Egat urged to drop Salween dam project

[webfact]

Egat urged to drop Salween dam project
Jim Pollard
The Nation

BANGKOK: -- THAILAND'S power utility Egat has been accused of exacerbating conflict in Myanmar's Shan state by backing a controversial dam on the Salween.

More than a dozen Shan community groups called on the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand and China's Three Gorges Corporation yesterday to pull out of the huge Mong Ton Dam, saying the US$8-billion (Bt272-billion) project would be an environmental and social catastrophe.

The dam would be the highest in Southeast Asia, at 241 metres, and have a massive reservoir that would stretch two-thirds the length of Shan state. It would flood about 100 ethnic villages in an area the size of Singapore, including the unique "Thousand Islands" area in Keng Kham Valley.

Chinese engineers have been drilling tunnels in the banks of the Salween this year, doing hydrological and geological tests in a section of the river made off-limits to local people, Shan and Thai activists said at a press briefing in Bangkok.

"The Mong Ton Dam site lies in an area contested by several of the largest ethnic armed groups in Shan state," the groups said in a statement.

"The areas around the dam site and its planned reservoir are heavily militarised by both government and ethnic armed forces. "The potential flood area has been largely depopulated since a massive anti-insurgency campaign in 1996-98, which uprooted over 300,000 villagers in central Shan state. The remaining rural communities continue to suffer abuses committed with impunity by [39 battalions of] government troops.

"If the government proceeds with building the Mong Ton Dam under current conditions, it is [certain] they will send in even greater numbers of troops and increase military fortifications to secure the area. This will fuel the conflict and lead to increased abuses against local communities."

The groups, including Sapawa, the Shan Human Rights Foundation and Shan Women's Action Network, said the Salween was one of the most pristine rivers in the region, but locals had not been included in the decision-making process. About 90 per cent of the 7 gigawatts of power generated by the dam would be sent to China and Thailand, while thousands of more people would lose homes.

"It's not the right time for Thai companies to sign these kinds of agreements - when there is still a lot of conflict going on," Pianporn Deetes from International Rivers said. "We need democracy [in Myanmar] before these sorts of deals go ahead."

Egat, she said, had many deals to buy power from Laos and Myanmar, but its forecasts for demand were often way above what Thailand actually used.

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Egat-urged-to-drop-Salween-dam-project-30261994.html


-- The Nation 2015-06-10

[halloween]

Big dam, lots of high-value "clean" electricity, with side benefits. Thought that should be mentioned once before the detractors get started.

BTW referred to as TaSang Dam most places.

[Robby nz]

Big dam, lots of high-value "clean" electricity, with side benefits. Thought that should be mentioned once before the detractors get started.

BTW referred to as TaSang Dam most places.

Your right side benefits like destruction of natural habitat and forcing people out who have nowhere to go except to refugee camps like this one in Thailand :

That camp for Burmese refugees stretches for over 4KM down road 105 about 60km north of Mae Sot it is only one of several for those already displaced by fighting in Burma. If dams like the above were to go ahead expect many more.

But what do those in cities care as long as they have air conditioning in their condos.

[halloween]

Big dam, lots of high-value "clean" electricity, with side benefits. Thought that should be mentioned once before the detractors get started.

BTW referred to as TaSang Dam most places.

Your right side benefits like destruction of natural habitat and forcing people out who have nowhere to go except to refugee camps like this one in Thailand :

r camp.JPG r camp.1.JPG

That camp for Burmese refugees stretches for over 4KM down road 105 about 60km north of Mae Sot it is only one of several for those already displaced by fighting in Burma. If dams like the above were to go ahead expect many more.

But what do those in cities care as long as they have air conditioning in their condos.

Been there some time haven't they? My house has a/c, but we don't use it, and I don't intend to justify the increasing use of energy. But it is increasing, and there is supposedly a necessity to stop burning fossil fuels.

Every benefit has a cost, and the 2 should be looked at rationally and with real information rather than could/might/possible generalised claims.

[Robby nz]

Big dam, lots of high-value "clean" electricity, with side benefits. Thought that should be mentioned once before the detractors get started.

BTW referred to as TaSang Dam most places.

Your right side benefits like destruction of natural habitat and forcing people out who have nowhere to go except to refugee camps like this one in Thailand :

r camp.JPG r camp.1.JPG

That camp for Burmese refugees stretches for over 4KM down road 105 about 60km north of Mae Sot it is only one of several for those already displaced by fighting in Burma. If dams like the above were to go ahead expect many more.

But what do those in cities care as long as they have air conditioning in their condos.

Been there some time haven't they? My house has a/c, but we don't use it, and I don't intend to justify the increasing use of energy. But it is increasing, and there is supposedly a necessity to stop burning fossil fuels.

Every benefit has a cost, and the 2 should be looked at rationally and with real information rather than could/might/possible generalised claims.

Yes that camp has been there for some time with no idea of what to do with these people. Does the country need more ?

Indeed there should and there have been many studies that show that flooding huge areas of land, particularly forested land, is far more detrimental to the environment than using fossil fuels to produce the same quantity of power.

We see some telling us we need parks and green areas in cities as "Lungs" yet the same people advocate flooding vast areas of forests which are far more important than all the trees in a city.

But in this case its OK because its not in our back yard, let someone else suffer the consequences. Well that don't really work either for we are all on the same lump of rock and what happens next door will impact on us.

Incidentally I feel even stronger about proposed large dams in National Parks in Thailand which would destroy thousands of acres of natural environment and the home of some of the most endangered wildlife on the planet.

[Ricardo]

Doesn't Burma get earthquakes ... so is it really a good place to build a big dam ?

[halloween]

Yes that camp has been there for some time with no idea of what to do with these people. Does the country need more ?

Indeed there should and there have been many studies that show that flooding huge areas of land, particularly forested land, is far more detrimental to the environment than using fossil fuels to produce the same quantity of power.

We see some telling us we need parks and green areas in cities as "Lungs" yet the same people advocate flooding vast areas of forests which are far more important than all the trees in a city.

But in this case its OK because its not in our back yard, let someone else suffer the consequences. Well that don't really work either for we are all on the same lump of rock and what happens next door will impact on us.

Incidentally I feel even stronger about proposed large dams in National Parks in Thailand which would destroy thousands of acres of natural environment and the home of some of the most endangered wildlife on the planet.

Many studies? how about a link to just one? And some for "the most endangered wildlife on the planet."

In your country with ample rainfall and elevation there are 92 hydro power stations of varying sizes. Do you object to those?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_Zealand

[Lee4Life]

Has anyone ever heard of China, or a large Chinese Corporation backing away from any project that benefits them? Not going to happen.

[halloween]

Doesn't Burma get earthquakes ... so is it really a good place to build a big dam ?

More than NZ? The south island has a fault line running down the middle, easily seen by the different coloured vegetation on either side. And then there was Christchurch........

[Ulic]

Big dam, lots of high-value "clean" electricity, with side benefits. Thought that should be mentioned once before the detractors get started.

BTW referred to as TaSang Dam most places.

And there is the rub. Hydro-electric dams are not nearly as green and environmentally friendly

as once thought. Existing dams have a grandfather clause, as the damage is done. New projects

need to be put under a microscope and generally will not pass a thorough analysis of

a cost/benefit- environmental damage assessment.

[Robby nz]

Yes that camp has been there for some time with no idea of what to do with these people. Does the country need more ?

Indeed there should and there have been many studies that show that flooding huge areas of land, particularly forested land, is far more detrimental to the environment than using fossil fuels to produce the same quantity of power.

We see some telling us we need parks and green areas in cities as "Lungs" yet the same people advocate flooding vast areas of forests which are far more important than all the trees in a city.

But in this case its OK because its not in our back yard, let someone else suffer the consequences. Well that don't really work either for we are all on the same lump of rock and what happens next door will impact on us.

Incidentally I feel even stronger about proposed large dams in National Parks in Thailand which would destroy thousands of acres of natural environment and the home of some of the most endangered wildlife on the planet.

Many studies? how about a link to just one? And some for "the most endangered wildlife on the planet."

In your country with ample rainfall and elevation there are 92 hydro power stations of varying sizes. Do you object to those?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_New_Zealand

Links to studies no problem : http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-hydroelectric-power.html#.VXf6Wvmqqko

http://www.internationalrivers.org/environmental-impacts-of-dams

http://www.brighthubengineering.com/geotechnical-engineering/71200-negative-impacts-of-hydroelectric-dams/

Note:

1. Large amounts of plant life are submerged and decay anaerobically (in the absence of oxygen) generating greenhouse gases like methane. It is estimated that a hydroelectric power plant produces 3.5 times the amount of greenhouse gases as a thermal power plant burning fossil fuels.

The Dams in NZ are all established, There was one built in my time and yes I objected along with most of the country.

They are now building no new dams instead opting for wind and solar power.

Wind is particularly applicable as it is a very windy country.

Most endangered wildlife, certainly.

An example: the Mae Wong river in the Mae Wong National Park where a dam is proposed is part of the largest remaining intact tract of forest in Asia.

It along with the Thung Yai-huai Kha Khaeng wildlife sanctuaries and other connected national parks is home to a diverse range of wildlife found in few other places, some unique to that area.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/591

To flood that large river basin would create an environmental disaster, yes I have been there and know the area.

You should also note in some of those studies and others they talk oh mini or micro electric power plants on applicable place on rivers which only flood a small area, this I understand is a concept supported by His Majesty. These provide power and irrigation to a specific area and are said to be far more cost effective and environmental friendly.

[halloween]

Links to studies no problem : http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our-energy-choices/renewable-energy/environmental-impacts-hydroelectric-power.html#.VXf6Wvmqqko

http://www.internationalrivers.org/environmental-impacts-of-dams

http://www.brighthubengineering.com/geotechnical-engineering/71200-negative-impacts-of-hydroelectric-dams/

Note:

1. Large amounts of plant life are submerged and decay anaerobically (in the absence of oxygen) generating greenhouse gases like methane. It is estimated that a hydroelectric power plant produces 3.5 times the amount of greenhouse gases as a thermal power plant burning fossil fuels.

The Dams in NZ are all established, There was one built in my time and yes I objected along with most of the country.

They are now building no new dams instead opting for wind and solar power.

Wind is particularly applicable as it is a very windy country.

Most endangered wildlife, certainly.

An example: the Mae Wong river in the Mae Wong National Park where a dam is proposed is part of the largest remaining intact tract of forest in Asia.

It along with the Thung Yai-huai Kha Khaeng wildlife sanctuaries and other connected national parks is home to a diverse range of wildlife found in few other places, some unique to that area.

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/591

To flood that large river basin would create an environmental disaster, yes I have been there and know the area.

You should also note in some of those studies and others they talk oh mini or micro electric power plants on applicable place on rivers which only flood a small area, this I understand is a concept supported by His Majesty. These provide power and irrigation to a specific area and are said to be far more cost effective and environmental friendly.

The first 2 links I regard as greeny garbage, but the 3rd has some merit. Although its claim that dam release water is warmer is a crock.

Your point 1/ is interesting, and i believe it is based on a bit of BS from the UN's world dams report. The first inaccuracy is that the gas emissions don't come from the hydroelectric power plant, they come from the dam. The emissions would still be there if the hydro was shut down or non-existent. That report took the worst possible scenario, a large shallow dam in the tropics, measured the emissions from it, and then from a fossil fuel station of equivalent size to the tiny hydro. Gasp, shock, horror!

Point 1 - hydro generation doesn't produce emissions, dams do.

Dams emit gases from decomposition of plant matter. Initially it is that which was submerged, which can decompose quite slowly, but it is a finite amount, and if compressed into coal wouldn't be that much. If it was really a concern, it could be bulldozed, stacked and burnt while the dam is being built. There is also plant matter washed into the dam by the supply river, which in the tropics can be quite considerable. But why is considered a product of generation when it would otherwise be washed into the sea and decompose there?

Point 2 - most of the gas emissions will occur anyway.

In a bituminous coal-fired station about 1 ton of CO₂ to produce a MWh of energy. Using your figures, a moderately sized 200MW hydro station would be giving off 700 tons of gas every hour from the dam surface. does that seem likely, even feasible?

Time for me to go out, to be continued.