It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Construction of world's largest dam in DR Congo could begin within months:

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 31 2016 @ 06:43 PM

Construction of world's largest dam in DR Congo could begin within months Mega dam on Congo river to produce electricity equal to 20 large nuclear power stations, but critics say it will displace 60,000 people and wreck the ecosystem

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.

As anyone who follows my threads knows that I keep posting update on Africa's development and mostly positively this however is not one, may very well solve the nation's energy needs but to what end, and the following should cause a giant red flag.

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.

Not good at all, this means they are not going to do a cost benefit analysis just hope everything turns out ok I see no out of the box thinking here as in other infrastructure project I posted in the past they need to thread carefully on this.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 06:44 PM

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.

edit on 5/31/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 06:48 PM
So glad western countries got to build their dams before the world could get on its environmental high horse.

It's their land, let them do what they wish.

I love how the environmentalist try to keep Africa as one big state park, guess what people actually live there just like they do here.
edit on 31-5-2016 by jellyrev because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 06:49 PM
Well I'm glad to hear that Africa is modernizing with electricity.A project of that size being done on the Congo river without any environmentAL study done,worries me however.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 06:59 PM

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.

True because no studies had been carried out, that's like the cart before the horse.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 06:59 PM
a reply to: jellyrev

Well it's just those icky brown people, you know.

If they could actually modernize and take care of themselves for a change, then who would Bono have all his benefit concerts for so he can feel good?


posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:34 PM
Its for Africa man, they need that power

Vision 2020 and beyond – Dr. Gregor Czisch Ex Kassell University discussed the integration of African Power production internally and with Europe to fully exploit the vast hydro power available at the Inga Dam site

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.

So yeah, your dam may fail so you better give that power to Europe, its for the best that way Europe got your back... Yeah right

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:40 PM
Look at the Colorado River and the Salmon migration and then tell me " it's their land, let them do what they want ".

The world is already on limited fresh water, yet we can filter our own urine and such, but we don't have to yet, nor would we if we'd just keep in mind how the earth works.

If we dam up some here, that means those downstream and beyond don't get the same amount of water they used too, that's not just your villages, but nature as well.

We are supposed to live in harmony with the earth yet we can't even live in harmony with our fellow man and animal alike.

The Earth is indeed gearing up for a full frontal assault on the human species, we've been warned.
edit on 31-5-2016 by Tranceopticalinclined because: because, because because, because!

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:45 PM
a reply to: Tranceopticalinclined

The world will change on its own anyways, let them dam and enjoy the progress it allows, or destroy all dams and don't let them.

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 08:39 PM
a reply to: Tranceopticalinclined

You could argue that in Africa they come as close to "living in harmony" with the earth as it can be done these days, and yet we are paradoxically shown how awful that reality is on an almost daily basis.

Here is your harmony. Take a good look, but I'm sure that little girl feels better about saving the planet by being back in the food chain where she belongs, and Bono will hold another concert in her memory or something so we can all feel better about it.
edit on 31-5-2016 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 08:56 PM
a reply to: ketsuko

I've taken a great look, and ever since I was 4 years old, I cried at the real reason those people starve, because we fight wars without clear reasons yet we don't amount the same force to save people in regions that suffer true crimes of humanity.

Our world grows and harvests enough food for the entire world to eat and get to a new class of fat that it harms us, however we can't save a whole continent starving?

I understand what you're trying to show me, however we've failed at life.

We have the answers to solve many of the world's problems, but until we address the real reason those answers aren't carried out we are just fooling ourselves. Money might drive innovation but we also let it drive horrific nightmares.

We've turned money into the real weapon.
edit on 31-5-2016 by Tranceopticalinclined because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:22 AM
a reply to: Spider879

I consider myself an environmentalist in many ways. But I completely agree with virtually all of the hydroelectric dam projects in Africa, specifically in Uganda and Ethiopia. Though I hadn't heard anything about this one.

We're living in a beautiful time. I wish I could temporarily travel 30 years or so into the future to see these countries and their developments. On one hand, they're doing massive modernization infrastructure improvements. But on the other hand, prices will also continue to skyrocket.

As for the lack of studies done beforehand. Honestly, I'm doubting the Guardian's reporting on that. I followed Western publications and their coverage of Ethiopia's Great Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (G.E.R.D.) for years and it was always pro-Egyptian. But that's because Egypt's supposedwater rights to the Nile came from its colonial era treaties with the UK, which completely bypassed the African countries that actually generated the water for the Nile. In other words, I have no doubts that the negative press coverage of this dam will decrease if the Chinese construction companies are replaced with Western backed companies.

Or to put it another way, I don't believe for one second that the West cares about the environmental impacts of this project, much less the people who would be displaced by it. More than 5 million people died from the 2nd major war in DR Congo that just officially ended in 2008. Where was the major push to help the Congolese people then? Many environments, communities, and families were destroyed then and hardly anyone in the West gave a crap. But I'm supposed to believe they suddenly care about the plight of 60,000 Congolese people now?

If they really care, then why don't they care about the tens of millions of central Africans who still have no access to safe water supplies, safe electricity, or modern medical care? Because a stable power supply can drastically improve all of these. It's hard to have modern hospitals when there's no stable power grid. It's hard to have modern sewage and drainage systems when there's no stable power grid. It's hard to have modernized agriculture industries and business environments without a stable power supply. Same goes for school systems and much much more. Imagine trying to build and maintain major apartment complexes, business parks, and shopping malls without a stable power grid.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:04 AM
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Points made and taken enlightened one, you and Ketsuko don't get me wrong, I am not against the dam per say just mindful of the supposed lack of study before building it, I am all kinds of giddy over African developments I sub to Bloomberg news feeds on Africa as well as New African Mag to keep myself updated.

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:36 AM
a reply to: Spider879

Oh, no problem. The biggest regrets I have over all infrastructure projects are the environmental impacts and the potentially displaced people. If they were doing this in order to build a lot of nuclear power plants along the Congo River, I'd probably be against it for safety reasons. Especially since war can erupt there at any moment, which would increase the vulnerability of those sites.

But I also try to think about the situation several decades from now. These projects can help soooo many people and literally push entire generations into the age of modern technology. I know it's hard or impossible to compensate people for losing their ancestral lands. But there can still be fair attempts to do so, which I expect will happen here (assuming the article's "up to 60,000" figure is even correct).

I just find it hard to believe that their government hasn't done any studies whatsoever. Maybe they haven't done any Western approved studies or haven't gotten the seal of approval from pro-Western environmental or construction organizations. I guess I'm seeing it like if Kenya complained about an amusement park being built in Ohio that doesn't meet Kenya's politically correct views on preserving potential sites with artifacts.

Or to be more accurate, I see it like the Western "Kimberley Process" that certifies which diamonds are "legit" or are "conflict diamonds". It sounds great in theory. But in reality, it prevents independent South African and Zimbabwean dealers from being able to introduce their diamonds into Western markets unless they use Western "certified" middlemen or brokers. And you can guess who gets the lion's share of the profits from these arrangements.

Anyway, I might look into the neighboring countries' views on the project to see if they're for it or against it. That may offer more info on their expected impact from the project. (Oh & I didn't know about "New African Mag". I'm going to have to check that out

Edit to Add: I do want to say this though. I'm not completely against the Kimberley Process. It does decrease the amount of independent scam artists and corrupt officials that can sell ill gotten diamonds on the market.
edit on 1-6-2016 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 02:04 PM
a reply to: Tranceopticalinclined

Oh wow. Salmon are in no way equal to actual humans. Plenty of other american rivers with salmon runs. Salmon fish farms make up for it.

Heck i live on a river in michigan with 20 dams and still i have salmon runs. Salmon is common

top topics


log in