We need an energy policy, not cheerleading
Güncelleme Tarihi:
Oluşturulma Tarihi: Şubat 18, 2009 00:00
As a rule, hydroelectric dams are among the most efficient ways to produce energy without the social costs of many dam alternatives. But there is, in economists’ jargon, "no free lunch." Dams have down sides.
So we were disappointed yesterday with the comments we reported by Environment Minister Veysel Eroğlu. His tone was unfortunately quite similar to those of a trio of inventors on whom we also reported yesterday after they announced their discovery of a "perpetual energy device" that will produce electricity with no inputs. (They of course must keep the details secret.) Such reports are sort of like sightings of the "Creature of Lake Van" in eastern Turkey or the "Loch Ness Monster" in Scotland: a lot of enthusiasm behind the claims but little or no supporting evidence.
Said our minister, "First of all, they (dams) improve the climate." He continued to say environmental assessments ensure all dams are damage-free and essentially argued that anyone opposing dams is a pawn of the natural gas lobby.
This is not the enlightened and comprehensive energy policy Turkey needs. It is just cheerleading for dams, always much beloved by engineers, construction firms and politicians.
Indeed the world has a lot of dams and they provide many benefits. The world’s 45,000 large dams generate about 20 percent of the world’s energy according to the United Nations Development Program. They provide as much as a quarter of the water needed to irrigate farmland. But as many as a third of those dams should never have been built. The riverine systems feeding them cause sediment buildup that quickly diminishes dams’ value. Some are built in seismically unsafe areas. Many devastate fragile wildlife. Often they inundate historical legacies or they seriously impair downstream resources, including the seas they feed. Egypt’s Aswan High Dam is a good illustration. Yes, it provided jobs and irrigation but it also destroyed the fisheries and shrimp industry in the southeastern Mediterranean. The displacement of millions of people is also among the little-considered price tags. Perhaps 80 million people have been forced to move by dam builders worldwide. This is an ongoing issue in Turkey.
What is needed is agreed-upon general criteria. What costs are acceptable? What is the cost-benefit analysis? Where should dams be placed in an overall strategy involving nuclear, geo-thermal, wind and other yet-to-be exploited resources? First Turkey needs an overall energy policy. Within that, a responsible dam policy can be defended.
Eroğlu and his ministry have yet to answer these questions and produce this critical roadmap. Without it, Eroğlu and his credibility on these issues will remain as shallow as those of the inventor claiming to have discovered perpetual motion.
Said our minister, "First of all, they (dams) improve the climate." He continued to say environmental assessments ensure all dams are damage-free and essentially argued that anyone opposing dams is a pawn of the natural gas lobby.
This is not the enlightened and comprehensive energy policy Turkey needs. It is just cheerleading for dams, always much beloved by engineers, construction firms and politicians.
Indeed the world has a lot of dams and they provide many benefits. The world’s 45,000 large dams generate about 20 percent of the world’s energy according to the United Nations Development Program. They provide as much as a quarter of the water needed to irrigate farmland. But as many as a third of those dams should never have been built. The riverine systems feeding them cause sediment buildup that quickly diminishes dams’ value. Some are built in seismically unsafe areas. Many devastate fragile wildlife. Often they inundate historical legacies or they seriously impair downstream resources, including the seas they feed. Egypt’s Aswan High Dam is a good illustration. Yes, it provided jobs and irrigation but it also destroyed the fisheries and shrimp industry in the southeastern Mediterranean. The displacement of millions of people is also among the little-considered price tags. Perhaps 80 million people have been forced to move by dam builders worldwide. This is an ongoing issue in Turkey.
What is needed is agreed-upon general criteria. What costs are acceptable? What is the cost-benefit analysis? Where should dams be placed in an overall strategy involving nuclear, geo-thermal, wind and other yet-to-be exploited resources? First Turkey needs an overall energy policy. Within that, a responsible dam policy can be defended.
Eroğlu and his ministry have yet to answer these questions and produce this critical roadmap. Without it, Eroğlu and his credibility on these issues will remain as shallow as those of the inventor claiming to have discovered perpetual motion.