A massive amount of power generation, but so many people displaced. July 27, 2012 12:00AM WITH a breathtaking show of force, the world's most powerful dam has launched into full operation. Amazing images show the last of the 32 generators at the Three Gorges Dam in China being switched on, roaring into action just as the biggest flood peak since 1981 hit the area. Built on the Yangtze River in the Hubei Province, the dam is the world's largest hydropower project and generates the same power as fifteen nuclear reactors. Water gushed into the dam's reservoir at 71, 200 cubic metres per second as it battled to take the edge of a fierce flood. The project also set a record for the number of people displaced - more than 1.2 million, and the number of towns flooded - 13 cities, 140 towns, 1350 villages. src: http://www.news.com.au/travel/news/...n-full-operation/story-e6frfq80-1226435772794 From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam Made of concrete and steel, the dam is 2,335 m (7,661 ft) long and the top of the dam is 185 metres (607 ft) above sea level. The project used 27.2 million cubic metres (35.610^6 cu yd) of concrete (mainly for the dam wall), 463,000 tonnes of steel (enough to build 63 Eiffel Towers) and moved about 102.6 million cubic metres (134.210^6 cu yd) of earth.[24] The concrete dam wall is 181 metres (594 ft) high above the rock basis.
"Let me tell you about the Snowy River Scheme,son....a modern wonder it was " The more things change the more they stay the same..
Yes and what schemes do the political retards have today. Carbon Tax. With the amazing amount of natural resources here in Oz, there's an amazingly tiny amount done with them besides sell them off-shore.
That would never be allowed to happen here - we can't even displace asylum seekers or public housing tenants.
So true.There is a massive amount of Super money looking for a home in Oz.Alot of Infrastructure Stocks on the ASX to help that money find a home but they only scratch the surface. Just think what a co-ordinated approach could achieve with this Super money and "major" infrastructure projects in Oz? If I was offered a 5% contributions Tax rate on any super I invested in say "the irrigation of the land beyond the great dividing range super project" I would seriously look at it.
Greens stop us building any new dams here which is a shame , since hydroelectric is the only viable renewable energy.Same power as 15 nukes - wind or solar could never manage that....
There are many environmental consequences of the Three Gorges Dam that go way beyond a few trees and the same would apply to dams built here. THe China project went ahead acknowledging all of these but that doesn't mean it was the right choice and the impact will be felt in many ways that might outweigh the benefits in the long run.
I find the environmental consequences of coal and nuclear power generation a bit more worrying than the consequences of building dams. The Chinese are smart and realise that if they want to power their society they'd better disconnect from fossil fuels and avoid the potentials of nuclear. With Oz being so drought prone I'm constantly surprised that we aren't known as 'land of dams and reservoirs'.
The problem is that the consequences of building the dam (or power station or whatever else it may be) lead to consequences that lead to consequences and so on, as with coal and nuclear power generation and all the other ways we impact on the environment. Ecological systems are connected - we are still part of that ecological system and WE will be impacted. WE are being impacted now.
Wait until the impact of our Labor-Green ineptocracy hits our environment. Let me explain ...... Ever see poor hungry people worry about the environment ? When you are hungry and poor with nothing to lose then the Tassie Tiger or the Rhino seems much less important. I have been to third world African countries where a few years previously the dams were teaming with fish and water birds. Now they have oil slicks, rusting car bodies and probably other bodies rotting away. Trees arround these dams all gone to provide firewood. Looks wonderful.. When you destroy an economy you destroy the environment .......Julia put that in your pipe and smoke it .....
Yes I agree, but ever since we supposedly exited The Garden we've been coping with ecological changes. Every empire has been destroyed in the end by the weather for instance. Yes, I love that the Galapagos islands are pretty much untouched and lots of strange wonderful animals live there, but just like neanderthals, most things bow down to homo sapien invasions. We're not smart enough to conserve and the point is that disturbed nature is not necessarily 'lesser nature', and 'conservation' tends to be a futile undertaking anyway. Nature will move on, disregarding our arrogance that we can conserve which about equals our arrogance that we can destroy. For every red nosed wombat there's a domestic cat evolving into a 10kg predator. We've already destroyed Australia's ecology. In my view a responsible approach to ensuring the humans survive, prosper in balance with the environment and don't leave the place more of a desert than it is, is the best we can hope for.
If anyone thinks that my quote about rhino loss below is actually about losing an animal with horns then they are very much mistaken. And, yes the world goes on, everything bows to humans. The issue is that humans are not going to prosper if they don't start to see how interconnected systems really are and how socio-economic and health benefits are directly related to healthy ecosystems. Apart from the impact on the actual environment, there is now growing understanding about the relationship of general well being to ''green'' environments which impacts in itself on health costs and has contributed to specific nature deficit disorders. But, anyway there is no point in me going on about it here.
We did it during the construction of the Snowy Hydro scheme. Several townships were displaced when the area was flooded by the new dams.
Any electrical geneartion project that supplies as much power as 15 nukes will have environmental impact.Imagine how much rare earth minerals , silver etc needs to be refined and processed to build enough solar panels.One big hailstorm and they all need replacing - Solar is not viable at this time end of.Then you've got these ugly wind turbines that have piles of dead birds at the bottom of them , want to help a protected bird species? go destroy a wind turbine.As for coal power well the carbon tax would make them unviable , not going into how much water is used or how much mercury and other pollutants is released into the air when the coal is burned....
Just curious. If hydro, coal and nuke are all no good, what is supposed to power your house? I know the greens advocate solar and wind, but ATM that is just not practical in an economical sense.
The wind-turbines-kill-birds story started when some idiots in the U.S. built a wind farm smack bang in the middle of a major migratory path. That wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the turbines were the bigger, long, thin bladed ones that spin slowly like we have now but when it was built back in the 80s they used lots of small, short, flat bladed turbine that spun very fast (think old fashioned outback windmills). They were perfectly designed for shredding birds and they killed loads. Obviously we use newer types of turbines now that the birds can actually dodge and we go to the trouble of actually finding out where the birds are to begin with to reduce the risk even further. For every bird killed by a wind turbine, something like five or six thousand die flying into buildings anyway, so turbines aren't a massive problem.
Did a trip around Australia in 2009 - while in the Bungle Bungles, got to talking to a fellow camper, turns out part of his job was doing "bird strike surveys" for a wind farm somewhere north of Perth. Said he'd only ever found one dead bird under the turbines - but reckons he'd hit about 200 in his car over the course of the year or so that he had been doing his job driving to the site and back.
Is anyone here up in arms about Hydro in Tassie or the Snowy ? Driven around Australia twice plus some and hit maybe 10 so I have doubt about your friends info there GP, there are plenty of up to date current strike counts on wind turbines available but I would hazard a guess that domestic cats kill many many more. The Ord river scheme in northwest Australia produces an outflow of 4.500 gigalitres a year http://www.travelling-australia.info/InfsheetsO/Ordriverscheme.html the Snowy river 2,100 and produces on average 4,500 gigawatts of electricity http://www.australianhistory.org/snowy-mtns. Wonder what the Ord could produce ? The Snowy scheme alone covers around 5000 sq kilometers of land , what is the actual area covered by coal mining in Australia ? I looked but could not find an easy reference, I doubt if it is even half of the Snowy dam area tho. Those looking at Coal v Hydro might want to look at that aspect . Simple fact is that Coal is our cheapest source of electricity and provides a great deal of employment, not solely to do with mining either but everything that relies upon electricity in this country, even Solar manufacturers, installers along with Wind rely upon the backup of Coal powered electricity. Just half of that 10 billion Labor aims to spend on namby pamby pie in the sky alternatives could make coal cleaner than a windmill when you take into account the rare earths mining and manufacture processes not to mention the lack of viable generation offered by any other source of power. When it comes down to it a few holes in the ground here and there compared with the future of our country's industry is no comparison. Why not clean up the coal at a smaller investment than covering thousands of sq Km with expensive alternatives that rely on weather?
