Orion

Sorry for the late reply... I haven't been online in nearly a week.

I know very little about dam development, but what I do know tells me that this approach would be more costly. If by several you mean three, then three dams would require three times as much research in the regulatory stage than one. More anything means more money. I think they were trying to be cost effective.

I find this statement controversial, given that the Yangtze is one of the most complicated waterways to work with in the world. There's no such thing as real security with it.

I don't think they undertook this megaproject in order to statisfy some egotistical need to "go big". I think it was more about what is cost effective. I don't know the specific details that were part of their regulatory research, such as flooding areas and reservoirs. For whatever reason, they decided this was the best approach... I don't really have the expertise to question that, and frankly neither do you.

I've read about Rizhao before and I think it's a great idea that has a lot of application in some areas of China, particularly in the South where it has a subtropical climate. However, in the North, and even Shanghai, this would not work. Sand storms that are now occurring in the North on unprecedented levels would destroy those pannels before they could do any good. Also, I remember reading that Rizhao is one of China's cleanest cities smog-wise, so of course solar pannels would work there. Try implementing that in Beijing or Shanghai where they get over 200 smog days a year. It wouldn't work from lack of sun. I'm not saying it's not a good idea though... it could be used quite well in smaller cities that don't have the same smog volume.


Ditto.


I agree that a major oversight of Kyoto was excluding developing nations, however it still had worthwhile provisions for the nations it did include. The primary reason why it was not adopted by the major polluters is because it required a high economic turnaround (in terms of converting to green energy) within a relatively short period of time, and nations like the U.S. didn't want to shoulder the short term economic cost. As long as countries like the U.S. can't see past the current economic quarter, the environment is doomed.

I also agree that the oil prices are a blessing in disguise. Maybe now people will think twice about their non-sustainable habits.

I thought I said already... rights like social welfare, as in, if you are poor, you get systemized benefits and social assistance. This would up purchasing power, and give people access to commodities that they normally wouldn't have access to. What I meant was, if the poor were elevated as they are in the West, the sky would be black due to their access to energy-burning luxuries. i.e... a stove, a microwave, hot running water, consistent electricity, etc. A lot of people shout loud about how people in China should be given what the West has in terms of rights, including rights to a higher standard of living, but China's populous simply cannot support that and neither can the world's annual stock of resources. We are at the opposite end of the spectrum to most of the world... we live in a wasteful, non-sustainable society and our government is constantly trying to carve out new ways to continue this way of living. It is us who has to reduce our standard of living, and not expect developed nations to rise to our current status. Our status quo is destroying the earth.

Orion

This is not new information.

What I find more interesting is that the U.S., one of the richest countries in the developed world, and the one country that should have the financial and social impetus to reduce its non-sustainable practices, is #2 on the list of worst offenders. While this should not downgrade China's liability, it is also true that the U.S. is in the greater position of the two to change its ways.

Again... the pot calls the kettle black.

jfuh

I noticed

For starters China isn't exactly strapped for cash. Secondly, the costs really is of little substance with relation to the next part.

It's complicated yes, but since as you point out, there is no such thing as real security, true, however there is such a thing as fail safes. Multiple damns increase the multiplicity of the fail safes. A single huge enormous damn you are putting all your eggs into one basket.Source
I strongly disagree, I've actually done my homework on this matter. Li bird and his henchmen wanted to "go big" so as to stoke their egos.
I ask the mods to forgive me on this but I really could not find an english source to support my premise.
So on Li bird's egotistical need for bragging rights - source
Also another source
Qing, Dai. The River Dragon Has Come!: The Three Gorges Dam and the Fate of China's Yangtze River and it's People. Probe International , International Rivers Network, 1997.
Pages 18~19 Qing demonstrates how Li bird had little to no political support after Deng's death Feb '97.
His little remaining support was from that of the entire bureaucracy in the Yangtze River Planning Office, led by a former Red Army general with a staff of 12,000, everyone one of which stood to profit from the mega project both monetarily as well as to cement their power base.
Top itellectuals, archaeologists, environmentalists as well as engineers all voiced strong opposition to the project.
In otherwords, the project was nothing but a battle cry rally point for political wielding by hardliner communist officials - the classic authoritarianism, the one party system, economic control and personal despotism.

Another source
Specifically on go big



More than anything I think this demonstrates a willingness to move in the right direction. Compare that with the Bush administration.

Ditto

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

jfuh

I don't agree, I don't agree that in order to live sustainably that quality and standards of living must be sacrificed. I also don't see that higher standard of living is synonymous with wastefulness.
Case in point - Japan. An extremely dense society that is comparable to that of any city in China - yet are far superior in sustainability to that of any western nation - as far as I know - and still maintain a very high quality and standard of living.
IMO it's a matter of how rather than a matter of what.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Orion

On paper it has a lot of money, but it also has a vast amount of resource allocation to do. The costs factor in. Thus far, the construction of the dam is cheaper than projected.

I wanted to read this more in depth but I don't have my JSTOR account anymore as I'm no longer a student. What I read on the first place simply indicates that there tends to be major opposition to dam projects. So what? Dams are controversial no matter how large they are and are going to garner opposition wherever they are built.

I don't doubt that ego was part of this creation, but you can't blame the entire process on one person. For all its government control, China is still not a fascist regime... there are hundreds of people who must vote on this matter, and each person takes responsibility for being educated before their vote. A lot of the abstained votes were a result of people simply not knowing enough about the topic, but nonetheless - and this is from the JSTOR article - close to two thirds voted in favour of it.

It might have been the ego-stroking idea of one person, but it still came to fruition via legislation. Also, the dam has symbolic value given it was originally thought of by Sun Yat-Sen. I don't necessarily agree that, in terms of the Yangtze, more dams would be better than one large dam. Three dams still equals three reservoirs which end up flooding the region, displacing millions of people. If the Three Gorges Dam were to rupture today, most people would already be gone from the area due to the displacement that the original construction created. Unless there are other risks you're referring to?

If a conversion happens, I agree... but with the current status quo, a reduction is necessary and not exponential growth as we are seeing. Right now waste is rampant, especially in North America. We consume 60% of the world's annual bounty, and hold 5% of the world's population. Does that make sense to you?

The histories of the two countries are vastly different. Japan has had a moderate rise to industrialization, suffering few internal conflicts, had a relatively smooth transition during the Meiji Restoration, and adopted democracy from an early state so it had the full support of Western nations (and thus their technological resources). Aside from WWII, Japan has not suffered any major attacks and its development has not suffered from the awkwardness of isolation or repeat revolutions. It also has just over 130 million people right now. I concede that this is a lot of people given the landmass, but it still has more of other kinds of resources to work with than China does, primarily technological. As a thriving Asian democracy, it also has resource ties to the rest of the world so its own expansion isn't necessary. It has also never had an economic boom en par to what China is experiencing now. In fact, Japan's economy tends to work in a 6-7 year cycle where it etches forward a bit, then creeps back, then etches forward a bit more, etc. Its growth chart is staggard. China has been consistently expanding at a rate of 10% per year since the mid-90's, and this requires enormous energy expenditures.

China is still developing. It hasn't even fully industrialized. You can go to parts of the countryside of China and see people who are still living as they did 200 years ago. Poverty is rampant. Also, China's relationship with foreign nations is very different than that of Japan, particularly in the economic realm. Because it is Communist, its relations with foreign nations varies. It also has a swelling population of 1.4 billion, and is a nation that only recently (in historical terms) began to industrialize.

How this relates to the dam...
In making the dam, no matter how controversial, the power it produces is still going to cut a lot of coal generation, and therefore this is a bid for clean energy. China has already skipped steps on its way to industrialization, such as not requiring the revolution of a working class, but instead a peasant class; now it is being asked to skip the "polluting" step and go right to being a green nation, which is not always possible.

In the West, it took us polluting ourselves to realize environmental law and impact assessment is needed. China is now arriving at the same conclusions, so I don't see what the argument is here. It's realizing late but it's still realizing.

jfuh

While it is under budget, that is not to say that more dams would've run over budget or that they would've cost more.

The opposition is to the fact that even the advocates agree that the damn will not meet what it claims to and that several smaller dams would yield the same result with less ecological and economical effects as well as increased fail safes due to the multiplicity.

The displacement isn't a concern for me. What is a concern is the even of an accident. Let's not kid ourselves on this. China's government especially on the local level is notoriously corrupt. Public construction projects commonly see kick backs and substandard work that often results in structural failure - seen in the lates earthquake of public school buildings when buildings just next door stood perfectly fine.
Should the dam rupture all residence downstream of the dam particularily in Hubei and Hunan would be seriously impacted. The residents of Wuhan would see serious flooding. Perhaps the old Dongting Lake will appear again.
Most hydrodynamic engineers would agree that more dams (such as that on the Colorado River) are better than just one giant mega dam.

I would never argue against the fact that particularly American's are very wasteful. It is after all a disposable based economy.
However I do maintain that sustainability does not need to be a reduction of quality or standard - but rather an equally exponential increase of efficiency.
Simple example being why use a 100 Watt incandescent light bulb when 23 watt fluorescent give same lumens? The technology exists the problem is with utilizing it to it's maximum.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

jfuh

A couple points here. I think you've confused my argument. My premise was that China has a large dense population. Cities are very densly populated. The same, if not more so, is said for Japan as well.
While Japan has high standards and quality of living it's also the most sustainable society technologically then any I am aware of in the west.
I was not contrasting China with Japan but rather the US or western standards of living with Japan.

But since you bring up Japan - comparative to China - the resources available are the exact opposite of China. Japan is extremely deficient of natural resources, hence why they develop high tech to overcome that hurdle to then also maintain a high level of industrialization.

True, better late than never, however, that China is late in the industrialization game is not a valid excuse. It can't say - since you've all polluted heavily in the past and contributed so much I am entitled to the same.
Unfortunately that luxury simply does not exist. I am hopeful in seeing many steps in the right direction. With fuel costs as high as they are internationally - which I see as a blessing in disguise - I think the invisible hand will indeed force China to move in the proper direction as well.
China does have the laws the problem is with enforcement of those laws at the local level which sadly, is too corrupt.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Orion

Just to be clear, are you saying that the Three Gorges Dam shouldn't have been built?

My original point in this thread was that China is making initiatives to create clean energy in order to replace coal energy. Was I incorrect in saying that the dam was one method of doing so?

jfuh

The Yangtze river has to be dammed. But the three gorges dam was not the way to go. So yes I am against the construction of the dam and still maintain that position. However it's been built and I only hope that it will disprove my concerns.

No you are not wrong. My position is not against the concept of dams or hydroelectric power but against the Three gorges mega-dam itself.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Reverend_Hellh0und

Why are we in a greater posistion? China is an authoritarian regieme and has a large economy that they can just force industry and what not to do the things neccesary to change it.



As this thread is about china, and NOT the us. The pot calling is not on my end.

__________________
كافر
Caith siar é agus ná lig anair á