DEC 10

We sure have gotten ourselves into a pickle. Damming a body of water as large as the Red Sea would certainly provide massive amounts of power (50 gigawatts, if a recent study is to be believed), but it would also displace tens of thousands of people. And, as a hydro-electric project of this scale has never been attempted, the ecological effects are literally impossible to determine.

A 50 gigawatt power plant would be, by far, the largest source of electricity in the world. The largest nuclear plant in the US produces just over 3. The project would provide enough power to switch off oil-burning power plants throughout the Middle East. Political scientists are already estimating the stability such a project would bring to the region.

And, of course, the power would be generated renewably, with no greenhouse gases. But the ecological destruction would, nonetheless, be massive. Fisheries, wetlands, communities, entire ecosystems would be destroyed. Unfortunately, it's unclear if this will be a decision made with the utmost attention paid to the environmental and ethical effects of such a project. The researchers who are studying the possibility of the project say, "If the countries around the Red Sea decide in favor of the macro-project, it is their responsibility to limit the negative consequences as much as possible."

Doesn't sound very promising to me.

Via EurekaAlert

Comments (11)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Global Warning
written by tracy ho, December 10, 2007

Hope all out there are aware of this issuse,
Concern

Tracy ho
wisdomgettingloaded

• 
• +0
• 
• 

An often overlooked benefit to hydro
written by Ethan, December 10, 2007

An often overlooked benefit to hydro power is that (unlike nuke plants) it can store up energy over time and use it when other sources (solar, wind, etc) are low or demand is high. Hydro can be used to avoid the need for peek shifting.

So a 50 gigawatt hydro power plant might be able to allow larger use of wind and solar than if 50 gigawatts of nuclear power plants would, hence having an even larger impact on greenhouse gases.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

PS
written by Ethan, December 10, 2007

Also, the red sea is barely above sea level. Those sea level changes may be inevitable. Why not help keep sea level low everywhere else.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by EV, December 10, 2007

Fisheries, wetlands, communities, entire ecosystems would be destroyed

I'm pretty sure this project would also simultaneously create new ones as well. It's a game of balance and if the benefits outweigh the costs.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

An Insane Idea
written by BenInBrooklyn, December 10, 2007

What a terrible and destructive idea. I've never visited the Red Sea upclose, but I have flown over it and I remember staring out the window of the plane for several hours remarking at the beauty of it's islands, reefs and coastlines.

HOWEVER, I do favor experimentation with large scale, sustainable, safe and non-destructive forms of tidal power exploitation. This should certainly be explored here and everywhere.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Remember Aswan Dam
written by James Staunton, December 10, 2007

This article reminds me of my visit to the region in the mid 1980s. I stayed along the Red Sea which is a very dry and seemingly lifeless place. The fish and coral are magnificent however, and or course there is more happening there than meets the eye I'm sure. Your photo (above) also happens to show Lake Nasser which was created by the Aswan High Dam. I went to Wikipedia (Aswan Dam)and read an interesting description of the effects of that much smaller project on the entire region, including effects to the whole Mediterranean Sea. The section titled "Environmental and Cultural Issues" might be of interest to your readers.
I'm intrigued by the possibility of the whole region's energy needs being met by such a project. But it is an amazingly audacious project.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

a correction to the misleading nuclear s
written by betablocker, December 10, 2007

First, it was stated:

"So a 50 gigawatt hydro power plant might be able to allow larger use of wind and solar than if 50 gigawatts of nuclear power plants would"

Nuclear power plants are able to "load follow" which allows them to be run at lower powers when not needed or if another power source is available. Utilities never do this as nuclear is the cheapest rate based cost option for power production and it makes a pretty good base load generator, partly due to economics, partly to the science of it. What is next on the economic scale? ecogeeky wind, but...

Anyway, the real comment on this particular post is that it is not a very good idea for a single power plant to be too large for a particular grid size. This is for two reasons, one is that if it goes down, a bulk of the grid goes with it, the other is that it simply overpowers the grid. This is more the problem in this situation. 50 GW of power is roughly 10% of what the US uses, so even in an energy intensive location like California or NYC, this power plant would be a strain on the grid. It would be an even worse idea around where it is planned, seeing as how i really doubt the entire serviceable region consumes that much power.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

How high?
written by James Staunton, December 10, 2007

I am just wondering, with such a huge body of water, if a dam were created that increased the height of the water just say, one foot, that would still create I'd imagine a huge body of water that could still generate a lot of energy. Can anyone who really understands this kind of thing respond?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

I actually lived in Riyahd for a year
written by Webster, December 11, 2007

when I was a kid and the Red Sea was literally over our back wall and across the street. I've heard that most off the coral is dying off because of pollution and contamination though it was beautiful at the time.

The serviceable area would be huge there though. As most development in the area is on the water.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by octopod, December 12, 2007

Wouldn't it silt up ridiculously fast?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by srean, December 15, 2007

There is another problem. The red sea is actually a kid ocean. New crust is being created continuously in its bed that pushes out the adjacent land masses couple of inches every year.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment