Video at the end!!!
For the last week, Emily and I have been exploring the marvels of Chilean Patagonia. We discovered not only vibrant, blue-green lakes and breathtaking mountains, but also a plan for a controversial energy project. So, being the South American explorers that we are, we decided to do a little research. We discovered that an organization is in the process of trying to construct several hydroelectric plants. Here is the lowdown:
By: Queen I (Rayna)
The Organization:
HydroAysén is Chile’s largest proposed energy project currently under environmental assessment by the Chilean government. They were established in September of 2006, and are trying to pass the environmental assessment in order to begin construction on a hydroelectric project in the Aysén region of Chile (also known as Northern Patagonia).
The Proposed Project:
HydroAysén plans to begin constructing five power stations that will form a mega-hydroelectric project in 2014. The five sites will be on the Baker and Pascua Rivers in southern Chile. According to HidroAysén, the stations will have the ability to produce 18,430 GWh of power, which is 35% of Chile’s electricity consumption for the year 2008.
The construction site will cover 5,910 hectares (14,604 Acres), which includes the power stations and the reservoir site.
(All above data comes from: http://www.hidroaysen.cl/site/ingles/descripcion_pha.html).
Aspects of the Project:
The Link System:
The energy generated by the power stations will be conducted by a power transmission link system that is connected to the Central Interconnected System, (http://www.hidroaysen.cl/site/ingles/descripcion_pha.html).
The Central Interconnected System or SIC is the main power grid in Chile spanning from the North of Chile all the way to the Lake region in the South. It transmits 68.5% of the national energy generated, and provides electricity to 93% of Chile’s population,
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistema_Interconectado_Central).
In order to connect the two grids, HydroAysén will put up large high voltage power lines though the region. They must cut a 100-meter-wide area for the lines.
Road Improvement:
HydroAysén plans to widen and improve the main highway in order to provide an easier and safer means of travel for the workers.
Port Infrastructure:
In order to bring all the materials needed for the construction, a 100-meter-long pier will be built in a nearby port, which will permit entry of ships.
Also, HydroAysén plans to build a landfill, telecommunication stations, power generators for workers, 40 new homes and a medical center for workers in a nearby town, temporary roads and concrete plants, (http://www.hidroaysen.cl/site/ingles/descripcion_pha.html).
What the Advocates are saying:
As you can see, this hydroelectric project is massive. It will have many strong impacts on Chile. HydroAysén and their supporters believe that the project will benefit Chile in many ways.
Advocates explain that hydroelectric power is a clean alternative to other types of power such as fossil fuels. HydroAysén states on their website that they seek, “to respond to a growing concern for the environment and for the development of efficient, clean, and renewable energy generation alternatives,” (http://www.hidroaysen.cl/site/ingles/descripcion_pha.html).
Also, a major benefit is that with this new project Chile will not have to rely as heavily on international fuels and, therefore, import less.
Another main point that HydroAysén states is that, “Water is the most important source of energy for Chile. It is the sole resource of our own that is clean, safe, renewable and abundant enough to generate the energy needed by the country. Chile has a hydroelectric potential of about 20,323 MW and is currently using only 25% of it,” (http://www.hidroaysen.cl/site/ingles/descripcion_pha.html).
Several people on our journey have explained that the project will bring employment opportunities, more wealth to the communities, and commodities such as improved roads, Internet and a “higher quality of life.”
HydroAysén also has pointed out these benefits.
“The HidroAysén Project will provide a great development opportunity for the XI Region inhabitants by creating new and better employment and training opportunities, and improved living conditions thanks to the development of its commerce and a greater connectivity, thus integrating Aysén inhabitants to the rest of the country. The Aysén Project will generate about 5,000 new direct jobs during its construction phase –when the season is high-- and an average of 2,260 workers every month, with some of them being hired in the region, ” (http://www.hidroaysen.cl/site/ingles/descripcion_pha.html).
The company is proposing to construct another project in order to supply electricity to the inhabitants of the region. The current project under investigation will not provide the inhabitants of the area with electricity, only the inhabitants of central Chile. Additionally, the reality of construction of a project for the local inhabitants is unknown at this time.
How the Opposition feels:
Several people in the region are strongly against the project. Although the company and their supporters have pointed out many benefits, the locals have found many negative repercussions.
One area of sensitivity is the environmental impact on the land. Building dams in rivers highly impacts the aquatic life and surrounding wilderness area.
“After dam construction, there is an immediate drop in water quality that destroys useful fish populations and poses a threat to livestock and humans,” writes Lanza, an aquatic biologist and microbiologist who consults for the environmental organization International Rivers, (http://www.azocleantech.com/Details.asp?newsID=2152).
Also, the 100-meter wide destruction of forest though the entire region will have a large impact on the Patagonian wilderness.
People are concerned about not only environmental degradation, but also social and economic impacts as well. Yes, the construction of the project will improve the road conditions, bring Internet and a medical center, but will it truly “improve” the inhabitant’s quality of life?
Locals such as my friend Michel Raab and hitchhiking friends such as Rodrigo have explained that with the new development, negative influences such as drugs, increased crime rate, and alcohol consumption will also come to the area.
Although the project will help with unemployment a bit, what will happen when the project’s construction is over? Michel pointed out that HidroAysén plans on bringing many employees to the region, but after the project has been built, the people will no longer have a job.
My Take:
When I think about the concerns of the Southern Chileans, a quote from the book, Ancient Futures, By Helena Norberg-Hodge, creeps into my mind. She writes,
After spending a week in one of the most incredible places I’ve visited in my life, it is hard for me to believe that bringing technological improvements and wealth will increase happiness. This area has long hosted strong communities that have a close connection to their land. Generation after generation has been herding cattle, growing crops and living off the land. Both Michel and Rodrigo pointed out that the new generation do not this same relationship to their surroundings. More and more younger members of the community are leaving the area to go work as professionals in central Chile after studying at a University. I can hear grief in their voices as they explain this phenomenon to me. However, I can understand the desire to leave one’s home and become a successful professional. I can also sympathize with those who want to grow and develop their community in order to be a part of the progressive business world.
The issue of energy is a perpetual battle between individuals, communities and nations all over the world. Yes, we need to find sustainable energy sources like hydroelectricity. But, we need to make sure these energy sources are sustainable on all levels: social, economic, and environmental. How do we approach our energy crisis? What are some other solutions for Chile and where do we start?
I thought that there shouldn't be a dam there because think of the locals who will loose there homes for something that can't use. Also if The Chileans want to destroy natural beauty do near there city's. -Parker Franz
ReplyDeleteWow...this is one of the topics where somebody is always not happy at the final decision--it's just so controversial!
ReplyDeleteWe need to start somewhere to solve the energy crisis our planet is facing, and with limited budgets, opinionated people and environments that change every few miles, it is hard to make progress.
I look forward to seeing the outcome of this decision!
-Rylee
Intriguing post- I loved hearing all the sides of the story. I think that because of the new energy crisis in Japan, people are looking harder than ever for safe and sustainable energy sources. In Vermont right now, a huge controversy over energy is the prospective closing of Vermont Yankee, the state's nuclear plant. Another is a proposal to install a huge round of windmills on the top of one of our mountain ranges.
ReplyDeleteI think that the biggest issue with moving toward sustainable power is the whole "not in my backyard" factor. Everyone wants their energy effects to be out of sight, and therefore out of mind. Have you seen any other issues about sustainable power/sustainability in general in your six months in South America?
Keep the great posts coming!!!
-chloe
Wow.It's so cool that you guys are able to see such an important conflict on your trip. Energy, especially sustainable energy, is an issue all over the world. The fact that you get to see this up close and personal is amazing. We have a similar issue up in Vermont. A nuclear power plant-Vermont Yankee-has it's license run out 2012. There is a really big conflict over whether or not it should be relicensed. The Governor is against the relicensing, the Lieutenant Governor is for it, and the senate gets to make the final call. However,the company that owns the plant (Entergy which is based in Louisiana)has applied to the Feds for permission from the to stay open. Another interesting twist is that there's a little piece in a law-an earmark or clause or something-that says that even after the plant gets shut down, they can just leave that plant standing there for an additional 40 (or possibly 60) years before they have to start taking it down. It's an interesting coincidence that even though we're thousands of miles apart we're seeing so much of the same issue.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, in regards to your post, I guess I can see both sides of the issue.
One thing that I think both sides should consider is the heritage and the people of the land. For thousand of years, native people have used the land as their home. They've hunted, fished, grown crops, traveled, and lived there whole lives without the aid of modern technology or electricity.
