The Franklin River Should not have been Dammed for Hydro Electricity.
The Franklin River is located in the South West of Tasmania. In the early 1980’s, the Franklin river became widely known, because of the Hydroelectric scheme, to dam the river. A wild debate arose, between the Tasmanian Government and The Wilderness Society and the Society Movement, to save the franklin river and its forestry, or to dam the river and supply electricity for all of the Tasmanians, whilst also keeping electricity running when the power shortage would occur in ten years. The Hydro team already had dammed 40 rivers by the 1970’s, the Wilderness society was not prepared to make it 41. Throughout the several tiring months of debate, the opposing teams created some immediate and compelling cases which i am entitled to explore. However both teams cases seem extremely persuasive and well executed, the national question at that time was, should we dam the Franklin river?
The dam was due to be up and running soon before 1984, however because of the persistence of the Wilderness Society and The Conservation movement the Hydro Scheme was taken to court. However the Tasmanian government, running the hydro scheme, had a compelling case. For the state with the highest unemployment rate (the rate of which people with in the age limit who can work, that are not) at an all time high for the state, 12%, the Hydroelectricity scheme would supply almost 3500 jobs, during construction, and hundreds after construction. The Hydro scheme would lower the unemployment rate for the state to 10.73%. The construction would also boost the economy of the state, causing more luxuries for the state. One outstanding and relevant part of the franklin river damming, the electricit...
... middle of paper ...
... river into a hydro electricity dam. Constant debates were held over the idea of hydroelectricity in the franklin. This was until the national PM voting was held. The promise to restore the franklin back to its natural, untouched surroundings from Bob Hawke caused rage in the media. In this process the Franklin River was placed on a world platform, the World Heritage List. Addressing the essays question, from the evidence that I have given, the franklin river should not be dammed.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1307.6Feature+Article1Dec+2008
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=calculator&oq=calculator&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1527j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8&safe=active&ssui=on#q=48300%2F450000&safe=active&safe_ui=on&ssui=on
Furthermore, even though the Friend dam is the first primary purpose of it; it also follows a secondary purpose also. And that would be the Friend Power Authority which has 4 power plants. And within the plants it has turbines in it. What this turbine does it is that it generates water into the channel or tubes, and then it let it out into the four outlets which flows out into its benefits locations.
Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams author Patrick McCully (2001) reports that dams store water for river fluctuations as well as for energy and water demands (p. 11).
The negative aspects of Glen Canyon Dam greatly exceed the positive aspects. The dam’s hydroelectric power supply is only three percent of the total power used by the six states that are served by the facility. There is a surplus of power on the Colorado Plateau and with more and more power-plants being created in the western hemisphere, Glen Canyon Dam’s power is not needed (Living Rivers: What about the hydroelectric loss). Although the ‘lake’ contains twenty seven million acre feet of water, one and a half million acre feet of water are lost yearly due to evaporation and seepage into the sandstone banks surrounding the ‘lake’ (Living Rivers: What about the water supply?). The loss of that much “water represents millions, even billions of dollars” (Farmer 183). If the government were to employ more water efficient irrigation practices, as much as five million acre feet of water per year could be saved.
A large issue we have that effects multiple different areas of our communities, are tragedy of the commons, which are actions that are rational but lead to irrational outcome. Government needs to take responsilbities to enforce rules for commons so they can diminish tragedy of the commons. Dams are a tragedy of the commons that only recently were come to the realisation of its more negatives effect they have on our world. Dams used to be seen as only positive, for their productful factors such as hydroelectricity and water supply. In this essay, I will argue that dams are an example of a tragedy of the commons proven by the documentary, Damnation, by the directors Travis Rummel and Ben Knight by describing that dams are highly subtractable
The primary goal of the dam, irrigation, was forgotten as the war time need for electricity increased. Aluminum smelting was vital to the war effort. Aluminum smelting requires substantial amounts of electricity and hydroelectric power plants are often built to provide electricity for these smelts. The electricity was also used to produce uranium for the Manhattan Project. After the war ended the original goal of irrigation resumed. Additional dams, siphons and canals were constructed that turned the coulee into a vast supply network that allowed the desert to bloom.
Beyond all of Abbey's personal feelings and emotional memories, let us not forget about what these dams and reservoirs are providing us with-power. Electricity is extremely important to everyone. It is the reason for seemingly everything people consider vital to their lives; cars, computers, TV, running water through the faucet, everything. It is not something we can just forget about because of an author's emotional attachment to a certain strip of land sacrificed to make thousands of other people happy sitting safe in their home with electricity.
This Paper will describe and analyze three articles pertaining to the ongoing debate for and against Glen Canyon Dam. Two of these articles were found in the 1999 edition of A Sense of Place, and the third was downloaded off a site on the Internet (http://www.glencanyon.net/club.htm). These articles wi...
The state offered to sell the canal, the railroad company bought it for the right of ways yet had no need to maintain the dam, which due to neglect, broke for the first time in 1862. McCullough stresses that man was responsible for the dam and its weaknesses nearly thirty years before the great flood as he explains how the initial repair work was carried out by unqualified people and how the discharge pipes were blocked up.... ... middle of paper ... ... McCullough makes a firm argument for the responsibility of man, and asserts the blame on the necessary people, therefore I feel he makes a fair and accurate assertion which I would agree with.
The fallout of the 1927 flood demonstrates the one of many continuing struggle in dominating the Mississippi River despite understanding the true nature of the river. For example, “The average gauge readings through the last three months of 1926… of the three largest rivers… was the highest ever known… no one at the Weather Bureau or the Mississippi River Commission correlated or even compiled this information” (pg 175). The failure in understand the nature of the river prelude to more elaborate control schemes by expanding the federal government’s responsibility in seizing full control of the Mississippi River from states jurisdiction. The U.S Army Corps of Engineers is fully responsible in constructing va...
What: it gave jobs to unemployed workers. 726 ft high and 1,244 feet long. World's tallest dam, and second largest dam. Provided electricity and flood control, and regular water supply.
Since they started pouring the concrete for the dam Lake Powell has been a center of controversy. From nature preservationists to ancient ruins advocates the subject has been heated and intense. On the other hand, those who support Lake Powell are just as avid and active in their defense of the reservoir. One of the former, Edward Abbey, sets forth his plea, hoping it does not fall upon deaf ears.
The use of turbines from dams to provide power was a brilliant idea until water levels started running lower than normal. The water waste from humanity is directly contributing to portions of it, aside from drought conditions affected by pollution, widespread fires battled, and more adds to the depletion thereof. When humanity is relying on power provided from dams to handle the demand, they are essentially relying on the assumption that water levels will always be there to provide it. The Hoover Dam provides power to the southwestern portion of the USA that has a large number of people.
According to Chief, his father decided not to argue with the townspeople’s decision, “The way Papa finally did when he came to realize that he couldn’t beat that group from town who wanted the Government to put in the dam because of the money and the work it would bring,” (page 150). This means that people wanted the dam to be built because of the advantages and products that they can get like money, electricity and much more. They were being selfish people and didn’t care about what happened to the tribe. Not caring about the children who would be taken from their homes, the families who would have nowhere to go; homeless, without food or shelter. All they wanted was their well being, that was very cruel of them. Another example is when a woman looks for Chiefs father when he was younger, “I think if we just leave now and go back into town, and, of course, spread the word with the townspeople about the government’s plans so they understand the advantages of having a hydroelectric dam and a lake instead of a cluster of shacks beside a falls,” (Pg. 182). This shows how desperate the people were to get the dam. The woman thought that Chief was dumb and didn’t understand English and they were talking about what they were going to do with the village and convince the townspeople to build the dam. On the other hand, the Indians thought the
Imagine what it would be like if we lost our main source of clean water. The controversy today could be coming close to that. The debate is rising on housing developments and water shortages, specifically, stopping the building of housing developments and instead renovating the old ones to prevent water shortages. Water shortages make this issue very controversial, because water is essential to human life. One side of the argument discusses the possibility of local governments placing stricter limits on new building permits where water resources are scarce. The other side of the argument argues how we shouldn't panic until it is time to worry, because of all of the new technologies being released, along with the economic impact of residential construction. The question becomes the topic of placing stricter limits on building permits and renovating old ones to prevent water shortage.
IYER, R.I. (19X9) "Large Dams: The Right Perspective.' Economic and Political Weekly, 14, 107- 116.