

It is also very unfortunate that stories like this don't garner much attention on ThaiVisa. Obviously, the latest political convolutions occupy more of the mental space of posters here. So far, what, three posters have spoken up? Hmm.

The Xayaburi dam story is an unfolding tragedy, in this poster's view. The discourse posted above, that it is intended to raise Laos out of poverty, is, as we should all know, a crock. Large dams are huge windfalls for the pocketbooks of society's elites. And the Mekong has been a breadbasket for millions for time immemorial. "Why not screw it up for a short-time gain?" seems to be the operating principle here, the same one that saw the ravaging of Thailand's forests.

I think of the bounty of the river, which still supplies 80% of the protein of the people in some areas of Cambodia; I think of the fishermen following the migration of the riel upstream and netting 600 lbs of that small fish in a matter of minutes. They used to watch the moon; they knew that the fish migratory patterns were ruled by it. I think of the local management techniques that Ian Baird documented and sought to encourage. Of course I also think of the commercial exploitation of the fishery as well, the overfishing of a resource with the capacity to provide two million tons-- two million tons!! of high-protein food.

http://www.gapeinter...n-Diversity.pdf

There are the age-old rhythms of life, that humans adapted to and used to good advantage to thrive. I think of all that being tossed away so that people in a city can have neon lights and all the garbage that comes with modernity. Of course there is nothing essentially evil in modernity. But capitalist excesses, the growth economy, have trashed so much of the world. This survived through the ages.

There are thought to be over 1500 species of fish in the Mekong-- a fabulous menagerie, a wondrous array that we should be happy to study for just about forever.

Why do we have to kill it now?

And how do this feel good rant relate to the dam?

[OzMick]

This is stupidity beyond imagination and a destructive behavior towards neghbouring countries (Cambodia and Vietnam) that is almost beyond belief. It's very unfortunate that Stories like this don't reach the headlines of western newspapers, so that western tourists would think twice before spending their hard earned money in the Land of Greed.

It is also very unfortunate that stories like this don't garner much attention on ThaiVisa. Obviously, the latest political convolutions occupy more of the mental space of posters here. So far, what, three posters have spoken up? Hmm.

The Xayaburi dam story is an unfolding tragedy, in this poster's view. The discourse posted above, that it is intended to raise Laos out of poverty, is, as we should all know, a crock. Large dams are huge windfalls for the pocketbooks of society's elites. And the Mekong has been a breadbasket for millions for time immemorial. "Why not screw it up for a short-time gain?" seems to be the operating principle here, the same one that saw the ravaging of Thailand's forests.

I think of the bounty of the river, which still supplies 80% of the protein of the people in some areas of Cambodia; I think of the fishermen following the migration of the riel upstream and netting 600 lbs of that small fish in a matter of minutes. They used to watch the moon; they knew that the fish migratory patterns were ruled by it. I think of the local management techniques that Ian Baird documented and sought to encourage. Of course I also think of the commercial exploitation of the fishery as well, the overfishing of a resource with the capacity to provide two million tons-- two million tons!! of high-protein food.

http://www.gapeinter...n-Diversity.pdf

There are the age-old rhythms of life, that humans adapted to and used to good advantage to thrive. I think of all that being tossed away so that people in a city can have neon lights and all the garbage that comes with modernity. Of course there is nothing essentially evil in modernity. But capitalist excesses, the growth economy, have trashed so much of the world. This survived through the ages.

There are thought to be over 1500 species of fish in the Mekong-- a fabulous menagerie, a wondrous array that we should be happy to study for just about forever.

Why do we have to kill it now?

We don't.

But the project could be killed...

Do your bit to reduce the demand for electricity - walk to your power box, find the main switch, and turn it to off. Enjoy the lifestyle that you wish others to endure. See how long you last.

[tlansford]

This is stupidity beyond imagination and a destructive behavior towards neghbouring countries (Cambodia and Vietnam) that is almost beyond belief. It's very unfortunate that Stories like this don't reach the headlines of western newspapers, so that western tourists would think twice before spending their hard earned money in the Land of Greed.

It is also very unfortunate that stories like this don't garner much attention on ThaiVisa. Obviously, the latest political convolutions occupy more of the mental space of posters here. So far, what, three posters have spoken up? Hmm.

The Xayaburi dam story is an unfolding tragedy, in this poster's view. The discourse posted above, that it is intended to raise Laos out of poverty, is, as we should all know, a crock. Large dams are huge windfalls for the pocketbooks of society's elites. And the Mekong has been a breadbasket for millions for time immemorial. "Why not screw it up for a short-time gain?" seems to be the operating principle here, the same one that saw the ravaging of Thailand's forests.

