It's fine that you come up with such a balanced perspective - but I don't think it stands up to the facts (if we are to believe what e.g. The Guardian and Interfax China report; links below):
- Why is it that China uses 6 times as much energy per unit of economic output as Japan, 4 times as much as the U.S.? Sure there's a lot of room for saving energy, which would make the Three Gorges Dam entirely unnecessary, together with a great number of coal power plants.
- Also, only some 3% of China's electricity will be produced by the new dam; and the price of this electricity will be so high that the government will have to subsidise it. Electricity from the dam is not competitive, it can only be sold in a completely distorted market.
- Opposition to the Three Gorges Dam for environmental reasons is widespread in China and reaches up to high levels, such as the "Consultative Conference" (CPPCC) and the "National People's Congress".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1779337,00.html
http://www.interfax.cn/showfeature.asp?aid=12795&slug=THREE%20GORGES

I think that these costs you mention include the resettlement of the 1 million villagers. That is what makes the cost high, and this was regrettable. Purely from a hydroelectric power perspective though, the costs are not actually as high as you say relative to other energy sources. Given that the people have already been moved and are at this point a sunk cost, what is the right way to look at current options?

I suspect you do not live in or around China at the moment, because if you did you would consider any solution to the terrible killing smog that blankets China very, very seriously. Whether it is 3% or 5% or 10%, the absolute amount of coal that would be required to make up that shortfall if the dam did not exist would be a significant marginal increase on what is already a clear and present danger to 1 billion people. This consideration outweighs any environmental impact to wildlife.

Ouli, regarding the relative economic efficiencies of China, Japan and the US, did you factor in the fact that most of the products from Japanese and American companies are in fact manufactured in factories in China, using energy in China? I would suspect there's a huge difference in amount of energy used between manufacturing and service industries.

So in a way, the cleaner air in Japan and the US is built on top of the lives of billions of people in China...

spacehunt,
I quite agree that, as you say, "the cleaner air in Japan and the US is built on top of the lives of billions of people in China". Obviously manufacturing will always use more energy than services; thus it's impossible for China to reach the same level of energy efficiency as "western" countries.
But that's only half the story. So much energy is simply wasted. It's really easy to see how China could become much more energy efficient. How about insulating houses and installing decent doors and windows for a start? How about enforcing traffic regulations in order to reduce congestion? How about maintaining car engines?
Apart from that, it's fairly well possible to produce energy from coal or oil in a much cleaner way. The technology has been available for decades, it's really commonplace all over the "western" world. We aren't talking about high tech here, simple filters would be a good start.
There are lots of things which can be done to reduce "the terrible killing smog that blankets China", as HK Dave puts it. The Chinese government doesn't even consider them seriously. Instead they're desperately trying to make people believe the Three Gorges Dam is a success. Even in China a lot of people don't fall for this.

No, I definitely agree that much more can be done. Regarding whether the Chinese government is taking the issue seriously or not, it depends on which part of the Chinese government you're talking about; for example, the Central Government to me appears that it does. At the end of the day it again comes down to how much command (or lack of) the Central government has over the local ones. And then you have swaths of selfish cold-blooded businessmen to deal with...

the problem with the dam is mainly ecological. the river ecosystem is cut off into two sections. HEP itself is a clean energy.

i disagree with ouli's comment about cost. the gorge project may be expensive judging by today's cost. but if oil/coal price rises in future (the power plant can last many many decades) the plant would prove to be more economical.
however, to agree with ouli, i myself am not very thrilled at this plant. (I prefer nuclear power plant) because on top of ecological cost, there is also potential lost in natural scenery/etc (tourism dollar), and other things that we could not predict yet. this is a significant change to nature.

re: ouli's question about $ / GDP output. i do not think this is a fair comparison.
e.g. exchange rate distorted GDP a lot, if one were to use PPP, china's efficiency increases by 4 folds.
it is just a meaningless comparison using this measure.
however, i do agree with the fact that there is significant waste and hence room for improvement in terms of energy efficiency in China. a lot more could be done even today (which were not done). one way to improve is to rationalize energy price.

one more minor point: re: 3%

when the project started china's energy consumption is perhaps 1/3 of what it is today, so the power of the gorge project accounts for almost 10% of the consumption back then.

i have some problem with the guardian report by the famous jonathan watts (remember taishi?). he is quite uncritical when compared to the usual "guardian standard".

"But the output is not as significant as had been originally imagined. At first, it was envisaged the dam would supply at least a 10th of the country's energy, but electricity supply has grown rapidly along with the economy, and by the end of this year, it will provide less than a 30th."

the output is the same as planned. it is just a smaller percent of the total consumption today.

the interfax article reported that the cost/kWh is 10 cents, and it will be sold at 3 cents, subsidized by govt.
(note even today's coal/oil generated power is subsidized as commodity price hiked recently).

so i did a simple calculation on the 10 cent number. (used some numbers from this site, http://www.threegorgesprobe.org/TgP/index.cfm?DSP=content&ContentID=15281)

cost to built = $22.5bn
most dam last over 100 years (eg Hoover). so let's use 100 year depreciation schedule.
power output = 100 bn kWh in full capacity.

so the (depr) cost per kWh is
22.5/100/100=$0.00225=0.225cents

let adds operating costs, maintenance, and generator cost/etc, which are not too much different from that of coal fired plants. there is no way the cost could become 10cents/kWh.

if the upfront investment is under 0.225 cents/kWh, less than 10% of the price. I do not see why it costs much more than fossil fuel, esp if there is no fuel cost.

small correction.
wiki said total power per year is 84.7TWh or 84.7Bn kWh.
total cost is now 25.2 USD
so depr cost per kWh is about 0.3 US cents.

If those beneficent central planners in Beijing simply had more powers of command and control over those provincial, shortsighted locals and those selfish, greedy businessmen, everything would be much, much better. In fact, it could be a "Worker's Paradise"!

Too funny!

The sacrifice of those millions who gave all so that the rest may have 10% cleaner air, aye that's noble!

After all, one must break a few eggs to make an omelette, comrade.

I think one can marvel at how one can achieve the greatest good for the greatest number through authoritarian government without buying into the philosophy. I am very much for democracy and for freedom, but I also have to recognize when authoritarian governments occasionally have a capacity to change things for the better in ways that would not be possible in a democratic polity.

Look, pollution is far from the only reason for building the three gorges dam project. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that harnessing hydroelectic power in a country almost wholly dependent on coal is a good thing.

I feel always a little astonished (not so much, really) when I see people who declare themselves "very much for democracy and for freedom" praising a dictatorship fo its "effectiveness".
As if democracy were only some sort of impediment and not the indispensable frame for a real development.
When western intellectuals visited Stalin's USSR they were so impressed by industrialisation and farming that they forgot, consciously or not, the nature of the regime. It was a big lie, of course.
History repeats itself and, once again, so many "freedom lovers" fall in love with authoritarian efficiency.
One million people displaced. Naaah,the cost of the progress!
I suspect you would't be so indulgent if TGD were an American or a British project.

Best.

Enzo

Projects of overwhelming size and sometimes doubtful value pockmark Chinese imperial history -- Grand Canal, Great Wall, etc. The lure of one's name "eternally" cast in the annals of history is a powerful lure and most assuredly not a modern phenomenon.

Rich Kuslan, Editor
Asia Business Intelligence
www.asiabizblog.com

I believe in democracy. But I also grew up in Singapore. While as a non-citizen and a teenager I stood outside of the political landscape, it was obvious to me in my decade there in the 1980s that the city was transformed, through authoritarian government, from a sleazy, backward Asian port city into a dramatic success story that has inspired developing nations from around the world.

Tough problems often require tough solutions. In democratic and poorer developing states such as India, democracy is inevitably wedded with populism and political machines that subvert the ability of government to make difficult decisions that would improve the overall quality of life of the people (witness Bombay, for instance). Authoritarian governments can be awful too. But when they also have a basic desire to improve the lot of their people, rather than just being content with the usual oligarchic kleptocracy, they can accomplish a great deal that democratic governments cannot.

I only have in principle two reservations with benign authoritarianism. The first is the mindset that it engenders - it can be stultifying beyond a certain point for the education and mindset of people in a country in terms of their creativity and ability to express themselves. The second, and I think bigger problem is simply the issue of regime change and legitimacy. The biggest benefit of democracy in my view is that it provides an orderly, usually bloodless method for regime change within a certain time period. Benign authoritarian regimes do not have this mechanism, especially necessary when they become, in the view of the majority of the people, not so benign. The problem of legitimacy when 'good' authoritarian regimes turn 'bad' is one that ultimately undermines the benefits they offer, particularly in more advanced countries where my first problem (that of lack of a creative spark) is a major issue as they transition from manufacturing towards being service, creativity and information-based economies.

So back to this Dam issue - I think there is a knee-jerk reaction to condemn most big projects coming out of China, particularly one that tramples on the rights of some of its own people. The Three Gorges Dam has received so much universally bad press in the West, that I would like for us to take a step back, and just ask, could it be that this project has some benefits as well? I can certainly see some modicum of good, from a self-interested point of view, from there being less air pollution.

"declare themselves "very much for democracy and for freedom" praising a dictatorship fo its "effectiveness"."

Only the simple minded child will believe in one-dimensional characters in moveis, and in real world:
i.e. everything a dictator does is bad, and everything a democracy does is good. balck and white, no need to apply one's own critical mind.

look at US/Iraq and Singapore for counter-examples, loads of.

Your faith in repressive regimes is really worrying at this point of history.

Best.

Enzo

no, i do not have faith. i am agnostic.
I just believe there is no black and white. many things are greyer than you would like to think. i believe so because there are facts to support them, not on faith. i will change my believe any minute if new facts are found.

Repressive regime can do good things.
US, for example, can be repressive in Middle East and Guantanamo. But US has done a lot of great things, including saving the world from the evil axis in WWII.

i used to believe US stands for fairness and freedom. but Dubya continuously disappointed me. I used to believe overthrowing CCP is the only way to change China, but the turned out to be not totally repressive.

no, i do not have faith. i am agnostic.
I just believe there is no black and white. many things are greyer than you would like to think. i believe so because there are facts to support them, not on faith. i will change my believe any minute if new facts are found.

Repressive regime can do good things.
US, for example, can be repressive in Middle East and Guantanamo. But US has done a lot of great things, including saving the world from the evil axis in WWII.

i used to believe US stands for fairness and freedom. but Dubya continuously disappointed me. I used to believe overthrowing CCP is the only way to change China, but they turned out to be not totally repressive.

I don't have more faith in authoritarian regimes than in democratic ones. I don't take anything on faith, in fact, and much more from results and consequences.

I understand you probably come from a European background, where terrible events in living memory make any acknowledgement of the legitimacy of any authoritarian regime difficult (although Merkel, Chirac, Blair or previously, Berlusconi didn't seem to have a big problem in negotiating with China).

However, I simply think that to say they are a priori evil without rationally considering how they may actually be good for the lives of the people they represent seems to me, unexamined thinking.

And yes, I have to agree with Sun Bin that the democracies of the world have hardly been setting the world alight by example, and if nothing else has demonstrated that ignorant, smug stupidity caused by nepotism can happen in democracies too. I feel that democratic idealism will come back to American political life after Dubya finally leaves office, but for now the 'shining beacon from the house on the hill' has gone dim.

Yes, it's obvious that we come from very different backgrounds.
I can't suppress an impulse of repulsion every time I hear, see or read educated people defending despotism.
I believe in democracy, freedom, individual rights, open society. There's no room for relativism in these matters. I'm sorry.

Best.

Enzo

As Rich says, "Projects of overwhelming size and sometimes doubtful value pockmark Chinese imperial history". The three gorges was originally a Sun Yat-sen project !
The wikipedia page is quite complete, but looks really like it has been built by westerners...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam