Observer, left, ponders barrel run at the Tarbela Hydropower Dam, in Pakistan.
For as little as $2.2 billion dollars and a whole lot of CO2-emitting concrete, you too can build your very own "clean power" four turbine dam in Pakistan.
The Pakistan Water and Development Authority (WAPDA) is working to ensure its Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project and other hydroelectric dam projects are seen through fruition.
The WAPDA claims to have several dam projects totaling just over 30,000 MW of power. The hydro projects are part of the Water Authority's "Vision 2050 Program," which aims to make the country energy-independent.
While 30,000 MW is an impressive amount of energy generation once these projects are up and up-and-running in another decade or two, there can also be a shocking amount of energy used in the construction process.
Just think of all the concrete, vehicles, disruption to the surrounding environment, transportation of people and supplies pouring into a project of this size over the course of 8 years—because that's how long the Neelum-Jhelum Hydroelectric Project will take to build.
We can't help but wonder how long it will take before the "clean" hydroelectric energy from these dams offsets all the energy and emissions of 8 years of construction.
Submitted by Carli Ghelfi on June 9, 2008 - 4:27pm.
print
delicious
digg
hugg
reprint
"CO2 Emitting concrete"
Concrete does not emit CO2. In the manufacture of Portland hydraulic cement CO2 is emitted. Could this the binder component of a concrete mixture be what you are trying to reference?
pakistani dam
seems as if you're damned if you do, damned if you don't.
So many environmentalists are unwilling to make any tradeoffs. So you emit CO2 in the process of curing the cement, but not a lick thereafter for however long the dam generates power (conservative estimate 50 years) and that isn't good enough?
Gimme a break.
Dammed if you do.
It's not just about release of CO2 in construction. Dams also cause GHG emissions by creating anoxic reservoirs. In an anoxic environment, organic matter decays into methane rather than CO2. Methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. In some cases, calculations have been done showing more GHG emissions from hydro than from coal.
While hydro may be "renewable", it isn't cleantech by any stretch. It's not great from a global warming perspective, it ruins river and riparian ecology, destroys canyons and chasms, and leads to increased water evaporation.
Yes, some people will complain about anything, such as the proportionally tiny number of birds killed by wind turbines or the shading of a small patch of some massive desert with solar. But in the case of hydro, these really are significant problems.
Post new comment