I think of the bounty of the river, which still supplies 80% of the protein of the people in some areas of Cambodia; I think of the fishermen following the migration of the riel upstream and netting 600 lbs of that small fish in a matter of minutes. They used to watch the moon; they knew that the fish migratory patterns were ruled by it. I think of the local management techniques that Ian Baird documented and sought to encourage. Of course I also think of the commercial exploitation of the fishery as well, the overfishing of a resource with the capacity to provide two million tons-- two million tons!! of high-protein food.

http://www.gapeinter...n-Diversity.pdf

There are the age-old rhythms of life, that humans adapted to and used to good advantage to thrive. I think of all that being tossed away so that people in a city can have neon lights and all the garbage that comes with modernity. Of course there is nothing essentially evil in modernity. But capitalist excesses, the growth economy, have trashed so much of the world. This survived through the ages.

There are thought to be over 1500 species of fish in the Mekong-- a fabulous menagerie, a wondrous array that we should be happy to study for just about forever.

Why do we have to kill it now?

And how do this feel good rant relate to the dam?

doing your best to be obtuse today, aren't you?

Read the post and provide something useful to add... If you can think of anything.

[tlansford]

This is stupidity beyond imagination and a destructive behavior towards neghbouring countries (Cambodia and Vietnam) that is almost beyond belief. It's very unfortunate that Stories like this don't reach the headlines of western newspapers, so that western tourists would think twice before spending their hard earned money in the Land of Greed.

It is also very unfortunate that stories like this don't garner much attention on ThaiVisa. Obviously, the latest political convolutions occupy more of the mental space of posters here. So far, what, three posters have spoken up? Hmm.

The Xayaburi dam story is an unfolding tragedy, in this poster's view. The discourse posted above, that it is intended to raise Laos out of poverty, is, as we should all know, a crock. Large dams are huge windfalls for the pocketbooks of society's elites. And the Mekong has been a breadbasket for millions for time immemorial. "Why not screw it up for a short-time gain?" seems to be the operating principle here, the same one that saw the ravaging of Thailand's forests.

I think of the bounty of the river, which still supplies 80% of the protein of the people in some areas of Cambodia; I think of the fishermen following the migration of the riel upstream and netting 600 lbs of that small fish in a matter of minutes. They used to watch the moon; they knew that the fish migratory patterns were ruled by it. I think of the local management techniques that Ian Baird documented and sought to encourage. Of course I also think of the commercial exploitation of the fishery as well, the overfishing of a resource with the capacity to provide two million tons-- two million tons!! of high-protein food.

http://www.gapeinter...n-Diversity.pdf

There are the age-old rhythms of life, that humans adapted to and used to good advantage to thrive. I think of all that being tossed away so that people in a city can have neon lights and all the garbage that comes with modernity. Of course there is nothing essentially evil in modernity. But capitalist excesses, the growth economy, have trashed so much of the world. This survived through the ages.

There are thought to be over 1500 species of fish in the Mekong-- a fabulous menagerie, a wondrous array that we should be happy to study for just about forever.

Why do we have to kill it now?

We don't.

But the project could be killed...

Do your bit to reduce the demand for electricity - walk to your power box, find the main switch, and turn it to off. Enjoy the lifestyle that you wish others to endure. See how long you last.

Not being just obtuse but purposefully obnoxious, too?

How many other sources of electricity and ways to conserve electricity while simultaneously protecting the environment can you think of?

[OzMick]

We don't.

But the project could be killed...

Do your bit to reduce the demand for electricity - walk to your power box, find the main switch, and turn it to off. Enjoy the lifestyle that you wish others to endure. See how long you last.

Not being just obtuse but purposefully obnoxious, too?

How many other sources of electricity and ways to conserve electricity while simultaneously protecting the environment can you think of?

One way to protect the environment is to build hydro-dams - this one will produce clean electricity equivalent of the burning of 3 million tonnes of coal each year. It will also produce at peak load periods when solar is dormant. Nothing is more natural than using this planet's own hydrocycle to capture energy in a very efficient "gain" - wind turbines cost a lot of energy to make, and produce very little.

What I don't like is high energy users telling dirt poor primary producers that they shouldn't enjoy the same lifestyle because it MIGHT hurt a fish. And if you want to preach about reducing energy usage, you might start in your own country.

[Reasonableman]

When talking about hydro power, I tend to agree in principle. However, in practice, once these Hydro authrities are created, they have a tendency, like all organisations, to try to perpetuate their own existence, by seeking to dammevery potentially dammable (sic) watercourse. Take a look at the history of the Hydro in Tasmania, for example. World Heritage areas inundated and destroyed to satisfy the energy demands of foreign industry, not for the needs of the population. Hydro developments need strong and enforced EIA requirements, otherwise the Hydro authority can and probably will, run amok, to the great detriment of the environment. As for the argument about fish species, it is only one of many concerns, but still a valid one.

[ResX]

We can't get something out of nothing. About building up dams we have to balance between getting cheap electricity and environmental conservation. We have to be given full power to decide. That simply means the decisions to build or not to build up dams.

I think blocking the idea to build up dam due to one or two particular reasons is not just if we don't evaluate overall benefits to the population at large.

