[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: dam-l how many is too many?

At 02:08 97-09-18 -0400, Dianne Murray wrote:
>OK.
>
>I guess I haven't been the best moderator as far as lists go,
>being a bit of an introvert and new to running one of these
>things. :)  
>
>Michael Richardson had suggested some kind of pre-canned discussion
>to spark discussion on the list, so folks have something to respond
>to.
>
>I see the whole issue of water development as being not a matter of
>these things are unilaterally bad but more in terms of... it's
>bad to waste resources we already have [eg fish, farmland] on
>building too many projects which are demonstrably destructiuve of these 
>valuable resources.
>
>So it's more ... there is an upper limit of what's acceptable.
>
>now -> in everyone's diverse reasearch, how many is to many dams?

I think the more interesting question is: how do we distinguish a terrible
hydro project from a tolerable one or even (conceivably) a good one?
Robert Goodland proposes some interesting criteria in his paper in the
World Bank/IUCN report, "Large Dams: Learning from the Past, Looking at the
Future," though I wouldn't take that as the last word, by any means.

More important is, when are these type of criteria going to become part of
the decision-making process for individual projects?  In Québec, a number
of projects have recently been proposed (both new plants and new diversions
into existing projects), without any mention of the relative environmental
costs of each one, in terms of wildlife habitat, flooding, estimated GHG
production, energy production, etc.  Cost still appears to be the only
selection criterion actually used.  And, as open markets in electricity
gradually replace regulated monopolies, with market mechanisms replacing
integrated planning processes, the situation is unlikely to improve.

Goodland also states (p. 76) that "Most conservation measures, including
demand-side management, should be substantially in place before new dams
are addressed[, ... meaning] that the marginal economic cost (including
environmental and social externalities) of saving energy through
conservation becomes as high as the marginal cost of a new hydro scheme."
Needless to say, if this criterion were actually applied, there would be no
new hydro at all, as there is nowhere in the world where all DSM up to the
marginal cost of new supply has been achieved, even ignoring environmental
and social costs!


>
>I mean - how cacn we measure this sort of thing?
>
>I expect it depends upon the discipline - or does it?
>
>I know more about the runoff end of things and the biogeological constraints
>than I do about say - how much weight of water exactly where will get you
>a seismic event?  Or how many jobs do these things really create compared 
>to how many are lost especially to subsistance economies!
>
>What does everyone's experience tell them about where the healthy limit 
>is for water development projects?
>
>-Dianne
>[the traffic is lighter on the net at night :) ]
>
>
Philip Raphals
Directeur adjoint (Associate Director)
Le Centre Hélios - Stratégies énergétiques et environnementales
Helios Centre for Sustainable Energy Strategies
651, rue Querbes
Outremont (Quebec)
Canada
H2V 3W6

(514) 277-2405 (telephone)
(514) 277-8282 (fax)

Raphals@NetAxis.qc.ca
Follow-Ups: References: