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