Do the Congo?

Gigantic hydropower dam planned for Congo River

Posted at 2:44 PM on 21 Apr 2008

Some of the world's largest banks and construction firms gathered with seven African governments Monday to chat about plans for an $80 billion hydroelectric dam on the Congo River. The proposed Grand Inga dam could generate twice the electricity of China's controversial Three Gorges Dam and greatly increase the amount of cheap and clean power currently available in Africa, according to supporters. "It is the greatest sustainable development project, offering Africa a unique chance for interdependence and prosperity," says Gerald Doucet of the World Energy Council. But critics say electricity generated by the dam would be exported to urban centers as far away as Europe and Israel, while rural, poor areas in the Congo and surrounding countries see none of the benefit. Backers of the dam say they'll be mindful of the social and environmental implications of the project. If Grand Inga gets the green light, it could be operating by 2022.

sources: The Guardian, Reuters, BBC News
see also, in Grist: Solar project in African desert could supply clean energy to Europe

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (9 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Isn't Wind Enough?

Seems like the newer wind technologies coupled with hydrogen generation make hydropower less the only choice. I'm sure there's some good breezes in Africa.

Alternatively, maybe excess energy in dams could be used to generate hydrogen and put more clean fuel into the system.

Texeme.Construct(Participant)

by jabailo at 2:59 PM on 21 Apr 2008

Hydropower Is NOT Clean

I wish Grist would stop repeating this lie. Dam(n)s are very environmentally destructive regardless of any mitigations and supporters of the dam being "mindful" of environmental destruction.

Moreover, this is supposed to be an environmental website, yet the only critics Grist can find are ones who criticize social policy? Sorry, but where the generated electricity would be shipped is not the big issue here by a long shot.

by Wolverine at 3:08 PM on 21 Apr 2008

don't blame Grist

Note that In The News summarizes (and links to) mainstream media reports, and in this case there is very little in the way of recognition of environmental costs. At least Grist included a "see also" to the story about solar electric production in North Africa.

Yes! there will be incredible damage should this project go ahead. What I found most disappointing was that the media didn't report who the banks are that are meeting about this so that I can know who to call and write.

by In the belly at 3:45 PM on 21 Apr 2008

Better options

It seems like the last thing that the Congo needs is a massive hydroelectric project that could displace its residents on the scale of the Three Gorges Dam. The tremendous cost of dealing with a large number of refugees and disrupting local economies should more than undo the benefit to the people of the Congo. The real winners in this deal are the bankers and engineering firms that are in line for the contracts.

If the banks and contractors are holding multi-national discussions among seven countries, couldn't they just as easily be focusing on Congo's neighbors to the north - Sudan, Chad, and Niger - which have the best solar resources in the world? The environmental and social impact of building a solar-thermal complex in the middle of the desert doesn't compare to the damage that would be done by damming the Congo.

by mike365 at 8:14 PM on 21 Apr 2008

Bring back Mobutu now

The Grand Inga needs some clarification. For those who know the history of Zaïre, we know that this is the dictators big wet dream. Kabila Jr is no different.

1. @ mike365: the Inga is located around 200 km downstream of Kinshasa, in a deserted, unpopulated area - so there's not really a problem there.

Find the Inga dams here:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=-5.517404,13.65205 ...

@ jabailo: take a look at Africa's wind power potential map, and you see that the continent has not much on offer; especially in Central Africa, there's virtually no wind; solar is equally problematic there (it's a permanently cloudy region with long periods of dark skies when the rainy seaons set in); small hydro only makes sense outside the "cuvette" - the huge Congo basin itself is the world's largest flat zone. The only renewable that makes sense on a small, local scale is obviously biomass.
the Grand Inga has been on the dictator's agenda since the 1970s, when Mobutu hired German nazi engineers to draw up the plans; Inga I and Inga II already delivered power to Katanga, the mining region, bypassing all rural people. The Grand Inga will be no different. Plans to export electricity to Southern Africa and even to the North (and to the Middle East) are always part of this megalomaniacal deal.

The good thing is: the local people are inventive and will ruin the project if they feel left behind. Mobutu build huge steel power towers in the 1980s to export power; before the transmission lines arrived, the Congolese had already taken down the towers, with axes and sticks, to sell them as scrap steel, and to make boats and houses out of them.

the biggest threat is perhaps the rapid development of Congo's interior; as Kinshasa becomes a hub to process agricultural products from the interior, the rainforest is set to be threatened. There are already plans circulating to use the hydropower in Kin to process biofuels based on bio-oil, palm oil, etc... obtained from the interior.
another crazy part of this scheme is the idea to divert part of the Congo River and the Ubangi to North Africa, and to hook it up with Gadaffi's water scheme. The power to pump the water away, would come from the Grand Inga. This is the socalled Okapi Project:

http://www.oasisfoundation.org/oasis/okapipipeline.asp

6. For the rest, there's nothing much any of us can do; as long as Western firms and World Banks deal with dictators - and Kabila is one - then the people are left to fend for themselves. Go ahead and write a letter to the World Bank, telling them the Grand Inga is not a good idea. They will laugh.
And don't forget that the Chinese now have a stake in this too. They are the ones successfully colonizing Congo, they recently closed a $9 bn megadeal to get minerals (worth $70 bn). They need the power from Inga to process these minerals.

So we can only tell you what Mobutu constantly told his own people: "Débrouillez-vous". ("Mind your own business, and fend for your self; go steal something.")

So good luck. There's nothing we can do. The Grand Inga will materialize. The stakes are too high, the money is too good.

by Jonas at 2:27 AM on 22 Apr 2008

Won't happen...

...I can't think of a reasonable scenario where, even with international backin', they'll get $80 billion (which will most likely ballon to several hundred billion the way construction costs are rising) to build this thing in the middle of Africa.

by Tasermons Partner at 9:05 AM on 22 Apr 2008

bout as clean as a dog's ass

I definately have a problem with wealthy international bankers making a quick buck by damaging the delicate ecosystem that is the Congo in order to export cheap energy. River damming has its pros and cons, but the Congo River should be off-limits.

by millat1m3 at 2:38 PM on 22 Apr 2008

No room for romance

Millat, spontaneously I would agree with you that the majestic Congo River should be left alone. It is a treasure for humanity. But this is a very romantic vision.

Let's be harder. Someone should do a study to see whether the long-term ecosystem services and ecotourism potential of an intact Congo basin are worth more than the hydropower. I think this is an uneven battle. Energy is just too valuable, certainly in an age of scarce resources.

The cost of the ecological damages to the Congo will be deemed "minimal" in comparison with the huge profits that can be made.

by Jonas at 3:23 AM on 23 Apr 2008

Fight For The Earth And Forget Money

The fact that a lot of money stands to be made from a big dam(n) and/or that a lot of artificial power can be generated from it are not legitimate reasons to destroy yet another part of our planet. The problem with Jonas's perspective is that it leads to analyses where money, business, and human desires for convenience and comfort at the expense of the Earth all take precedence over the Earth itself. I consider this highly immoral. We all need to get an Earth First! perspective and put money, business, and comfort & convenience in their places, which are below the environment and human & civil rights.

by Wolverine at 10:59 AM on 23 Apr 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?