Thailand Pushes Xayaburi Dam

[OzMick]

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.

Not sure what the coal-fired station has got to do with the topic except that Thailand is expecting huge demand growth.

~3000 dams have failed in China? How many in Australia or the US - any? Why should the politically inspired mismanagement on one occasion cause me to lose faith in hydro-generation. The decisions made didn't make the flood any worse, they simply failed to mitigate it.

How does the 3 gorges cause a drought - if its generating water is flowing? If there is no water flowing into the dam, so they stop releases, how does THAT cause the drought?

Yes dams silt up,and can be desilted/dredged. Its a valuable resource otherwise washed out to sea and wasted, and the volume is greatly reduced by reducing the flood peaks. I accept that it's a problem for downstream countries, but what entitles them to the fertile soil of their neighbours?

Who says it will DESTROY "an immensely rich, biodiverse environment"? it certainly may affect it, for the benefit of the Laos people?

[Reasonableman]

I guess that's the point of the EIA, and the consensus to delay the dam for a decade or so. There are concerns, it's just that you don't appear to wish to acknowledge them, give them any weight, or share them. The peaks and troughs argument is illogical. Dams reduce/impede water flow. That's what dams do. They create an impoundment that drowns large tracts of land where people, animals, and plants live. It's unlikely they will be grateful for that. In addition, your apparent lack of concern for the other downstream countries is hard to understand. Or have I misunderstood your view? One day, the Mekong may never water the delta or flow to the sea. Is that OK? Think of Australia's Murray River before you reply.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Reasonableman

[folium]

Not sure what the coal-fired station has got to do with the topic except that Thailand is expecting huge demand growth. ~3000 dams have failed in China? How many in Australia or the US - any? Why should the politically inspired mismanagement on one occasion cause me to lose faith in hydro-generation. The decisions made didn't make the flood any worse, they simply failed to mitigate it. How does the 3 gorges cause a drought - if its generating water is flowing? If there is no water flowing into the dam, so they stop releases, how does THAT cause the drought? Yes dams silt up,and can be desilted/dredged. Its a valuable resource otherwise washed out to sea and wasted, and the volume is greatly reduced by reducing the flood peaks. I accept that it's a problem for downstream countries, but what entitles them to the fertile soil of their neighbours? Who says it will DESTROY "an immensely rich, biodiverse environment"? it certainly may affect it, for the benefit of the Laos people?

Hongsa is relevant as it shows that EGAT has no intention of replacing thermally generated electricity with HEP, particularly when it fouls someone else'e nest.

Dam mismanagement in Oz see below:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/wivenhoe-dam-decision-an-admission-of-failure/story-e6frg6nf-1226005370326

Dam faiures in Oz/USA? Wikipedia/Google is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Dam_disasters_in_the_United_States

Farm dam failures in Oz (small scale but makes the point), 23% failure rate in NSW according to this:

http://www.water.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/12994/YourDamYourResponsibility.pdf

Large dam failure in Australia is rare (but so it dam_n well should be!) but not unknown:

http://www.independentdamsafetymonitors.com/articles

Also the wisdom of building dams in seismically active areas is coming under increasing scrutiny:

Even The China Daily acknowledges this issue, yet concludes that such concerns are likely to be ignored by the government!

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/usa/business/2011-04/19/content_12352696.htm

Thailand floods 2011, not only did the mismanagement of the dams fail to mitigate the flooding, the hasty releases made them worse:

Endless articles on this, choosing 1 at random;

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20111104093419380

Never said TGD caused the drought (did say that it was causing severe coastal erosion), but did say that it exacerbated it. Again hardly a wild-assed claim and a brief overview of reports on the subject reveals this:

http://mouthtosource.org/rivers/blog/2011/11/29/did-the-three-gorges-dam-create-chinas-devastating-drought/

The Chinese government no less has actually gone on record admitting that there are "issues" with TGD:

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110525/full/news.2011.315.html?s=news_rss

Soil erosion is usually a curse for the source area and a blessing for the area where it is deposited. Without a reliable feed of sediment deltas such as the Mekong are very vulnerable to coastal erosion, especially with rising sea levels. This exacerbates the problem as less discharge is available to flush out the delta and rising sea levels increase the problem of salinization and thus sterility of a key agricultural asset.

To sell the case for dams they have been touted as multifunctional in terms of HEP, providing for irrigation, flood control, enabling river transport, creation of fishing industry and generation of tourism. As ever with a demand for multifunctionality comes the dilemma of "jack of all trades and master of none". The experience here last year highlights this as capacity was maintained to ensure sufficient levels for irrigation and HEP through the dry season. But they gambled and got it horribly wrong.

Re environmental impact (not that we really know as the only proper EIA was suppressed by the MRC for being too accurate (sorry controversial). However International Rivers has a link to it on their website.

Sadly all ecosystems are fragile and vulnerable. As with the introduction of rabbits to Australia, short-sightedness and a lack of understanding leads to unintended and often negative consequences for that particular ecosystem.

As for benefiting the Lao people, the current government is hardly a model of enlightened benevolence, and particularly for its non Lao communities has been a lot less than generous. Perhaps all this will now change as Thai money pours in but I wouldn't hold my breath, though the private bankers in HK and Singapore must be licking their lips.

[poach]

One good thing, more dams mean lower sea level, like the glaciers do.

[poach]

Are those against the dam, for building a nuke plant instead?

[Reasonableman]

Good one. If we dam every watercourse and prevent water from draining into the ocean, we might prevent sea levels rising and we might even save Bangkok. Hmmm... thanks for that. ;-)

One good thing, more dams mean lower sea level, like the glaciers do.

[Reasonableman]

The logic seems to be that it's all fine as long as its NIMBY.

Are those against the dam, for building a nuke plant instead?

[OzMick]

Not sure what the coal-fired station has got to do with the topic except that Thailand is expecting huge demand growth. ~3000 dams have failed in China? How many in Australia or the US - any? Why should the politically inspired mismanagement on one occasion cause me to lose faith in hydro-generation. The decisions made didn't make the flood any worse, they simply failed to mitigate it. How does the 3 gorges cause a drought - if its generating water is flowing? If there is no water flowing into the dam, so they stop releases, how does THAT cause the drought? Yes dams silt up,and can be desilted/dredged. Its a valuable resource otherwise washed out to sea and wasted, and the volume is greatly reduced by reducing the flood peaks. I accept that it's a problem for downstream countries, but what entitles them to the fertile soil of their neighbours? Who says it will DESTROY "an immensely rich, biodiverse environment"? it certainly may affect it, for the benefit of the Laos people?

Hongsa is relevant as it shows that EGAT has no intention of replacing thermally generated electricity with HEP, particularly when it fouls someone else'e nest.

Dam mismanagement in Oz see below:

http://www.theaustra...f-1226005370326

Dam faiures in Oz/USA? Wikipedia/Google is your friend:

http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States

Farm dam failures in Oz (small scale but makes the point), 23% failure rate in NSW according to this:

http://www.water.vic...ponsibility.pdf

Large dam failure in Australia is rare (but so it dam_n well should be!) but not unknown:

http://www.independe...rs.com/articles

Also the wisdom of building dams in seismically active areas is coming under increasing scrutiny:

Even The China Daily acknowledges this issue, yet concludes that such concerns are likely to be ignored by the government!

http://www.chinadail...nt_12352696.htm

Thailand floods 2011, not only did the mismanagement of the dams fail to mitigate the flooding, the hasty releases made them worse:

Endless articles on this, choosing 1 at random;

http://www.universit...111104093419380

Never said TGD caused the drought (did say that it was causing severe coastal erosion), but did say that it exacerbated it. Again hardly a wild-assed claim and a brief overview of reports on the subject reveals this:

http://mouthtosource...tating-drought/

The Chinese government no less has actually gone on record admitting that there are "issues" with TGD:

http://www.nature.co...html?s=news_rss

Soil erosion is usually a curse for the source area and a blessing for the area where it is deposited. Without a reliable feed of sediment deltas such as the Mekong are very vulnerable to coastal erosion, especially with rising sea levels. This exacerbates the problem as less discharge is available to flush out the delta and rising sea levels increase the problem of salinization and thus sterility of a key agricultural asset.

To sell the case for dams they have been touted as multifunctional in terms of HEP, providing for irrigation, flood control, enabling river transport, creation of fishing industry and generation of tourism. As ever with a demand for multifunctionality comes the dilemma of "jack of all trades and master of none". The experience here last year highlights this as capacity was maintained to ensure sufficient levels for irrigation and HEP through the dry season. But they gambled and got it horribly wrong.

Re environmental impact (not that we really know as the only proper EIA was suppressed by the MRC for being too accurate (sorry controversial). However International Rivers has a link to it on their website.

Sadly all ecosystems are fragile and vulnerable. As with the introduction of rabbits to Australia, short-sightedness and a lack of understanding leads to unintended and often negative consequences for that particular ecosystem.

As for benefiting the Lao people, the current government is hardly a model of enlightened benevolence, and particularly for its non Lao communities has been a lot less than generous. Perhaps all this will now change as Thai money pours in but I wouldn't hold my breath, though the private bankers in HK and Singapore must be licking their lips.

The Wyvenhoe dam report not yet released, but it seems not reducing level was a mistake. BUT the dam reached a level of 225% before emergency release and is on one of the 2 major tributaries of the Brisbane R. It certainly mitigated the flood, not caused it.

22 Dam failures in 236 years, most of them more than a century ago, and small in scale. Please! And farm dams in Australia? These are a hole in the ground with the cut used to build a wall, and can be built by anyone with enough brains to drive a bulldozer, as the 23% failure rate proves. Large dam failure in Australia is rare alright, like around zero.

A dam, similar to a capacitor, accepts intermittent large flows and releases them at a slower rate. Because the Thai dams were too close to full and were forced to release large flows they made the flood longer, but reduced the peak flows (and depth). Is this "worse"?

I am not prepared to discuss the Laos government - I can only hope the benefits flow to the chronically poor Laos people.

[OzMick]

One good thing, more dams mean lower sea level, like the glaciers do.

And actually colder seas as well. The energy released by the water flowing to the sea is released as heat (from friction) warming the water.

But both the level and temperature change would be EXTREMELY small.

[Reasonableman]

More like non-existent. What is the coefficient of water friction, out of interest?

[poach]

China the culprit of potential water wars?

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_the_culprit_of_potential_water_wars_999.html

[Reasonableman]

Perhaps we might say one of the stakeholder countries, like Thailand.

The Mekong is a river in Southeast Asia. It is the world's 12th-longest river[1] and the 7th-longest in Asia. Its estimated length is 4,350 km (2,703 mi),[1] and it drains an area of 795,000 km2 (307,000 sq mi), discharging 475 km3 (114 cu mi) of water annually.[2]

From the Tibetan Plateau this river runs through China's Yunnan province, Burma, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam. Laos, Thailand, Cambodia and Vietnam established the Mekong River Commission (MRC) in 1995 to assist in the management and coordinated use of the Mekong's resources. In 1996 China and Burma became "dialogue partners" of the MRC and the six countries now work together within a cooperative framework.

China the culprit of potential water wars?

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/China_the_culprit_of_potential_water_wars_999.html

[poach]

Dam the impact, China seems to be going full speed ahead on anything that will produce electricity.

China is building a coal plant a week

China Wants Nuclear Reactors—Fast

It hopes to have 40 nuclear power plants running by 2020, and Westinghouse, Areva, and other giants are chasing the market

China's dam-building will cause more problems than it solves

Under pressure to cut emissions, China risks irreversibly destroying its great rivers and biodiversity hotspots

[folium]

One good thing, more dams mean lower sea level, like the glaciers do.

Some estimates put water retained behind dams at 10800 cubic kms or the equivalent of 33mm higher sea levels.

The glaciers and ice sheets of this planet hold some 24.5 million cubic kms of water. Thus dams at most hold 0.00044% of the glaciers/ice sheets (if my mental maths is still functioning).

Sadly these are melting, the seas are undergoing thermal expansion and it is also important to look at the water cycle in its entirety rather than just a small slice in the dams. It is important to consider other human impacts such as the acceleration of runoff and return to the oceans caused by impermeable surfaces, drainage systems etc; the extraction of groundwater causing surface subsidence (a major issue for places such as Bangkok); and the generation of greenhouse gasses leading to climate change, accelerated ice melt and thermal expansion.

Thus I'm afraid to say that dams cannot add to their repertoire the role of saving the world from sea level rises unless we build a heck of a lot more and then we will largely be all under water anyway!

[poach]

One good thing, more dams mean lower sea level, like the glaciers do.

Some estimates put water retained behind dams at 10800 cubic kms or the equivalent of 33mm higher sea levels.

The glaciers and ice sheets of this planet hold some 24.5 million cubic kms of water. Thus dams at most hold 0.00044% of the glaciers/ice sheets (if my mental maths is still functioning).