Yes, I do agree with the principal that each dam has to be built by considering all positives & negatives consequences. If overall evaluation shows overwhelming positives then why not build up one? After all not everybody can appreciate rainforest. But most likely everybody appreciate cheap electricity since it can improve standard of living.

[OzMick]

When talking about hydro power, I tend to agree in principle. However, in practice, once these Hydro authrities are created, they have a tendency, like all organisations, to try to perpetuate their own existence, by seeking to dammevery potentially dammable (sic) watercourse. Take a look at the history of the Hydro in Tasmania, for example. World Heritage areas inundated and destroyed to satisfy the energy demands of foreign industry, not for the needs of the population. Hydro developments need strong and enforced EIA requirements, otherwise the Hydro authority can and probably will, run amok, to the great detriment of the environment. As for the argument about fish species, it is only one of many concerns, but still a valid one.

Tas Hydro exports electricity to Vic, but they are not EXACTLY foreign. If you were referring to foreign-owned industry, at the least they pay for the power and worker's wages.

There has to be a balance between rain forest (which Tas has in abundance, and which relatively few people will ever enjoy) and cheap power and cash to build infrastructure enjoyed by nearly all. The move to demolish one dam was dropped when it was proved that the platypus population had actually increased due to more stable river flows, and the increase in nesting sites around the dam banks.

I can just imagine the outcry if they decided to put a few thousand wind turbines down there - it's an ideal location.

[Reasonableman]

OzMick, I guess much of this happened before your time, but the repercussions are still echoing and being played out today.

Anyway, for another perspective, you might like to read:

http://tasmaniantime...ont-talk-about/

But the elephants in the room when it comes to any discussion of base load demand, energy efficiency or power pricing in Tasmania are the three largest bulk power consumers, Comalco, Temco and Nystar. The three consume two thirds of the state’s electricity while employing just 1400 people. (Comalco is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rio Tinto, Temco is 60% owned by BHP-Billiton and Nystar is a Belgian company created from the merger of Zinifex and Umicore.)

Comalco’s Bell Bay smelter alone consumes approximately one-quarter of Tasmania’s entire electricity production, which it gets at heavily subsidised prices under a secret bulk power contract. Back in 1982 copies of the bulk power contracts and the details of the prices paid under them were leaked to The Wilderness Society. Analysis of the power prices revealed that the largest subsidies went to Comalco, even though it was least labor-intensive of the big power consumers.The magnitude of Comalco’s subsidies is testimony to the gullibility of past governments and the desperation of the HEC in flogging off potentially embarrassing surpluses at ludicrous prices in order to breathe life into new dam-building proposals.

BTW, Thailand used to have a lot of forest, and where is it now? But the subject of clear-felling and burning old-growth native forests is a different topic.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Reasonableman

[tlansford]

We don't.

But the project could be killed...

Do your bit to reduce the demand for electricity - walk to your power box, find the main switch, and turn it to off. Enjoy the lifestyle that you wish others to endure. See how long you last.

Not being just obtuse but purposefully obnoxious, too?

How many other sources of electricity and ways to conserve electricity while simultaneously protecting the environment can you think of?

One way to protect the environment is to build hydro-dams - this one will produce clean electricity equivalent of the burning of 3 million tonnes of coal each year. It will also produce at peak load periods when solar is dormant. Nothing is more natural than using this planet's own hydrocycle to capture energy in a very efficient "gain" - wind turbines cost a lot of energy to make, and produce very little.

What I don't like is high energy users telling dirt poor primary producers that they shouldn't enjoy the same lifestyle because it MIGHT hurt a fish. And if you want to preach about reducing energy usage, you might start in your own country.

It appears that you can't think of any others, then...

As for your last statement, (1) concerned environmentalists are not telling "dirt poor primary producers" that they should not have the same lifestyle, nor will that be the case by making other energy choice other than building the dam. (2) it is about the impact for the location itself and the rest of the Meekong basin. (3) this project is pushed by people who are going to profit on it, not on its merits. (4) there are other alternatives for clean energy. (5) The personal comment applies to the planet, as well as the countries I live in.

[OzMick]

Do your bit to reduce the demand for electricity - walk to your power box, find the main switch, and turn it to off. Enjoy the lifestyle that you wish others to endure. See how long you last.

Not being just obtuse but purposefully obnoxious, too?

How many other sources of electricity and ways to conserve electricity while simultaneously protecting the environment can you think of?

One way to protect the environment is to build hydro-dams - this one will produce clean electricity equivalent of the burning of 3 million tonnes of coal each year. It will also produce at peak load periods when solar is dormant. Nothing is more natural than using this planet's own hydrocycle to capture energy in a very efficient "gain" - wind turbines cost a lot of energy to make, and produce very little.

What I don't like is high energy users telling dirt poor primary producers that they shouldn't enjoy the same lifestyle because it MIGHT hurt a fish. And if you want to preach about reducing energy usage, you might start in your own country.

