The Brazilian tribe that played by our rules, and lost

[Behemoth_PT]

Hydroelectric power in terms of clean energy production represents a efficient non-pollutant way to explore that resource. However, it's the building process is catastrophic to the ecosystem it's built on.

[Turnips5]

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;34495315]Hydroelectric power in terms of clean energy production represents a efficient non-pollutant way to explore that resource. However, it's the building process is catastrophic to the ecosystem it's built on.[/QUOTE]

yeah. it can also be really god damn dangerous (see: [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam]Banqiao Dam collapse[/url])

it can produce a shitton of power though:

[quote]It also caused the sudden loss of 18 GW of power[citation needed] , the equivalent of roughly 9 very large modern coal fired power stations or about 20 nuclear reactors, equalling about 1/3 the peak demand on the UK National Grid.[/quote]

anyway this really seems to be more the fault of greed than any specific kind of power generation so [B]I'll stop[/B]

[MrDoctor]

An efficient non-pollutant way...to destroy forests that are some of the last on Earth. Fucking great idea!

[Edthefirst]

As a Brazilian I am divided over this. The Itaipu dam in southern Brazil is great. It meets the demands of the growing populations and is clean (beyond the initial deforestation). The problem is that this project is significantly more political. There's so many factors against this dam. The problem is, Brazil needs the energy. The northern third of Brazil is so underdeveloped that southern Brazil seems like a whole different country.

Brazilians will also argue that it's unfair for them given that all the current first-world countries did similar things while developing. I'm not of that particular belief. The best solution would be nuclear energy, except Brazil has had such a bitch of a time with it's nuclear power program that it would take decades for nuclear plants to begin showing up. Hydroelectric makes sense since Brazil has over 85% of it's power generation from dams.

It's such a sticky issue. I'm against the dam for what it does (the deforestation, the displacing of people, etc.), but I can also justify it using the excuse that the country as a whole will be better off with the power generation this provides.

[DeathRocks]

[QUOTE=abcpea2;34487075]this is why i hate hispanics[/QUOTE]

You're a piece of shit, sir.

[Mlisen14]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34494874]How many will do better from the dam than those who will lose from it? If it will help a lot of people out of poverty then it has merit in the idea.[/QUOTE]

Well I couldn't find a reputable source giving a figure so I have no idea, but it had better be a fuckload more than 40,000 because they're sure as shit gonna be poor for some time.

[editline]2nd February 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Edthefirst;34498199]As a Brazilian I am divided over this. The Itaipu dam in southern Brazil is great. It meets the demands of the growing populations and is clean (beyond the initial deforestation). The problem is that this project is significantly more political. There's so many factors against this dam. The problem is, Brazil needs the energy. The northern third of Brazil is so underdeveloped that southern Brazil seems like a whole different country.

Brazilians will also argue that it's unfair for them given that all the current first-world countries did similar things while developing. I'm not of that particular belief. The best solution would be nuclear energy, except Brazil has had such a bitch of a time with it's nuclear power program that it would take decades for nuclear plants to begin showing up. Hydroelectric makes sense since Brazil has over 85% of it's power generation from dams.

It's such a sticky issue. I'm against the dam for what it does (the deforestation, the displacing of people, etc.), but I can also justify it using the excuse that the country as a whole will be better off with the power generation this provides.[/QUOTE]

But if the dam itself is already ineffective and only operates four months of the year at high capacity, it surely won't even bring continuous benefits to the locals.

[Edthefirst]

[QUOTE=Mlisen14;34499899]Well I couldn't find a reputable source giving a figure so I have no idea, but it had better be a fuckload more than 40,000 because they're sure as shit gonna be poor for some time.

[editline]2nd February 2012[/editline]

But if the dam itself is already ineffective and only operates four months of the year at high capacity, it surely won't even bring continuous benefits to the locals.[/QUOTE]

[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/99673/brazil.png[/img]

You underestimate the amount of power this will bring in, even during the off-season. Again, I'll refer back to the lack of development in the region. The entire northern section of Brazil (in blue) brings in about 20% of the GDP with about 70 million residents. The smallest region in Brazil is the southernmost region (pictured in red). It produces 16% of the GDP with only 27 million people. That's less than half the population producing almost as much of the gross domestic product as the entire northern half of Brazil.

That power is desperately needed for the rapidly industrializing northern region. Again, I'm not saying I support the dam in it's implementation, but I also understand why it's so critical. I'd just build a few nuclear power plants if I could, but Brazil's nuclear power program is mired in so many problems that it would take too long to implement. Brazil's only nuclear power plant has taken almost 30 years to get finished. It's too long for a modernizing economy.

[DainBramageStud]

The sound of progress.

[Xenocidebot]

[QUOTE=Turnips5;34495092]hydroelectric power: it's the way of the future

[editline]1st February 2012[/editline]

guh this is so bad, dunno even where to begin[/QUOTE]
It really isn't, but FP has the scientific literacy of a horde of kindergarteners on meth, which leads to a whole lot of concern for the displaced buggerfuck fish and a few thousand guys who need to move when the power generation issue is actually a valid one. Thus I present:

[I][B]The Buggerfuck Fish and Energy in the Newly Industrialized World, or: Why All of You Except the Scandinavians and Swiss are Hypocritical Dumbfucks[/B][/I]
[HR][/HR]
The only fair way to assess the Belo Monte dam logically is based on its environmental impacts against the environmental impacts of other cost-effective methods of power generation, taking into account the scale the dam will operate at and thus competing methods of power generation must also operate at. Alternatives need to be assessed by availability as well, along with the fact that international fuel prices will go up should Brazil consume more of the fuels they must import, giving non-native resources diminishing returns.

[B][U]Assessin' the dam:[/U][/B]
Brazil's government likes to throw around a figure that Belo will produce some 11 gigawatts per unspecified unit. That's pretty clearly referring to the dam's rated maximum capacity, which is entirely irrelevant. Instead, we'll go off the designer's assumption that it'll only pull 4.5 GW (guaranteed capacity). If you take hippie estimates for the greenhouse gas impact, the cost is gonna be 112 metric megatons of CO2 equivalent over the first ten years thanks to the flooding and whatnot- but if we use actual studies by people who specialize in this type of thing, we get a proper figure, also accounting for upstream construction:
[QUOTE]The Babaquara/Altamira dam, ‘unofficially’ planned for construction upstream of Belo Monte, would, in conjunction with Belo Monte, be likely to become the all-time “champion” for these emissions, with an average in the first ten years estimated at 9.6 million tons of carbon emission annually from above-water decay of flooded trees plus 0.07 million tons from shoreline emissions.[/QUOTE]
Unless I've been gravely mistaken for years in this business, hydroelectric power plant ratings are in hours (e.g. Three Gorges, at a desired 20 GW capacity, is expected to produce 100 TWh a year, or the equivalent of ~5000 hours at maximum capacity, or year-round at 56% capacity), so a continuously running dam at a guaranteed 4.5 GWh should output, accounting for unforeseen downtime (i.e. giving the hippies undue credit and assuming the designers overestimated guaranteed capacity), something like 300 to 391 TWh in those first ten years. We can then say that for the 300-391 TWh produced over ten years, the dam will have a CO2 equivalent cost of 96.7 megatons. Throw in construction costs and a little bit of unforseen costs to round up the number and we land on a nice and tidy 100 megatons CO2eq.

[B][U]Assessin' the alternatives:[/U][/B]
Now, what are the Brazilian alternatives to this? Nuclear, yes, but they're currently trying nuclear and don't have the capacity to use it at this scale yet. A lot of people see natural gas as a hypothetical no-dam option, which according to the EPA emits 0.005 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per therm, one therm generating 29.3 kWh, which gives us 0.00017 metric tons of CO2 equivalent per kWh. This is also absolutely ludicrous due to gas costs and availability, as nobody can handle gas at that quantity economically (especially not Brazil right now, but this is a ludicrous premise to start with). I'll use 0.0007 metric tons CO2eq per kWh, about standard per kWh for the U.S.'s mixed grid, similar to Germany's currently as well. I'll also throw in a generous 0.0004 midrange figure for courtesy's sake, even though no country of size has a grid that semi-mixed- more often than not it's one extreme or the other, with larger landmasses running into more efficiency and price issues. I'll also accept, from anybody daring enough to actually do research, another figure from an economically comparable nation utilizing a mix, but given not even little European places can get to 0.0004 unless they're entirely nuke and existing hydro, you're gonna have a hard time doing better.

Also, while it's tempting to use Brazil's own data- they have CO2eq emissions listed at 20 megatons CO2eq for during 2003, with a population of 182,032,600 using 2,166 kWh per capita, we get 394.28 TWh used, all for a pitiful 20 megatons of CO2eq- that would be assuming we can take more power from their existing hydroelectric plants, as that's their primary method of power generation, which we can't. It's also tempting to consider the Scandinavian and Swiss grids, both of which are absolutely absurd low-emissions (0.00005 tons CO2eq or lower), but one has to keep in mind they are both smaller and more easily sustained by small-scale nuclear power and already built hydroelectric facilities, meaning we're looking at the kind of numbers Brazil wants to be looking at down the road, not a realistic representation of GHG emissions out of the blocks. So, running with our pure natural gas, hypothetical perfect mixed grid and U.S. mixed grid numbers, we get:

[B][U]Numbers, motherfuckers:[/U][/B]
All gas production to match 300 TWh: 0.00017 x 300,000,000,000 = 51 megatons CO2eq
All gas production to match 391 TWh: 0.00017 x 391,000,000,000 = 66.5 megatons CO2eq
Hypothetical production to match 300 TWh: 0.0004 x 300,000,000,000 = 120 megatons CO2eq
Hypothetical production to match 391 TWh: 0.0004 x 391,000,000,000 = 156.4 megatons CO2eq
US mixed production to match 300 TWh: 0.0007 x 300,000,000,000 = 210 megatons CO2eq
US mixed production to match 391 TWh: 0.0007 x 391,000,000,000 = 273.7 megatons CO2eq
[I]The high number to beat over ten years= 112 megatons CO2eq
The low number to beat over ten years= 100 megatons CO2eq[/I]

It should be readily apparent that, while it's quite easy to say BUT THEY CAN DO SOMETHING ELSE, when one actually considers what is available to Brazil, there really are no other options. Solar? Lifespan is too short to recoup on investment, and would do the same damage via coverage as the dam. Gas? Where the fuck is this natural gas going to come from, when Brazil is already importing it, and how much is it going to cost? Oil? Same issue. Wind? Don't even joke about that shit. Point is, unless you live in a land of fuel coming into existence ex nihilo and the infrastructure required to make use of it (and brother, do I want to know where you live if you do), [I]this is the best they can do.[/I] And even assuming they [I]could[/I] magically fucking will some gas into existence, [I]it'll pollute more than the damn dam within the dam's 50 year [B]minimum[/B] lifespan.[/I] And it's more likely it'll pull 150. All the low-CO2eq emission grids on the planet right now were in Brazil's position before this. That's how development and foresight work. You pollute a lot now, knowing you'll pollute less in the long run. Could this be done better? Sure- everything can be done better. Is it being done [I]wrong?[/I] [B]Fuck no![/B] I could have undershot these numbers by 50% on all fronts and this would [I]still[/I] be the sanest goddamn option.

So herein lies the problem. Anyone from Scandinavia or Switzerland get out of the room, this isn't directed at you. Come back in when you hear Doc Brown.

[B][U]Why all of you except the Scandinavians and Swiss are hypocritical dumbfucks:[/U][/B]
[URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=climate+change+displaced+persons&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart"]Each and every one of you living in a larger nation or non-nuclear/hydro small one displaces more people via the aggregate effects of your pollution on a global level.[/URL] You don't care, because it's not presented to you with a colorful sob story.
[URL="http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=climate+change+extinction&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C50&as_ylo=&as_vis=1"]Each and every one of you is causing greater ecological damage, not by wiping out individual colorful and pretty species, but contributing to an environment where whole swaths of creatures will be unable to survive.[/URL] You don't care, because it's not presented to you with a colorful sob story.
[URL="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S8zLH4XX2nc/TsMIlBxGYcI/AAAAAAAAC9o/rgfMfXw2VyQ/s1600/YouSuck-1.jpg"]Each and every one of you that thinks it's wrong for a country to aspire to industrial greatness just because it has collateral damage, while reaping the benefits of it yourself, [I]sucks.[/I][/URL] Yeah, that's the point of this whole post. Each and every one of you opposed to this sucks. And I inform you of this fact so that you may remove your thumbs from your asses and actually [I]think[/I] about things, both critically logically, while performing some [I]research[/I] on this little computer box you're posting on. Caring about the environment is acknowledging that sometimes it needs to take a minor hit, and focusing on the more pressing issues with actual realistic alternatives like the rest of us systematically raping the ocean, atmosphere, and weather patterns. Caring about humans is acknowledging that more than 40k people will benefit from the displacement of 40k by magnitudes, and focusing on the more pressing issues with actual realistic alternatives like widespread corruption, conflict displaced populations, and our current plutocracies.

[i]And now, to lighten things back up, what I imagine this post reads like to several of you:[/i]
[video=youtube;x6SXG3WKucg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6SXG3WKucg[/video]

[Megafan]

Too nuanced, can't process.

[Upgrade123]

Telling the natives to get up and move when they have no reason to?
Sounds eerily familiar.

[Contag]

[QUOTE=Behemoth_PT;34494120]Brazilian People are not Hispanic.

Have a good reading:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazil#Portuguese_colonization[/url]
[/QUOTE]

You know that Portuguese people are generally considered Hispanic, right?
Being that they come from Portugal, part of what was once known as Hispania by the romans?
You should know this! :v:

[editline]2nd February 2012[/editline]

[quote]Why all of you except the Scandinavians and Swiss are hypocritical dumbfucks[/quote]

That's a bit too fucking far mate.
I am not my government.

Invest in thorium and breeder reactors Brazil!
And I promise I'm not saying that because my country has the world's largest reserves of uranium and possibly thorium!

[editline]2nd February 2012[/editline]

[sub][sub]Only a matter of time before Australia become the Saudi Arabia of nuclear energy![/sub][/sub]

[Turnips5]

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34506213]things[/QUOTE]

if only I could ever be fucked to do proper research on power generation, and then had the patience to write up an informative post only for it to be read by about three people.

thank you for explaining. I do have to admit that I was blinded somewhat by the situation at hand: it's impossible to tell that you've made a bunch of random people's lives shittier through a news story, it doesn't have the same impact as straight up telling a tribe of people to fuck off, and I doubt it can ever be made to.

what you said is not hard to understand, but it does require you to [I]know your shit[/I] to put it forth in the first place. that's why people who know their shit are building it and not facepunch.

I really should make quantitative arguments more often. The only time I've ever really been arsed to do it on facepunch is in exoplanet threads where someone tries to say that x planet will have horrendous gravity because it's more massive than earth, which is easy to disprove and takes a few lines.

you should make posts like this in the thread earlier so that there's either a bunch of retarded shit that we can call people out on, or so that people might learn (THE HORROR, THE HORROR) something.

[editline]2nd February 2012[/editline]

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34506274]Too nuanced, can't process.[/QUOTE]

it's not even hard to process

[editline]2nd February 2012[/editline]

the tribe didn't deserve any of this (because they didn't shit up the world) and didn't want a part in it (but were forced to).

but that's not a counter to xenocide's argument, because he's purely talking about people dead with dam versus people dead without.

[editline]2nd February 2012[/editline]

[B]essentially, dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.[/B]

HA HA HA

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;34506213]
[I][B]The Buggerfuck Fish and Energy in the Newly Industrialized World, or: Why All of You Except the Scandinavians and Swiss are Hypocritical Dumbfucks[/B][/I]
[HR][/HR][/QUOTE]

I may not be Scandinavian or Swiss, but I agree quite strongly with your post. Generally I find it silly myself when people in first world, industrialised countries complain about the moving of backwards tribes or the cutting of rainforest when they do a great deal of damage to the earth themselves. What's more is that the developing nations are struggling to lift their people out of poverty into a age of prosperity, but when people complain about them doing this when in fact they do this themselves, is terrible.

The western world had its industrial revolution, and now that the rest of the world is doing that it looks as though the west is deliberately trying to slow down economic development in other nations by promoting environmentalism and reduction of methods that they themselves blatantly abused for years prior and continue to do so.

[macerator]

[QUOTE=Zeke129;34487535]Generally it's because Indigenous groups have never had to deal with a gigantic invading force before. Most lived peacefully interspersed with some infighting between individual tribes, but never full blown war[/QUOTE]
Someone that gets it! I'd give you a medal, mate.

[Funcoot]

Is the government in anyway compensating the tribe for the land they occupied that they are about to ruin?

[Ghostwork]

[QUOTE=Funcoot;34511925]Is the government in anyway compensating the tribe for the land they occupied that they are about to ruin?[/QUOTE]

itunes gift cards!

[Dr. Fishtastic]

[QUOTE=NO ONE;34485722][img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_IqWOPMHbs0E/SRg89DNp26I/AAAAAAAABSE/-aKk45Tv464/s400/crying_indian.jpg[/img]

Is this what you are proud of mo fucker?[/QUOTE]

the dude was a sicilian

[FunnyBunny]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;34487664]40,000 people isn't very much tbh.

That's how many people died in Ferris wheel accidents in the summer of 2011.

[url]http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-40000-people-died-on-ferris-wheels-this-sum,26414/[/url][/QUOTE]

Holy shit I can't believe this just happened