Sadly these are melting, the seas are undergoing thermal expansion and it is also important to look at the water cycle in its entirety rather than just a small slice in the dams. It is important to consider other human impacts such as the acceleration of runoff and return to the oceans caused by impermeable surfaces, drainage systems etc; the extraction of groundwater causing surface subsidence (a major issue for places such as Bangkok); and the generation of greenhouse gasses leading to climate change, accelerated ice melt and thermal expansion.

Thus I'm afraid to say that dams cannot add to their repertoire the role of saving the world from sea level rises unless we build a heck of a lot more and then we will largely be all under water anyway!

Not we as in the entire planet, but yes, we as in Bangkok & other coastal locations will be under water.

[folium]

Not sure what the coal-fired station has got to do with the topic except that Thailand is expecting huge demand growth. ~3000 dams have failed in China? How many in Australia or the US - any? Why should the politically inspired mismanagement on one occasion cause me to lose faith in hydro-generation. The decisions made didn't make the flood any worse, they simply failed to mitigate it. How does the 3 gorges cause a drought - if its generating water is flowing? If there is no water flowing into the dam, so they stop releases, how does THAT cause the drought? Yes dams silt up,and can be desilted/dredged. Its a valuable resource otherwise washed out to sea and wasted, and the volume is greatly reduced by reducing the flood peaks. I accept that it's a problem for downstream countries, but what entitles them to the fertile soil of their neighbours? Who says it will DESTROY "an immensely rich, biodiverse environment"? it certainly may affect it, for the benefit of the Laos people?

Hongsa is relevant as it shows that EGAT has no intention of replacing thermally generated electricity with HEP, particularly when it fouls someone else'e nest. Dam mismanagement in Oz see below: http://www.theaustra...f-1226005370326 Dam faiures in Oz/USA? Wikipedia/Google is your friend: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States Farm dam failures in Oz (small scale but makes the point), 23% failure rate in NSW according to this: http://www.water.vic...ponsibility.pdf Large dam failure in Australia is rare (but so it dam_n well should be!) but not unknown: http://www.independe...rs.com/articles Also the wisdom of building dams in seismically active areas is coming under increasing scrutiny: Even The China Daily acknowledges this issue, yet concludes that such concerns are likely to be ignored by the government! http://www.chinadail...nt_12352696.htm Thailand floods 2011, not only did the mismanagement of the dams fail to mitigate the flooding, the hasty releases made them worse: Endless articles on this, choosing 1 at random; http://www.universit...111104093419380 Never said TGD caused the drought (did say that it was causing severe coastal erosion), but did say that it exacerbated it. Again hardly a wild-assed claim and a brief overview of reports on the subject reveals this: http://mouthtosource...tating-drought/ The Chinese government no less has actually gone on record admitting that there are "issues" with TGD: http://www.nature.co...html?s=news_rss Soil erosion is usually a curse for the source area and a blessing for the area where it is deposited. Without a reliable feed of sediment deltas such as the Mekong are very vulnerable to coastal erosion, especially with rising sea levels. This exacerbates the problem as less discharge is available to flush out the delta and rising sea levels increase the problem of salinization and thus sterility of a key agricultural asset. To sell the case for dams they have been touted as multifunctional in terms of HEP, providing for irrigation, flood control, enabling river transport, creation of fishing industry and generation of tourism. As ever with a demand for multifunctionality comes the dilemma of "jack of all trades and master of none". The experience here last year highlights this as capacity was maintained to ensure sufficient levels for irrigation and HEP through the dry season. But they gambled and got it horribly wrong. Re environmental impact (not that we really know as the only proper EIA was suppressed by the MRC for being too accurate (sorry controversial). However International Rivers has a link to it on their website. Sadly all ecosystems are fragile and vulnerable. As with the introduction of rabbits to Australia, short-sightedness and a lack of understanding leads to unintended and often negative consequences for that particular ecosystem. As for benefiting the Lao people, the current government is hardly a model of enlightened benevolence, and particularly for its non Lao communities has been a lot less than generous. Perhaps all this will now change as Thai money pours in but I wouldn't hold my breath, though the private bankers in HK and Singapore must be licking their lips.

The Wyvenhoe dam report not yet released, but it seems not reducing level was a mistake. BUT the dam reached a level of 225% before emergency release and is on one of the 2 major tributaries of the Brisbane R. It certainly mitigated the flood, not caused it. 22 Dam failures in 236 years, most of them more than a century ago, and small in scale. Please! And farm dams in Australia? These are a hole in the ground with the cut used to build a wall, and can be built by anyone with enough brains to drive a bulldozer, as the 23% failure rate proves. Large dam failure in Australia is rare alright, like around zero. A dam, similar to a capacitor, accepts intermittent large flows and releases them at a slower rate. Because the Thai dams were too close to full and were forced to release large flows they made the flood longer, but reduced the peak flows (and depth). Is this "worse"? I am not prepared to discuss the Laos government - I can only hope the benefits flow to the chronically poor Laos people.

i'm intrigued why the Lao government is off limits for discussion.

Surely for your argument to hold water (pun intended), the motivation of all this dam construction is to aid the development of Lao and benefit all of its people. If that is not the case due to a governance issue who are they going to benefit?

[folium]

Are those against the dam, for building a nuke plant instead?

Like it or not nuclear is likely to be part of at least the transition from fossil fuels over the next few decades.

Personally I would prefer to see more of a focus on energy conservation and enhanced efficiency but it seems that's way too much of an ask for most politicians, and of course fails to fund any pension plans.

[poach]

Are those against the dam, for building a nuke plant instead?

Like it or not nuclear is likely to be part of at least the transition from fossil fuels over the next few decades.

Personally I would prefer to see more of a focus on energy conservation and enhanced efficiency but it seems that's way too much of an ask for most politicians, and of course fails to fund any pension plans.

7 billion people and rapidly doubling, conservation is like spitting into the wind unless you also eliminate 6 billion people. That would be real conservation and protection of the environment.

[folium]

One good thing, more dams mean lower sea level, like the glaciers do.

Some estimates put water retained behind dams at 10800 cubic kms or the equivalent of 33mm higher sea levels.

The glaciers and ice sheets of this planet hold some 24.5 million cubic kms of water. Thus dams at most hold 0.00044% of the glaciers/ice sheets (if my mental maths is still functioning).

Sadly these are melting, the seas are undergoing thermal expansion and it is also important to look at the water cycle in its entirety rather than just a small slice in the dams. It is important to consider other human impacts such as the acceleration of runoff and return to the oceans caused by impermeable surfaces, drainage systems etc; the extraction of groundwater causing surface subsidence (a major issue for places such as Bangkok); and the generation of greenhouse gasses leading to climate change, accelerated ice melt and thermal expansion.

Thus I'm afraid to say that dams cannot add to their repertoire the role of saving the world from sea level rises unless we build a heck of a lot more and then we will largely be all under water anyway!

Not we as in the entire planet, but yes, we as in Bangkok & other coastal locations will be under water.

Some 40% of the world's population lives within 100kms of the coastline. Looks like living in the hills might be a tad more popular in years to come. Cue one of my favourite cartoons, see below:

[poach]

One good thing, more dams mean lower sea level, like the glaciers do.

Some estimates put water retained behind dams at 10800 cubic kms or the equivalent of 33mm higher sea levels.

The glaciers and ice sheets of this planet hold some 24.5 million cubic kms of water. Thus dams at most hold 0.00044% of the glaciers/ice sheets (if my mental maths is still functioning).

Sadly these are melting, the seas are undergoing thermal expansion and it is also important to look at the water cycle in its entirety rather than just a small slice in the dams. It is important to consider other human impacts such as the acceleration of runoff and return to the oceans caused by impermeable surfaces, drainage systems etc; the extraction of groundwater causing surface subsidence (a major issue for places such as Bangkok); and the generation of greenhouse gasses leading to climate change, accelerated ice melt and thermal expansion.

Thus I'm afraid to say that dams cannot add to their repertoire the role of saving the world from sea level rises unless we build a heck of a lot more and then we will largely be all under water anyway!

Not we as in the entire planet, but yes, we as in Bangkok & other coastal locations will be under water.

Some 40% of the world's population lives within 100kms of the coastline. Looks like living in the hills might be a tad more popular in years to come. Cue one of my favourite cartoons, see below:

hahaha, humans have become an infestation, but that is not PC, so I guess the only cure is more wars, which fighting over diminishing resources usually causes. imo humanity should stop messing around and unite in a global effort to colonize other planets before the next extinction event, or join the dinosaurs in extinction.

[OzMick]

Not sure what the coal-fired station has got to do with the topic except that Thailand is expecting huge demand growth. ~3000 dams have failed in China? How many in Australia or the US - any? Why should the politically inspired mismanagement on one occasion cause me to lose faith in hydro-generation. The decisions made didn't make the flood any worse, they simply failed to mitigate it. How does the 3 gorges cause a drought - if its generating water is flowing? If there is no water flowing into the dam, so they stop releases, how does THAT cause the drought? Yes dams silt up,and can be desilted/dredged. Its a valuable resource otherwise washed out to sea and wasted, and the volume is greatly reduced by reducing the flood peaks. I accept that it's a problem for downstream countries, but what entitles them to the fertile soil of their neighbours? Who says it will DESTROY "an immensely rich, biodiverse environment"? it certainly may affect it, for the benefit of the Laos people?

Hongsa is relevant as it shows that EGAT has no intention of replacing thermally generated electricity with HEP, particularly when it fouls someone else'e nest. Dam mismanagement in Oz see below: http://www.theaustra...f-1226005370326 Dam faiures in Oz/USA? Wikipedia/Google is your friend: http://en.wikipedia....e_United_States Farm dam failures in Oz (small scale but makes the point), 23% failure rate in NSW according to this: http://www.water.vic...ponsibility.pdf Large dam failure in Australia is rare (but so it dam_n well should be!) but not unknown: http://www.independe...rs.com/articles Also the wisdom of building dams in seismically active areas is coming under increasing scrutiny: Even The China Daily acknowledges this issue, yet concludes that such concerns are likely to be ignored by the government! http://www.chinadail...nt_12352696.htm Thailand floods 2011, not only did the mismanagement of the dams fail to mitigate the flooding, the hasty releases made them worse: Endless articles on this, choosing 1 at random; http://www.universit...111104093419380 Never said TGD caused the drought (did say that it was causing severe coastal erosion), but did say that it exacerbated it. Again hardly a wild-assed claim and a brief overview of reports on the subject reveals this: http://mouthtosource...tating-drought/ The Chinese government no less has actually gone on record admitting that there are "issues" with TGD: http://www.nature.co...html?s=news_rss Soil erosion is usually a curse for the source area and a blessing for the area where it is deposited. Without a reliable feed of sediment deltas such as the Mekong are very vulnerable to coastal erosion, especially with rising sea levels. This exacerbates the problem as less discharge is available to flush out the delta and rising sea levels increase the problem of salinization and thus sterility of a key agricultural asset. To sell the case for dams they have been touted as multifunctional in terms of HEP, providing for irrigation, flood control, enabling river transport, creation of fishing industry and generation of tourism. As ever with a demand for multifunctionality comes the dilemma of "jack of all trades and master of none". The experience here last year highlights this as capacity was maintained to ensure sufficient levels for irrigation and HEP through the dry season. But they gambled and got it horribly wrong. Re environmental impact (not that we really know as the only proper EIA was suppressed by the MRC for being too accurate (sorry controversial). However International Rivers has a link to it on their website. Sadly all ecosystems are fragile and vulnerable. As with the introduction of rabbits to Australia, short-sightedness and a lack of understanding leads to unintended and often negative consequences for that particular ecosystem. As for benefiting the Lao people, the current government is hardly a model of enlightened benevolence, and particularly for its non Lao communities has been a lot less than generous. Perhaps all this will now change as Thai money pours in but I wouldn't hold my breath, though the private bankers in HK and Singapore must be licking their lips.

The Wyvenhoe dam report not yet released, but it seems not reducing level was a mistake. BUT the dam reached a level of 225% before emergency release and is on one of the 2 major tributaries of the Brisbane R. It certainly mitigated the flood, not caused it. 22 Dam failures in 236 years, most of them more than a century ago, and small in scale. Please! And farm dams in Australia? These are a hole in the ground with the cut used to build a wall, and can be built by anyone with enough brains to drive a bulldozer, as the 23% failure rate proves. Large dam failure in Australia is rare alright, like around zero. A dam, similar to a capacitor, accepts intermittent large flows and releases them at a slower rate. Because the Thai dams were too close to full and were forced to release large flows they made the flood longer, but reduced the peak flows (and depth). Is this "worse"? I am not prepared to discuss the Laos government - I can only hope the benefits flow to the chronically poor Laos people.

i'm intrigued why the Lao government is off limits for discussion.

Surely for your argument to hold water (pun intended), the motivation of all this dam construction is to aid the development of Lao and benefit all of its people. If that is not the case due to a governance issue who are they going to benefit?

True, but I claim no real knowledge of it. Even if they are as bad as the current mob here, there should be some trickle down effect.

[Reasonableman]

Would you sacrifice your home, environment, and future for some vague trickle down? You've lived here for a while, I take it. You should know how it works in fact. That old con is what maintains the current status quo, where promises are made and often not fulfilled. The donkeys are duped into continually chasing the elusive carrot, and never get to actually taste it. Waiting for a few scraps from the rich man's table. Meanwhile, the rich get richer, selling someone else's heritage out from under them. That's how it works, IMO.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Reasonableman

[folium]

True, but I claim no real knowledge of it. Even if they are as bad as the current mob here, there should be some trickle down effect.

To give you just a taste of what the Lao government is like, and their approach to tidying up the streets ahead of international events:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/10/11/laos-drug-users-undesirables-detained-abused

Their treatment of the Hmong has been compared to genocide, with regrettably the Thai government aiding and abetting this as they forcibly repatriate Hmong refugees to a very unwelcoming reception:

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=3627

These are the people you want Thailand to pay $billions to? Wonder how much will trickle down to the Hmong?

[lovelaos]

True, but I claim no real knowledge of it. Even if they are as bad as the current mob here, there should be some trickle down effect.

To give you just a taste of what the Lao government is like, and their approach to tidying up the streets ahead of international events:

http://www.hrw.org/n...detained-abused

Their treatment of the Hmong has been compared to genocide, with regrettably the Thai government aiding and abetting this as they forcibly repatriate Hmong refugees to a very unwelcoming reception:

http://www.doctorswi...ase.cfm?id=3627

These are the people you want Thailand to pay $billions to? Wonder how much will trickle down to the Hmong?

Mamby Pamby left wing nonsence.

Good on the Laos government for detaining filthy, stealing, scumbag, drug dealers/users. One of the reasons I like living here is if some drugged up lazy scumbag breaks into my house or damages my property, the local police detain that scumbag immediately and give me (yes I am a Farang) the option to send him to jail, Excellent!!

The second link is old and dated. From what I have seen, the returning Hmong have been given housing, micro finance loans and land to farm. Last year I attended a Hmong New Year party not far from Vientiane and the local Hmong returnees were very happy with the current situation.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~yeulee/Topical/hmong%20of%20laos.html

[folium]

True, but I claim no real knowledge of it. Even if they are as bad as the current mob here, there should be some trickle down effect.

To give you just a taste of what the Lao government is like, and their approach to tidying up the streets ahead of international events:

http://www.hrw.org/n...detained-abused

Their treatment of the Hmong has been compared to genocide, with regrettably the Thai government aiding and abetting this as they forcibly repatriate Hmong refugees to a very unwelcoming reception:

http://www.doctorswi...ase.cfm?id=3627

These are the people you want Thailand to pay $billions to? Wonder how much will trickle down to the Hmong?

Mamby Pamby left wing nonsence.

Good on the Laos government for detaining filthy, stealing, scumbag, drug dealers/users. One of the reasons I like living here is if some drugged up lazy scumbag breaks into my house or damages my property, the local police detain that scumbag immediately and give me (yes I am a Farang) the option to send him to jail, Excellent!!

The second link is old and dated. From what I have seen, the returning Hmong have been given housing, micro finance loans and land to farm. Last year I attended a Hmong New Year party not far from Vientiane and the local Hmong returnees were very happy with the current situation.

http://members.ozema...0of%20laos.html

"Namby pamby left wing nonsense" is probably a generous description for one of the world's few remaining communist, one-party, authoritarian states.

If HRW is too lefty, perhaps the Economist, a free-trade, distinctly right of centre publication, might be more of interest re the Lao & Thai governments' treatment of the Hmong:

http://www.economist.com/node/16592276

Or for a seriously neo-con US viewpoint try the Heritage Foundation's ranking of Laos:

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/laos

Or try the US State Department's 2010 Human Rights Report on Laos:

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/eap/154390.htm

Your link re the Hmong is indeed old & dated having been written in September 1998, while the MSF piece I quoted was written in May 2009.

Anyway, Laos sadly has acquired an unfortunate reputation for ruthless over-exploitation of its resources whether that be uncontrolled deforestation, lignite mining/power generation in ecologically sensitive areas or now the wholesale damming of the mainstream Mekong.

http://www.illegal-logging.info/item_single.php?it_id=2605&it=news

or a fascinating insight from AToL:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/LJ05Ae01.html

Due to the highly opaque nature of politics in Laos, quite where the money derived from such operations ends up is highly unclear but as the second link above makes clear the Lao military has a huge interest in the exploitation of Lao resources.

Bottom line is that the Xayaburi dam is a sordid example of short-termism & underhand behaviour by both Laos & Thailand, for short-term financial gain for a few companies and individuals. As previously stated quite how Vietnam responds will be of great interest given the military and financial assistance that they have given to Laos and in many ways they have propped the country up over the last 30 years.

[lovelaos]

True, but I claim no real knowledge of it. Even if they are as bad as the current mob here, there should be some trickle down effect.

To give you just a taste of what the Lao government is like, and their approach to tidying up the streets ahead of international events:

http://www.hrw.org/n...detained-abused

Their treatment of the Hmong has been compared to genocide, with regrettably the Thai government aiding and abetting this as they forcibly repatriate Hmong refugees to a very unwelcoming reception:

http://www.doctorswi...ase.cfm?id=3627

These are the people you want Thailand to pay $billions to? Wonder how much will trickle down to the Hmong?

Mamby Pamby left wing nonsence.

Good on the Laos government for detaining filthy, stealing, scumbag, drug dealers/users. One of the reasons I like living here is if some drugged up lazy scumbag breaks into my house or damages my property, the local police detain that scumbag immediately and give me (yes I am a Farang) the option to send him to jail, Excellent!!

The second link is old and dated. From what I have seen, the returning Hmong have been given housing, micro finance loans and land to farm. Last year I attended a Hmong New Year party not far from Vientiane and the local Hmong returnees were very happy with the current situation.

http://members.ozema...0of%20laos.html

"Namby pamby left wing nonsense" is probably a generous description for one of the world's few remaining communist, one-party, authoritarian states.

If HRW is too lefty, perhaps the Economist, a free-trade, distinctly right of centre publication, might be more of interest re the Lao & Thai governments' treatment of the Hmong:

http://www.economist.com/node/16592276

Or for a seriously neo-con US viewpoint try the Heritage Foundation's ranking of Laos:

http://www.heritage....ex/country/laos

Or try the US State Department's 2010 Human Rights Report on Laos:

http://www.state.gov.../eap/154390.htm

Your link re the Hmong is indeed old & dated having been written in September 1998, while the MSF piece I quoted was written in May 2009.

Anyway, Laos sadly has acquired an unfortunate reputation for ruthless over-exploitation of its resources whether that be uncontrolled deforestation, lignite mining/power generation in ecologically sensitive areas or now the wholesale damming of the mainstream Mekong.

http://www.illegal-l...id=2605&it=news

or a fascinating insight from AToL:

http://www.atimes.co...a/LJ05Ae01.html

Due to the highly opaque nature of politics in Laos, quite where the money derived from such operations ends up is highly unclear but as the second link above makes clear the Lao military has a huge interest in the exploitation of Lao resources.

Bottom line is that the Xayaburi dam is a sordid example of short-termism & underhand behaviour by both Laos & Thailand, for short-term financial gain for a few companies and individuals. As previously stated quite how Vietnam responds will be of great interest given the military and financial assistance that they have given to Laos and in many ways they have propped the country up over the last 30 years.

Some very interesting links. Thanks for posting

[DeepInTheForest]

Not sure what the coal-fired station has got to do with the topic except that Thailand is expecting huge demand growth. ~3000 dams have failed in China? How many in Australia or the US - any? Why should the politically inspired mismanagement on one occasion cause me to lose faith in hydro-generation. The decisions made didn't make the flood any worse, they simply failed to mitigate it. How does the 3 gorges cause a drought - if its generating water is flowing? If there is no water flowing into the dam, so they stop releases, how does THAT cause the drought? Yes dams silt up,and can be desilted/dredged. Its a valuable resource otherwise washed out to sea and wasted, and the volume is greatly reduced by reducing the flood peaks. I accept that it's a problem for downstream countries, but what entitles them to the fertile soil of their neighbours? Who says it will DESTROY "an immensely rich, biodiverse environment"? it certainly may affect it, for the benefit of the Laos people?

I am not prepared to discuss the Laos government - I can only hope the benefits flow to the chronically poor Laos people.

Given the number of dams already in Laos, one would expect that Lao people are experiencing dramatic increases in their living standards. That, however, is not the case. I can tell you are motivated by concern for people who have little in the way of development and life's amenities. But we must be aware that large infrastructure projects in developing countries have a history of displacing people who are never compensated, destroying local resources and communities, while all the benefits flow out of the country or to the elites who rule. This is not breaking news.

What if we asked the affected people how they felt? In Thailand, it is clear that there is intense local opposition to dams-- why do you think these dams are being built in Laos and not Thailand? The opposition movements around the Pak Mun dam and other projects in Thailand made it clear that villagers were wise to what was happening.

Ah, but what about Laos? It might be worth listening to their local people as well. The below is from an International Rivers story.

"[before the dam] I used to be able to earn 100,000 kip from one hour's fishing. Now I must work hard all day for [the plantation company] to earn 20,000 kip."

--Fisherman from Ban Nong Boua, along the Hinboun River, 2007.

When the Theun-Hinboun Hydropower Project in Laos was completed in 1998, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) called it a “winner” with “little for the environment lobby to criticize.”.... Today, the Theun-Hinboun Power Company (THPC) and the ADB admit that more than 29,000 people in 71 villages – mostly subsistence farmers – have lost fisheries, rice fields, vegetables gardens and fresh drinking water supplies as a result of the dam.

The project diverts water from the Theun to the Hai and Hinboun Rivers (see map), causing serious erosion and flooding in these river basins. Many villagers living along the Hai and Hinboun Rivers have abandoned wet-season rice fields because the floods have made rice cultivation unviable. The flooding has also caused water contamination, livestock deaths and other hardships for villagers living downstream. Alarmingly, water fluctuations have reportedly resulted in the death of several people. But THPC’s mitigation and compensation program started too late and has done too little to address these impacts, ignoring the recommendations of a review the company itself commissioned.

The Theun-Hinboun Power Company is a joint venture between the Government of Laos, Norwegian state-owned company Statkraft and GMS Power of Thailand. Although the project has made villagers poorer, it has generated windfall profits for its shareholders. Located downstream from the Nam Theun 2 Dam, Theun-Hinboun's earnings were boosted by the long delays in Nam Theun 2's implementation. To make up for the reduced water flows caused by Nam Theun 2 and to increase profits, the company is now planning to build a new dam on the Nam Gnouang River, a tributary of the Theun River. The new dam – known as the Theun-Hinboun Expansion Project – will displace 4,800 people and effectively double flows down the Hai and Hinboun rivers, causing more flooding, erosion, fisheries losses and resettlement.

http://www.internati...s/theun-hinboun

It is clear to this reader that profits are not going to villagers, nor is their living standard being improved. These are power and profit grabs, with the big money deciding how it will extract profits, and little people be damned. Incidentally, Laos is ranked among the bottom 10 nations in the world in terms of corruption by Transparency International. Do you want to lay odds on such a project's chances in bettering conditions for the average person? I think a healthy skepticism is warranted. It is a new colonization, this time not with armies but with investors and infrastructure projects. Are we really concerned about Norwegian investors here, or are we concerned about people on the ground? Development is a difficult topic, and there are no easy answers. My fear is that resources will be extracted and exported, local assets trashed, and that the locals will not profit in the least.

Edited March 5, 2012 by DeepInTheForest

[Reasonableman]

Not sure what the coal-fired station has got to do with the topic except that Thailand is expecting huge demand growth. ~3000 dams have failed in China? How many in Australia or the US - any? Why should the politically inspired mismanagement on one occasion cause me to lose faith in hydro-generation. The decisions made didn't make the flood any worse, they simply failed to mitigate it. How does the 3 gorges cause a drought - if its generating water is flowing? If there is no water flowing into the dam, so they stop releases, how does THAT cause the drought? Yes dams silt up,and can be desilted/dredged. Its a valuable resource otherwise washed out to sea and wasted, and the volume is greatly reduced by reducing the flood peaks. I accept that it's a problem for downstream countries, but what entitles them to the fertile soil of their neighbours? Who says it will DESTROY "an immensely rich, biodiverse environment"? it certainly may affect it, for the benefit of the Laos people?

I am not prepared to discuss the Laos government - I can only hope the benefits flow to the chronically poor Laos people.

Given the number of dams already in Laos, one would expect that Lao people are experiencing dramatic increases in their living standards. That, however, is not the case. I can tell you are motivated by concern for people who have little in the way of development and life's amenities. But we must be aware that large infrastructure projects in developing countries have a history of displacing people who are never compensated, destroying local resources and communities, while all the benefits flow out of the country or to the elites who rule. This is not breaking news.

What if we asked the affected people how they felt? In Thailand, it is clear that there is intense local opposition to dams-- why do you think these dams are being built in Laos and not Thailand? The opposition movements around the Pak Mun dam and other projects in Thailand made it clear that villagers were wise to what was happening.

Ah, but what about Laos? It might be worth listening to their local people as well. The below is from an International Rivers story.

"[before the dam] I used to be able to earn 100,000 kip from one hour's fishing. Now I must work hard all day for [the plantation company] to earn 20,000 kip."

--Fisherman from Ban Nong Boua, along the Hinboun River, 2007.

When the Theun-Hinboun Hydropower Project in Laos was completed in 1998, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) called it a “winner” with “little for the environment lobby to criticize.”.... Today, the Theun-Hinboun Power Company (THPC) and the ADB admit that more than 29,000 people in 71 villages – mostly subsistence farmers – have lost fisheries, rice fields, vegetables gardens and fresh drinking water supplies as a result of the dam.

The project diverts water from the Theun to the Hai and Hinboun Rivers (see map), causing serious erosion and flooding in these river basins. Many villagers living along the Hai and Hinboun Rivers have abandoned wet-season rice fields because the floods have made rice cultivation unviable. The flooding has also caused water contamination, livestock deaths and other hardships for villagers living downstream. Alarmingly, water fluctuations have reportedly resulted in the death of several people. But THPC’s mitigation and compensation program started too late and has done too little to address these impacts, ignoring the recommendations of a review the company itself commissioned.

The Theun-Hinboun Power Company is a joint venture between the Government of Laos, Norwegian state-owned company Statkraft and GMS Power of Thailand. Although the project has made villagers poorer, it has generated windfall profits for its shareholders. Located downstream from the Nam Theun 2 Dam, Theun-Hinboun's earnings were boosted by the long delays in Nam Theun 2's implementation. To make up for the reduced water flows caused by Nam Theun 2 and to increase profits, the company is now planning to build a new dam on the Nam Gnouang River, a tributary of the Theun River. The new dam – known as the Theun-Hinboun Expansion Project – will displace 4,800 people and effectively double flows down the Hai and Hinboun rivers, causing more flooding, erosion, fisheries losses and resettlement.

http://www.internati...s/theun-hinboun

It is clear to this reader that profits are not going to villagers, nor is their living standard being improved. These are power and profit grabs, with the big money deciding how it will extract profits, and little people be damned. Incidentally, Laos is ranked among the bottom 10 nations in the world in terms of corruption by Transparency International. Do you want to lay odds on such a project's chances in bettering conditions for the average person? I think a healthy skepticism is warranted. It is a new colonization, this time not with armies but with investors and infrastructure projects. Are we really concerned about Norwegian investors here, or are we concerned about people on the ground? Development is a difficult topic, and there are no easy answers. My fear is that resources will be extracted and exported, local assets trashed, and that the locals will not profit in the least.

And, given the long and inglorious history of unsustainable "mining" of natural resources elsewhere in the world, these fears are very well-founded.

[lovelaos]

Not sure what the coal-fired station has got to do with the topic except that Thailand is expecting huge demand growth. ~3000 dams have failed in China? How many in Australia or the US - any? Why should the politically inspired mismanagement on one occasion cause me to lose faith in hydro-generation. The decisions made didn't make the flood any worse, they simply failed to mitigate it. How does the 3 gorges cause a drought - if its generating water is flowing? If there is no water flowing into the dam, so they stop releases, how does THAT cause the drought? Yes dams silt up,and can be desilted/dredged. Its a valuable resource otherwise washed out to sea and wasted, and the volume is greatly reduced by reducing the flood peaks. I accept that it's a problem for downstream countries, but what entitles them to the fertile soil of their neighbours? Who says it will DESTROY "an immensely rich, biodiverse environment"? it certainly may affect it, for the benefit of the Laos people?

I am not prepared to discuss the Laos government - I can only hope the benefits flow to the chronically poor Laos people.

Given the number of dams already in Laos, one would expect that Lao people are experiencing dramatic increases in their living standards. That, however, is not the case. I can tell you are motivated by concern for people who have little in the way of development and life's amenities. But we must be aware that large infrastructure projects in developing countries have a history of displacing people who are never compensated, destroying local resources and communities, while all the benefits flow out of the country or to the elites who rule. This is not breaking news.

What if we asked the affected people how they felt? In Thailand, it is clear that there is intense local opposition to dams-- why do you think these dams are being built in Laos and not Thailand? The opposition movements around the Pak Mun dam and other projects in Thailand made it clear that villagers were wise to what was happening.

Ah, but what about Laos? It might be worth listening to their local people as well. The below is from an International Rivers story.

"[before the dam] I used to be able to earn 100,000 kip from one hour's fishing. Now I must work hard all day for [the plantation company] to earn 20,000 kip."

--Fisherman from Ban Nong Boua, along the Hinboun River, 2007.

When the Theun-Hinboun Hydropower Project in Laos was completed in 1998, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) called it a “winner” with “little for the environment lobby to criticize.”.... Today, the Theun-Hinboun Power Company (THPC) and the ADB admit that more than 29,000 people in 71 villages – mostly subsistence farmers – have lost fisheries, rice fields, vegetables gardens and fresh drinking water supplies as a result of the dam.

The project diverts water from the Theun to the Hai and Hinboun Rivers (see map), causing serious erosion and flooding in these river basins. Many villagers living along the Hai and Hinboun Rivers have abandoned wet-season rice fields because the floods have made rice cultivation unviable. The flooding has also caused water contamination, livestock deaths and other hardships for villagers living downstream. Alarmingly, water fluctuations have reportedly resulted in the death of several people. But THPC’s mitigation and compensation program started too late and has done too little to address these impacts, ignoring the recommendations of a review the company itself commissioned.

The Theun-Hinboun Power Company is a joint venture between the Government of Laos, Norwegian state-owned company Statkraft and GMS Power of Thailand. Although the project has made villagers poorer, it has generated windfall profits for its shareholders. Located downstream from the Nam Theun 2 Dam, Theun-Hinboun's earnings were boosted by the long delays in Nam Theun 2's implementation. To make up for the reduced water flows caused by Nam Theun 2 and to increase profits, the company is now planning to build a new dam on the Nam Gnouang River, a tributary of the Theun River. The new dam – known as the Theun-Hinboun Expansion Project – will displace 4,800 people and effectively double flows down the Hai and Hinboun rivers, causing more flooding, erosion, fisheries losses and resettlement.

http://www.internati...s/theun-hinboun

It is clear to this reader that profits are not going to villagers, nor is their living standard being improved. These are power and profit grabs, with the big money deciding how it will extract profits, and little people be damned. Incidentally, Laos is ranked among the bottom 10 nations in the world in terms of corruption by Transparency International. Do you want to lay odds on such a project's chances in bettering conditions for the average person? I think a healthy skepticism is warranted. It is a new colonization, this time not with armies but with investors and infrastructure projects. Are we really concerned about Norwegian investors here, or are we concerned about people on the ground? Development is a difficult topic, and there are no easy answers. My fear is that resources will be extracted and exported, local assets trashed, and that the locals will not profit in the least.

And the other side of the story.

“Getting clean water is easy now. It comes out of taps, even at school! Now I don’t have to go down to the river everyday to fetch water in buckets. I don’t worry about falling into the river or spilling it all when I climb back up the step banks.” Mok, 12 years old, Nahao School.

Along the Nam Xot River, which meanders through the hills of the Nakai-Nam Theun National Protected Area in Khammouane Province of central Laos, the basic rhythms of life continue much as they have done for centuries. As morning ends in Nahao village, children splash around in the river, sharing its shallow dry season flow with the village’s buffalos, while adults prepare fields in the surrounding hills for the coming wet season crops.

However, since the Nam Theun 2 Multi-Purpose Project began in 2005, changes have been arriving in this remote village, and life is becoming a little easier. To supply its hydropower station, Nam Theun 2 created a large reservoir on the Nakai Plateau, at the foot of these hills. The Nam Xot now flows into this reservoir instead of into the Nam Theun River, and the larger volume of water at its mouth means the Nam Xot backs up from the plateau, with its average level significantly higher than in the past.

The higher level has had positive and negative effects in Nahao. On the one hand, the river has become easier to navigate, and a boat journey to the district town now takes only two hours. When the river was lower, series of rocky rapids meant the trip took one or two days. Trade is now much easier for villagers and fish catches have become bigger. Incomes are rising accordingly. On the other hand, the rising river submerged various riverbank areas used by villagers to grow crops in different seasons. Because of this loss, the Nam Theun 2 Power Company (NTPC) came to Nahao to look at ways of providing compensation.

In addition to providing extension services to diversify and improve agricultural output, NTPC helped the villagers build a gravity-fed water supply system that brings clean water down from the hills to various standpipes in Nahao. The water is also piped across the river to the neighbouring village of Thamuang. People in both villages use the water every day for drinking, bathing, laundry, and to water their home gardens. The facility has greatly reduced the time spent collecting water, especially for women and children. Some families even pipe the water straight from the standpipes into tanks in their houses and latrines are starting to appear as the full potential of the new system is realised.

The water system has been fully functional for less than two years, but already many children can no longer recall the daily trek with heavy buckets, up and down the slippery river banks. Mok is one of the few children who remember the drudgery of before, but all the adults know the value of the standpipes.

“I go to the tap three or four times a day,” says Mrs Khampun, a mother of five, as she waters her vegetable patch. “I used to have to clamber down the river bank. I’d get very dirty, and the water wasn’t very clean either. For me the best thing is that I don’t have to ask my kids to go down the banks anymore, and my grandchildren won’t have to. They are lucky!”

http://www.namtheun2...d=62&Itemid=156

Edited March 6, 2012 by lovelaos

[folium]

And the other side of the story.

“Getting clean water is easy now. It comes out of taps, even at school! Now I don’t have to go down to the river everyday to fetch water in buckets. I don’t worry about falling into the river or spilling it all when I climb back up the step banks.” Mok, 12 years old, Nahao School.

Along the Nam Xot River, which meanders through the hills of the Nakai-Nam Theun National Protected Area in Khammouane Province of central Laos, the basic rhythms of life continue much as they have done for centuries. As morning ends in Nahao village, children splash around in the river, sharing its shallow dry season flow with the village’s buffalos, while adults prepare fields in the surrounding hills for the coming wet season crops.

However, since the Nam Theun 2 Multi-Purpose Project began in 2005, changes have been arriving in this remote village, and life is becoming a little easier. To supply its hydropower station, Nam Theun 2 created a large reservoir on the Nakai Plateau, at the foot of these hills. The Nam Xot now flows into this reservoir instead of into the Nam Theun River, and the larger volume of water at its mouth means the Nam Xot backs up from the plateau, with its average level significantly higher than in the past.

The higher level has had positive and negative effects in Nahao. On the one hand, the river has become easier to navigate, and a boat journey to the district town now takes only two hours. When the river was lower, series of rocky rapids meant the trip took one or two days. Trade is now much easier for villagers and fish catches have become bigger. Incomes are rising accordingly. On the other hand, the rising river submerged various riverbank areas used by villagers to grow crops in different seasons. Because of this loss, the Nam Theun 2 Power Company (NTPC) came to Nahao to look at ways of providing compensation.

In addition to providing extension services to diversify and improve agricultural output, NTPC helped the villagers build a gravity-fed water supply system that brings clean water down from the hills to various standpipes in Nahao. The water is also piped across the river to the neighbouring village of Thamuang. People in both villages use the water every day for drinking, bathing, laundry, and to water their home gardens. The facility has greatly reduced the time spent collecting water, especially for women and children. Some families even pipe the water straight from the standpipes into tanks in their houses and latrines are starting to appear as the full potential of the new system is realised.

The water system has been fully functional for less than two years, but already many children can no longer recall the daily trek with heavy buckets, up and down the slippery river banks. Mok is one of the few children who remember the drudgery of before, but all the adults know the value of the standpipes.

“I go to the tap three or four times a day,” says Mrs Khampun, a mother of five, as she waters her vegetable patch. “I used to have to clamber down the river bank. I’d get very dirty, and the water wasn’t very clean either. For me the best thing is that I don’t have to ask my kids to go down the banks anymore, and my grandchildren won’t have to. They are lucky!”

http://www.namtheun2...d=62&Itemid=156

As with any large scale development project there are always winners and losers.

For some people dams represent a green, environmental cost-free alternative to fossil fuels.

More recently people are beginning to properly evaluate, in terms of a cost-benefit analysis (financial, social, economic and environmental impacts), such projects and some come up well short.

The sad and shocking element of the Xayaburi dam is that the Lao government apparently has no interest in a genuine EIA, having ignored the first Australian funded assessment, produced a meaningless report from the ever-obliging Poyry, and are now ignoring the MRC request to delay construction until a new EIA, funded by the Japanese, is conducted.

If the Xayaburi dam is such a national and regional asset why is the Lao government so reluctant to have its project assessed professionally?

While the Lao government has a pretty poor reputation in terms of how it handles its population and natural resources, in this case the impacts will cross borders with Vietnam potentially being the main victim.

To make omlettes you have to break eggs, but the art is making the best omlette with the fewest eggs.

Edited March 6, 2012 by folium