It appears that you can't think of any others, then...

As for your last statement, (1) concerned environmentalists are not telling "dirt poor primary producers" that they should not have the same lifestyle, nor will that be the case by making other energy choice other than building the dam. (2) it is about the impact for the location itself and the rest of the Meekong basin. (3) this project is pushed by people who are going to profit on it, not on its merits. (4) there are other alternatives for clean energy. (5) The personal comment applies to the planet, as well as the countries I live in.

Other than burning coal, solar and wind power, what alternative power sources would YOU suggest for Laos? Bicycle generators?

All projects are pushed by people who will profit from them; whether it be cash for the Treasury, cheap clean power, or whatever. However they are often opposed by those who will never approach the area or its people, and who have a far better lifestyle. It matters little to them that people die from respiratory diseases from combustion cooking, damage their eyesight from poor lighting, or miss out on information and entertainment sources, or miss out on energy-hungry industry employment at much higher incomes than primary production.

It's "let's save the planet" and "quaint villagers," many of whom don't agree at all.

Is Laos one of the countries you live in?

[Reasonableman]

OzMick, no doubt we all desire what is best, but we may conceptualize and approach it differently, with different key values, and different visions for the future of our kids and grand-kids. A perceived mission of "development at all costs" produces cities like Bangkok. Is it a paradise? Is it becoming one? You tell me. Comparing Thailand with Burma, which is relatively "undeveloped", I know which environment I would prefer to live in. China is developing and industrializing at a great rate, and also at a huge environmental cost. You may think it is justified (not sure if you do, or not), but suspect we may disagree on this. In my view, we are destroying our planet, our home, at the greatest rate ever in human history, and many of us seem to think it is sustainable, or really don't give a dam_n. However, many people sincerely believe it is not sustainable, and not worth the price, to sell our future for a few $$$ today.

[lovelaos]

I hope Laos ignores all the bullies and continues to go ahead with the dam.

Yes, I know the consequences of such a project but what does the world expect it to do?

Whilst it's neighbours have rapidly grown around it, is it not time for this poverty stricken, landlocked, heavily destroyed country to use it's natural resources to try to better itself?

[Reasonableman]

I hope Laos ignores all the bullies and continues to go ahead with the dam.

Yes, I know the consequences of such a project but what does the world expect it to do?

Whilst it's neighbours have rapidly grown around it, is it not time for this poverty stricken, landlocked, heavily destroyed country to use it's natural resources to try to better itself?

If you really love Laos, as I do, you would not want its treasures destroyed further. Natural resources are finite unless they are replenished. In Thailand, we just experienced a major flood. One of the causes seems to have been deforestation, and it has been widely suspected that global climate change played a role as well. Trees are also a finite natural resource, unless they are replaced. In the case of hardwoods, it may take decades to replace a tree with the same species. A few minutes to cut down and many years to replace, if ever. Please don't envy your neighbors too much, or worry about "falling behind". It is a rat race. Laos' neighbors have "developed", but they have lost much in doing so, while Laos is still in the enviable position of not having to follow the same destructive path. Think very carefully first, learn from others' mistakes, and seek the middle path between development and conservation, the people's quality of life in all its dimensions, not only material ones, so that the future Laos you live in is one you really can and want to live in. Once destroyed, you can never get it back.

[ResX]

When talking about hydro power, I tend to agree in principle. However, in practice, once these Hydro authrities are created, they have a tendency, like all organisations, to try to perpetuate their own existence, by seeking to dammevery potentially dammable (sic) watercourse. Take a look at the history of the Hydro in Tasmania, for example. World Heritage areas inundated and destroyed to satisfy the energy demands of foreign industry, not for the needs of the population. Hydro developments need strong and enforced EIA requirements, otherwise the Hydro authority can and probably will, run amok, to the great detriment of the environment. As for the argument about fish species, it is only one of many concerns, but still a valid one.

Tas Hydro exports electricity to Vic, but they are not EXACTLY foreign. If you were referring to foreign-owned industry, at the least they pay for the power and worker's wages.

There has to be a balance between rain forest (which Tas has in abundance, and which relatively few people will ever enjoy) and cheap power and cash to build infrastructure enjoyed by nearly all. The move to demolish one dam was dropped when it was proved that the platypus population had actually increased due to more stable river flows, and the increase in nesting sites around the dam banks.

I can just imagine the outcry if they decided to put a few thousand wind turbines down there - it's an ideal location.

Wind turbines or even solar panels will make them even poorer. Surely.

Coal power plants, I think the most polluted one. We have many right here. Have to bear with them at the moment.

If we think that they have many options that is actually shaped our opinion for opposing a hydro power project. In reality, not many choices available on the table. Take the the best one. Mitigate the consequences and minimize the impact.

[Reasonableman]

There are other low-tech options, including methane digesters, solar, crop fuel sources, which can be implemented at the local level. They don't generate large amounts of energy, and they don't generate huge profits or taxes, but they are some ways to minimise impacts and still get many benefits. The western materialistic capitalist growth model is not the only one. You have a true blessing, please don't throw it away by following the global trend and economic pressures unwittingly.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Reasonableman

[folium]

When the MRC was deciding whether to approve the Xayaburi dam last year there were 3 threads running on TV. Sadly it looks like the Thai construction company Karnchang & Lao government are ignoring the MRC's decision to delay construction until a proper EIA had been carried out, unlike the joke version produced by the ever-willing, for the right price, Poyry in 2011.

In summary the key issues are:

building dams on the main course of the Mekong is the nightmare scenario as Xayaburi is likely to be the first of 11 which will gravely impact the livelihood of 17m peasant farmers in the Mekong delta producing 50% of Vietnam's total rice crop. So ignore all the bleating about advancing the prospects of poor peasant farmers.

Simplistically put dams help destroy deltas, and if you look through these threads you will see the main arguments re this dam.

You will also gain an insight into a certain belligerent poster's state of mind and causes of his angst.

The other issue is that Thailand is playing a key role in outsourcing its energy supply to foul someone else's nest, having spectacularly cocked up the Pak Mun dam. The Hongsa lignite mine (producing the dirtiest form of fossil fuel) in Laos will be brought to you by the same Thai company that fouls the air with a similar operation near Lampang. Setting up in Laos obviously avoids all the tedious fuss about environmental impact that is beginning to make itself felt (financially) at its Lampang operation.

As ever there appears to be very little joined up thinking in Thailand's energy supply "plan" and appears to be more driven by construction company profits and the flowback from such infrastructure deals. there is considerable doubt over the viability and necessity for Xayaburi

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/517789-us-welcomes-delay-on-laos-dam/page__p__4900882__hl__xayaburi__fromsearch__1#entry4900882

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/517190-mekong-nations-to-meet-on-controversial-laos-dam/page__p__4895791__hl__xayaburi__fromsearch__1#entry4895791

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/497287-laos-aims-to-build-mekong-dam-this-year-testing-its-neighbours/page__st__50__p__4894923__hl__xayaburi__fromsearch__1#entry4894923

While Xayaburi may stir little interest on TV it's a very hot issue in more broadminded arenas, but sadly financial incentives are a hard act to stymie.

[sparebox2]

Thai never learn that Dam is bad for the environment.

[folium]

Thai never learn that Dam is bad for the environment.

The bottom line in this debate is that water management is a whole drainage basin issue, and cannot be done piecemeal.

The Chao Phraya drainage basin is 100% within Thailand and the government is struggling to connect the dots to produce a coherent and effective flood management system.

With the Mekong it's drainage basin has the misfortune of being shared by 6 countries, all with very different agendas and priorities. Hence the MRC as an attempt to create some form of consensus on how the river is utilised to avoid compromising the interests of other riparian nations.

The underhand, sordid behaviour of Laos and its Thai backers (both construction and financial companies) makes a mockery of consensus and basin wide management.

Quite how Vietnam responds will be interesting as they have much to lose and little to gain by Xayaburi and the other main course Mekong dams.

[DeepInTheForest]

I

There are thought to be over 1500 species of fish in the Mekong-- a fabulous menagerie, a wondrous array that we should be happy to study for just about forever.

Why do we have to kill it now?

And how do this feel good rant relate to the dam?

Good question, OzMick. I'm sorry for not replying earlier; work and errands kept me away for awhile.

You are right, it was a feel-good rant. But often overlooked in debates on these issues are non-monetary values-- it's important to consider what a resource means to a population beyond its market value. That's what I was trying to express, probably badly.

But in terms of what a dam means to fish and the residents of the Mekong River basin, here is a partial answer, from an article on nature.com (link below).

The future of the fishery matters because the Tonlé Sap — one of the world's most productive inland fisheries for its size — provides half of the protein consumed in Cambodia. "It is hard for people in Europe or North America to imagine the role that freshwater capture plays in terms of food security, economically and even culturally," says Kirk Winemiller, a fisheries researcher at Texas A&M University in College Station.

Modelling the effect of Xayaburi and other dams on this fishery is difficult because researchers lack baseline data about most fish in the Mekong. Around 229 species live upstream of the proposed Xayaburi site, and 70 of them are migratory. In terms of biomass, about 60% of the total catch in the Tonlé Sap is made up of species that migrate long distances, some from as far up as the Xayaburi area, more than 1,500 kilometres upstream.

Many dams have built-in fish ladders that allow some migrating fish to pass. But researchers say the two ladders in Xayaburi's design are not enough for the number of fish and the diversity of migratory species there.

The proposed dams will also exacerbate the Mekong Delta's ongoing battles with the sea. The delta, home to 17 million people in Vietnam and 2.4 million in Cambodia, seems to be losing coastal land, says James Syvitski, a geologist at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111019/full/478305a.html

So. We're talking about something that can seriously mess with 50% of one country's protein-- that's just for starters. Beyond that, there are other issues-- such as the availability of alternatives, and the fact that 95% of the electricity will not go to Laotians at all, but will be exported to Thailand, which has an excess to begin with, and the inevitable financial scammery that will result in the benefits of the dam being allotted to an elite few. More on these issues further down, in reply to other posters.

I know you are concerned with the welfare of people who need development. I respect that; the Lao people have a right to a better life. You are right, oftentimes Westerners think they know what's best for everyone else. I think there is evidence to suggest that the picture is more complex than "give them a dam, it will improve their lot". Bear with me, I'll try to get a few more facts in that may shed light on the situation.

thanks, more to come.

Edited March 2, 2012 by DeepInTheForest

[DeepInTheForest]

We don't.

But the project could be killed...

Do your bit to reduce the demand for electricity - walk to your power box, find the main switch, and turn it to off. Enjoy the lifestyle that you wish others to endure. See how long you last.

The idea that Lao people will somehow be denied electricity for their homes if this dam is not built is, I think, demonstrably untrue. No one is suggesting here that Lao people be denied electricity. The problem is, this dam is not the best way to go about it. For one thing, much of Laos cannot be riched by an electrical grid because of the mountainous nature of the region. So a decentralized system is needed. Happily, one is being provided, by a Lao company called Sunlabob.

Vientiane, 3 July 2008 (IRIN) - While wealthy industrialised nations are struggling to find ways to encourage their populations to adopt solar energy, a small energy company in the Lao People's Democratic Republic (PDR) has teamed up with poor rural communities to bring them green energy.

Of the 5.7 million people living in Laos, only 48 percent are connected to the electrical grid, mainly in towns and cities. For the rest of the country, access is limited because of problems of infrastructure and affordability. Without power, these communities rely on environmentally unfriendly energy sources, such as firewood and kerosene.

http://www.irinnews....?reportid=79075

Edited March 3, 2012 by metisdead
Edited as per fair use policy.

[DeepInTheForest]

I hope Laos ignores all the bullies and continues to go ahead with the dam.

Yes, I know the consequences of such a project but what does the world expect it to do?

Whilst it's neighbours have rapidly grown around it, is it not time for this poverty stricken, landlocked, heavily destroyed country to use it's natural resources to try to better itself?

It would be nice if this proposed dam would better life for the bulk of Laotian people. But it will not. A whopping 95% -- 95 freaking percent!! -- of the power will go to our good buddies, Thailand's EGAT. And do you think the profits will be evenly distributed through Lao society? (This was a rhetorical question, I'm not expecting an answer.)

If the power were actually needed, or going to be used, that might, in some goofy universe, be defensible. But it's not. EGAT is famous for overstating projected demand. Read this and weep.

Independent experts point out that Thailand is sitting on a huge energy surplus and point to myriad small-scale energy projects and energy efficiency options that could cover demand growth at a fraction of the cost.

“We’re not facing a situation in which without Xayaburi the Thai system would black out,” said Witoon Permpongsachareon, Director of the Mekong Energy and Ecology Network. “The main driver of this project is investment and the stock market. It’s not based on the real demand situation in Thailand.”

Manufacturing demand

Chris Greacen spent eight years in Thailand encouraging alternative and renewable energy resources. He and his wife pushed for regulations that allow small renewable power producers to connect to and sell electricity to the national grid.

And they got them.

Greacen discovered energy potential everywhere in Thailand – in pig manure, rice husks and lost industrial heat, to name just a few.

“Right now, there’s about 850 megawatts of these projects online,” he said. “That’s comparable to a large natural gas power plant.”

Greacen says that another 4,500 megawatts are “in the pipeline” – that is, small and very small producers have signed purchase agreements with PEA, a Thai utility firm. A significant portion could bring that energy online if they manage to secure the necessary funding to build them. Many of those projects could come online in the next two to three years, if funding were made available for their construction.

More still could be saved (at a profit) in more efficient engines, turbines and lighting.

The Xayaburi is expected to take eight years to build, once it is approved.

Once complete, it would dump about a quarter of that power into Thailand’s already bloated grid. Greacen has charged that the Thai Load Forecast Subcommittee, the body responsible for predicting Thailand’s power needs, has consistently overestimated demand, leading to investment plans that call for too many power plants.

In 2009, Thailand’s peak load (the maximum instantaneous demand for electricity that ever occurred in the year) topped out at 22,045 megawatts.

But Thailand’s contracted capacity in the same year was 29,212 MW – a reserve margin of almost 28 percent. The excess capacity can be attributed to large, conventional power plants which were built prematurely. The cost of that excess is passed on to consumers in their electric bills, Greacen says.

Part of the problem, Greacen says, is Thailand’s utility incentive structure.

