terça-feira, 1 de fevereiro de 2011

  • oldbrew
    1 February 2011 11:39AM
    The licence obtained last week by Norte Energia SA – a consortium almost entirely funded by state money – allows 238 hectares of forest to be cut down in order to open roads and basic infrastructure for the workers. And this is just the beginning; when it starts operating, Belo Monte's reservoir is expected to flood almost 6,000 hectares of land.
    Doesn't look much like 'speedy growth without destroying the environment' does it?
  • ItsLudovic
    1 February 2011 1:00PM
    It would really help if those who say that projects like this shouldn't go ahead would put forward a practical and green alternative. Would coal or nuclear power be preferable, because you're just going to get ignored if you suggest that a country like Brazil should use less energy at all times, even if this prevents it from developing and raising the standard of living of its population.
  • fivemack
    1 February 2011 1:36PM
    This dam will provide 11GW of hydroelectric power - that is, the power that would be produced by a coal-fired power station generating eighty million tons of CO2 a year - at a price of 2% of the amount of Amazon that would be illegally logged this year if the action against illegal logging works as well as possible.
    I can't see how you cannot support the dam unless you're prepared to deny the validity of cost-benefit analysis entirely.
  • shundarnagin
    1 February 2011 2:05PM
    @fivemack
    I can't see how you cannot support the dam unless you're prepared to deny the validity of cost-benefit analysis entirely.
    And what exactly is the cost-benefit analysis of 11GW versus the rights of indigenous people and the environment. I do not know about this dam but for other dams they do deny the cost-benefit analysis.
    There is more information here
    http://www.internationalrivers.org/
  • EwanB
    1 February 2011 2:37PM
    According to good old wikipedia the Dam would produce about 4.4GW on average throughout the year (39% capacity) I would personally say that 6,000 hectares of forest is a small area to lose for such a large amount of electricity and I understand why it might seem an attractive option.

    The biggest problem however, is surely that the area which will be flooded and indirectly affected is home to tribes who rely on that forest and its ecosystem to sustain themselves. If history teaches us anything it's that they won't be the ones to benefit from its construction.
    There are alternative ways to generate the electricity such as wind power on the coast and nuclear which wouldn't have to mean the rapid and bewildering change of life for the Amazonians.
  • PhilipD
    1 February 2011 3:09PM
    And this is just the beginning; when it starts operating, Belo Monte's reservoir is expected to flood almost 6,000 hectares of land.
    In the earlier Guardian article linked to, it says it will flood 500 square km - thats 50,000 hectares. A bit of a difference! Which is it?
  • gufalei
    1 February 2011 3:34PM
    PhilipD, thanks for spoting the mistake. It is actually 60,000 hectares that should be there. The correction is coming soon. The last estimatives showed that roughly 600 sq km of land will be flooded
  • EwanB
    1 February 2011 3:41PM
    PhilipD
    I think it might actually be 60,000 hectares. As a reference Wikipedia tells us:
    Though it is the seventh largest reservoir in size in Brazil, the Itaipu's reservoir has the best relation between electricity production and flooded area. For the 14,000 MW installed power, 1350 square kilometres were flooded.
    Since Itaipu produces over twice the energy output estimated for Belo Monte it seems likely that 600km2 or 60,000 hectares is the right figure! Wouldn't be the first time guardian have done this. They told us last year you could get a Tesla Roadster for about $10,000!
  • Graham65
    1 February 2011 3:58PM
    If Roussef's campaign contained false promises to get her into power in the wake of Brazil's own version of Boris Yeltsin, this is another sign that Brazil is now truly a developed country - it is following the lead of our own dear leaders in the UK.
    We should look forward to seeing her administration continue to lie, bribe and bludgeon its way to a 19th-century version of industrialisation in the way the PT has done since it came to power.
    If you want alternative sources of clean energy, put more dams on the River Sao Francisco where it runs through semi-arid lands (and at the same time, use its reservoirs for irrigation).
    The problem is, once people cut down rainforests they never re-plant them. The Brazilian government's proud claim to have 'reduced the rate of deforestation' is laughable - why not STOP deforestation - full stop? Then reverse it by means of RE-forestation.
    Loggers are quite simply breaking the law and intimidating the environmental agency's officers with guns, so what is the Brazilian army for, if it is not to protect the country's patrimony?
    After 21 years of dictatorship Brazil is trying to run on 'soft power' and avoid internal military intervention. Unfortunately, the anti-social elements in its society are not playing by the same rules and they do not give a damn (no pun intended) for the wildlife, habitats, indigenous peoples or environmental activists they trample underfoot to make their money.
  • Thumbjack
    1 February 2011 8:54PM
    Its Ludovic
    It would really help if those who say that projects like this shouldn't go ahead would put forward a practical and green alternative...
    It's been done. Google's the word.
Postado por às

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário

Assinar: Postar comentários (Atom)
  • oldbrew
    1 February 2011 11:39AM
    The licence obtained last week by Norte Energia SA – a consortium almost entirely funded by state money – allows 238 hectares of forest to be cut down in order to open roads and basic infrastructure for the workers. And this is just the beginning; when it starts operating, Belo Monte's reservoir is expected to flood almost 6,000 hectares of land.
    Doesn't look much like 'speedy growth without destroying the environment' does it?
  • ItsLudovic
    1 February 2011 1:00PM
    It would really help if those who say that projects like this shouldn't go ahead would put forward a practical and green alternative. Would coal or nuclear power be preferable, because you're just going to get ignored if you suggest that a country like Brazil should use less energy at all times, even if this prevents it from developing and raising the standard of living of its population.
  • fivemack
    1 February 2011 1:36PM
    This dam will provide 11GW of hydroelectric power - that is, the power that would be produced by a coal-fired power station generating eighty million tons of CO2 a year - at a price of 2% of the amount of Amazon that would be illegally logged this year if the action against illegal logging works as well as possible.
    I can't see how you cannot support the dam unless you're prepared to deny the validity of cost-benefit analysis entirely.
  • shundarnagin
    1 February 2011 2:05PM
    @fivemack
    I can't see how you cannot support the dam unless you're prepared to deny the validity of cost-benefit analysis entirely.
    And what exactly is the cost-benefit analysis of 11GW versus the rights of indigenous people and the environment. I do not know about this dam but for other dams they do deny the cost-benefit analysis.
    There is more information here
    http://www.internationalrivers.org/
  • EwanB
    1 February 2011 2:37PM
    According to good old wikipedia the Dam would produce about 4.4GW on average throughout the year (39% capacity) I would personally say that 6,000 hectares of forest is a small area to lose for such a large amount of electricity and I understand why it might seem an attractive option.

    The biggest problem however, is surely that the area which will be flooded and indirectly affected is home to tribes who rely on that forest and its ecosystem to sustain themselves. If history teaches us anything it's that they won't be the ones to benefit from its construction.
    There are alternative ways to generate the electricity such as wind power on the coast and nuclear which wouldn't have to mean the rapid and bewildering change of life for the Amazonians.
  • PhilipD
    1 February 2011 3:09PM
    And this is just the beginning; when it starts operating, Belo Monte's reservoir is expected to flood almost 6,000 hectares of land.
    In the earlier Guardian article linked to, it says it will flood 500 square km - thats 50,000 hectares. A bit of a difference! Which is it?
  • gufalei
    1 February 2011 3:34PM
    PhilipD, thanks for spoting the mistake. It is actually 60,000 hectares that should be there. The correction is coming soon. The last estimatives showed that roughly 600 sq km of land will be flooded
  • EwanB
    1 February 2011 3:41PM
    PhilipD
    I think it might actually be 60,000 hectares. As a reference Wikipedia tells us:
    Though it is the seventh largest reservoir in size in Brazil, the Itaipu's reservoir has the best relation between electricity production and flooded area. For the 14,000 MW installed power, 1350 square kilometres were flooded.
    Since Itaipu produces over twice the energy output estimated for Belo Monte it seems likely that 600km2 or 60,000 hectares is the right figure! Wouldn't be the first time guardian have done this. They told us last year you could get a Tesla Roadster for about $10,000!
  • Graham65
    1 February 2011 3:58PM
    If Roussef's campaign contained false promises to get her into power in the wake of Brazil's own version of Boris Yeltsin, this is another sign that Brazil is now truly a developed country - it is following the lead of our own dear leaders in the UK.
    We should look forward to seeing her administration continue to lie, bribe and bludgeon its way to a 19th-century version of industrialisation in the way the PT has done since it came to power.
    If you want alternative sources of clean energy, put more dams on the River Sao Francisco where it runs through semi-arid lands (and at the same time, use its reservoirs for irrigation).
    The problem is, once people cut down rainforests they never re-plant them. The Brazilian government's proud claim to have 'reduced the rate of deforestation' is laughable - why not STOP deforestation - full stop? Then reverse it by means of RE-forestation.
    Loggers are quite simply breaking the law and intimidating the environmental agency's officers with guns, so what is the Brazilian army for, if it is not to protect the country's patrimony?
    After 21 years of dictatorship Brazil is trying to run on 'soft power' and avoid internal military intervention. Unfortunately, the anti-social elements in its society are not playing by the same rules and they do not give a damn (no pun intended) for the wildlife, habitats, indigenous peoples or environmental activists they trample underfoot to make their money.
  • Thumbjack
    1 February 2011 8:54PM
    Its Ludovic
    It would really help if those who say that projects like this shouldn't go ahead would put forward a practical and green alternative...
    It's been done. Google's the word.

Nenhum comentário:

Postar um comentário

Assinar: Postar comentários (Atom)