It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The largest dam in the world is set to begin construction within months and could be generating electricity in under five years. But 35,000 people may have to be relocated and it could be built without any environmental or social impact surveys, say critics. The $14bn (£9.5bn) Inga 3 project, the first part of the mega-project, is being fast-tracked by the Democratic Republic of Congo government will span one channel of the vast river Congo at Inga Falls. It involves a large dam and a 4,800MW hydro-electric plant. But subsequent phases, together costing about $100bn, could eventually span the Congo river, the world’s second largest by volume. It is expected to have an electricity-generating capacity of nearly 40,000MW – nearly twice as much as the Three Gorges dam in China or 20 large nuclear power stations. But the long delayed project, whose backers claim it could provide about 40% of Africa’s electricity, may violate national law and international guidelines for the development of mega-dams, according to the California-based NGO International Rivers.
www.theguardian.com...
Bosshard said: “Bruno Kapandji makes it clear that the government has no intention to carry out a social and environmental impact assessment for the huge project before construction starts. Developing Inga 3 without an EIA will violate national law, World Bank safeguard policies, and Chinese guidelines for overseas contractors.
Big dams built in developing countries have forced many millions of people to relocate and caused immense environmental damage. But pressure from environment and development groups has forced countries and funders to commission impact surveys to assess and mitigate damage.
originally posted by: onequestion
Big dams built in developing countries have forced many millions of people to relocate and caused immense environmental damage. But pressure from environment and development groups has forced countries and funders to commission impact surveys to assess and mitigate damage.
They never actually say what the potential dangers are.
Affordable, climate friendly and sustainable energy supply are objectives which can be met and which make the project attractive, but the sheer size of the single source counteracts the network security aspects, for a huge part of the current African electricity consumption would be produced at a single site in Inga. Strategies for diversification should mean that other sources used in the same system which would together exceed the size of Inga manifold. Such potentials are obviously available in Africa, but with this approach the combined production of all these capacities necessary in a diversified system, would exceed African demands for many decades. To be achieved rapidly, this diversification strategy would only be feasible with a partner that has a much higher demand for electricity than Africa.
Such a partner in fact could be found beyond continental African borders, in Europe. The consumption of the EU 27 is in the range of 3000 TWh and is therefore more than 5 times the African consumption. Diversification of sources is possible if the European electricity system was interconnected to the African system, while parts of the electricity from Inga and other African sources would be consumed in Europe, and could replace production from power plants that otherwise, would emit huge amounts of greenhouse gases. With growing demand in Africa the share of electricity – e.g. from the Congo River – consumed in Africa would rise, and other African renewable resources could be employed to serve for African and European needs.