The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand’s economic incentives are based on a “cost-plus” model in which the more the utility spends, the more profits it makes. This leads to over-investment in power plants and other infrastructure.

“It’s not surprising then that utilities are not particularly interested in energy conservation even though there are is a lot of evidence that energy efficiency and conservation is cheaper than building new power plants and fuelling them for the next 30 years,” he said.

http://www.thanhnien...0310153316.aspx

It should be obvious from the above that EGAT is structured in a thoroughly misguided way that encourages it to profit by buying power that it doesn't even need. That's the real driver of this dam, not any desire to improve Laos' economy and social well-being.

I know that the good posters of ThaiVisa, with a keen eye for inefficiency and malfeasance, will be all over this issue once they realize the facts.

(Incidentally, I have no idea where there is a discrepancy in the article between the 95% of power going to EGAT, and the later bit where it says that 25% will go to Thailand's grid. Does EGAT operate a grid in countries besides Thailand?)

Thanks and regards.

Edited March 2, 2012 by DeepInTheForest

[OzMick]

I hope Laos ignores all the bullies and continues to go ahead with the dam.

Yes, I know the consequences of such a project but what does the world expect it to do?

Whilst it's neighbours have rapidly grown around it, is it not time for this poverty stricken, landlocked, heavily destroyed country to use it's natural resources to try to better itself?

It would be nice if this proposed dam would better life for the bulk of Laotian people. But it will not. A whopping 95% -- 95 freaking percent!! -- of the power will go to our good buddies, Thailand's EGAT. And do you think the profits will be evenly distributed through Lao society? (This was a rhetorical question, I'm not expecting an answer.)

If the power were actually needed, or going to be used, that might, in some goofy universe, be defensible. But it's not. EGAT is famous for overstating projected demand. Read this and weep.

Independent experts point out that Thailand is sitting on a huge energy surplus and point to myriad small-scale energy projects and energy efficiency options that could cover demand growth at a fraction of the cost.

“We’re not facing a situation in which without Xayaburi the Thai system would black out,” said Witoon Permpongsachareon, Director of the Mekong Energy and Ecology Network. “The main driver of this project is investment and the stock market. It’s not based on the real demand situation in Thailand.”

Manufacturing demand

Chris Greacen spent eight years in Thailand encouraging alternative and renewable energy resources. He and his wife pushed for regulations that allow small renewable power producers to connect to and sell electricity to the national grid.

And they got them.

Greacen discovered energy potential everywhere in Thailand – in pig manure, rice husks and lost industrial heat, to name just a few.

“Right now, there’s about 850 megawatts of these projects online,” he said. “That’s comparable to a large natural gas power plant.”

Greacen says that another 4,500 megawatts are “in the pipeline” – that is, small and very small producers have signed purchase agreements with PEA, a Thai utility firm. A significant portion could bring that energy online if they manage to secure the necessary funding to build them. Many of those projects could come online in the next two to three years, if funding were made available for their construction.

More still could be saved (at a profit) in more efficient engines, turbines and lighting.

The Xayaburi is expected to take eight years to build, once it is approved.

Once complete, it would dump about a quarter of that power into Thailand’s already bloated grid. Greacen has charged that the Thai Load Forecast Subcommittee, the body responsible for predicting Thailand’s power needs, has consistently overestimated demand, leading to investment plans that call for too many power plants.

In 2009, Thailand’s peak load (the maximum instantaneous demand for electricity that ever occurred in the year) topped out at 22,045 megawatts.

But Thailand’s contracted capacity in the same year was 29,212 MW – a reserve margin of almost 28 percent. The excess capacity can be attributed to large, conventional power plants which were built prematurely. The cost of that excess is passed on to consumers in their electric bills, Greacen says.

Part of the problem, Greacen says, is Thailand’s utility incentive structure.

The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand’s economic incentives are based on a “cost-plus” model in which the more the utility spends, the more profits it makes. This leads to over-investment in power plants and other infrastructure.

“It’s not surprising then that utilities are not particularly interested in energy conservation even though there are is a lot of evidence that energy efficiency and conservation is cheaper than building new power plants and fuelling them for the next 30 years,” he said.

http://www.thanhnien...0310153316.aspx

It should be obvious from the above that EGAT is structured in a thoroughly misguided way that encourages it to profit by buying power that it doesn't even need. That's the real driver of this dam, not any desire to improve Laos' economy and social well-being.

I know that the good posters of ThaiVisa, with a keen eye for inefficiency and malfeasance, will be all over this issue once they realize the facts.

(Incidentally, I have no idea where there is a discrepancy in the article between the 95% of power going to EGAT, and the later bit where it says that 25% will go to Thailand's grid. Does EGAT operate a grid in countries besides Thailand?)

Thanks and regards.

A few points.

EGAT may well be offering to buy cheap hydro power to replace coal-fired generation as both cheaper and cleaner, or be looking for extra supply to cover future peak load periods.Having the generating capacity to cover these is a major expense for power companies, but contracts are normally done on a payment for available capacity and then payment for energy supplied.

Large units are (usually) more efficient, but require more capacity to cover outages/trips.

Smaller and micro-units have to compete with the larger units to supply base-load (cheaper) or have the ability to handle large output fluctuations (down to stop/start) supplying variable load. While the potential for these small suppliers exists, it is often uneconomic to do so.

Energy sold to Thailand will provide the hard currency to extend the Laos grid. Ideally, with a major foreign buyer, domestic electricity should be very cheap.

Solar power to remote villages is a great idea, but has limitations. Lighting is easy (especially LEDs) but cooking is harder and refrigeration near impossible.

Fish ladders can work, if not for all species. Locals find they are a great place to put nets - defeating their purpose.

As more dams are built, the flow of the river will even out, losing its peaks and troughs. Great if you don't like floods, not so good if you rely on floods for soil regeneration. But the silt burden will definitely be reduced and deltas shrink. Reducing peaks and troughs will also reduce the flux of the Tonle Sap. I understand that this is a problem for the Cambodians/VN. But do you expect upstream countries to forgo their hydro-power, tolerate floods and donate their valuable top-soil for the benefit of those downstream?

[folium]

A few points.

EGAT may well be offering to buy cheap hydro power to replace coal-fired generation as both cheaper and cleaner,

Fish ladders can work, if not for all species. Locals find they are a great place to put nets - defeating their purpose.

As more dams are built, the flow of the river will even out, losing its peaks and troughs. Great if you don't like floods, not so good if you rely on floods for soil regeneration.

But the silt burden will definitely be reduced and deltas shrink. Reducing peaks and troughs will also reduce the flux of the Tonle Sap. I understand that this is a problem for the Cambodians/VN.

But do you expect upstream countries to forgo their hydro-power, tolerate floods and donate their valuable top-soil for the benefit of those downstream?

Sadly not true about replacing thermal generation. The Hongsa lignite mine and power plant currently under construction in Laos by Banpu & RATC (Thai companies funded by Thai/PRC banks, and using a Chinese company CNEEC for construction) will actually produce more electricity (1800 MW by 2015) than Xayaburi (more excess capacity?) and guess where it's all heading? Yes another 95% share of load for Thailand. And all at the expense of a stunning section of the Mekong valley where environmental impact and control measures are about as prevalent as unicorns. Far easier to foul Laos' nest than their current operation near Lampang which is gaining more bad press, especially with the current filthy air conditions in northern Thailand.

Dams are hardly failsafe forms of flood control and can actually cause devastating floods. It is believed that China has experienced the failure of 2796 dams in the last 50 years killing an estimated 240,000 people. The most notorious was the failure of the Banqiao dam which, together with another 61 other dams which collapsed or were intentionally blown up in 1975, killed 171,000 people and made 2 million people homeless.

Also there is a growing weight of evidence that the weight of the reservoir behind the Zipingpu Dam in China contributed to the Sichuan earthquake of 2008 which killed 90,000. The Three Gorges Dam in China has gone from political pride and joy to being an acute embarrasment as amongst a whole litany of issues it is causing coastal erosion around Shanghai on an increasingly significant scale, and the need to hold water to ensure power generation exacerbated this year's drought in the mid and lower Yangtze.

Closer to home and more recently, last year's floods in central Thailand were in part due to the pathetic management of the Bhumibol & Sirkit dams, where excess capacity had to be released quickly to avoid potential dam failure at the expense of the residents of Ayutthaya, and N/W Bangkok. How comfortable are you with flood control management via 19 dams split between potentially 4 countries (China, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia), when Thailand can't even get it right with 2 dams in their own country?

"Reducing peaks and troughs will also reduce the flux of the Tonle Sap. I understand that this is a problem for the Cambodians/VN." Glorious understatement. The Tonle Sap and Mekong Delta are home to some 20million Cambodians and Vietnamese and as earlier stated the delta produces 50% of VN's rice crop, while the Tonle Sap produces approximately 60% of Cambodia's protein input and 8-10% of Cambodia's GDP. So it's not just a story of destroying an immensely rich, biodiverse environment, these dams (and if Xayaburi happens the remaining series will soon follow) will materially impact the lives of millions of people, mostly poor farmers. For the benefit of whom?

As we are seeing with the South China Sea an asset shared by multiple countries can either be a shared blessing or a cause of potentially serious conflict. The MRC, rather like the UN, is in effect a toothless talking-shop but it's the best option on offer. Sadly short term greed and a poor grasp of the law of unintended consequences are powerful contenders.

BTW the issue of "donating valuable top soil" is a whole other issue re dams and siltation is yet another fly in the ointment for the whole HEP miracle energy story, as is now unfolding with TGD in China and elsewhere.

In case you missed it here's the artist's impression of the Hongsa plant OP by Nikster.

Edited March 3, 2012 by folium