A Dam Revival, Despite Risks
Private Funding Brings a Boom in Hydropower, With High Costs
By ERICA GIES, New York Times, NOV. 19, 2014
www.nytimes.com/2014/11/20/business/energy-environment/private-funding-brings-a-boom-in-hydropower-with-high-costs.html?_r=0
While some dams in the United States and Europe are being
decommissioned, a dam-building boom is underway in developing countries.
It is a shift from the 1990s, when amid concerns about environmental
impacts and displaced people, multilateral lenders like the World Bank
backed away from large hydroelectric power projects.
World hydropower production will grow from 4,000 terawatt hours now -
about the annual power output of the United States - to 4,670 terawatt
hours in 2020, according to Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of
the International Energy Agency, in Paris. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change predicts that hydropower generation will double in
China between 2008 and 2035, and triple in India and Africa.
The World Bank and other international lenders were the most important
financiers of large dams before the '90s lull. But although the World
Bank has in recent years increased its investment in hydropower from a
low of just a few million dollars in 1999 to about $1.8 billion in 2014,
it still funds only 2 percent of hydropower project investment today.
Picking up the slack are national development banks from emerging
countries such as China, Brazil, Thailand, and India, and private
investors. Public-private partnerships are on the rise, generally with
the support of regional development banks.
"Who benefits from these infrastructure projects?" asked Jason Rainey,
executive director of the anti-dam group International Rivers, in
Berkeley, Calif.
Some well-documented answers: The Xayaburi Dam in Laos will sell power
to Thailand, while threatening the subsistence livelihoods of people who
have long lived along the Mekong River; the Inga 3 dam in the Democratic
Republic of Congo will sell power to mining companies and to South
Africa, rather than to the 96 percent of Congolese who lack access to
electricity.
A 2012 report from International Rivers found that Chinese companies or
financiers were involved in 308 dam projects in 70 different countries,
many in Southeast Asia, but also some in Africa, Latin America and
Pakistan. Aside from supplying electricity to investing countries,
projects can also offer a type of vertical integration to power funders'
industrial projects, such as mining or smelting. "China isn't the only
one working this model," Mr. Rainey said: "The Brazilian Development
Bank has financed more dam projects in Latin America than the
Inter-American Development Bank. India is investing in hydropower in
Nepal and Bhutan."
Nancy Alexander, director of the Economic Governance Program for the
Heinrich Boell Foundation, a public policy institute in Berlin, said she
attributed this trend partly to a Group of 20 initiative that
prioritized infrastructure investment as a path to economic stability.
The initiative encourages joint financing by multilateral development
banks and other sources. A World Bank report on hydropower this year
said that the bank now "typically acts as a 'convener,' bringing other
financiers to the table." It said that over the past five years, the
World Bank Group had funded about half of the costs of projects that it
financed, with the balance coming from host country governments, the
private sector and other development banks.
Ms. Alexander said the problem with this model is that it "derisks"
mega-projects for the private sector and draws in institutional
investors like pension funds and mutual funds. "Very often this means
privatizing profits and outsourcing risks to the public," she said.
Those risks can be both significant and hidden, she added. Project
backers may cite national security or business confidentiality to avoid
sharing information with the public.
National development banks such as the Brazilian Development Bank, China
Development Bank and the Development Bank of Southern Africa "have
abysmal records in terms of transparency and in terms of social and
environmental safeguards," Ms. Alexander said.
The reduced involvement of global institutions allows countries to
ignore international concerns. Although international backers have
pulled out, for example, public-private funding has permitted Turkey to
go ahead with its Ilisu Dam on the Tigris, defying Unesco's objections
that it would flood Hasankeyf, a town with 10,000 years of history.
Turkish dam projects have also played a role in drying out Iraqi
wetlands downstream and exacerbating tensions in Syria.
Yet, although dam investment is coming from diversified sources,
activist organizations still look to the World Bank to set the standard
for environmental and social protections. At the World Bank's annual
meetings this autumn, 318 civil society organizations from 98 countries
criticized its proposal for a new environmental and social framework,
saying it would weaken existing safeguards. Among other things, they
said, it would undermine the rights of indigenous people and of those
displaced by projects, fail to protect workers or guarantee human rights
and not meaningfully address climate change.
"They have a lot of weasel language that softens and dampens
safeguards," Mr. Rainey said.
Amy Stilwell, a spokeswoman for the World Bank, said the proposal was
just a starting point. A second phase of consultations, including those
with the petitioning groups, will begin soon, with a second draft
expected in 2015, she said.
Part of the reason dams are back in favor, despite ongoing concerns, is
the increasing awareness of climate change and the need for cleaner
energy sources, said Ken Adams, president of the International
Hydropower Association, an industry group based in London. Hydropower
can also balance the electricity load and store energy to support
intermittent renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, he said.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change supports hydropower to
slow climate change, calling it a "proven, mature, predictable
technology," in a 2011 report.
Hydropower's reputation for low emissions, however, has come under
scientific scrutiny in recent years. Reservoirs behind dams flood
vegetation, which decays, releasing methane and soil carbon. A 2012
study, in the journal Nature Climate Change, concluded that "emissions
from tropical hydropower are often underestimated and can exceed those
of fossil fuel for decades."
The study emphasized that the effect is more pronounced in tropical
ecosystems. Yet hydropower is typically presumed to be emission-free,
Mr. Rainey said. "There is no mechanism within dam sanctioning
processes, or any of the funding models, that methane emissions be
monitored in dam projects," he said, adding that even carbon market
instruments such as the Clean Development Mechanism help to fund large
dams without considering their carbon footprints.
Mr. Adams said his association's voluntary standards could offer a
solution. Its Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol, drafted
with input from various stakeholders, including the World Bank, provides
a framework for hydropower developers to monitor and benchmark their
projects. William Rex, a hydropower specialist at the World Bank said:
"We see it as a really useful tool."
Mr. Adams said his association would like to see financial institutions
encourage borrowers to use it. "Any energy source is going to have its
good side and downside," said Mr. Adams. "But I believe that if done
intelligently and appropriately, the downsides to hydro projects can be
managed."
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Wednesday, November 19, 2014
Friday, November 7, 2014
Hydropower May Be Huge Source of Methane Emissions
Hydropower May Be Huge Source of Methane Emissions
Oct 29, 2014 02:30 PM ET // by Bobby Magill, Climate Central
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/hydropower-may-be-huge-source-of-methane-emissions-141029.htm
Imagine nearly 6,000 dairy cows doing what cows do, belching and being
flatulent for a full year. That's how much methane was emitted from one
Ohio reservoir in 2012.
Reservoirs and hydropower are often thought of as climate friendly
because they don't burn fossil fuels to produce electricity. But what if
reservoirs that store water and produce electricity were among some of
the world's largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions?
Scientists are searching for answers to that question, as they study how
much methane is emitted into the atmosphere from man-made reservoirs
built for hydropower and other purposes. Until recently, it was believed
that about 20 percent of all man-made methane emissions come from the
surface of reservoirs.
New research suggests that figure may be much higher than 20 percent,
but it's unclear how much higher because too little data is available to
estimate. Methane is about 35 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon
dioxide over the span of a century.
Think about man-made lakes in terms of cows passing gas: Harsha Lake, a
large reservoir near Cincinnati, Ohio, emitted as much methane in 2012
as roughly 5,800 dairy cows would have emitted over an entire year,
University of Cincinnati biogeochemist Amy Townsend-Small told Climate
Central.
Methane emissions from livestock are the second-largest source of
methane emissions in the U.S., behind crude oil and natural gas,
according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But the EPA's
greenhouse gas emissions estimates do not yet account for methane
emissions coming from man-made reservoirs.
Part of the reason is that, generally, very little is known about
reservoirs and their emissions, especially in temperate regions, such as
in the U.S., where few studies have been conducted.
Hot News: 2014 On Track To Become Warmest Year
In 2012 study, researchers in Singapore found that greenhouse gas
emissions from hydropower reservoirs globally are likely greater than
previously estimated, warning that "rapid hydropower development and
increasing carbon emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs to the
atmosphere should not be downplayed."
Those researchers suggest all large reservoirs globally could emit up to
104 teragrams of methane annually. By comparison, NASA estimates that
global methane emissions associated with burning fossil fuels totals
between 80 and 120 teragrams annually.
But how much reservoirs contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions is
"still a big question mark," because the issue remains relatively
unstudied and emission rates are highly uncertain, said John Harrison,
an associate professor in the School of the Environment at the
Washington State University-Vancouver whose research focuses on how
reservoirs can be managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"So I don't think we really know what the relative greenhouse gas effect
of reservoirs is compared to other sources of energy in the U.S.," he said.
Research at Harsha Lake may help scientists better understand how
reservoirs contribute to climate change.
In a study published in August, Townsend-Small and researchers from the
EPA found that Harsha Lake emitted more methane into the atmosphere in
2012 than had ever been recorded at any other reservoir in the U.S.
"When you compare the annual scale of the methane emission rate of this
reservoir (Harsha Lake) to other studies, it's really much higher than
people would predict," EPA research associate and Harsha Lake study lead
author Jake Beaulieu told Climate Central.
Scientists have long thought reservoirs in warmer climates in the
tropics emitted more methane than reservoirs in cooler climates, but the
research at Harsha Lake shows that may not be the case, Townsend-Small said.
"We think this is because our reservoir is located in an agricultural
area," she said.
Methane is generated in reservoirs from bacteria living in
oxygen-starved environments.
"These microbes eat organic carbon from plants for energy, just like
people and other animals, but instead of breathing out carbon dioxide,
they breathe out methane," Townsend-Small said. "These same types of
microbes live in the stomachs of cows and in landfills, which are other
sources of methane to the atmosphere."
Runoff from farmland around Harsha Lake provides more nutrients in the
water, allowing algae to grow, just like numerous other reservoirs
surrounded by agricultural land across the country.
Methane-generating microbes feed on decaying algae, which means that
lakes catching a lot of nutrient-rich agricultural runoff generate a lot
of methane.
"There are a very large number of these reservoirs in highly
agricultural areas around the U.S.," Townsend-Small said. "It could be
that these agricultural reservoirs are a larger source of atmospheric
methane than we had thought in the past."
Emissions from reservoirs in all climates could be underestimated
because of a discovery Beaulieu's team found at Harsha Lake: The area
where a river enters a man-made lake emits more methane than the rest of
the lake overall.
Nobody has measured that before, Beaulieu said.
Most other research studying reservoir methane emissions doesn't account
for how emissions may vary across the surface of a lake, he said.
The EPA is about to begin a more comprehensive study measuring methane
emissions from 25 reservoirs in a region stretching from northern
Indiana to northern Georgia, with sampling beginning next year, Beaulieu
said.
That study will help the EPA eventually include reservoir methane
emissions in its total estimates of human-caused methane emissions.
Until that and other studies are complete, scientists can only speculate
on the impact hydropower is having on the climate.
"We're still in the very early days here of understanding how these
systems work with respect to greenhouse gas production," Harrison said.
This article originally appeared on Climate Central, all rights reserved.
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Oct 29, 2014 02:30 PM ET // by Bobby Magill, Climate Central
http://news.discovery.com/earth/global-warming/hydropower-may-be-huge-source-of-methane-emissions-141029.htm
Imagine nearly 6,000 dairy cows doing what cows do, belching and being
flatulent for a full year. That's how much methane was emitted from one
Ohio reservoir in 2012.
Reservoirs and hydropower are often thought of as climate friendly
because they don't burn fossil fuels to produce electricity. But what if
reservoirs that store water and produce electricity were among some of
the world's largest contributors of greenhouse gas emissions?
Scientists are searching for answers to that question, as they study how
much methane is emitted into the atmosphere from man-made reservoirs
built for hydropower and other purposes. Until recently, it was believed
that about 20 percent of all man-made methane emissions come from the
surface of reservoirs.
New research suggests that figure may be much higher than 20 percent,
but it's unclear how much higher because too little data is available to
estimate. Methane is about 35 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon
dioxide over the span of a century.
Think about man-made lakes in terms of cows passing gas: Harsha Lake, a
large reservoir near Cincinnati, Ohio, emitted as much methane in 2012
as roughly 5,800 dairy cows would have emitted over an entire year,
University of Cincinnati biogeochemist Amy Townsend-Small told Climate
Central.
Methane emissions from livestock are the second-largest source of
methane emissions in the U.S., behind crude oil and natural gas,
according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But the EPA's
greenhouse gas emissions estimates do not yet account for methane
emissions coming from man-made reservoirs.
Part of the reason is that, generally, very little is known about
reservoirs and their emissions, especially in temperate regions, such as
in the U.S., where few studies have been conducted.
Hot News: 2014 On Track To Become Warmest Year
In 2012 study, researchers in Singapore found that greenhouse gas
emissions from hydropower reservoirs globally are likely greater than
previously estimated, warning that "rapid hydropower development and
increasing carbon emissions from hydroelectric reservoirs to the
atmosphere should not be downplayed."
Those researchers suggest all large reservoirs globally could emit up to
104 teragrams of methane annually. By comparison, NASA estimates that
global methane emissions associated with burning fossil fuels totals
between 80 and 120 teragrams annually.
But how much reservoirs contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions is
"still a big question mark," because the issue remains relatively
unstudied and emission rates are highly uncertain, said John Harrison,
an associate professor in the School of the Environment at the
Washington State University-Vancouver whose research focuses on how
reservoirs can be managed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
"So I don't think we really know what the relative greenhouse gas effect
of reservoirs is compared to other sources of energy in the U.S.," he said.
Research at Harsha Lake may help scientists better understand how
reservoirs contribute to climate change.
In a study published in August, Townsend-Small and researchers from the
EPA found that Harsha Lake emitted more methane into the atmosphere in
2012 than had ever been recorded at any other reservoir in the U.S.
"When you compare the annual scale of the methane emission rate of this
reservoir (Harsha Lake) to other studies, it's really much higher than
people would predict," EPA research associate and Harsha Lake study lead
author Jake Beaulieu told Climate Central.
Scientists have long thought reservoirs in warmer climates in the
tropics emitted more methane than reservoirs in cooler climates, but the
research at Harsha Lake shows that may not be the case, Townsend-Small said.
"We think this is because our reservoir is located in an agricultural
area," she said.
Methane is generated in reservoirs from bacteria living in
oxygen-starved environments.
"These microbes eat organic carbon from plants for energy, just like
people and other animals, but instead of breathing out carbon dioxide,
they breathe out methane," Townsend-Small said. "These same types of
microbes live in the stomachs of cows and in landfills, which are other
sources of methane to the atmosphere."
Runoff from farmland around Harsha Lake provides more nutrients in the
water, allowing algae to grow, just like numerous other reservoirs
surrounded by agricultural land across the country.
Methane-generating microbes feed on decaying algae, which means that
lakes catching a lot of nutrient-rich agricultural runoff generate a lot
of methane.
"There are a very large number of these reservoirs in highly
agricultural areas around the U.S.," Townsend-Small said. "It could be
that these agricultural reservoirs are a larger source of atmospheric
methane than we had thought in the past."
Emissions from reservoirs in all climates could be underestimated
because of a discovery Beaulieu's team found at Harsha Lake: The area
where a river enters a man-made lake emits more methane than the rest of
the lake overall.
Nobody has measured that before, Beaulieu said.
Most other research studying reservoir methane emissions doesn't account
for how emissions may vary across the surface of a lake, he said.
The EPA is about to begin a more comprehensive study measuring methane
emissions from 25 reservoirs in a region stretching from northern
Indiana to northern Georgia, with sampling beginning next year, Beaulieu
said.
That study will help the EPA eventually include reservoir methane
emissions in its total estimates of human-caused methane emissions.
Until that and other studies are complete, scientists can only speculate
on the impact hydropower is having on the climate.
"We're still in the very early days here of understanding how these
systems work with respect to greenhouse gas production," Harrison said.
This article originally appeared on Climate Central, all rights reserved.
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Friday, October 3, 2014
Curb vast water use in central Asia/Nature magazine
http://www.nature.com/news/resources-curb-vast-water-use-in-central-asia-1.16017
Resources: Curb vast water use in central Asia
by Olli Varis
01 October 2014
Irrigation-intensive industries in former Soviet republics have sucked water bodies dry. Olli Varis calls for economic reform to ease environmental and social tensions.
A boat rusts on the bed of the dried Aral Sea, more than 90% of which has vanished in the past 50 years.
Shipwrecks rusting in the desert have come to symbolize the environmental havoc that has befallen the Aral Sea, which straddles Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. More than 90% of what was once the fourth-largest lake in the world has vanished in half a century1, 2, 3. The cracked shores are symptoms of the dramatic overuse of water in central Asia. Since the 1960s, 70% of Turkmenistan has become desert, and half of Uzbekistan's soil has become salty owing to dust blown from the dry bed of the Aral Sea1.
The republics of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan were developed as farming states to supply produce to the former Soviet Union1. Today, they are among the highest per capita users of water in the world — on average, each Turkmen consumes 4 times more water than a US citizen, and 13 times more than a Chinese one4 (see 'Top 20 consumers'). More than 90% of the region's water use is irrigating thirsty crops including cotton and wheat1, 2.
Decades of over-extraction have nearly sucked dry the Amu Darya and Syr Darya rivers that feed the Aral Sea. Local livelihoods that rely on livestock grazing, hunting and fishing have disappeared; ecosystems in the Aral's brackish waters, deltas, coasts, steppes and fertile river valleys have collapsed1. As water bodies have vanished, the local climate has become harsher: summers bring extreme heat and violent, salty dust storms; winters are more severely cold. The wind spreads salt and agrochemicals to farmlands hundreds of kilometres away, causing respiratory and gastroenterological diseases as well as anaemia, cancer and tuberculosis3, 5.
Struggling to shake off the Soviet legacy of environmental and political crises and oligarchies, these republics are more rivals than neighbours. Because most of the region's water bodies — mainly the Syr Darya, Amu Darya and Zarafshon rivers — are shared, political tensions have grown around water access, drawing worrying parallels with similar crises in the Arab world.
The first step is to recognize that the origin of central Asia's water problems is in excessive water demand. Fixing the problem will mean developing regional industries that are less water intensive and more profitable than agriculture, by tapping human potential rather than natural resources. Unless the region's economy can be put on a more sustainable footing, the stability and security of central Asia is in danger.
Shortage myth
Two fallacies stymie debate about water in central Asia. The first is that the region is short of water. The landscape looks dry and rivers run empty. Many analyses in the past few years3, 5 have thus recommended water-conservation measures, assuming that incremental policy changes are all that can be delivered. In fact, these countries have plenty of water relative to their populations. The annual availabilities of fresh water per capita for the Amu Darya (2,087 cubic metres) and the Syr Darya (1,744 m3) river basins6 are well above the United Nations definitions of water shortages7: 1,000 m3 per capita constitutes a chronic shortage, and 1,700 m3 a moderate shortage. By comparison, Denmark has 1,128 m3 of water per capita, Germany 1,878 m3 and the United Kingdom 2,465 m3(ref. 4).
The second fallacy is that the solution is agricultural. Most analysts propose that water should be used more efficiently on farms because it is wasted in growing low-return crops on dry lands unsuitable for agricultural use. Turkmenistan's dry climate and poor soils mean that producing a tonne of wheat takes 2,000–4,000 m3 of irrigation water, whereas in nearby northern Kazakhstan adequate rainfall and conditions mean that no irrigation is needed. Even as its land became parched, Turkmenistan's wheat yield increased ninefold between 1992 and 2007.
But the big fish swims elsewhere: the agricultural share of gross domestic product (GDP) in central Asia has almost halved since the disintegration of the Soviet Union4. Instead, economic growth is dominated by the oil and gas industry and by urban expansion. Already, more than half of the region's population is urban and that proportion is rising.
Despite this, central Asian economies continue to focus on primary industries such as agriculture and the extraction of fossil fuels. The economic return on water is lower in central Asia than anywhere else on the planet. Turkmenistan uses nearly 3 times more water than India to produce one GDP dollar, 4 times more than Egypt, 14 times more than China and 43 times more than Spain4.
Rising tension
The resulting problems are greater than just stagnant economies. Disputes (see 'Troubled waters') between nations have arisen around access to shared water bodies in the Fergana Valley in the Syr Darya river basin, in the Zarafshon river basin, and in Amu Darya — most notably concerning the Nurek dam and Turkmen–Uzbek rivalries on water appropriation.
Expand
These tensions are stoked by absurd projects such as the Golden Age Lake (Altyn Asyr) in the Karakum Desert8, 9. Projected to cover almost half the area of the Great Salt Lake in Utah, the synthetic lake will be about six times its volume. Since 2000, Turkmenistan has been constructing it, claiming it will increase agricultural production and offer a "symbol of revival of the Turkmen land", as former president Saparmurat Niyazov (known as Turkmenbashi) put it9.
Water for the lake will be drawn from the Amu Darya river through two canals, which are being cut across about 3,200 km of desert8, 9. Although it is unclear whether that much water can ever be sourced from the river, it is obvious that downstream, Uzbekistan will not accept those diversions and is ready to defend its water share with arms if necessary. The already serious soil-salinization problems of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan will be greatly worsened if the project is completed.
Related stories
Public health: A sustainable plan for China's drinking water
Agriculture: Steps to sustainable livestock
Conservation: Nicaragua Canal could wreak environmental ruin
More related stories
Like most other parts of the former Soviet Union, central Asian states suffer authoritarian rule and political fragility. Soaring unemployment is leading to a mass emigration of educated people. Current figures estimate that up to one-third of working-age Tajiks are employed abroad. Ethnic, political and religious diversity and difficulties with boundary demarcation fuel nationalism. Internal hostilities, as in the Caucasus, Moldova and eastern Ukraine, are a threat. A full-scale regional conflict, regardless of the rise of radical religious groups, is not out of the question.
Central Asia's water crisis echoes that in the Middle East and North Africa, where political, economic and environmental issues are also intertwined. In Arab countries such as Syria, Yemen and Tunisia, water is scarce and used for low-value purposes, generating little income or investment10. Urban populations are fast-growing but ill-served by development policies focused on traditional rural and primary industries. Political and professional inertia makes change difficult.
Sergey Ponomarev/The New York Times/Redux/eyevine
Kazakhstan's capital Astana: rapid urban expansion will influence the region's water use.
Three main differences may make the situation in the former Soviet republics worse than in the Middle East. First, investments in the central Asian water sector are even less productive and more conflict-prone than in Arab countries. Second, water is more abundant in central Asia but environmental disasters have been more severe there than in Arab countries. Third, Arab cities absorb immigrants more successfully and grow faster than those in central Asia, where skilled workers tend to emigrate to countries outside the region, notably Russia.
The central Asian countries must find joint interests and competitive advantages to build a new regional economy, with wise water use at its heart. These countries could have a much more conscious role in world politics and in the global economy by looking at their complementary strengths and merging their markets.
Human potential
The human resources of central Asia are relatively untapped. The republics have essentially full adult literacy and well over 90% of adults have secondary education8. The nations are in a favourable geographical position between diverse markets, including China, Russia, the Middle East and Europe.
Different national strengths should be exploited: Turkmenistan is rich in oil, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan in hydropower, for instance. Urban economies, services, manufacturing and knowledge-intensive industries should be boosted by governance reforms.
Realizing human potential would require policies to attract investments, maintain and enhance high standards of education, help industries to grow, and empower a bigger share of the population to contribute to political decision-making. Inertia may be the real bottleneck.
Experience from elsewhere abounds. Information and communication technology brings in more than one-quarter of India's export earnings; China, South Korea, Vietnam and some other ex-Soviet states — notably Estonia — have also created knowledge-based industries almost from scratch. Such industries provide intellectually attractive, high-income jobs for the younger generation and put little strain on water resources and the environment.
International policy-makers and the water sector must refocus and look much more broadly at water's role in the region's political and economic development. That wider perspective should guide the next round of water-resources assessments, as well as top-level international policy meetings such as the 7th World Water Forum in Daegu, South Korea, in April 2015.
The alternative could be much worse: more iron wreckage on the drylands — this time of military origin.
Nature 514, 27–29 (02 October 2014) doi:10.1038/514027a
References available online
Wednesday, September 24, 2014
Is Hydropower Really Green?
Is Renewable Energy Really Green?
Guest post written by Kamala Vainy Pillai PhD
Forbes Opinion,
September 24, 2014
www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/09/24/is-renewable-energy-really-green/
The global green rush to move away from fossil fuel dependence has
incontestably led to a plethora of renewable energy initiatives – some
sounding sexier and more appealing than others. From the traditional
renewable energy like hydropower, wind, solar and biofuel, today's
alternative renewable energies using disruptive technologies promises
innumerable avenues for a host of communities and nations. Anaerobic
digestion energy, biomass, geothermal, ocean energy such as ocean
thermal, tidal or wave energy, solar thermal and tower power
technologies are already joining the bandwagon of emerging stars. Yet,
are Renewables really green?
The concept of renewable energy generally denotes clean energy systems
that do not contribute to greenhouse gas emission (GHE) and climate
change. As renewables get into top gear, growing evidence of
non-inclusion of social conscience in the name of renewable energy
development as well as severe environmental damage is unmasking the dark
side of renewables.
In this article, we will look at hydropower. The global hydropower
market according to investment analysts is predicted to expand over the
next few years as a less risky and more popular clean energy. While the
predictions sound promising, controversies over mega hydropower dam
projects and its socio-environmental sustainability issues present
confounding facts. Mega hydro dams have been successful in Canada, the
United States and other industrialized nations; however, the same cannot
be said for the tropical regions. Deforestation and the flooding
(inundation) of thousands of hectares of rainforest for mega hydro dam
projects in the Amazon and Borneo, which represents the planet's largest
and oldest rainforests have received intense criticisms. According to
World Wildlife Fund (WWF), tropical rainforests which serve as our
planet's carbon sink, holds more than 210 gigatonnes of carbon.
Deforestation is responsible for more than 15% of greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) – more than any other human activity put together, has a
potent impact on accelerating global warming. In the case of mega hydro
dams, the inundation (flooding) of tropical rainforest has triggered a
cataclysm. The slow decay of rich organic rainforest matter flooded in
the mega dam is expected to take centuries – consuming more oxygen at
any given time, inconvertibly leading to oxygen-deprivation and high
acidity of waters. This state has resulted in poor quality of drinking
water as well as for household use to communities downstream. Further,
due to the alterations of the composition and density of vectors,
incidences of public health problems are on the rise and even death or
extinction of animal and plant life as far as 100 km from the mega dam
site have been reported. In 2013, National Geographic expounded on the
extinction of endangered migratory fish in the upstream of mega dams in
most South American countries like Colombia, Brazil and Paraguay.
Similarly, in Asia, the rare Asian river dolphins like the Indus
dolphins and Irrawaddy dolphins have become endangered by the
alterations of rivers for mega dams. Late August this year,
International Rivers launched "The State of the World's Rivers" the
first-of-its-kind interactive online database to illustrate the impacts
on the health of the world's river basins as a result of the mega dams.
Continued displacement of the planet's oldest and largest indigenous
communities in the rainforest region of the Amazon and Borneo has drawn
global attention and civil society accessions. With growing legal
disputes over indigenous land encroachments, mega dam hydro projects in
these regions have become controversial as well as complicated for clean
energy investors. The Belo Monte Dam, for instance, expected to be one
of the largest after the Three Gorges Dam in China and the
Brazilian-Paraguayan Itaipu Dam, continues to be legally disputed by the
Kayapos and indigenous communities who have been living there for
centuries. Displaced indigenous communities like the Penans, as a
result of the mega Bakun Hydro Dam in Borneo, are reported to be
experiencing emotional traumas as a result of the dispossession of their
lands and displacement from their centuries-old nomadic way of life.
Remote communities around these sites are reported to be still without
electricity, as the grids built mainly serve smelters and industrial
operations in the area.
One of the factors cited for this state of affair is the inefficient and
inequitable social and environmental impact assessment (SEIA) conducted
prior to these projects. It appears that the SEIA reports have endorsed
massive relocation of indigenous communities and offered limited or no
consideration of the irreversible impact on wildlife and ecosystems
downstream from the mega renewable energy sites. In 2012, in its
sourcebook for "Getting to Green" guideline, the World Bank reiterated
that too many environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are being
conducted by poorly trained EIA practitioners with limited capacity and
environmental information, leading to poor-quality reports.
Although international development funding agencies, energy companies
and governments have hit a hard wall due to stalled or underperforming
mega renewable projects, they assert that the above competing
perspectives would change over time with increased social and economic
benefits. An Oxford study published this year, present a confounding
verdict. The study which scientifically analyzed the economics of mega
dams from 1934 to 2007, included 245 projects in 65 countries, confirmed
that mega dams suffered cost overruns of 96 per cent. The Oxford
researches affirmed that even without social and environmental cost
consideration, the mega dams did not make economic sense. The
staggering findings are expected to have a significant implication on
the future of energy sector planning.
The deliberation propounds three pertinent points for renewable energy
proponents – firstly, large scale renewable energy projects may not be
as 'green and clean' as prophesied; secondly, with rising pluralism and
conscious green consumers, renewable energy projects would be subject to
greater scrutiny for societal and environmental impacts and hence,
should demonstrate greater social-environmental accountability; and
finally, the compelling findings on the mega hydro dams being uneconomic
with cost overruns which are too high to yield a positive return,
presents a new debate for the renewable energy outlook.
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Guest post written by Kamala Vainy Pillai PhD
Forbes Opinion,
September 24, 2014
www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/09/24/is-renewable-energy-really-green/
The global green rush to move away from fossil fuel dependence has
incontestably led to a plethora of renewable energy initiatives – some
sounding sexier and more appealing than others. From the traditional
renewable energy like hydropower, wind, solar and biofuel, today's
alternative renewable energies using disruptive technologies promises
innumerable avenues for a host of communities and nations. Anaerobic
digestion energy, biomass, geothermal, ocean energy such as ocean
thermal, tidal or wave energy, solar thermal and tower power
technologies are already joining the bandwagon of emerging stars. Yet,
are Renewables really green?
The concept of renewable energy generally denotes clean energy systems
that do not contribute to greenhouse gas emission (GHE) and climate
change. As renewables get into top gear, growing evidence of
non-inclusion of social conscience in the name of renewable energy
development as well as severe environmental damage is unmasking the dark
side of renewables.
In this article, we will look at hydropower. The global hydropower
market according to investment analysts is predicted to expand over the
next few years as a less risky and more popular clean energy. While the
predictions sound promising, controversies over mega hydropower dam
projects and its socio-environmental sustainability issues present
confounding facts. Mega hydro dams have been successful in Canada, the
United States and other industrialized nations; however, the same cannot
be said for the tropical regions. Deforestation and the flooding
(inundation) of thousands of hectares of rainforest for mega hydro dam
projects in the Amazon and Borneo, which represents the planet's largest
and oldest rainforests have received intense criticisms. According to
World Wildlife Fund (WWF), tropical rainforests which serve as our
planet's carbon sink, holds more than 210 gigatonnes of carbon.
Deforestation is responsible for more than 15% of greenhouse gas
emissions (GHG) – more than any other human activity put together, has a
potent impact on accelerating global warming. In the case of mega hydro
dams, the inundation (flooding) of tropical rainforest has triggered a
cataclysm. The slow decay of rich organic rainforest matter flooded in
the mega dam is expected to take centuries – consuming more oxygen at
any given time, inconvertibly leading to oxygen-deprivation and high
acidity of waters. This state has resulted in poor quality of drinking
water as well as for household use to communities downstream. Further,
due to the alterations of the composition and density of vectors,
incidences of public health problems are on the rise and even death or
extinction of animal and plant life as far as 100 km from the mega dam
site have been reported. In 2013, National Geographic expounded on the
extinction of endangered migratory fish in the upstream of mega dams in
most South American countries like Colombia, Brazil and Paraguay.
Similarly, in Asia, the rare Asian river dolphins like the Indus
dolphins and Irrawaddy dolphins have become endangered by the
alterations of rivers for mega dams. Late August this year,
International Rivers launched "The State of the World's Rivers" the
first-of-its-kind interactive online database to illustrate the impacts
on the health of the world's river basins as a result of the mega dams.
Continued displacement of the planet's oldest and largest indigenous
communities in the rainforest region of the Amazon and Borneo has drawn
global attention and civil society accessions. With growing legal
disputes over indigenous land encroachments, mega dam hydro projects in
these regions have become controversial as well as complicated for clean
energy investors. The Belo Monte Dam, for instance, expected to be one
of the largest after the Three Gorges Dam in China and the
Brazilian-Paraguayan Itaipu Dam, continues to be legally disputed by the
Kayapos and indigenous communities who have been living there for
centuries. Displaced indigenous communities like the Penans, as a
result of the mega Bakun Hydro Dam in Borneo, are reported to be
experiencing emotional traumas as a result of the dispossession of their
lands and displacement from their centuries-old nomadic way of life.
Remote communities around these sites are reported to be still without
electricity, as the grids built mainly serve smelters and industrial
operations in the area.
One of the factors cited for this state of affair is the inefficient and
inequitable social and environmental impact assessment (SEIA) conducted
prior to these projects. It appears that the SEIA reports have endorsed
massive relocation of indigenous communities and offered limited or no
consideration of the irreversible impact on wildlife and ecosystems
downstream from the mega renewable energy sites. In 2012, in its
sourcebook for "Getting to Green" guideline, the World Bank reiterated
that too many environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are being
conducted by poorly trained EIA practitioners with limited capacity and
environmental information, leading to poor-quality reports.
Although international development funding agencies, energy companies
and governments have hit a hard wall due to stalled or underperforming
mega renewable projects, they assert that the above competing
perspectives would change over time with increased social and economic
benefits. An Oxford study published this year, present a confounding
verdict. The study which scientifically analyzed the economics of mega
dams from 1934 to 2007, included 245 projects in 65 countries, confirmed
that mega dams suffered cost overruns of 96 per cent. The Oxford
researches affirmed that even without social and environmental cost
consideration, the mega dams did not make economic sense. The
staggering findings are expected to have a significant implication on
the future of energy sector planning.
The deliberation propounds three pertinent points for renewable energy
proponents – firstly, large scale renewable energy projects may not be
as 'green and clean' as prophesied; secondly, with rising pluralism and
conscious green consumers, renewable energy projects would be subject to
greater scrutiny for societal and environmental impacts and hence,
should demonstrate greater social-environmental accountability; and
finally, the compelling findings on the mega hydro dams being uneconomic
with cost overruns which are too high to yield a positive return,
presents a new debate for the renewable energy outlook.
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Dams will not solve all Africa’s energy problems
Dams will not solve all Africa's energy problems
Opinion piece by Rudo Sanyanga
Business Day (South Africa), September 4, 2014
www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2014/09/04/dams-will-not-solve-all-africas-energy-problems
[This commentary also appeared in Swedish by Svenska Dagbladet on
September 3, 2014, at
www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/fel-att-ge-pris-for-gardagens-teknik_3876786.svd.]
THE world's water experts convene in Stockholm on Thursday where King
Carl Gustav will present the city's Water Prize to John Briscoe, a
Harvard professor and former water manager at the World Bank. After many
years spent in the international water bureaucracy, Briscoe says he is
"controversial and proud of it". Indeed, the jury's choice raises
contentious questions about how best to manage water resources for the
shared benefit of all.
Since the turn of the century, John Briscoe has been the world's
pre-eminent crusader for large dams in Africa and other continents. In
the 20th century, Europe developed approximately 80 percent of its
hydropower potential, while Africa has still only exploited 8 percent of
its own. It would be hypocritical, Briscoe contends, to withhold funds
for more dam building in Africa now.
Africa has tried to follow Europe's path to industrial development
before. With funding and advice from the World Bank and other
institutions, newly independent governments built large dams that were
supposed to industrialise and modernise their countries in the 1960s and
1970s. The Kariba Dam on the Zambezi, the Akosombo Dam on the Volta and
the Inga 1 and 2 dams on the Congo River are the most prominent examples
of this approach.
Mega-dams have not turned out to be a silver bullet, but a big albatross
on Africa's development. Their costs spiraled out of control creating
massive debt burdens, while their performance did not live up to the
expectations. Their benefits were concentrated on mining companies and
urban middle classes, while the rural population has been left high and
dry. Africa has become the world region that is most dependent on
hydropower. As rainfalls are becoming ever less reliable, this has made
the continent highly vulnerable to climate change.
In 2008, mining companies consumed more electricity than the whole
population in Sub-Saharan Africa. After tens of billions of dollars in
foreign aid have been spent on energy projects, 69 percent of the
continent's population continues to live in the dark. Prioritising the
needs of mining companies and big cities over the rural populations, the
World Bank's latest dam projects in Africa will further entrench this
energy apartheid.
Meanwhile, the communities which were displaced by the Kariba and Inga
dams continue to struggle for just compensation decades after the
projects were built. Because poor people pay the price but don't reap
the benefits of these investments, the independent World Commission on
Dams has found that dams "can effectively take a resource from one group
and allocate it to another". The Tonga people, who were displaced by the
Kariba Dam and suffered starvation as a consequence, have to this date
remained without clean water or electricity despite the huge reservoir
at their doorsteps.
Luckily solutions that don't sacrifice one group of people for the
benefits of another are available today. Wind, solar and geothermal
energy have become competitive with hydropower. Unlike large dams, these
energy sources don't depend on centralised electric grids, but can serve
the needs of the rural populations wherever they live. This is why the
International Energy Agency recommends that the bulk of foreign energy
aid be devoted to decentralised renewable energy sources if the goal of
sustainable energy for all by 2030 is to be met. A diverse,
decentralised portfolio of renewable energy projects will also make
African countries more resilient to climate change than putting all eggs
into the basket of a few mega-dams.
Just because Europe developed with large dams in the 20th century
doesn't mean Africa has to do the same today. In the telecom sector,
Africa has successfully leapfrogged Europe's landline model and relied
on cell phone companies to provide access to the majority of the
population. Like cell phone towers, wind, solar and micro-hydropower
projects can be built quickly, close to where people need them, and
without major environmental impacts.
Large dams may still make sense in specific situations, but Africa's
future is lit by the sun. We appreciate that John Briscoe has
reinvigorated an important debate about large dams. But we hope that in
the coming years, the Stockholm Water Prize will celebrate the solutions
of the future rather than the past.
A native of Zimbabwe, Rudo Sanyanga holds a Ph.D. in Aquatic Systems
Ecology from Stockholm University. She is the Africa Program Director of
International Rivers and is based in Pretoria.
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Opinion piece by Rudo Sanyanga
Business Day (South Africa), September 4, 2014
www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/2014/09/04/dams-will-not-solve-all-africas-energy-problems
[This commentary also appeared in Swedish by Svenska Dagbladet on
September 3, 2014, at
www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/fel-att-ge-pris-for-gardagens-teknik_3876786.svd.]
THE world's water experts convene in Stockholm on Thursday where King
Carl Gustav will present the city's Water Prize to John Briscoe, a
Harvard professor and former water manager at the World Bank. After many
years spent in the international water bureaucracy, Briscoe says he is
"controversial and proud of it". Indeed, the jury's choice raises
contentious questions about how best to manage water resources for the
shared benefit of all.
Since the turn of the century, John Briscoe has been the world's
pre-eminent crusader for large dams in Africa and other continents. In
the 20th century, Europe developed approximately 80 percent of its
hydropower potential, while Africa has still only exploited 8 percent of
its own. It would be hypocritical, Briscoe contends, to withhold funds
for more dam building in Africa now.
Africa has tried to follow Europe's path to industrial development
before. With funding and advice from the World Bank and other
institutions, newly independent governments built large dams that were
supposed to industrialise and modernise their countries in the 1960s and
1970s. The Kariba Dam on the Zambezi, the Akosombo Dam on the Volta and
the Inga 1 and 2 dams on the Congo River are the most prominent examples
of this approach.
Mega-dams have not turned out to be a silver bullet, but a big albatross
on Africa's development. Their costs spiraled out of control creating
massive debt burdens, while their performance did not live up to the
expectations. Their benefits were concentrated on mining companies and
urban middle classes, while the rural population has been left high and
dry. Africa has become the world region that is most dependent on
hydropower. As rainfalls are becoming ever less reliable, this has made
the continent highly vulnerable to climate change.
In 2008, mining companies consumed more electricity than the whole
population in Sub-Saharan Africa. After tens of billions of dollars in
foreign aid have been spent on energy projects, 69 percent of the
continent's population continues to live in the dark. Prioritising the
needs of mining companies and big cities over the rural populations, the
World Bank's latest dam projects in Africa will further entrench this
energy apartheid.
Meanwhile, the communities which were displaced by the Kariba and Inga
dams continue to struggle for just compensation decades after the
projects were built. Because poor people pay the price but don't reap
the benefits of these investments, the independent World Commission on
Dams has found that dams "can effectively take a resource from one group
and allocate it to another". The Tonga people, who were displaced by the
Kariba Dam and suffered starvation as a consequence, have to this date
remained without clean water or electricity despite the huge reservoir
at their doorsteps.
Luckily solutions that don't sacrifice one group of people for the
benefits of another are available today. Wind, solar and geothermal
energy have become competitive with hydropower. Unlike large dams, these
energy sources don't depend on centralised electric grids, but can serve
the needs of the rural populations wherever they live. This is why the
International Energy Agency recommends that the bulk of foreign energy
aid be devoted to decentralised renewable energy sources if the goal of
sustainable energy for all by 2030 is to be met. A diverse,
decentralised portfolio of renewable energy projects will also make
African countries more resilient to climate change than putting all eggs
into the basket of a few mega-dams.
Just because Europe developed with large dams in the 20th century
doesn't mean Africa has to do the same today. In the telecom sector,
Africa has successfully leapfrogged Europe's landline model and relied
on cell phone companies to provide access to the majority of the
population. Like cell phone towers, wind, solar and micro-hydropower
projects can be built quickly, close to where people need them, and
without major environmental impacts.
Large dams may still make sense in specific situations, but Africa's
future is lit by the sun. We appreciate that John Briscoe has
reinvigorated an important debate about large dams. But we hope that in
the coming years, the Stockholm Water Prize will celebrate the solutions
of the future rather than the past.
A native of Zimbabwe, Rudo Sanyanga holds a Ph.D. in Aquatic Systems
Ecology from Stockholm University. She is the Africa Program Director of
International Rivers and is based in Pretoria.
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Monday, August 25, 2014
Large Dams Just Aren't Worth the Cost
Large Dams Just Aren't Worth the Cost
Opinion - Jacques Leslie
The New York Times, August 22, 2014
nyti.ms/1poPZdC
THAYER SCUDDER, the world's leading authority on the impact of dams on
poor people, has changed his mind about dams.
A frequent consultant on large dam projects, Mr. Scudder held out hope
through most of his 58-year career that the poverty relief delivered by
a properly constructed and managed dam would outweigh the social and
environmental damage it caused. Now, at age 84, he has concluded that
large dams not only aren't worth their cost, but that many currently
under construction "will have disastrous environmental and
socio-economic consequences," as he wrote in a recent email.
Mr. Scudder, an emeritus anthropology professor at the California
Institute of Technology, describes his disillusionment with dams as
gradual. He was a dam proponent when he began his first research project
in 1956, documenting the impact of forced resettlement on 57,000 Tonga
people in the Gwembe Valley of present-day Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Construction of the Kariba Dam, which relied on what was then the
largest loan in the World Bank's history, required the Tonga to move
from their ancestral homes along the Zambezi River to infertile land
downstream. Mr. Scudder has been tracking their disintegration ever since.
Once cohesive and self-sufficient, the Tonga are troubled by
intermittent hunger, rampant alcoholism and astronomical unemployment.
Desperate for income, some have resorted to illegal drug cultivation and
smuggling, elephant poaching, pimping and prostitution. Villagers still
lack electricity.
Mr. Scudder's most recent stint as a consultant, on the Nam Theun 2 Dam
in Laos, delivered his final disappointment. He and two fellow advisers
supported the project because it required the dam's funders to carry out
programs that would leave people displaced by the dam in better shape
than before the project started. But the dam was finished in 2010, and
the programs' goals remain unmet. Meanwhile, the dam's three owners are
considering turning over all responsibilities to the Laotian government
- "too soon," Mr. Scudder said in an interview. "The government wants to
build 60 dams over the next 20 or 30 years, and at the moment it doesn't
have the capacity to deal with environmental and social impacts for any
single one of them."
"Nam Theun 2 confirmed my longstanding suspicion that the task of
building a large dam is just too complex and too damaging to priceless
natural resources," he said. He now thinks his most significant
accomplishment was not improving a dam, but stopping one: He led a 1992
study that helped prevent construction of a dam that would have harmed
Botswana's Okavango Delta, one of the world's last great wetlands.
Part of what moved Mr. Scudder to go public with his revised assessment
was the corroboration he found in a stunning Oxford University study
published in March in Energy Policy. The study, by Atif Ansar, Bent
Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier and Daniel Lunn, draws upon cost statistics
for 245 large dams built between 1934 and 2007. Without even taking into
account social and environmental impacts, which are almost invariably
negative and frequently vast, the study finds that "the actual
construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return."
The study's authors - three management scholars and a statistician - say
planners are systematically biased toward excessive optimism, which dam
promoters exploit with deception or blatant corruption. The study finds
that actual dam expenses on average were nearly double pre-building
estimates, and several times greater than overruns of other kinds of
infrastructure construction, including roads, railroads, bridges and
tunnels. On average, dam construction took 8.6 years, 44 percent longer
than predicted - so much time, the authors say, that large dams are
"ineffective in resolving urgent energy crises."
DAMS typically consume large chunks of developing countries' financial
resources, as dam planners underestimate the impact of inflation and
currency depreciation. Many of the funds that support large dams arrive
as loans to the host countries, and must eventually be paid off in hard
currency. But most dam revenue comes from electricity sales in local
currencies. When local currencies fall against the dollar, as often
happens, the burden of those loans grows.
One reason this dynamic has been overlooked is that earlier studies
evaluated dams' economic performance by considering whether
international lenders like the World Bank recovered their loans - and in
most cases, they did. But the economic impact on host countries was
often debilitating. Dam projects are so huge that beginning in the
1980s, dam overruns became major components of debt crises in Turkey,
Brazil, Mexico and the former Yugoslavia. "For many countries, the
national economy is so fragile that the debt from just one mega-dam can
completely negatively affect the national economy," Mr. Flyvbjerg, the
study's lead investigator, told me.
To underline its point, the study singles out the massive Diamer-Bhasha
Dam, now under construction in Pakistan across the Indus River. It is
projected to cost $12.7 billion (in 2008 dollars) and finish
construction by 2021. But the study suggests that it won't be completed
until 2027, by which time it could cost $35 billion (again, in 2008
dollars) - a quarter of Pakistan's gross domestic product that year.
Using the study's criteria, most of the world's planned mega-dams would
be deemed cost-ineffective. That's unquestionably true of the gargantuan
Inga complex of eight dams intended to span the Congo River - its first
two projects have produced huge cost overruns - and Brazil's purported
$14 billion Belo Monte Dam, which will replace a swath of Amazonian rain
forest with the world's third-largest hydroelectric dam.
Instead of building enormous, one-of-a-kind edifices like large dams,
the study's authors recommend "agile energy alternatives" like wind,
solar and mini-hydropower facilities. "We're stuck in a 1950s mode where
everything was done in a very bespoke, manual way," Mr. Ansar said over
the phone. "We need things that are more easily standardized, things
that fit inside a container and can be easily transported."
All this runs directly contrary to the current international
dam-building boom. Chinese, Brazilian and Indian construction companies
are building hundreds of dams around the world, and the World Bank
announced a year ago that it was reviving a moribund strategy to fund
mega-dams. The biggest ones look so seductive, so dazzling, that it has
taken us generations to notice: They're brute-force, Industrial Age
artifacts that rarely deliver what they promise.
Jacques Leslie is the author, most recently, of "Deep Water: The Epic
Struggle Over Dams, Displaced People, and the Environment."
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Opinion - Jacques Leslie
The New York Times, August 22, 2014
nyti.ms/1poPZdC
THAYER SCUDDER, the world's leading authority on the impact of dams on
poor people, has changed his mind about dams.
A frequent consultant on large dam projects, Mr. Scudder held out hope
through most of his 58-year career that the poverty relief delivered by
a properly constructed and managed dam would outweigh the social and
environmental damage it caused. Now, at age 84, he has concluded that
large dams not only aren't worth their cost, but that many currently
under construction "will have disastrous environmental and
socio-economic consequences," as he wrote in a recent email.
Mr. Scudder, an emeritus anthropology professor at the California
Institute of Technology, describes his disillusionment with dams as
gradual. He was a dam proponent when he began his first research project
in 1956, documenting the impact of forced resettlement on 57,000 Tonga
people in the Gwembe Valley of present-day Zambia and Zimbabwe.
Construction of the Kariba Dam, which relied on what was then the
largest loan in the World Bank's history, required the Tonga to move
from their ancestral homes along the Zambezi River to infertile land
downstream. Mr. Scudder has been tracking their disintegration ever since.
Once cohesive and self-sufficient, the Tonga are troubled by
intermittent hunger, rampant alcoholism and astronomical unemployment.
Desperate for income, some have resorted to illegal drug cultivation and
smuggling, elephant poaching, pimping and prostitution. Villagers still
lack electricity.
Mr. Scudder's most recent stint as a consultant, on the Nam Theun 2 Dam
in Laos, delivered his final disappointment. He and two fellow advisers
supported the project because it required the dam's funders to carry out
programs that would leave people displaced by the dam in better shape
than before the project started. But the dam was finished in 2010, and
the programs' goals remain unmet. Meanwhile, the dam's three owners are
considering turning over all responsibilities to the Laotian government
- "too soon," Mr. Scudder said in an interview. "The government wants to
build 60 dams over the next 20 or 30 years, and at the moment it doesn't
have the capacity to deal with environmental and social impacts for any
single one of them."
"Nam Theun 2 confirmed my longstanding suspicion that the task of
building a large dam is just too complex and too damaging to priceless
natural resources," he said. He now thinks his most significant
accomplishment was not improving a dam, but stopping one: He led a 1992
study that helped prevent construction of a dam that would have harmed
Botswana's Okavango Delta, one of the world's last great wetlands.
Part of what moved Mr. Scudder to go public with his revised assessment
was the corroboration he found in a stunning Oxford University study
published in March in Energy Policy. The study, by Atif Ansar, Bent
Flyvbjerg, Alexander Budzier and Daniel Lunn, draws upon cost statistics
for 245 large dams built between 1934 and 2007. Without even taking into
account social and environmental impacts, which are almost invariably
negative and frequently vast, the study finds that "the actual
construction costs of large dams are too high to yield a positive return."
The study's authors - three management scholars and a statistician - say
planners are systematically biased toward excessive optimism, which dam
promoters exploit with deception or blatant corruption. The study finds
that actual dam expenses on average were nearly double pre-building
estimates, and several times greater than overruns of other kinds of
infrastructure construction, including roads, railroads, bridges and
tunnels. On average, dam construction took 8.6 years, 44 percent longer
than predicted - so much time, the authors say, that large dams are
"ineffective in resolving urgent energy crises."
DAMS typically consume large chunks of developing countries' financial
resources, as dam planners underestimate the impact of inflation and
currency depreciation. Many of the funds that support large dams arrive
as loans to the host countries, and must eventually be paid off in hard
currency. But most dam revenue comes from electricity sales in local
currencies. When local currencies fall against the dollar, as often
happens, the burden of those loans grows.
One reason this dynamic has been overlooked is that earlier studies
evaluated dams' economic performance by considering whether
international lenders like the World Bank recovered their loans - and in
most cases, they did. But the economic impact on host countries was
often debilitating. Dam projects are so huge that beginning in the
1980s, dam overruns became major components of debt crises in Turkey,
Brazil, Mexico and the former Yugoslavia. "For many countries, the
national economy is so fragile that the debt from just one mega-dam can
completely negatively affect the national economy," Mr. Flyvbjerg, the
study's lead investigator, told me.
To underline its point, the study singles out the massive Diamer-Bhasha
Dam, now under construction in Pakistan across the Indus River. It is
projected to cost $12.7 billion (in 2008 dollars) and finish
construction by 2021. But the study suggests that it won't be completed
until 2027, by which time it could cost $35 billion (again, in 2008
dollars) - a quarter of Pakistan's gross domestic product that year.
Using the study's criteria, most of the world's planned mega-dams would
be deemed cost-ineffective. That's unquestionably true of the gargantuan
Inga complex of eight dams intended to span the Congo River - its first
two projects have produced huge cost overruns - and Brazil's purported
$14 billion Belo Monte Dam, which will replace a swath of Amazonian rain
forest with the world's third-largest hydroelectric dam.
Instead of building enormous, one-of-a-kind edifices like large dams,
the study's authors recommend "agile energy alternatives" like wind,
solar and mini-hydropower facilities. "We're stuck in a 1950s mode where
everything was done in a very bespoke, manual way," Mr. Ansar said over
the phone. "We need things that are more easily standardized, things
that fit inside a container and can be easily transported."
All this runs directly contrary to the current international
dam-building boom. Chinese, Brazilian and Indian construction companies
are building hundreds of dams around the world, and the World Bank
announced a year ago that it was reviving a moribund strategy to fund
mega-dams. The biggest ones look so seductive, so dazzling, that it has
taken us generations to notice: They're brute-force, Industrial Age
artifacts that rarely deliver what they promise.
Jacques Leslie is the author, most recently, of "Deep Water: The Epic
Struggle Over Dams, Displaced People, and the Environment."
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Why Control of a Terrifying Dam in Iraq Is Life or Death for Half Million People
Why Control of a Terrifying Dam in Iraq Is Life or Death for Half
Million People
ABC News, Aug 7, 2014
By LEE FERRAN and MAZIN FAIQ, Investigative Reporter
https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mosul-dam-control-terrifying-dam-iraq-life-death/story?id=24878057
There are conflicting reports out today about whether the extremist
group ISIS has taken control over Iraq's largest and most dangerous dam,
which Iraqi officials had previously said was safe under the protection
of Kurdish forces.
ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, wrote on their website today
that they are in control of the two-mile-wide Mosul Dam, echoing claims
the group made over the weekend. Iraqi media reports and a Kurdish
official have supported the claim. But late Wednesday and early today,
two Iraqi government officials, one from the Ministry of Water Resources
and the other familiar with the dam's operations, told ABC News ISIS had
not taken the dam and said that it is functioning as usual.
The question of control is a critical one for the millions of Iraqis who
live downstream of the Mosul Dam all the way down the Tigris to Baghdad,
because if the dam was taken over, ISIS would be in control of what
could effectively be a major weapon of mass destruction – one that the
U.S. military said in 2006 was, without the help of brutal jihadists,
already "the most dangerous dam in the world."
It wouldn't even have to be sabotaged to fail – if an extremist group
took control and wanted the dam to break, they may be able to simply do
nothing.
The gargantuan dam, built in the mid-1980s, was constructed on "a
foundation of soluble soils that are continuously dissolving, resulting
in the formation of cavities and voids underground that place the dam at
risk for failure," said an urgent letter sent from David Petraeus, then
commanding general of the U.S. Army, and Ryan Crocker, then U.S.
Ambassador to Iraq, to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in 2007.
[The Mosul Dam was built by the German-Italian Hochtief consortium -
International Rivers]
The dam requires "extraordinary engineering measures" – namely constant
grouting operations -- to fill in the holes and "maintain the structural
integrity and operating capability of the dam," according to a U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) report from the same year.
For 30 years –- and through several periods of violent conflict -- the
Iraqi government has managed to keep the dam upright by continuously
pumping in literally tons of grout like an industrial version of the
little Dutch boy, as a geotechnical expert who worked on the dam put it.
But the U.S. says any failure of the dam could be "catastrophic."
"[T]he most severe impact of a dam failure would be [for] the City of
Mosul, located 50 kilometers [31 miles] downstream of the dam,"
Petraeus' and Crocker's 2007 letter says. "Assuming a worse [sic] case
scenario, an instantaneous failure of Mosul Dam filled to its maximum
operating level could result in a flood wave over 20 meters [65 feet]
deep at the City of Mosul, which would result in a significant loss of
life and property." Mosul alone is estimated to be home to more than 1.5
million people. Flood waters, albeit at a lower level, could reach all
the way to Baghdad, more than 200 miles further down the Tigris,
depending on the performance of another smaller dam further downriver.
A 2011 report written by a USACE official and published in Water Power
magazine estimated failure "could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian
deaths."
The Water Power article states that Iraq is "fully aware of the
challenges facing the ageing structure," but as USACE civil engineer
David Paul told the magazine at the time, "there is no precedence for
what they are trying to achieve" in finding a more permanent solution to
the dam's problems than never-ending grouting – including the proposed
use of an incredibly large "cutoff wall" to help mitigate the seepage.
There are other measures that can be taken, such as keeping the
reservoir levels lower than the maximum to reduce pressure on the dam;
that was one of several recommendations the U.S. government made in 2007.
But none totally fix the problem and the geotechnical expert who spoke
to ABC News said that he didn't have reason to believe the dam is any
better off today than it was when the USACE report was published in 2007.
That was also before a powerful jihadist group borne of the Syrian civil
war began its deadly march across Iraq and reportedly up to Mosul Dam's
doorstep. Like today, earlier this week there were conflicting reports
about whether ISIS had taken control of the dam during a previous
24-hour offensive in the area.
Tuesday the Iraqi Ministry of Water Resources circulated a statement
saying the dam was not under ISIS control but has been protected by
Kurdish peshmerga troops. The government department reiterated the claim
earlier today.
A second Iraqi official involved with the dam's operations said
Wednesday that grouting supplies were safe and there was plenty in store.
"Grouting is still ongoing and never stopped," said the official, who
asked his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak to the
media.
But what if ISIS does eventually overtake the dam? Or what if it already
has?
State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters Monday that Mosul
Dam "has been in the sights of [ISIS] since its offensive began in June
to further threaten and terrorize the Iraqi people."
In addition to flooding concerns, the dam is also a "key source" of
power and water for the surrounding area – making it a vital piece of
infrastructure either way, another State Department spokesperson told
ABC News Wednesday. An American intelligence source agreed and said that
ISIS's potential control over and exploitation of power and water is a
focus of U.S. intelligence community.
The Iraqi official involved in the dam's operations refused to respond
to the dire hypothetical of ISIS control Wednesday, but a U.S.
government official long-familiar with the dam said it's an unsettling
idea made more so by a litany of unanswered questions. ISIS may not want
the dam to fail, considering it controls territory that would be flooded
and could leverage their control over the water and power source, but
the U.S. official said it would still be up to the jihadist group to
keep the grouting going.
"If ISIS does indeed have or gain control of the dam, will they listen
to the dam engineers who have been working there for decades and who
understand the need for constant grouting? … And then this is the
biggie: If they can't or don't want to grout, how long will the dam
last?... And if it fails, will it be a catastrophic all-at-once failure
or more of a slowly building uncontrolled release?" the official told
ABC News. "The short answer is no one knows. This is all guesswork anyway."
The official said that he is not aware of official U.S. calculations
about how long the dam would last without grouting but says he
understands it to be "on the order of weeks, not months." The
geotechnical expert agreed that "weeks" was a skeptical, but entirely
possible estimation.
"The potential for a disaster can't be ruled by and should be of great
concern to all parties involved," the U.S. official said.
The U.S. State Department told ABC News late Wednesday the department is
"monitoring the situation closely." Officials at the Pentagon did not
immediately respond to questions about whether any contingency plans are
in place in case ISIS does take over the dam.
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Million People
ABC News, Aug 7, 2014
By LEE FERRAN and MAZIN FAIQ, Investigative Reporter
https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mosul-dam-control-terrifying-dam-iraq-life-death/story?id=24878057
There are conflicting reports out today about whether the extremist
group ISIS has taken control over Iraq's largest and most dangerous dam,
which Iraqi officials had previously said was safe under the protection
of Kurdish forces.
ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, wrote on their website today
that they are in control of the two-mile-wide Mosul Dam, echoing claims
the group made over the weekend. Iraqi media reports and a Kurdish
official have supported the claim. But late Wednesday and early today,
two Iraqi government officials, one from the Ministry of Water Resources
and the other familiar with the dam's operations, told ABC News ISIS had
not taken the dam and said that it is functioning as usual.
The question of control is a critical one for the millions of Iraqis who
live downstream of the Mosul Dam all the way down the Tigris to Baghdad,
because if the dam was taken over, ISIS would be in control of what
could effectively be a major weapon of mass destruction – one that the
U.S. military said in 2006 was, without the help of brutal jihadists,
already "the most dangerous dam in the world."
It wouldn't even have to be sabotaged to fail – if an extremist group
took control and wanted the dam to break, they may be able to simply do
nothing.
The gargantuan dam, built in the mid-1980s, was constructed on "a
foundation of soluble soils that are continuously dissolving, resulting
in the formation of cavities and voids underground that place the dam at
risk for failure," said an urgent letter sent from David Petraeus, then
commanding general of the U.S. Army, and Ryan Crocker, then U.S.
Ambassador to Iraq, to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in 2007.
[The Mosul Dam was built by the German-Italian Hochtief consortium -
International Rivers]
The dam requires "extraordinary engineering measures" – namely constant
grouting operations -- to fill in the holes and "maintain the structural
integrity and operating capability of the dam," according to a U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) report from the same year.
For 30 years –- and through several periods of violent conflict -- the
Iraqi government has managed to keep the dam upright by continuously
pumping in literally tons of grout like an industrial version of the
little Dutch boy, as a geotechnical expert who worked on the dam put it.
But the U.S. says any failure of the dam could be "catastrophic."
"[T]he most severe impact of a dam failure would be [for] the City of
Mosul, located 50 kilometers [31 miles] downstream of the dam,"
Petraeus' and Crocker's 2007 letter says. "Assuming a worse [sic] case
scenario, an instantaneous failure of Mosul Dam filled to its maximum
operating level could result in a flood wave over 20 meters [65 feet]
deep at the City of Mosul, which would result in a significant loss of
life and property." Mosul alone is estimated to be home to more than 1.5
million people. Flood waters, albeit at a lower level, could reach all
the way to Baghdad, more than 200 miles further down the Tigris,
depending on the performance of another smaller dam further downriver.
A 2011 report written by a USACE official and published in Water Power
magazine estimated failure "could lead to as many as 500,000 civilian
deaths."
The Water Power article states that Iraq is "fully aware of the
challenges facing the ageing structure," but as USACE civil engineer
David Paul told the magazine at the time, "there is no precedence for
what they are trying to achieve" in finding a more permanent solution to
the dam's problems than never-ending grouting – including the proposed
use of an incredibly large "cutoff wall" to help mitigate the seepage.
There are other measures that can be taken, such as keeping the
reservoir levels lower than the maximum to reduce pressure on the dam;
that was one of several recommendations the U.S. government made in 2007.
But none totally fix the problem and the geotechnical expert who spoke
to ABC News said that he didn't have reason to believe the dam is any
better off today than it was when the USACE report was published in 2007.
That was also before a powerful jihadist group borne of the Syrian civil
war began its deadly march across Iraq and reportedly up to Mosul Dam's
doorstep. Like today, earlier this week there were conflicting reports
about whether ISIS had taken control of the dam during a previous
24-hour offensive in the area.
Tuesday the Iraqi Ministry of Water Resources circulated a statement
saying the dam was not under ISIS control but has been protected by
Kurdish peshmerga troops. The government department reiterated the claim
earlier today.
A second Iraqi official involved with the dam's operations said
Wednesday that grouting supplies were safe and there was plenty in store.
"Grouting is still ongoing and never stopped," said the official, who
asked his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak to the
media.
But what if ISIS does eventually overtake the dam? Or what if it already
has?
State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki told reporters Monday that Mosul
Dam "has been in the sights of [ISIS] since its offensive began in June
to further threaten and terrorize the Iraqi people."
In addition to flooding concerns, the dam is also a "key source" of
power and water for the surrounding area – making it a vital piece of
infrastructure either way, another State Department spokesperson told
ABC News Wednesday. An American intelligence source agreed and said that
ISIS's potential control over and exploitation of power and water is a
focus of U.S. intelligence community.
The Iraqi official involved in the dam's operations refused to respond
to the dire hypothetical of ISIS control Wednesday, but a U.S.
government official long-familiar with the dam said it's an unsettling
idea made more so by a litany of unanswered questions. ISIS may not want
the dam to fail, considering it controls territory that would be flooded
and could leverage their control over the water and power source, but
the U.S. official said it would still be up to the jihadist group to
keep the grouting going.
"If ISIS does indeed have or gain control of the dam, will they listen
to the dam engineers who have been working there for decades and who
understand the need for constant grouting? … And then this is the
biggie: If they can't or don't want to grout, how long will the dam
last?... And if it fails, will it be a catastrophic all-at-once failure
or more of a slowly building uncontrolled release?" the official told
ABC News. "The short answer is no one knows. This is all guesswork anyway."
The official said that he is not aware of official U.S. calculations
about how long the dam would last without grouting but says he
understands it to be "on the order of weeks, not months." The
geotechnical expert agreed that "weeks" was a skeptical, but entirely
possible estimation.
"The potential for a disaster can't be ruled by and should be of great
concern to all parties involved," the U.S. official said.
The U.S. State Department told ABC News late Wednesday the department is
"monitoring the situation closely." Officials at the Pentagon did not
immediately respond to questions about whether any contingency plans are
in place in case ISIS does take over the dam.
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Friday, July 25, 2014
10 things you should know about investment in renewable energy /The Guardian
10 things you should know about investment in renewable energy
In a recent panel, experts shared their thoughts on how to increase investment in renewables amid falling prices, policy uncertainty and emerging tech
Share 893
1. Solar and wind are cheaper than you think!
Despite an investor assumption that renewables are expensive, "this stuff is really cheap", said Bloomberg New Energy Finance's Jenny Chase. There are plenty of places where solar and wind already make economic sense, provided investment conditions are right.
People will start buying solar panels for their houses - without the need for subsidies - because it makes financial sense, Chase said. Panels now sell for less than a quarter of their 2008 price. And they won't be restricted to rooftops: Solar and wind plants are increasingly feeding into the grid and fulfilling the energy needs of large local power users, such as factories, in India and Chile.
Bloomberg estimates that the world will have 600GW of photovoltaic solar worldwide by 2020 (an increase from about 150GW today) and 1,900GW by 2030; making up 5-7% of the global electricity mix. These positive predictions are based on the falling prices of renewables.
2. Policy uncertainty is the biggest obstacle to investment in renewables
Governments are failing to take up the challenge and lead the way on renewables. The energy debate has become too politicised, argued EY's Ben Warren, and a lack of cohesive and stable policy has undermined a "long-term view on investment in renewable energy". Among the problems are skewed tax relief, fossil fuel subsidies and retroactive changes to renewable incentives, which make them risky to investors, panelists said.
Politicians are also listening to the wrong people, said Bruce Davis of Abundance Generation. The increasingly vocal lobbying of those with vested interests in slowing the growth of renewables is being heard more than the majority of voters who are in favour.
3. Regulators are getting better, although they still have 'sharp teeth'
That said, panelists were positive about the role of regulators, at least in the UK. Davis, who runs crowdfunding organisation Abundance Generation, said he is constantly updating the Financial Conduct Authority about innovations and the benefits crowdfunding can bring to investors without compromising investor protections.
"There is a world of difference between the old [Financial Services Authority] and the new FCA approach," he said. "That is not to say they don't have sharp teeth, but they do make efforts to listen to evidence and form policy based on real experiences of platforms."
4. Germany, Denmark and South Africa are good role models on renewables
Germany and Denmark have made great strides on renewables - partly because they have a diverse and large ownership base, said Co-operative Energy's Paul Monaghan. Germany has over 800 renewable energy co-operatives and the government has made - and stuck to - strong incentives for renewables, while in Denmark, communities have the right to invest and profit from wind turbine programs, which creates a broad political base for policy support.
The South African government has also done well on getting the best prices. It held a competitive tender, asking a simple question: "who wants to sell us wind and solar power for the lowest prices?" It was a simple but effective strategy that was clearly aligned with the long-term goals of government and also creates sustainable jobs locally, Davis said.
5. Business is leading the way
Corporates and individuals are taking the lead and hoping that policy will eventually follow. Business interruption risk and price volatility mean that an increasing number of businesses are taking a strategic approach to energy procurement. "Direct procurement of renewable energy might just prove to be one way for the sector to reduce its dependence on government policy," Warren said.
Software company SAP's Will Ritzrau said of his company's policy: "we look at renewables as a long term approach to control our energy cost and thus margin impact."
6. We need a diversity of projects
Having as many models as possible, from small-scale initiatives to large-scale projects, will be the key to financing the necessary energy transition, Emma Howard Boyd said.
According to Davis, co-operatives are good models where there is a motivated community with the requisite time and expertise. But it's also important to have schemes that appeal to commercial developers and make them more open to community involvement.
7. The public are up for renewables
Poll after poll shows that people have bought into the idea of renewables, Monghan said; now we have to unlock the big institutional investors. Crowdfunding can provide an easy way for people to get involved in projects that have already been vetted and will offer reasonable returns. Plus, organisations such as Share Action and Divestment are helping people have control over where their money is invested.
8. Developing countries could spearhead innovation
We may well see the flow of innovation reverse, with developed markets being disrupted by companies from developing markets. Energy innovation using mobile technology is one clear example of where this could happen: "more people in India own mobile phones than they do toothbrushes", Ashden's Chhavi Sharma said.
Sharma pointed to innovations such as M-PESA, which have allowed the renewable energy sector to leapfrog in Africa. Enterprises such as Off.Grid:Electric are using a service-based model and selling pay-as-you-go solar that can be paid for daily using mobile money, akin to setting up a micro-utility.
9. Power of the internet
It's hard to imagine how crowdfunding would work in an internet-free world, Chase said. The "internet of things" and broadband availability will enable automated and smart energy consumption. Large amounts of information will be needed to make the energy markets work. Soon smart technology will control various appliances so your fridge will stop cooling if the power price spikes, and other devices can be switched on or off automatically according to need.
Social media - and the internet more generally - have the potential to accelerate the awareness and acceptance of new technology. New and viable ideas, especially if they benefit individuals, will survive and grow. However, growing into a conservative market too early is also risky and some big companies may be a little more cautious about adopting potentially too-radical innovation.
10. There's some way to go
There have been leaps and bounds in terms of innovation and affordability, which have helped renewables to become an attractive investment opportunity. But if we are to reach the kind of levels required for a genuine energy transition, there's much more to be done. Investors should continue to view opportunities realistically, but also remain open-minded enough to recognise - and tap - the great renewable opportunities that exist.
The finance hub is funded by EY. All content is editorially independent except for pieces labelled advertisement feature. Find out more here.
Join the community of sustainability professionals and experts. Become a GSB member to get more stories like this direct to your inbox
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Government Audit Finds Hydropower Aid Doesn't Benefit the Poor
Government Audit Finds Hydropower Aid Doesn't Benefit the Poor
By Peter Bosshard
Huffington Post, July 8, 2014
www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-bosshard/government-audit-finds-hy_b_5564340.html
No other industrialized country relies on hydropower for its own power
generation as much as Norway. Norwegian companies build hydropower dams
around the world, including controversial projects like the Theun
Hinboun Dam in Laos. Norwegian development aid actively supports the
interests of the hydropower sector. Norway is also promoting hydropower
in international organizations and diplomatic initiatives.
Since the turn of the century, Norway has spent more than NOK 12 billion
(approximately $1.5 billion) on development assistance for the energy
sector. This aid consists of the following elements:
. Almost half of the assistance supported investments in mid-sized
hydropower projects in Chile, the Philippines and other countries
through SN Power, a state-owned investment company. The projects in
which SN Power has invested include Allain Duhangan in Northern India, a
dam that was bitterly opposed by the local population.
. Norwegian aid supports the planning and construction of transmission
lines, including a project that would export power from the
controversial dams in the rainforest of Sarawak to Indonesia.
. Norway is strengthening the capacity of Southern governments to build
hydropower projects, and funds feasibility studies for specific
projects. Norway has for example entered a hydropower partnership with
Ethiopia, and has funded studies for two large dams on the Blue Nile.
Only last month, the Norwegian government canceled this cooperation due
to the Ethiopian government's insistence on uneconomic mega-dams.
. A small portion of Norway's clean energy aid supports the development
of decentralized renewable wind and solar projects.
While the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has failed to evaluate
its energy assistance, the government's Auditor General Office carried
out an in-depth assessment of the assistance and submitted the findings
to parliament on June 25.
The findings of the audit are highly critical. The Auditor General
states: "Norwegian assistance to clean energy has not led to a
noticeable increase in power generation and has contributed little to
improving living conditions for the poor in those countries that have
been prioritized for such support."
More specifically, the audit finds that Norwegian energy assistance is
"still primarily directed towards hydropower, although countries have
ample opportunities to utilize solar and wind energy resources." This
bias makes recipient countries "more vulnerable to failure in energy
supply" than a more balanced approach would have done. The support for
transmission lines has created energy access for over 100,000
households, although "primarily the wealthiest households" have
benefited from this. The various measures have not spurred private
investment in the recipient countries, and their economic viability is weak.
"A stunning 12.26 billion Norwegian kroners has had little effect on
electricity production, poverty alleviation and business creation in the
prioritized target countries," FIVAS, a Norwegian environmental
organization and long-time partner of International Rivers, commented on
the audit findings. "This confirms our view that too much Norwegian
support has been tied up in hydropower."
In his response to the audit, Norway's Foreign Minister agreed that the
rapid advancement of solar, wind and biomass power "will make it
possible to expand the breadth of investment in clean energy," and
accepted the recommendation "to strengthen efforts to improve energy
access in rural areas with small-scale renewable solutions." At the same
time, the Foreign Minister argued that among all technologies, Norway
was still best placed to extend aid for hydropower.
The strong and unambiguous findings of the independent audit offer the
government an opportunity to change course. A failure to do so in the
interest of the country's hydropower industry would dent the high
credibility of Norway's development assistance.
Norway is a leading voice in the global dams debate and is often
considered a model in development and energy finance. The new audit adds
to the growing evidence that large hydropower projects are not effective
at reducing poverty, and that better tools for achieving this goal
exist. The World Bank, the Green Climate Fund (which receives strong
support from Norway and will soon decide on its own energy priorities)
and other institutions should take note.
[An English translation of the audit report's main sections is available
at
www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/norway_oag_report_translation_fivas_0714.pdf.]
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
By Peter Bosshard
Huffington Post, July 8, 2014
www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-bosshard/government-audit-finds-hy_b_5564340.html
No other industrialized country relies on hydropower for its own power
generation as much as Norway. Norwegian companies build hydropower dams
around the world, including controversial projects like the Theun
Hinboun Dam in Laos. Norwegian development aid actively supports the
interests of the hydropower sector. Norway is also promoting hydropower
in international organizations and diplomatic initiatives.
Since the turn of the century, Norway has spent more than NOK 12 billion
(approximately $1.5 billion) on development assistance for the energy
sector. This aid consists of the following elements:
. Almost half of the assistance supported investments in mid-sized
hydropower projects in Chile, the Philippines and other countries
through SN Power, a state-owned investment company. The projects in
which SN Power has invested include Allain Duhangan in Northern India, a
dam that was bitterly opposed by the local population.
. Norwegian aid supports the planning and construction of transmission
lines, including a project that would export power from the
controversial dams in the rainforest of Sarawak to Indonesia.
. Norway is strengthening the capacity of Southern governments to build
hydropower projects, and funds feasibility studies for specific
projects. Norway has for example entered a hydropower partnership with
Ethiopia, and has funded studies for two large dams on the Blue Nile.
Only last month, the Norwegian government canceled this cooperation due
to the Ethiopian government's insistence on uneconomic mega-dams.
. A small portion of Norway's clean energy aid supports the development
of decentralized renewable wind and solar projects.
While the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has failed to evaluate
its energy assistance, the government's Auditor General Office carried
out an in-depth assessment of the assistance and submitted the findings
to parliament on June 25.
The findings of the audit are highly critical. The Auditor General
states: "Norwegian assistance to clean energy has not led to a
noticeable increase in power generation and has contributed little to
improving living conditions for the poor in those countries that have
been prioritized for such support."
More specifically, the audit finds that Norwegian energy assistance is
"still primarily directed towards hydropower, although countries have
ample opportunities to utilize solar and wind energy resources." This
bias makes recipient countries "more vulnerable to failure in energy
supply" than a more balanced approach would have done. The support for
transmission lines has created energy access for over 100,000
households, although "primarily the wealthiest households" have
benefited from this. The various measures have not spurred private
investment in the recipient countries, and their economic viability is weak.
"A stunning 12.26 billion Norwegian kroners has had little effect on
electricity production, poverty alleviation and business creation in the
prioritized target countries," FIVAS, a Norwegian environmental
organization and long-time partner of International Rivers, commented on
the audit findings. "This confirms our view that too much Norwegian
support has been tied up in hydropower."
In his response to the audit, Norway's Foreign Minister agreed that the
rapid advancement of solar, wind and biomass power "will make it
possible to expand the breadth of investment in clean energy," and
accepted the recommendation "to strengthen efforts to improve energy
access in rural areas with small-scale renewable solutions." At the same
time, the Foreign Minister argued that among all technologies, Norway
was still best placed to extend aid for hydropower.
The strong and unambiguous findings of the independent audit offer the
government an opportunity to change course. A failure to do so in the
interest of the country's hydropower industry would dent the high
credibility of Norway's development assistance.
Norway is a leading voice in the global dams debate and is often
considered a model in development and energy finance. The new audit adds
to the growing evidence that large hydropower projects are not effective
at reducing poverty, and that better tools for achieving this goal
exist. The World Bank, the Green Climate Fund (which receives strong
support from Norway and will soon decide on its own energy priorities)
and other institutions should take note.
[An English translation of the audit report's main sections is available
at
www.internationalrivers.org/files/attached-files/norway_oag_report_translation_fivas_0714.pdf.]
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Thursday, June 26, 2014
As Violence Grips Iraq, Fears of Pre-Emptive Flooding Arise
As Violence Grips Iraq, Fears of Pre-Emptive Flooding Arise
Dam operators warn that army's plan to open floodgates to thwart ISIS
would create massive destruction to villages
Andrea Germanos, staff writer
Common Dreams, 6/26/2014
www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/06/26-7
The possibility of potentially catastrophic flooding has emerged
following reporting that either Iraqi military forces or Sunni militants
would open the floodgates of a dam on the Euphrates River.
Citing statements by Iraqi security officials made Wednesday, the New
York Times reported that ISIS forces "were advancing on the Haditha
Dam," located roughly 120 miles from Baghdad.
The dam is the country's second largest and generates hydroelectric power.
The Times does not cite a specific threat made by ISIS forces that they
would open the floodgates, but notes that ISIS fighters in April seized
the Falluja Dam and unleashed flooding.
The Times reporting adds that Iraqi government forces were responding to
the possibility by being prepared to open the dam's floodgates
themselves. From the Times:
"This will lead to the flooding of the town and villages and will
harm you also," the [dam] employee said he told the [army] officers.
Regardless of which side might open the floodgates, it is the civilian
population who would suffer in such an event, Peter Bosshard, Policy
Director of International Rivers, an organization that works to protect
rivers and the rights of communities that depend on them, explained to
Common Dreams.
"Dams have been used as weapons of mass destruction through the ages,"
Bosshard continued. "In the first recorded water war, the army of Umma,
a Sumerian city state, drained irrigation canals against their enemies
of Lagash in present-day Iraq, not far from Haditha Dam, 4,500 years
ago. In the most infamous case, the nationalist army of Chian Kai Shek
destroyed the dikes of the Yellow River in 1937 to slow the advancing
Japanese army, thereby flooding hundreds of thousands of square
kilometers of land and killing at least 800,000 of its own people," he
added.
Khalid Salman, head of the Haditha local council, told the Washington
Post that ISIS would want take over the dam not to unleash flooding but
to control the power plant powered by it, thus being able to provide a
service to the local population.
"Of course they want to control the dam, which is very important, not
only for Anbar, but for all of Iraq," the Post quotes Salman as saying.
Meanwhile, violence continues to erupt in the country. Reuters reports
that on Thursday battles were "raging" in the city of Tikrit, where
Iraqi forces are launching a counter-attack on Sunni militant forces.
And on Wednesday, Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rebuked gains made by
ISIS, and said his supporters "will shake the ground under the feet of
ignorance and extremism," Agence France-Presse reports.
Iraq's Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki has told the BBC that he welcomed
strikes against ISIS carried out by Syria, which hit within the Syrian
side of the Iraq/Syira border. He said they were carried out without
coordination, but added, "We actually welcome any Syrian strike against
ISIS."
Amidst the official comments by leaders and new gains in territory by
ISIS, a humanitarian crisis continues to unfold, as over one million
Iraqis - including half a million children - have been forced to flee
their homes.
"Yet again, another humanitarian crisis hits war-torn Iraq,
disproportionately and negatively impacting the hungry poor," reads a
statement issued Wednesday by United Nations World Food Programme
Executive Director Ertharin Cousin.
"The UN and the entire humanitarian community are surging staff,
releasing funds and drawing on all available stocks to assist people
affected by the fighting and meet the urgent growing needs," Cousin added.
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Dam operators warn that army's plan to open floodgates to thwart ISIS
would create massive destruction to villages
Andrea Germanos, staff writer
Common Dreams, 6/26/2014
www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/06/26-7
The possibility of potentially catastrophic flooding has emerged
following reporting that either Iraqi military forces or Sunni militants
would open the floodgates of a dam on the Euphrates River.
Citing statements by Iraqi security officials made Wednesday, the New
York Times reported that ISIS forces "were advancing on the Haditha
Dam," located roughly 120 miles from Baghdad.
The dam is the country's second largest and generates hydroelectric power.
The Times does not cite a specific threat made by ISIS forces that they
would open the floodgates, but notes that ISIS fighters in April seized
the Falluja Dam and unleashed flooding.
The Times reporting adds that Iraqi government forces were responding to
the possibility by being prepared to open the dam's floodgates
themselves. From the Times:
"This will lead to the flooding of the town and villages and will
harm you also," the [dam] employee said he told the [army] officers.
Regardless of which side might open the floodgates, it is the civilian
population who would suffer in such an event, Peter Bosshard, Policy
Director of International Rivers, an organization that works to protect
rivers and the rights of communities that depend on them, explained to
Common Dreams.
"Dams have been used as weapons of mass destruction through the ages,"
Bosshard continued. "In the first recorded water war, the army of Umma,
a Sumerian city state, drained irrigation canals against their enemies
of Lagash in present-day Iraq, not far from Haditha Dam, 4,500 years
ago. In the most infamous case, the nationalist army of Chian Kai Shek
destroyed the dikes of the Yellow River in 1937 to slow the advancing
Japanese army, thereby flooding hundreds of thousands of square
kilometers of land and killing at least 800,000 of its own people," he
added.
Khalid Salman, head of the Haditha local council, told the Washington
Post that ISIS would want take over the dam not to unleash flooding but
to control the power plant powered by it, thus being able to provide a
service to the local population.
"Of course they want to control the dam, which is very important, not
only for Anbar, but for all of Iraq," the Post quotes Salman as saying.
Meanwhile, violence continues to erupt in the country. Reuters reports
that on Thursday battles were "raging" in the city of Tikrit, where
Iraqi forces are launching a counter-attack on Sunni militant forces.
And on Wednesday, Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr rebuked gains made by
ISIS, and said his supporters "will shake the ground under the feet of
ignorance and extremism," Agence France-Presse reports.
Iraq's Prime Minister Nour al-Maliki has told the BBC that he welcomed
strikes against ISIS carried out by Syria, which hit within the Syrian
side of the Iraq/Syira border. He said they were carried out without
coordination, but added, "We actually welcome any Syrian strike against
ISIS."
Amidst the official comments by leaders and new gains in territory by
ISIS, a humanitarian crisis continues to unfold, as over one million
Iraqis - including half a million children - have been forced to flee
their homes.
"Yet again, another humanitarian crisis hits war-torn Iraq,
disproportionately and negatively impacting the hungry poor," reads a
statement issued Wednesday by United Nations World Food Programme
Executive Director Ertharin Cousin.
"The UN and the entire humanitarian community are surging staff,
releasing funds and drawing on all available stocks to assist people
affected by the fighting and meet the urgent growing needs," Cousin added.
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
Hydropower poses grid challenge for Brazil
Hydropower poses grid challenge for Brazil
7 June 2014
Brazil may be too reliant on hydropower as it builds world�s 3rd biggest dam, according to US Department of Energy
By Gerard Wynn
While rainfall has recently doused World Cup football pitches in southern and eastern Brazil, persistent drought elsewhere poses a challenge for the country�s hydropower, the US Department of Energy said on Tuesday.
�Brazil is currently experiencing its worst drought in 40 years, which has contributed to electricity blackouts in many Brazilian regions,� the Energy Information Administration (EIA) said.
�The south has been inundated with rainfall that has affected some World Cup matches, including those held in Natal, the site of team USA�s victory over Ghana last night,� it added.
�(But) the drought has persisted in northern Brazil. Much of Brazil�s hydroelectric potential lies in the country�s Amazon River basin. This reliance on one resource for most of the country�s electricity generation, combined with the distant and disparate locations of its population centers, has presented electricity reliability challenges.�
Hydropower is responsible for more than three quarters of Brazil�s electricity generation, making the present drought a topic of energy security.
Brazil�s hydropower consumption fell 7% last year, according to data published by the energy company BP on Monday.
Analysts expect that the country can cope with extra electricity demand during the World Cup, in the worst case limiting supply in regions not participating in the tournament, and stepping up gas-fired power.
Hydropower consumption last year fell by 6.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE), while natural gas consumption almost made up the difference, growing by 5.4 MTOE, according to the BP data.
�Brazil has spent more than $5 billion to subsidize electric utilities replacing lost hydroelectric generation with fossil fuel-fired generation, including large amounts of liquefied natural gas, and has taken steps to provide backup generation for stadiums,� the EIA said.
Notwithstanding the energy security risks, Brazil is in the process of building the world�s third biggest dam, on a tributary of the Amazon.
The country already has the world�s second biggest dam, by generating capacity, shared with Paraguay on the Parana River in the south west of the country. At around 14,000 megawatts (MW), it is second only to the China Three Gorges� 22,500 MW.
And it is expected to commission an equally enormous dam within two years.
�The 14,000-megawatt Belo Monte dam along the Xingu River, expected to be completed in 2016, will become the second-largest dam in Brazil�and the third-largest dam in the world�at a projected cost of $13 billion,� the EIA said.
- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/06/17/hydropower-poses-grid-challenge-for-brazil/#sthash.jVpHejH1.dpuf
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
7 June 2014
Brazil may be too reliant on hydropower as it builds world�s 3rd biggest dam, according to US Department of Energy
By Gerard Wynn
While rainfall has recently doused World Cup football pitches in southern and eastern Brazil, persistent drought elsewhere poses a challenge for the country�s hydropower, the US Department of Energy said on Tuesday.
�Brazil is currently experiencing its worst drought in 40 years, which has contributed to electricity blackouts in many Brazilian regions,� the Energy Information Administration (EIA) said.
�The south has been inundated with rainfall that has affected some World Cup matches, including those held in Natal, the site of team USA�s victory over Ghana last night,� it added.
�(But) the drought has persisted in northern Brazil. Much of Brazil�s hydroelectric potential lies in the country�s Amazon River basin. This reliance on one resource for most of the country�s electricity generation, combined with the distant and disparate locations of its population centers, has presented electricity reliability challenges.�
Hydropower is responsible for more than three quarters of Brazil�s electricity generation, making the present drought a topic of energy security.
Brazil�s hydropower consumption fell 7% last year, according to data published by the energy company BP on Monday.
Analysts expect that the country can cope with extra electricity demand during the World Cup, in the worst case limiting supply in regions not participating in the tournament, and stepping up gas-fired power.
Hydropower consumption last year fell by 6.8 million tonnes of oil equivalent (MTOE), while natural gas consumption almost made up the difference, growing by 5.4 MTOE, according to the BP data.
�Brazil has spent more than $5 billion to subsidize electric utilities replacing lost hydroelectric generation with fossil fuel-fired generation, including large amounts of liquefied natural gas, and has taken steps to provide backup generation for stadiums,� the EIA said.
Notwithstanding the energy security risks, Brazil is in the process of building the world�s third biggest dam, on a tributary of the Amazon.
The country already has the world�s second biggest dam, by generating capacity, shared with Paraguay on the Parana River in the south west of the country. At around 14,000 megawatts (MW), it is second only to the China Three Gorges� 22,500 MW.
And it is expected to commission an equally enormous dam within two years.
�The 14,000-megawatt Belo Monte dam along the Xingu River, expected to be completed in 2016, will become the second-largest dam in Brazil�and the third-largest dam in the world�at a projected cost of $13 billion,� the EIA said.
- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/2014/06/17/hydropower-poses-grid-challenge-for-brazil/#sthash.jVpHejH1.dpuf
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Tuesday, June 3, 2014
Should hydropower truly be described as renewable? (SciDevNet)
http://www.scidev.net/global/water/editorials/hydropower-described-as-renewable.html
Speed read
� Hydroelectric dams provide carbon-free energy as well as a show of power
� But they cause environmental harm and displace communities
� Energy production should be labelled �renewable� if it serves local needs
A revival in huge hydro projects may cut carbon emissions, but proponents' use of the term 'renewable' is misplaced.
Hydroelectric dams are the quintessential expression of human control of nature. As well as power, they create reservoirs of clean water, which to some are both pleasing to the eye and a place for tranquil recreation. They promise control of flooding, provide a steady supply of water for irrigation and, with time, a source of fresh fish.
They are an economist's as well as an engineer's dream, and, coupled with dynamic images of the cranes, bulldozers and swarms of men in hard hats associated with their construction, they are an instant marketing opportunity for politicians eager to demonstrate their commitment to progress.
Some argue that hydroelectric power has green credentials because it makes use of water - a free abundant and inherently benign medium.
It takes advantage of gravity, transforming energy from flowing water into electricity in a process that is at once clean and carbon free. With growing global concerns over carbon emissions, it is no surprise that hydroelectric projects should have a certain allure for governments wrestling with their countries' energy needs.
Yet this squeaky clean image has become tarnished over time, with criticism over the impact of these structures on the environment and the lives of people displaced by their construction.
As large dams have come under ever-increasing scrutiny, so their popularity with governments has steadily declined over the past two decades.
But this trend has recently been reversed. Massive hydroelectric projects are once again coming into vogue, with a boom in construction across the planet, from Brazil to China. Watching one of our audio slideshows on the Belo Monte Dam in Brazil cannot but elicit concern.
The stark, if hauntingly beautiful, images of the Xingu rainforest, which is being destroyed in the wake of the controversial project, rekindle an uneasy awareness: that large-scale hydroelectric projects do not easily fit into the clean energy paradigm. So, should they enjoy the positive connotations of the word 'renewable'?
How 'clean' is hydro?
Part of this unease is rooted in a sense that the displacement of thousands of people and the logging of huge areas, the gouging out and crushing of rocks - in short, the systematic alteration of an ancient landscape with unpredictable final consequences - is not exactly 'clean', either environmentally or, indeed, morally.
The other part of the unease reflects the uses to which the energy from large-scale hydro projects will be put.
For some developing economies, there is an argument for exploring the careful and judicious use of hydropower to meet a particular region's energy needs, especially when these complement its water needs.
Listen to Mallika Aryal's interview with Jeremy Bird, director-general of the International Water Management Institute, for a succinct account of why water management and energy production are so inextricably linked.
Where energy production is borne out of necessity and serves local needs, I find the idea that hydropower can be described as 'renewable' reasonably acceptable, notwithstanding the controversies that always seem to surround such projects. There is more here than a simple question of semantics, or the technical meaning of words.
The words we use also reflect a moral orientation. In my view, the crucial and central ingredient of the concept of 'renewable' should be a clear and overt recognition of this moral orientation, without any lingering taste of guilt.
When hydropower energy generation moves from being a necessity that answers pressing energy needs to being a commodity to trade, and where it has a massive impact on the local ecosystem, questions need to be raised about whether it should enjoy the positive, feel-good connotations of the term 'renewable'.
Relying on green credentials
I have an uneasy feeling that there is a growing reliance in some quarters on the green credentials of hydroelectric power to support its development - where it is not being produced for local needs and where it has a massive impact on local ecosystems and human lives.
Malaysia, for example - which last month hosted the ASEAN Renewable Energy Week - seems to have started to tap into the soothing qualities of the word 'renewable', most recently to assuage critics of a proposed dam on the Baram River in Sarawak on the island of Borneo.
The Baram hydroelectric dam project is planned as part of the so-called Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy, which will involve building a cascade of dams along the river. But the electricity it is set to produce will not be for local use, but for export, including to neighbouring Brunei Darussalam.
Critics of the dam also draw attention to the loss of biodiversity, forest and cultivated land that construction will cause.
They suggest that 'mini-hydros' on smaller tributaries are a more acceptable alternative as they interfere less with the river ecosystem and generate power for local use rather than as a commodity for export.
Large dams on mighty rivers such as the Xingu and the Baram profoundly alter ecosystems in ways which are unpredictable and potentially disastrous, as well as altering the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people.
So what would a sustainable approach be to making use of such an ecosystem? The Baram and the Xingu already bathe and feed the areas surrounding them through natural river flow and will continue to do so as long as they are not choked midstream.
Perhaps such rivers should simply be left in peace - and, in such contexts, perhaps we need to be more cautious in our use of the word 'renewable'.
Editor, SciDev.Net
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Speed read
� Hydroelectric dams provide carbon-free energy as well as a show of power
� But they cause environmental harm and displace communities
� Energy production should be labelled �renewable� if it serves local needs
A revival in huge hydro projects may cut carbon emissions, but proponents' use of the term 'renewable' is misplaced.
Hydroelectric dams are the quintessential expression of human control of nature. As well as power, they create reservoirs of clean water, which to some are both pleasing to the eye and a place for tranquil recreation. They promise control of flooding, provide a steady supply of water for irrigation and, with time, a source of fresh fish.
They are an economist's as well as an engineer's dream, and, coupled with dynamic images of the cranes, bulldozers and swarms of men in hard hats associated with their construction, they are an instant marketing opportunity for politicians eager to demonstrate their commitment to progress.
Some argue that hydroelectric power has green credentials because it makes use of water - a free abundant and inherently benign medium.
It takes advantage of gravity, transforming energy from flowing water into electricity in a process that is at once clean and carbon free. With growing global concerns over carbon emissions, it is no surprise that hydroelectric projects should have a certain allure for governments wrestling with their countries' energy needs.
Yet this squeaky clean image has become tarnished over time, with criticism over the impact of these structures on the environment and the lives of people displaced by their construction.
As large dams have come under ever-increasing scrutiny, so their popularity with governments has steadily declined over the past two decades.
But this trend has recently been reversed. Massive hydroelectric projects are once again coming into vogue, with a boom in construction across the planet, from Brazil to China. Watching one of our audio slideshows on the Belo Monte Dam in Brazil cannot but elicit concern.
The stark, if hauntingly beautiful, images of the Xingu rainforest, which is being destroyed in the wake of the controversial project, rekindle an uneasy awareness: that large-scale hydroelectric projects do not easily fit into the clean energy paradigm. So, should they enjoy the positive connotations of the word 'renewable'?
How 'clean' is hydro?
Part of this unease is rooted in a sense that the displacement of thousands of people and the logging of huge areas, the gouging out and crushing of rocks - in short, the systematic alteration of an ancient landscape with unpredictable final consequences - is not exactly 'clean', either environmentally or, indeed, morally.
The other part of the unease reflects the uses to which the energy from large-scale hydro projects will be put.
For some developing economies, there is an argument for exploring the careful and judicious use of hydropower to meet a particular region's energy needs, especially when these complement its water needs.
Listen to Mallika Aryal's interview with Jeremy Bird, director-general of the International Water Management Institute, for a succinct account of why water management and energy production are so inextricably linked.
Where energy production is borne out of necessity and serves local needs, I find the idea that hydropower can be described as 'renewable' reasonably acceptable, notwithstanding the controversies that always seem to surround such projects. There is more here than a simple question of semantics, or the technical meaning of words.
The words we use also reflect a moral orientation. In my view, the crucial and central ingredient of the concept of 'renewable' should be a clear and overt recognition of this moral orientation, without any lingering taste of guilt.
When hydropower energy generation moves from being a necessity that answers pressing energy needs to being a commodity to trade, and where it has a massive impact on the local ecosystem, questions need to be raised about whether it should enjoy the positive, feel-good connotations of the term 'renewable'.
Relying on green credentials
I have an uneasy feeling that there is a growing reliance in some quarters on the green credentials of hydroelectric power to support its development - where it is not being produced for local needs and where it has a massive impact on local ecosystems and human lives.
Malaysia, for example - which last month hosted the ASEAN Renewable Energy Week - seems to have started to tap into the soothing qualities of the word 'renewable', most recently to assuage critics of a proposed dam on the Baram River in Sarawak on the island of Borneo.
The Baram hydroelectric dam project is planned as part of the so-called Sarawak Corridor of Renewable Energy, which will involve building a cascade of dams along the river. But the electricity it is set to produce will not be for local use, but for export, including to neighbouring Brunei Darussalam.
Critics of the dam also draw attention to the loss of biodiversity, forest and cultivated land that construction will cause.
They suggest that 'mini-hydros' on smaller tributaries are a more acceptable alternative as they interfere less with the river ecosystem and generate power for local use rather than as a commodity for export.
Large dams on mighty rivers such as the Xingu and the Baram profoundly alter ecosystems in ways which are unpredictable and potentially disastrous, as well as altering the lives and livelihoods of thousands of people.
So what would a sustainable approach be to making use of such an ecosystem? The Baram and the Xingu already bathe and feed the areas surrounding them through natural river flow and will continue to do so as long as they are not choked midstream.
Perhaps such rivers should simply be left in peace - and, in such contexts, perhaps we need to be more cautious in our use of the word 'renewable'.
Editor, SciDev.Net
________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list: dams@list.internationalrivers.org
To be removed from the list, please visit:
http://org.salsalabs.com/o/2486/unsubscribe.jsp
Tuesday, May 6, 2014
Interview w/ WBank: "Responsible hydro is part of solution"/Water Power mag
Responsible hydropower is part of the solution
1 May 2014
Hydropower is now firmly back on the investment agenda for the World Bank and has a key role to play in tackling development challenges worldwide. Suzanne Pritchard spoke with the Bank's Chief Hydropower Specialist, Jean-Michel Devernay, to find out more.
Worldwide, 1.2 billion people lack access to electricity, 590 million of whom live in sub-Saharan Africa. In many countries, access is below 10%. But is responsible development of hydropower part of the solution?
"Sustainable hydropower is a critical part of a pathway to prosperity in Africa, as the largest source of renewable energy deployable at scale," says Jean-Michel Devernay, Chief Hydropower Specialist at the World Bank.
Devernay joined the World Bank Group in July 2012, and is currently the highest technical authority in the Bank regarding global issues related to hydropower development.
"Hydropower development comes with a complex set of economic, environmental, and social opportunities and risks," Devernay told IWP&DC.
"Assessing them with care is of the utmost importance to us and we believe that we can help developing countries manage the risks while generating long-term development benefits to meet development aspirations of millions of poor people in the developing world."
IWP&DC: What is the World Bank's current position on financing hydropower projects?
Jean-Michel Devernay: The World Bank Group (WBG) is firmly committed to the responsible development of hydropower.
This was approved unanimously by our Board as part of the World Bank Group's Energy Directions paper in July 2013. To provide concessional financing to our client countries for development of sustainable hydropower is one example of this commitment.
So would you say that hydropower is now firmly back on the investment programme for the World Bank?
J-M D: Yes. The President of the WBG, Jim Yong Kim, announced last year two corporate goals: to end poverty by 2030 and boost shared prosperity for the poorest 40% in a sustainable manner. We do not believe those goals can be achieved sustainably without hydropower. Uganda seven years ago was experiencing regular blackouts and had to use diesel-fired thermal power to backstop the energy gap. Today, with the Bujagali hydropower project up and running since 2012, this has drastically reduced blackouts and the need for costlier diesel-fired power. That creates a much better opportunity for homes, schools, clinics and businesses to thrive.
"Since the 2003 Water Resources Strategy...the World Bank has approved about 100 projects related to hydropower"
Since the 2003 Water Resources Strategy, which states that the Bank would re-engage in hydraulic infrastructure, the World Bank (includes IBRD/IDA, GEF and Recipient Executed Activities) has approved about 100 projects related to hydropower (during fiscal years 2003-13), for a total of US$5.7B in financing. It has 30 projects in its pipeline, roughly half of which are in Africa.
The IFC has approved 42 hydro projects totalling US$1.3B over the last decade.
Are you interested in financing in any region of the world, any type of project, even large dams? Is this as long as it is represents 'responsible development'?
J-M D:Our support is not linked to any specific region or any specific type or size of project. When asked by developing countries, the WBG provides support to hydro projects only when they have a demonstrated economic viability, and if they comply with the institution's internationally-recognised social and environmental safeguards and performance standards. Each project should be assessed on its own merits and developed if it can help alleviate poverty and boost shared prosperity.
There are viable run-of-river (RoR), storage and smaller projects possible. Our portfolio for recent years shows that we support hydropower projects of all scales, with projects above 100MW representing less than one-third of the total. A more detailed analysis shows more hydropower rehabilitation projects than greenfield projects, and a balanced mix of storage, RoR, and pumped-storage projects.
In fact, 45% of our hydropower interventions over the last 10 years were for off-grid mini and small hydropower. During this period, the WBG also facilitated 27 carbon market transactions around hydropower to offset emissions from other technologies. Of these, approximately 60% were for RoR projects.
How much money the Bank has pledged for funding hydropower projects in the world's poorest countries?
J-M D:The WBG has not pledged any specific amount of our support to hydropower. The level of funding we will commit to hydropower will depend on the needs of developing countries, and the types of projects for which they request our assistance, and is therefore likely to vary from year to year.
"The World Bank has been funding about US$1B on average over the past four or five years"
The WBG has been funding about US$1B on average over the past four or five years, and for the coming years we project that this level will remain. This is only a couple of percent of the amount mobilised worldwide for hydropower development each year, but if you look at the poorest countries it becomes more significant.
Does the Bank believe that hydropower can play a key role in tackling climate change and is this directing its financial decisions?
J-M D:The WBG's goals are to eradicate poverty by 2030 and promote shared prosperity for the poorest 40% in a sustainable fashion. We believe that tackling climate change is a critical part of reaching these goals. Hydropower is affordable, very clean and has limited greenhouse gas emissions, especially compared with those from burning fossil fuels and many developing countries still have a large untapped hydropower potential.
Along with constrained access to electricity, by 2025, 2.4 billion people will be living in countries without enough water to meet all their needs. Water security is threatened by mismanagement of available water resources and increasing changes in weather patterns due to climate change.
Multipurpose hydropower dams can also support adaptation to increasingly extreme weather conditions by strengthening a country's ability to regulate and store water and so resist flood and drought shocks.
The WBG and its clients therefore recognise that responsible hydropower is part of the solution for tackling the development challenges outlined in our mission.
How is the bank committed to scaling up efforts to utilise the maximum strategic value of hydropower resources?
J-M D:Fifteen of the top 20 countries identified as having the biggest electricity access gap by the United Nation's Sustainable Energy for All initiative are countries with significant water resources that could be partially tapped for sustainable hydropower. These countries include some 750 million people who do not have access to electricity. At the same time hydropower with storage complements variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, and provides essential functions for power system control.
"Hydropower with storage can also give multi-purpose benefits for flood management, irrigation and water supply"
Hydropower with storage can also give multi-purpose benefits for flood management, irrigation and water supply. In our Country Partnership Frameworks that we develop together with our client countries, hydropower will likely thus get a more and more prominent role in the energy and water sectors.
Are there any key projects you've recently committed finance?
J-M D: Examples of hydropower projects that we have committed financing to in recent times, and which show the natural distribution of size and type of projects that we support, include the:
Trung Son Hydropower project (260MW) in Vietnam.
Tarbela IV hydropower extension project (1410MW) in Pakistan.
Upper Cisokan pumped storage hydroelectric project (1040MW) in Indonesia.
Rusumo Falls transboundary project (80MW) in Rwanda, Burundi, and Tanzania.
Kali Gandaki rehabilitation (48MW) and Ruma Khola micro hydro power (51 kW) projects in Nepal.
Based on an interview published in the April 2014 issue of International Water Power & Dam Construction magazine.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Families, Monks Want Chinese Dam Canceled
Families, Monks Want Chinese Dam Canceled
By Khoun Narim
Cambodian Daily, 29 April 2014
Members of an ethnic minority community facing eviction from their ancestral homeland to make way for a Chinese hydropower dam in Koh Kong province—and the monks and NGO helping them—Monday once again urged the firm and the government not to go ahead with the project.
Hundreds of Chong families are facing eviction at the hands of Sinohydro (Cambodia) United, a Chinese firm that recently took over plans to build a 108-MW dam in the Areng Valley, in the heart of the Cardamom Protected Forest. Construction, which has yet to start, is expected to flood some 20,000 hectares, including the community’s sacred forests and a critical habitat for the endangered Siamese Crocodile.
“If the dam is built it will hurt our traditional ways and our livelihood, which depends on the forest,” said Has Ley, speaking at a press conference organized by the NGO Mother Nature in Phnom Penh.
Members of the Independent Monks Network for Social Justice, which has also taken up the cause, said they will soon organize protests in front of the Chinese Embassy and Sinohydro’s Phnom Penh office.
The families, monks and NGOs believe Sinohydro may be using the project merly as cover to plunder the area’s trees and minerals. Some claim the project is not viable, and two Chinese firms have already pulled out.
“It’s not a real dam,” said Mother Nature cofounder Alex Gonzalez-Davidson. “It’s a project that doesn’t make any sense but it’s still going to go ahead because of corruption and other things.”
Sinohydro officials in charge of the project could not be reached for comment. Officials at the provincial department of mines and energy could also not be reached.
In March, department director Pich Siyun said all the necessary studies for the project had been finished and that the affected families had agreed to resettle.
The families say they have not agreed to the move and for the past several weeks have kept watch over the only road leading in and out of the project area, preparing to block it if the firm attempts to begin construction.
(Additional reporting by Zsombor Peter)
http://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/families-monks-want-chinese-dam-canceled-57624/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)