Three gorges dam

Can any of you figure out for yourself: how to get electricity from river and avoid flood without blocking the river? i bet this is challenging question for you.
Ancient figure like King Yu and his tribe ever try to change flow of river to avoid flood, and some ancient architect that build waterways project in Szechuan also for anti-flood purpose (i forgot his name and river name) the project still exist today, he only separate the river, and decreasing water flow strength to avoid major flood. This ancient figure and their work can be inspiration for China's water engineering.

I don't know that solar-board is hazardous,but some day engineer will solved this i believe that.
i know that Chinese leader already allocate a lot of money to clean-energy project, good for that but i feel is not enough, China can encourage common people or private sector to participate and compete in this subject innovation. But I think that TGD is only show-off rather than true problem solving, I also read the same thing happen along Mekong stream: Laos and Cambodia if I not wrong, also for electricity, also build with China help, there's many fisherman that make living along Mekong, depend on fish migration in this fish rich lower part of Mekong.

kyanges said:

What are the by products from solar power?

Click to expand...

I think Cadmium Telluride cells are poisonous.

siegecrossbow said:

I think Cadmium Telluride cells are poisonous.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Solar, wind... they comes and they gose. If you want them actually being of use, vast amount of environmental-unfreindly cells are to be used.

atoll80 said:

I don't know that solar-board is hazardous,but some day engineer will solved this i believe that.
i know that Chinese leader already allocate a lot of money to clean-energy project, good for that but i feel is not enough, China can encourage common people or private sector to participate and compete in this subject innovation. But I think that TGD is only show-off rather than true problem solving, I also read the same thing happen along Mekong stream: Laos and Cambodia if I not wrong, also for electricity, also build with China help, there's many fisherman that make living along Mekong, depend on fish migration in this fish rich lower part of Mekong.

Click to expand...

China has done more than any other country in encouraging common people and private sectors to participate in developing clean-energy.
The solar energy sector is hot to the point it's hard for professors to find PHD students, most of them can find very promising jobs with only their masters degree.
Do some research before you spread your nonsense.

plawolf said:

Instead of hiding the negatives, the Chinese acknowledge them and are taking measures to correct or mitigate them. That is a mature responsible attitude. But it's amusing the western media still tries their hardest to portay it as a negative.

Click to expand...

Did you read the report I posted in the 1st page properly?

The negatives were highlighted when the dam was being planned. But nothing was done to address the negatives in the planning and early years of the dam's operation. Instead, it was quashed (than) . And only now are the side effects being addressed properly.

airsuperiority said:

Also I don't know what's the point of your question. It's equivalent to asking "If the US military is so strong, why spend +$USD700b/a to maintain the military."

Click to expand...

See reply above.

Schumacher said:

124 billion yuan ~= US$19 billion over 10 years ? I didn't know this but wow, that's actually a very low figure when you consider the electricity generated, the CO2 that would otherwise have been generated by coal plant, the flood and drought prevention contributions, navigation up the river etc.
Seriously, US$19 billion of maintenance over 10 years for such a massive project is quite good when you compare it with other "well thought out and managed" projects like say F35, F22 etc, and last time I checked, they don't generate any CO2 savings or save lives from floods/drought.

Click to expand...

The cost of 124 billion yuan is not for maintenance, it is to fix 4 of the list of problems identified in Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) report on the 3 Gorges Dam. Read #6 of this thread properly.

solarz said:

As for the cost of maintenance, why do you think 124 billion yuan over 10 years is so outrageous? Just because it's a big number with lots of zeros at the end?

Why is 124 billion yuan in maintenance over 10 years so outrageous again?

Click to expand...

See reply above to Schumacher.

Jumping to conclusions without reading the article properly?

Spartan95 said:

The cost of 124 billion yuan is not for maintenance, it is to fix 4 of the list of problems identified in Chinese Academy of Engineering (CAE) report on the 3 Gorges Dam. Read #6 of this thread properly.

See reply above to Schumacher.

Jumping to conclusions without reading the article properly?

Click to expand...

I think that working toward mitigating the environmental impact of the TGD is very much a maintenance issue.

Even if you disagree with the definition of maintenance, can you provide a figure on the costs associated with running the TGD that is not related to resolving those problems identified by the CAE?

The point of my post, which you seem to have missed, was that without knowing the income and costs associated with running the TGD, simply quoting a "124 billion" figure is meaningless.

That 124bn is effectively a one-off remedial cost. Once spent, the problems are fixed and little more expenditure is needed in future years.

Now consider how long the TGD is expected to last and how much power, and hence money, it will generate each year. Considering the TGD is to last decades at a minimum, and quite possibly centuries, if you amortize that 124bn over the useful life of the dam, the annual costs becomes rather less eye popping, and the total economic benefits of the dam become pretty significant.

When you just look at the cost in general and say that is expensive but not looking at the picture as a whole, it does look frighting. Though when you consider the yearly electricity output x number of years in service, reduction in pollution, cost saving from rebuilding after flood disaster now prevented. It outweighs many so called negatives. Fishing villages along the river, there aren't that many fish anymore ever since the 80's from overfishing, the mineral build up along the wall is an easy fix as they can open the gates to allow the minerals to pass, if it starts to build up.

China goes green it gets criticized, China doesn't go green it gets criticized. If your going green power there are going to be positives and negatives. Last I recall China along with Germany spends the most money and effort of green power, and alternatives. What other possible methods of generating electricity are there? The most consistent and stable one is hyrdopower.

Hoover rocks! TGD sucks! Period.

- That's where we heading.

That's why I enjoy the show.