Showing posts with label International Rivers Organisation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International Rivers Organisation. Show all posts

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

US Watchdog Kept In Loop On Dams

US watchdog kept in loop on dams
By JOHN EDENS in Alexandra, Wednesday 29 July, 2009
The Southland Times

Central Otago conservationists continue to liaise with a United States environmental watchdog about Contact Energy's plans to review four proposals for dams along the Clutha River.

The Clutha Mata-Au River Parkway group, a conservation project opposed to development along the river, has proposed a meeting to discuss the dam proposals. International Rivers, an independent California-based environmental protection group, described Contact Energy's proposals for dams at Tuapeka Mouth, Beaumont, Queensberry or Luggate as potentially "river-wrecking".

At a Vincent Community Board meeting this month Clutha Mata-Au River Parkway secretary Barrie Wills said a meeting was being considered "to gauge opinion for or against" the dam proposals.

Mr Wills said a date or venue for the meeting had not been set but the group continued to liaise with the US organisation.

He said he did not know if International Rivers would send a representative to New Zealand.

Contact Energy's hydro project manager Neil Gillespie said there had been no correspondence with International Rivers or the Clutha group.

More...
Posted by Molyneux Rush at 3:37 PM , 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Watchdog says plans 'river-wrecking'

Watchdog says Clutha plans 'river-wrecking'
By JOHN EDENS in Alexandra, 8 July, 2007
The Southland Times

A United States environmental watchdog has attacked plans for dam projects along the Clutha River in Central Otago as potentially "river-wrecking."

Contact Energy announced plans in April to review four proposals for dams at Tuapeka Mouth, Beaumont, Queensberry and Luggate.

International Rivers, an independent California-based environmental protection group, described the proposals, if implemented, as unnecessary and unethical.

Contact Energy hydro development manager Neil Gillespie said the company understood there were groups opposed to more damming in Central Otago.

"The key thing is we have to come to an understanding that hydro is renewable," he said.

In a statement, International Rivers says there is "no practical or ethical justification for further hydro dams on the famous Clutha River".

The Clutha River is a complex environment and existing dams had caused silt problems at Roxburgh and stability concerns at Clyde, the statement says.

The watchdog believes alternative energy sources wind, tidal or geothermal are preferable.

"New Zealand has the best wind energy resources in the world, and yet electricity generation from wind amounts to only two and a half per cent of installed capacity.

"Free flowing rivers like the Clutha are scarce, and offer more recreational and tourism opportunities in their natural state. River-wrecking dams are the wrong choice for a warming world."

Contact Energy expects to announce a preferred development option next year and it will be at least 2015 before construction begins.

An online forum was set up to give communities a voice and Contact was planning to meet interest groups, he said.

Damming can create tourism and recreational opportunities, he said, and the company is also investigating potential sources of alternative energy.

"There are a number of options for future (energy) generation and hydro is one of them. We have a process with the Resource Management Act to address any effects. It's wrong to assume there are no positive impacts," he said.

Beaumont Residents' Group chairman Neville Hills said he had not been in contact with International Rivers.

However, he wondered why anyone would want to ruin something with international appeal by putting a dam on it.

Mr Hills and his wife Vicki could be affected if Contact Energy choose the Tuapeka option, which would result in the township and surrounding agricultural land being inundated. Residents would be relocated, new roads constructed and bridges built.

Mrs Hills said Contact Energy have not met with any Beaumont people.

"It was only last month they sent a letter to the residents."

ENVIRONMENTAL ADVOCATE

* International Rivers' headquarters is in Berkeley, California.

*The non-government organisation has offices in five continents.

*Formed in 1985 and formerly known as the International Rivers Network. Its mission statement is to "seek a world in which rivers and the life they support are valued."

* The organisation works with environmental groups, human rights advocates, policy analysts and climate experts.

*International Rivers was the driving force behind the formation of the World Commission on Dams, which seeks to standardise dam construction worldwide.

* The organisation has worked in more than 60 countries but its focus is in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

More...
Posted by Molyneux Rush at 2:09 PM , 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Global Watchdog Opposes Clutha Dams

Global Watchdog Opposes Clutha Dams
Unabridged statement as released
By Aviva Imhof, Campaigns Director, International Rivers Network,
and Lewis Verduyn, Chairman, Clutha Mata-Au River Parkway Group.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009

International Rivers' mission is to protect rivers and defend the rights of communities that depend on them. We oppose destructive dams and the development model they advance, and encourage better ways of meeting people’s needs for water, energy and protection from damaging floods. To achieve this mission, we collaborate with a global network of local communities, social movements, non-governmental organizations and other partners.

The large dams proposed by Contact Energy for New Zealand’s Clutha River are unacceptable and unnecessary development options.

World-wide, large hydro dams have devastated river ecosystems and the livelihoods of communities that depend on them. Dam projects are often more harmful than alternative forms of renewable generation, especially when placed across the main artery of a river. Having existing dams on a river, is not in itself justification for further dams, as problems are typically magnified as more large dams are added to a river system, resulting in an increased and cumulative loss of natural resources, habitat quality, environmental sustainability and ecosystem integrity.

Some of the worst impacts of global warming on both people and ecosystems will be felt on water and the hydrological cycle. Some areas will become much drier, some wetter. More extreme floods will threaten the safety of dams, and unprecedented droughts will drastically reduce the hydropower and water supply services that dams are built to provide. Minimizing the impacts of climate change will require moving away from a dependence on large dams for electricity generation and flood control.

The proposed dams at Tuapeka Mouth, Beaumont, Queensberry and Luggate are essentially ‘run of the river’ dams with minimal storage that would not contribute greatly to New Zealand’s energy security. New Zealand’s heavy dependence on hydropower, combined with climate change-induced water storage depletion during dry winters, and a complex distribution network spanning the length of the country, are obvious reasons to avoid compounding these issues with further large hydropower schemes.

It is vital to further diversify and decentralize the energy supply. New Zealand is fortunate to have a range of electricity generation options including wind, geothermal, and marine. These, combined with greater efficiencies in areas such as household insulation, have the potential to provide New Zealand with more than sufficient energy in the long-term.

New Zealand has the best wind energy resources in the world, and yet electricity generation from wind amounts to only 2.5% of installed capacity. By contrast, Denmark generates 20% of its electricity from wind, and Spain will generate 15% of its electricity from wind by 2010.

Marine generation also has the potential to be a major contributor of electricity in New Zealand. Cook Strait is an ideal location for marine generation and distribution. Neptune Energy has estimated that 7000MW could be generated in the Strait, which is almost equivalent to New Zealand’s total annual production.

International Rivers also works to address the legacies of existing projects, to improve development policies and practices, and promote water and energy solutions for a just and sustainable world. The Clutha River has proven to be a complex and challenging environment for dams, as evidenced by the serious siltation issues faced by the Roxburgh Dam, and the stability and seismic safety issues faced by the highly destructive and controversial Clyde Dam. There are serious concerns relating to the safety and sustainability of these existing dams.

Further, the long-term acquisition of some 4000 hectares of land for as yet unconfirmed projects has already had a significant negative impact on river communities by stifling local development.

The Clutha River has extraordinary natural, recreational, tourism and cultural values. The Clutha Mata-Au River Parkway Group and the Clutha Gold Trail Trust are two local groups working to protect and improve their river resource. These projects offer highly desirable outcomes from both an economic and an environmental perspective, locally and regionally. Authorities are urged to support local river communities in their river park and trail initiatives.

Forming another artificial lake in a region that already has several magnificent lakes, and removing a large wild river, where there are no other such rivers, is not a logical advantage for recreation and tourism. Free flowing rivers like the Clutha are scarce, and offer more recreational and tourism opportunities in their natural state, especially in the unique and spectacular environment that is Central Otago.

River-wrecking dams are the wrong choice for a warming world. There is no practical or ethical justification for further hydro dams on the famous Clutha River.

More...
Posted by Molyneux Rush at 10:04 PM , 0 comments
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Clyde Dam Highly Problematic

Since the filling of the Dunstan reservoir behind the Clyde dam was completed in 1993, the Clyde dam controversy has faded in the minds of most New Zealanders. But the woes of the last 'think big' project have not gone away. Despite extensive and costly mitigation measures, issues remain regarding gorge instability, faultlines, and reservoir sediment build-up.

The Cairmuir-Dunstan Fault cuts across the gorge just above the dam, and the River Channel Fault disects the dam and the powerhouse. The discovery of the River Channel Fault came as a surprise to dam workers, who uncovered the micro-fractured rock running in a wide band along the riverbed. Obviously, fissured rock is not suitable for dam foundations. The first solution was to pump vast amounts of slurry concrete into the fault, but concerns mounted over the extent and depth of the faultline, and the likely futility of 'dental' concrete.

Finally, experts were called in to determine the extent of the fault issue. It was calculated that the River Channel Fault was 12-15km deep. This lead to a dam re-design in 1982 (during which a sluice channel was omitted leading to later modifications that reduced the dam's MW output by one-third). Subsequent investigations carried out by a team of some 40 geologists revealed serious instability issues throughout the gorge. The result was an incredibly expensive gorge stabilization programme, costing $936 million dollars (2005 value), resulting in the total cost of the project blowing-out to $1.4-1.8 billion dollars. The exact cost is unavailable or unknown, suggesting the true cost could be even higher.

There was considerable doubt over whether or not the dam would be safe, but in the end the government of the day, under Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, refused to admit that the project had been botched, and it was finished, complete with a controversial 'slip-joint' to accommodate earthquakes up to, supposedly, 7 on the Richter Scale.

The 'slip-joint' was hailed as an engineering achievement, but one of New Zealand's most respected geo-technical scientists at the time, Gerald Lensen, insisted that it was designed incorrectly, because the River Channel Fault is 'tensional' (pulling apart) and not 'lateral' (slipping sideways). Needless to say, this fact has been kept quiet ever since.

Now, according to GNS scientists, the 'big one' is overdue along the Alpine Fault (bigger than the 7.8 Fiordland quake in July 2009). Meantime, the 6,500 measuring and monitoring stations quietly observe the landslide movements, reduced but not stopped, and visible silting up continues in the Kawarau Arm at an alarming rate estimated to be 1.46 million cubic metres per year, building up the reservoir bed profile by an estimated 1.85m annually.

The Decline of Large Hydro

In the 21st century, energy that is "renewable" is defined as energy from a source that is both naturally replenishing and environmentally safe and sustainable. The term “new” renewable energy has also been used to define the latest wave of renewable technologies that are truly environmentally sustainable.

By such standards, hydropower over 10 MW is no longer considered renewable because the negative impacts of large hydropower outweigh the so-called renewable benefits, which have inherent limitations.

In New Zealand, we are told that to maintain our present society and standard of living we need a minimum increase in power availability of 2.5% per annum (peak power), with 170 MW of new generation added each year. Based on this figure, we would need the equivalent of one Luggate dam (86 MW) every 6 months, or one Tuapeka dam (350 MW) every 25 months, or another Clyde dam (432 MW) every 29 months. Clearly, this is not a credible long-term solution.

World-wide, large hydropower declined in the 1990s because of mounting opposition that culminated in the World Commission on Dams report (2000), which acknowledged that large dams do not meet best practice guidelines in the water and energy sector. The global recession spurred more large dam projects, especially in developing countries, but the tide has turned and large hydro is again in decline as new renewable technologies sweep the world.

The intrinsic problems associated with large dams have long been glossed over. Hydroelectricity is often falsely promoted as cheap and reliable. While the operating costs of hydroelectric dams can be relatively low, their construction costs are extremely high, running into the billions of dollars for major projects. They are also prone to cost overruns. The WCD (World Commission on Dams, 2000) found that on average dams cost 56% more than forecast. And 55% of the hydroelectric projects studied by the WCD generated less power than planners promised.

New Zealand's Clyde dam is an obvious example of disastrous cost overruns. According to the public record, the 1982 winning bid from the joint venture of W. Williamson & Co. of Christchurch and Ed. Zublin AG of Stuttgart, was $102.6 million. Ten years later when the dam began producing power, the cost had climbed to $1.4 – 1.8 billion. Conversely, the planned generation of 612 MW had fallen to an actual capacity of 432 MW.

Typically, construction and mitigation costs are under-estimated, long-term costs are ignored, the value of the proposed dam and mitigation measures are inflated, while the value of the current and potential benefits from the existing environment are under-reported.

The proponents of large dams also invariably claim that large hydropower is "green" energy. However, the carbon footprint of a large-scale hydro project is anything but "green". A comparative study at the University of Auckland found that large hydro has a full-life carbon footprint that is 2.5 times larger than that of tidal energy.

A similar comparative study in the U.K. found that in terms of grams of CO2 equivalent per kWh of electricity generated, large hydro in the U.K. comes in with a carbon footprint 2 to 6 times larger than that of wind power. Specifically, large hydro has been measured at 10-30gCO2eq/kWh while wind has been measured at only 4.64gCO2eq/kWh, the lowest except for nuclear (Carbon Footprint of Electricity Generation, 2006).

It is easy to understand why large dams rate so poorly. For example, the Clyde dam contains 1 million cubic metres of concrete, equivalent to about 3 million tonnes. Manufacturing one tonne of cement requires 4.7 million BTU’s of energy, which is the amount contained in about 170 litres of oil or 190 kilograms of coal. Obviously, this combined with emissions from machinery involved in earthworks for foundations, roading, terrain forming, landslide mitigation, and through the loss of river corridor carbon sink forests or vegetation, adds up to an enormous carbon footprint.

There are over 54,000 large dams in the world, some 5,000 of which are over 50 years old. The typical design-life of such dams is 80 years, and an increasing number of old dams are being classified as high risk. It is a telling fact that more dams are being decommissioned than built in the U.S., but dam owners typically avoid decommissioning issues and try to evade the considerable costs associated with dam removal and river restoration. This scenario points to a looming dam safety crisis.

In the past, the benefits of large dams were viewed as outweighing their obvious short and long-term environmental impacts. That has changed.

Large hydropower once represented the epitome of 20th Century technology and a passport to prosperity, projecting a misguided belief that Nature could be controlled without consequences. In the 21st Century, we face a new reality, for which 20th Century energy solutions are unacceptable.

Roxburgh Dam Decommissioning?

The Roxburgh dam was commissioned in 1956, and it is New Zealand's oldest concrete gravity dam. Such dams have a design lifespan of 80-100 years, but the actual lifespan of a dam depends on the rate at which its reservoir fills with sediment. Assessing the remaining life of a dam and reservoir is complex, but reservoir flooding events indicate that time is running out.

When other issues are added to the picture, questions must be asked.

The Roxburgh dam - like the Clyde dam, has faultine and landslide issues that are potentially catastrophic (something which has been kept quiet). However, when the Roxburgh dam was built, there was minimal geotechnical investigation and mitigation undertaken, despite obvious evidence of major landslides in the Roxburgh Gorge, notably at Island Basin.

But reservoir sedimentation is the most problematic issue. In fact, within 15 years of the dam's commissioning, the dam's two low level sluice gates were inoperable, and since then the silt burden has filled much of the Roxburgh reservoir reaching back to Alexandra. In 1995, ECNZ estimated that 1.5 million cubic metres of silt had entered the Roxburgh reservoir every year before the Clyde dam was built, and that a total 50 million cubic metres of silt had accumulated in the reservoir, raising the bed profile 'considerably'. Attempts to 'flush' the silt have had little effect, and have not reversed this process. This is probably because of the 'Gates of the Gorge,' a narrow bottleneck just below Alexandra.

As a result, Alexandra has become flood-prone, and has installed flood defence walls along the river. But even these will not be high enough to prevent future flooding, because the riverbed will gradually keep rising. It was thought that by building the Clyde dam that this sedimentation problem would be largely solved, but some silt still gets through to continue choking the reservoir and river, and the Manuherikia River still contributes silt when it is high.

Efforts continue to "buy time" for the Roxburgh dam. More "flushing" will only move some of the sediment load further toward the dam. (Flushing has failed to remove sediment wherever it has been tried, including on the Colorado.) Physically removing millions of cubic metres of sediment is not practicable because of the costs involved. An interim measure is to remove some sediment from the Manuherikia confluence, and also from the Galloway area, but this does not address the major constriction at the 'Gates of the Gorge.'

The most desperate strategy is to raise the operating level of the Roxburgh reservoir, and this was done in 2009 when a rise of .6m was consented. While this allows water to reach the dam more easily, it also increases the risks associated with flooding events, both at Alexandra and the dam. In the life cycle of a dam, this is the "Russian roulette phase."

The dam owners and the Crown must face up to the fact that the Roxburgh dam and reservoir will not last forever, and that enormous risks are imposed on communities in the meantime. A feasibility study is needed to determine the most effective decommissioning and de-silting methodology. Where such dam removal projects have been undertaken overseas, the costs as a proportion of construction, range from 35% to 150%.

However, since there has been no provision for the ultimate decommissioning of the Roxburgh dam (typical of the hydropower industry), there is something of a head-in-the-sediment policy on this issue.

Questions should be asked, including the most difficult question of all ... when the time comes to decommission the dam, who will pay?
© Clutha River Guardian 2009-2015