Thailand Backs 3.5 Billion Dollar Mekong River Dam Project

[OzMick]

Does any one in thier right mind belive that solar power is an alternative when electrical grids are already available. Without government subsidies paid for by the tax payers along with local corruption solar is not practical when cost is compared to the electrical grid. Without government help, try 50 years as a period for returning the investment against the existing electrical grid. Remembering that the sun averages being available about 33 percent of the time.

33% - not even. Sun following solar panels in the Arizona desert only manage 29%. Non-solar tracking panels will give a power output delineated by the sine of the angle of incidence, maximum power only achieved when the angle of incidence is 90 degrees. For many domestic roof mounted panels this will occur quite rarely.

Edited November 10, 2012 by OzMick

[DeepInTheForest]

And now we've had two 6.8 earthquakes in the region.

Yes, they were at least 100 km distant, but...

Check the locations of earthquakes and dam on the maps in the links below. The earthquakes were in Shan state, in Burma, according to the first link.

http://www.eturbonew...r-thailand-laos

http://www.rfa.org/e...2012163416.html

Judging from the crude map in the second link, it seems to me as if they were in the neighborhood, so to speak.

No word on damage or casualties yet.

Edited November 11, 2012 by DeepInTheForest

[cowslip]

Does any one in thier right mind belive that solar power is an alternative when electrical grids are already available. Without government subsidies paid for by the tax payers along with local corruption solar is not practical when cost is compared to the electrical grid. Without government help, try 50 years as a period for returning the investment against the existing electrical grid. Remembering that the sun averages being available about 33 percent of the time.

33% - not even. Sun following solar panels in the Arizona desert only manage 29%. Non-solar tracking panels will give a power output delineated by the sine of the angle of incidence, maximum power only achieved when the angle of incidence is 90 degrees. For many domestic roof mounted panels this will occur quite rarely.

solar panels are a developing technology, but they have other restrictions - for a start they don't work very well over 30 degrees.

the dams don't actually need an alternative as the power they generate is not needed.

[cowslip]

power generated from dams is often a long way from the users (industry) - transporting electricity overland is hugely inefficient and up to 50% is lost. - it is certainly noy a cheap way of producing power.

THere is a solution - build lots and lots of industry up and down the banks of the river..........and turn a blind eye to their effluent.

As I have repeatedly reminded you, transmission losses are nowhere near this figure. A simple step-up in voltage will reduce transmission losses by the square of the increase. ie doubling the voltage will reduce transmission losses to one quarter. Though higher voltage causes other losses, this can be overcome with better designed cabling, double cables and hollow cores for example.

"As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for ............ AC it was 4,000 km (2,500 mi)"

http://en.wikipedia....er_transmission

We have learned a few things since 1980, and I don't expect transmission distances to be anywhere near 4000km.

get up to date!

[Mosha]

After 20 years working in the electricity generation industry (coal-fired BTW), I predict that in the future as fossil fuels are depleted, the objections to this dam will be seen as ridiculous and to waste such a valuable energy resource near-criminal.

Expected annual generation is 7,400 GWh the equivalent of burning 300,000 tonne of coal EACH YEAR.

Or you could try to produce 20GWh/day from solar, which would require a 2.5GW solar plant (allowing a capacity factor of 33.33%, much higher than achieved anywhere). The world's largest solar plants are being built in Oz (where hydro power availability is minimal), at 0.15 GW (150 MW) they are twice the size of anything yet built and estimated cost exceeds a billion $AU each.

So not only is the dam FAR cheaper than any alternative, it also requires far less maintenance, and produces power that can be sold at a much higher price due to 24hr availability and load-following ability.

Dams are an ecological disaster everywhere. They cause species extinctions everywhere.

[OzMick]

power generated from dams is often a long way from the users (industry) - transporting electricity overland is hugely inefficient and up to 50% is lost. - it is certainly noy a cheap way of producing power.

THere is a solution - build lots and lots of industry up and down the banks of the river..........and turn a blind eye to their effluent.

As I have repeatedly reminded you, transmission losses are nowhere near this figure. A simple step-up in voltage will reduce transmission losses by the square of the increase. ie doubling the voltage will reduce transmission losses to one quarter. Though higher voltage causes other losses, this can be overcome with better designed cabling, double cables and hollow cores for example.

"As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for ............ AC it was 4,000 km (2,500 mi)"

http://en.wikipedia....er_transmission

We have learned a few things since 1980, and I don't expect transmission distances to be anywhere near 4000km.

get up to date!

I was trying to educate you from your state of electrical engineering illiteracy. Since 1980 transmission voltages have increased from a standard 500kV to lines currently running at 1 and 1.2 MV, reducing to less than a quarter of what they were then. Only an idiot would accept losses of 50%, or expect them to occur.

[OzMick]

Does any one in thier right mind belive that solar power is an alternative when electrical grids are already available. Without government subsidies paid for by the tax payers along with local corruption solar is not practical when cost is compared to the electrical grid. Without government help, try 50 years as a period for returning the investment against the existing electrical grid. Remembering that the sun averages being available about 33 percent of the time.

33% - not even. Sun following solar panels in the Arizona desert only manage 29%. Non-solar tracking panels will give a power output delineated by the sine of the angle of incidence, maximum power only achieved when the angle of incidence is 90 degrees. For many domestic roof mounted panels this will occur quite rarely.

solar panels are a developing technology, but they have other restrictions - for a start they don't work very well over 30 degrees.

the dams don't actually need an alternative as the power they generate is not needed.

Could you be a little more specific - is that 30^oC or 30^o latitude?

The second statement is not worthy of comment.

[DeepInTheForest]

Dams are an ecological disaster everywhere. They cause species extinctions everywhere.

Generalizations are wrong everywhere.

I am being facetious, while being partly serious. But to say that all dams are disasters, I'm thinking, does not allow for shades of difference between them. Some dams have a demonstrably greater effect on environment than others. I wish that dams were not needed, but there are times when they may be useful because they are the least impactful choice. After all, coal plants are disasters, too.

Suppose several small dams allow a region to better avoid famine or lean years, with minimal effect on the environment (say the land is in a temperate zone, with few species that are unique to the dam's area of impact). Maybe the environment that is impacted is duplicated elsewhere, so that its effect on populations is negligible.

I think we need to apply some kind of standard of reasonableness. Of course that standard should constantly be revised, as technologies and understanding of their consequences evolve. Environmental reviews need to be periodically updated.

One of my issues in the case of Xayaburi is that an impartial environmental impact review has not been done. Many experts, scientists, et. al., who know more than I do have expressed reservations. I too have doubts, from having seen first-hand how important the river is to the lives of Southeast Asians. It is undoubtedly of extreme importance, and for far more than a single reason. True, there are years when a gobsmacking 2 million tons of fish are taken. The Mekong is an incredible resource-- it is the world's largest freshwater fish take in the world. If that markedly decreases (there is no way it will not if the river is dammed), how can such a protein source-- essentially free, and unlike agriculture, producing no carbon emissions-- be replaced?

But it's not just the fish. The river is a primary source of drinking water for millions. Also, the river will not carry as much sediment to the delta as previously. The Mekong delta is one of the three great rice baskets of Southeast Asia, along with the Chao Phraya delta, and the Irrawaddy delta. Their exports help feed the world. The Mekong delta, with its five levels of aquifers, is already a mess due to poor agricultural and water practice. Mainstem dams could well make things worse in one of the world's primary rice-producing regions. But we don't have a study to understand how much impact the dams could have.

Edited November 12, 2012 by DeepInTheForest

[morocco]

Dams are an ecological disaster everywhere. They cause species extinctions everywhere.

Generalizations are wrong everywhere.

I am being facetious, while being partly serious. But to say that all dams are disasters, I'm thinking, does not allow for shades of difference between them. Some dams have a demonstrably greater effect on environment than others. I wish that dams were not needed, but there are times when they may be useful because they are the least impactful choice. After all, coal plants are disasters, too.

Suppose several small dams allow a region to better avoid famine or lean years, with minimal effect on the environment (say the land is in a temperate zone, with few species that are unique to the dam's area of impact). Maybe the environment that is impacted is duplicated elsewhere, so that its effect on populations is negligible.

I think we need to apply some kind of standard of reasonableness. Of course that standard should constantly be revised, as technologies and understanding of their consequences evolve. Environmental reviews need to be periodically updated.

One of my issues in the case of Xayaburi is that an impartial environmental impact review has not been done. Many experts, scientists, et. al., who know more than I do have expressed reservations. I too have doubts, from having seen first-hand how important the river is to the lives of Southeast Asians. It is undoubtedly of extreme importance, and for far more than a single reason. True, there are years when a gobsmacking 2 million tons of fish are taken. The Mekong is an incredible resource-- it is the world's largest freshwater fish take in the world. If that markedly decreases (there is no way it will not if the river is dammed), how can such a protein source-- essentially free, and unlike agriculture, producing no carbon emissions-- be replaced?

But it's not just the fish. The river is a primary source of drinking water for millions. Also, the river will not carry as much sediment to the delta as previously. The Mekong delta is one of the three great rice baskets of Southeast Asia, along with the Chao Phraya delta, and the Irrawaddy delta. Their exports help feed the world. The Mekong delta, with its five levels of aquifers, is already a mess due to poor agricultural and water practice. Mainstem dams could well make things worse in one of the world's primary rice-producing regions. But we don't have a study to understand how much impact the dams could have.

Well said. These are the important issues that many don't consider. I'm sure Mr. Knowswhatis bestforeveryone will soon have an argument against these issues. lol

Edited November 12, 2012 by morocco

[OzMick]

Generalizations are wrong everywhere; so are irrelevancies.

Why mention drinking water (except to cause unnecessary concern) when the total flow of the river will not be reduced?

In fact, a piped water system from the base of the dam could supply water to homes many km downstream without the use of pumps.

And the old tactic of "lets build lots of little dams" is disingenuous, relying on the lack of appropriate sites to disguise its intention.

[maidu]

"The Lao government has already conducted studies that show there would be no impact on the environment and fisheries," Surapong said.

what a dumb-ass thing to say. If the Laos gov't wanted an open toxic/nuclear waste dump next to a kindergarten, they could get a 'study' to justify it. A Yingluck cabinet member like Surapong would still use that justification if it suited his/the Thai gov't agenda. I wouldn't trust Surpong to build a sandbox for pre-schoolers to play in.

[maidu]

And the old tactic of "lets build lots of little dams" is disingenuous,....

There is a type of technology which is being developed by westerners (not by Asians, as they always lag behind westerners re; innovative ideas and technology) - which uses river power. Using small power generators (river flow powered), could provide power for many places along a river, with the right tech and the right conditions.

there are also exciting advances being made with tide and wave power. And again, it's westerners who are leading the way.

[OzMick]

"The Lao government has already conducted studies that show there would be no impact on the environment and fisheries," Surapong said.

what a dumb-ass thing to say. If the Laos gov't wanted an open toxic/nuclear waste dump next to a kindergarten, they could get a 'study' to justify it. A Yingluck cabinet member like Surapong would still use that justification if it suited his/the Thai gov't agenda. I wouldn't trust Surpong to build a sandbox for pre-schoolers to play in.

While I agree with what you say, you lead me to an important point. Having experience building a child's sandbox, I then found that the neighbourhood cats just loved to crap in it.

It seems that even the simplest projects have their downside. If the project is considered important enough, it is then necessary to live with or find ways to lessen the negative effects.

BTW a bottle or two of aqua ammonia with a pinhole in the cap will deter cats, dogs and rodents. The ammonia needs to be replenished regularly (say every 2 weeks).

[OzMick]

And the old tactic of "lets build lots of little dams" is disingenuous,....

There is a type of technology which is being developed by westerners (not by Asians, as they always lag behind westerners re; innovative ideas and technology) - which uses river power. Using small power generators (river flow powered), could provide power for many places along a river, with the right tech and the right conditions.

there are also exciting advances being made with tide and wave power. And again, it's westerners who are leading the way.

And you reverse the wiring on the generators to use them as water pushers when required! Sorry, couldn't resist that.

Yes, with a steady flow (which the dam will help provide) you could generate small amounts of power, but it is uneconomical.

I am not aware of any wave-power systems, of any real size, currently operating. The power of the sea tends to destroy them on a regular basis.

Edited November 12, 2012 by OzMick

[zakk9]

Mick from Oz,

While I don't doubt your technical expertise, you have not come up with a solution for how a reduction of fish in the lower Mekong region can replaced without using more energy than this dam will produce. Nor have I seen any suggestion for how you will fill up the Tonle Sap lake every autumn to provide water for the vast areas used for rice cultivation, fisheries and other agricultural activities in central parts of Cambodia.

[noob7]

Mick from Oz,

While I don't doubt your technical expertise, you have not come up with a solution for how a reduction of fish in the lower Mekong region can replaced without using more energy than this dam will produce. Nor have I seen any suggestion for how you will fill up the Tonle Sap lake every autumn to provide water for the vast areas used for rice cultivation, fisheries and other agricultural activities in central parts of Cambodia.

"Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar and often convincing.

Oscar Wilde

[OzMick]

Mick from Oz,

While I don't doubt your technical expertise, you have not come up with a solution for how a reduction of fish in the lower Mekong region can replaced without using more energy than this dam will produce. Nor have I seen any suggestion for how you will fill up the Tonle Sap lake every autumn to provide water for the vast areas used for rice cultivation, fisheries and other agricultural activities in central parts of Cambodia.

That is because I refrain from making suggestions on things in which I have no expertise.

In regards to the Tonle Sap, it is an anomaly that relies on flood conditions in the river. As more and more of the flood surges are captured for their vast potential energy, I expect the flow to decrease until (possibly) zero. While that is certainly unfortunate for those who depend on it, it is a bit much for them to expect their upstream neighbours to put up with floods because they like them.

[zakk9]

Mick from Oz,

While I don't doubt your technical expertise, you have not come up with a solution for how a reduction of fish in the lower Mekong region can replaced without using more energy than this dam will produce. Nor have I seen any suggestion for how you will fill up the Tonle Sap lake every autumn to provide water for the vast areas used for rice cultivation, fisheries and other agricultural activities in central parts of Cambodia.

That is because I refrain from making suggestions on things in which I have no expertise.

In regards to the Tonle Sap, it is an anomaly that relies on flood conditions in the river. As more and more of the flood surges are captured for their vast potential energy, I expect the flow to decrease until (possibly) zero. While that is certainly unfortunate for those who depend on it, it is a bit much for them to expect their upstream neighbours to put up with floods because they like them.

So you draw your conclusions based on the facts that you understand, but choose to ignore what you cannot?

Saying that those who live upstream can ignore the needs of those living further down (which is basically what you're saying) is a bit like saying that it's ok to drive at 200 kph through the city if it's a good solution for yourself, regardless of the consequences for others. Those who happen to end up dead under your Ferrari have themselves to thank, since they should have seen you coming.

Edit: Several years ago, some political scientists predicted that future wars would be fought over the access to water. I wouldn't be surprised if their theory will be proven right in this region.

Edited November 12, 2012 by zakk9

[OzMick]

Mick from Oz,

While I don't doubt your technical expertise, you have not come up with a solution for how a reduction of fish in the lower Mekong region can replaced without using more energy than this dam will produce. Nor have I seen any suggestion for how you will fill up the Tonle Sap lake every autumn to provide water for the vast areas used for rice cultivation, fisheries and other agricultural activities in central parts of Cambodia.

That is because I refrain from making suggestions on things in which I have no expertise.

In regards to the Tonle Sap, it is an anomaly that relies on flood conditions in the river. As more and more of the flood surges are captured for their vast potential energy, I expect the flow to decrease until (possibly) zero. While that is certainly unfortunate for those who depend on it, it is a bit much for them to expect their upstream neighbours to put up with floods because they like them.

So you draw your conclusions based on the facts that you understand, but choose to ignore what you cannot?

Saying that those who live upstream can ignore the needs of those living further down (which is basically what you're saying) is a bit like saying that it's ok to drive at 200 kph through the city if it's a good solution for yourself, regardless of the consequences for others. Those who happen to end up dead under your Ferrari have themselves to thank, since they should have seen you coming.

No, I am pointing out the plus side which I understand, trying to correct technical errors like 50% transmission losses, while not making unfounded assertions on equally unfounded assumptions.

And no, I am not claiming a right for those upstream, I am disputing the right of those downstream to ask others to forgo what they see as naturally theirs. Thank you for the inane comparison.

BTW Dredging/deepening of the channel to the Sap would allow faster flows in, flood gating could reduce/stop outflow. As there is a minimal height difference, it shouldn't be overly difficult to pump water into the Sap once it is gated.

I'm not sure if those suggestions are feasible, but I do also have a lot of experience in moving large volumes of water by canal and pipework.

You haven't mentioned the loss of silt in the flow but others have. Can I suggest that a scaled-up adaptation of an automatic swimming pool cleaner could both increase the silt flow while keeping/delaying the dam from silting up

[DonaldBattles]

Where and what country and when will thse fossil fuels run out. In Australia they are major exporters of oil and gas and continune to to drill more wells for oil and gas. Oz can't even use 3% of its oil and gas supply. When Australia starts hydraulic fracturing the gas will flood the country. There won't be enough ships to export it. With a such a large country and a small population of 21.6 million people and a no immigration policy except from the Queens beloved commonwealth states Australia will have to open up and let about 5 million Chinese in to do the work of developing and producing such large energy supplies. With the carbon tax imposed surly the government could run electricity to those poor places that need such government subsidies for not justified solar farms. Is it possible that all of these carbon emissions come from the frequent use of charcoal for barbecuing. If this is the case the government should subsidize gas fired grills. Could corruption be the cause like it is in most countries?

Solar energy is only good for those places that can not receive electricity from government or privately owned power plants. All the years I worked in Australia I never heard of their being an electrical shortage. What would be the motive to take the carbon tax and use it to subsidize solar farms if they have the grid available.

[noob7]

Mick from Oz,

While I don't doubt your technical expertise, you have not come up with a solution for how a reduction of fish in the lower Mekong region can replaced without using more energy than this dam will produce. Nor have I seen any suggestion for how you will fill up the Tonle Sap lake every autumn to provide water for the vast areas used for rice cultivation, fisheries and other agricultural activities in central parts of Cambodia.

That is because I refrain from making suggestions on things in which I have no expertise.

In regards to the Tonle Sap, it is an anomaly that relies on flood conditions in the river. As more and more of the flood surges are captured for their vast potential energy, I expect the flow to decrease until (possibly) zero. While that is certainly unfortunate for those who depend on it, it is a bit much for them to expect their upstream neighbours to put up with floods because they like them.

So you draw your conclusions based on the facts that you understand, but choose to ignore what you cannot?

Saying that those who live upstream can ignore the needs of those living further down (which is basically what you're saying) is a bit like saying that it's ok to drive at 200 kph through the city if it's a good solution for yourself, regardless of the consequences for others. Those who happen to end up dead under your Ferrari have themselves to thank, since they should have seen you coming.

Edit: Several years ago, some political scientists predicted that future wars would be fought over the access to water. I wouldn't be surprised if their theory will be proven right in this region.

That's, what Egypt is warning the Sudan for decades, already.

Now Ethiopia walks in!

http://beforeitsnews.com/war-and-conflict/2012/10/egypt-is-prepared-to-bomb-all-of-ethiopias-nile-dams-stratfor-2443772.html