Some factors involved in
the proposed Tuapeka Dam



Facts and Figures

COST
It would cost too much to build in comparison to alternative methods of generating as much electricity. For instance, if you covered the whole of the affected area (3200 h) with photovoltaic cells [solar power panels] you would get 3200 megawatts, or ten times the amount (320 mw) from a dam at Tuapeka Mouth. So you would need to cover only a tenth of the area to generate an equivalent amount. The rest could be left in forestry and farming, which brings in $3.5 million a year (1989 figures) and save an unique area of natural forest and birdlife, fish etc. The Clyde dam, even if it had cost only half of what it did cost ($2 billion), would still be making a loss. A dam at Tuapeka would be even worse, as new forms of generation become cheaper and less demanding environmentally.

ALTERNATIVE GENERATION.

We say leave the rivers alone and develop alternative technology. Wind is a good alternative. You can site wind generators near centres which use the electricity, therefore reducing losses in line transmission of up to 40% (across Cook Strait at peak periods of use).

EMPLOYMENT

There is no doubt that building dams creates jobs, but as the Clyde dam showed, mainly for people from outside the area. In comparison, farming, infrastructure employment (shops etc), tourism, and developing alternative methods of generating electricity creates just as many, or even more employment. Furthermore it does not result in the landscape being destroyed.

DESTRUCTION

The hydro developer would have to get rid of the native and exotic forests in the area (Rongahere Gorge by using herbicides to kill off the vegetation and bulldozers to pile it into heaps for destruction, probably by burning or leaving it to rot away). There are literally billions of trees in the area. Much of this is habitat to many rare species of birds and insects.

CARBON EMISSIONS

One of the biggest hazards to the planet over the next 50 years is the emission of carbon and other greenhouse gasses creating a layer of insulation for the sun's heat, raising the earth's temperature up to 3 degrees on average. Do not believe anybody who tells you this will not happen. If a hydro developer got rid of the vegetation in the Rongahere Gorge and Beaumont - also Millers Flat, millions of tons of carbon will be released into the atmosphere to worsen this global warming. Also, the trees that are destroyed will no longer be able to act as "carbon sinks" (absorbing carbon dioxide), thus doubling the damage.

INSTABILITY

The sides of the Rongahere and Beaumont gorges are unstable. Trouble costing up to $550 m was encountered with the Cromwell Gorge, a similar geological structure. There are two high 'landslides' in the Beaumont Gorge. One 1000 ft high (300 m approx). There are recent as yet unpublished geological reports which suggest that the Rongahere Gorge is at least as bad as the Cromwell Gorge. The danger to Balclutha if by any chance some of these hillsides failed behind a dam at Tuapeka Mouth need not be emphasised. Why take the risk?

FISHING AND RECREATION

The Clutha River below Millers Flat is the last great natural waterway in New Zealand. ECNZ had said that's why they wanted to dam it. As it is, it supports a wide range of activities, such as kayaking, canoeing, fishing etc. Activities like these could not be enjoyed in a reservoir environment. The proposed reservoir would have a fluctuation 'value' of two metres, or nearly seven feet. That's on a daily - 12 hour basis. If you are familiar with Lake Mahinerangi, you will know that, because of fluctuations, the banks are bare and ridged. Hopeless for recreation, boating and even worse for fish as they can't feed on mud - they need insects, river bank growth that supports them and a stable level that doesn't erode it. Boat marinas would be unsustainable, largely because of these fluctuations of level and boating wouldn't be very pleasant on the reservoir anyway. Note that the body of water is a 'reservoir' for hydro generating purposes, not a recreational lake.

FISH AND FISHING

Confidential reports (commisioned by ECNZ, and transferred to Contact) show that there would be no fish ladders or lifts incorporated into a dam at Tuapeka Mouth. This is because of the cost, up to 10% of the total price of the dam. Also they say that it isn't worth it just for local anglers. Over 100 species of native fish would suffer under a reservoir regime. Fishing, particularly for salmon, would be on a 'put and take' basis. That means that salmon smolt would have to be put in to the reservoir so that stocks of fish could be maintained. Seeding smolt into the Roxburgh reservoir ceased in 1986.

HISTORICAL AND HERITAGE

Many historical sites and structures would be lost under a reservoir. The Beaumont Bridge, the longest and first single span structure in the Southern Hemisphere, built in 1888. Some 100 or more Maori sites, moa ovens and a settlement site near the Beaumont Cemetery which is one of only two in the South Island - a transient camp dating from 1200 AD that settled semi-permanently over hundreds of years. There are almost certainly Maori graves there. A preliminary archaeological study has been completed to determine the exact nature of this site. This report has not been made available to the public. The only other site of this type is at Wairau, in Blenheim. Other structures that would be lost are the old Blackcleugh bridge, Rongahere Memorial, and three punt sites.

ELECTRICITY CONSERVATION

ECNZ (who operate the South Island's dams other than the those on the Clutha river system) have applied modern technology to their generating utilities and switching facilities, have managed to save over 1000 megawatts (nearly three times the generating capacity of the proposed Tuapeka Mouth dam), over the past three years. Conservation, which the Government is now actively encouraging, includes lagging water heaters, insulating existing houses, using alternative methods of energy including localised solar and wind. This is on the increase and will lower electricity consumption projections.

REVERSE METERING

Modern technology allows localised generating units, such as solar panels in houses, to pump electricity generated by the sun back through the meter when it is not being used by the householder. This acts as a credit against the next power account. This is great for electricity conservation, saves the need to build more destructive dams or polluting gas generation plants like Stratford, and stops power transmission loss as the electricity is used 'on the spot'.

COSTS OF SOLAR

The cost is coming down. In Australia developments include cutting by 90% the cost of the ingredients of solar panels. Raw silicon is used whereas intensive processing was needed before. A house can be fitted out for solar for under $20,000. Where power supply authorities have been drastically raising 'line charges' (the cost of getting to electricity to the consumer), some consumer, such as sports clubs, who use a lot of power but for short periods, are turning to solar, pumping electricity back out through the meter when their facilities aren't being used, then using electricity it when they are. The day will come when, say, rugby grounds will have photovoltaic cells all around the tops of their grandstands and will use the power saved, for the 'big night' when the ground will be lit up for the big game.

FRIENDS OF BEAUMONT

...actively opposes plans for a dam at Tuapeka Mouth. FOB activity includes public education internationally, about the truth of electricity generation and consumption in New Zealand. FOB works actively to overcome 'mindsets' by Government and particularly Contact Energy Limited. With ne large scale hydro, the consumer loses out and the environment suffers as more rivers are destroyed by large reservoirs, and more greenhouse gases are pumped into the atmosphere.




Return to CONTENTS