Now though, lots of countries and societies are being pressured to conform and "westernize". This not only ruins thousands of years of beautifully culture and living, but it brings more and more people into unsustainable lifestyles, which is exactly what this project is trying to avoid. Do the people who live here even want electricity? The people of the land should not be forgotten. They should definitely be taken into consideration, if not made a part of the discussion about these plants. I'm not trying to say that all modern technology is bad, I think that parts of it are very good. It's just that I believe that it should not be an all or nothing package. The global community is going to have to work as a whole if they want to solve all of the crises that are crashing down around our shoulders. Separating people who wish to be individuals is not going to help.
I think the deciding point about the power plant for me lies in where the energy is going. If the power going to the people who are going to have to see the plant everyday and learn to incorporate it into their lives, then I could see building the plant; but if the power is just going to be sent over lives into a city, then I would have to say that I am opposed to building the plant. I think that if people see where there power is coming from-especially if it's hurting some thing they love-like the land and nature that South America is famous for- they will be much more aware of their consumption and be more sustainable. The potential affects of building plants near people who use them are huge.
Thanks,
Rose
@-->-->--
Wow,this is really cool! It was fun to listen to both sides of the story. The video was very well put together! Great post!
ReplyDelete-Liam
Wow I didn't think that there were so many cons to hydroelectricity. I thought that since your using a renewable resource then it has to be good for the earth. What will people do for jobs when they are done building and they are out of work? (If they do chose to build them.)Are you for it or against it? why?
ReplyDelete-Hollie
I was surprised how there were a bunch of cons for this project. I liked hearing both side of the story, but, from hearing them I am not sure which side I would choose but I do like the video.
ReplyDeleteDid you talk to any of the chileans that are up for having the dam there?
ReplyDeletei think it's good that their trying to do that because it will help them make the critical move to get of off fossil fuels, but it would still take a long time to make the move. But, it will also push people out of their homes! which isn't nice, but is necessary to build this dam.
ReplyDeleteThe post was great! The dam must have had a lot of money into that! Patagonia seems like a very very VERY green place. Isn't it? Well the post was great, the video was cool to!
ReplyDelete- Daniel P.
I think that this blog post was very interesting. I think that there are pros and cons. Pros include that it will generate a lot of electricity, could help the economy, and create more jobs. Cons are that it would be expensive and would destroy a lot of natural beauty. I think both sides of the issue could be argued for.
ReplyDeleteWow that is a lot of power. I wonder if there should be more power like that in the world. The expense tells me no but the eco and world tells me yes I dont know what i should choose. This was very interesting. It shocked me a lot. It also destroys many home of nature.Im in the middle.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI had no idea there was so many cons to hydroelectricity It's kind of scary to me. I'm happy that there trying to find away to make Patagonia green!
ReplyDeleteWow I thought that hidro electricity had more pros than cons it seems like it is good for earth
ReplyDeletebut from what I have heard in your post it doesint seem every good with all the construction and things to have hydo electicity happen. I wonder how people will deal with jobs after this? I think that it is really cool to hear both sides of the story and seeing the video really made me think...
- Gabby
i can believe the pros and cons to this issue and i hope they reach the answer peacfully.
ReplyDeletejulia
That is so cool hope it works make the world green
ReplyDeletehigh arch joe out
Hi! I have studied hydro electricity and have done an entire paper about it! There are more than just dams that can generate electricity from water. There are simple boilers and smaller devices. the link to the paper is: https://docs.google.com/a/vt.etsd.org/document/d/1PZx0dyvwjJSah_a2Dor0lcSsbldg2GTWckZ3ekQrSQw/edit?hl=en
ReplyDeletebut you need to get invited by email...
Hi All,
ReplyDeleteThank you for all the posts. It sounds like everyone is one the fence about the issue. I like all of the alternative suggestions. Thanks again for all the thought you put into this. Lets keep up the good work!
I do and do not think the dam is good, the dam is good in a way because it is making energy, but when there are no more dams to be built, all the people that work there will lose there jobs, and people, (as you said in the blog), are struggling to find jobs even if it's a part time job! XD
ReplyDeleteWell I think that hydroelectric is a Very bad idea to do that the fish will die and other things
ReplyDelete- mystery man
I do not agree with the damming and the hydroelectricity in the Northern Patagonia because it will effect the ecosystem and the things that live in the river like fish single celled organisms will probably die and nothing would be the same in the Northern Patagonia
ReplyDeleteAnother reason I do not agree with the damming because it will destroy it’s natural beauty
Thank you for your post!
ReplyDelete