Comments on: Because the world needs more cans

Because the world needs more cans

MrMustard — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 15:48:48 -0800

Incredible feat of engineering or environmental disaster in the making? Despite continued protests, the Karahnjukar project rumbles onwards. Some people are desperate to see it stopped, although the Icelandic public aren't so sure. In fact, Alcoa - the US company driving the project – is proud of its environmental achievements. Whatever the truth, there's no denying that the area under threat contains some stunning scenery. Take a look while you still can.

By: pmbuko

pmbuko — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:14:39 -0800

It's about time Iceland got its own Hetch hetchy.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 16:30:41 -0800

Those are indeed stunning pictures. It's difficult not to have an emotional reaction, a knee-jerk reaction, that anything that even remotely threatens that landscape should be resisted.

By: thedevildancedlightly

thedevildancedlightly — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:10:59 -0800

It's difficult not to have an emotional reaction, a knee-jerk reaction, that anything that even remotely threatens that landscape should be resisted. The problem is that the hydro is replacing fossil fuel power. And fossil fuel power would put half the coast of Iceland underwater. It's just not as dramatic a picture since there is no identifiable part of Iceland that would be submerged.

By: R. Mutt

R. Mutt — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:16:14 -0800

A Short History of Climate and Human Impact in Iceland

By: eriko

eriko — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:50:02 -0800

Incredible feat of engineering or environmental disaster in the making? That's not an exclusive or question. The answer is almost certainly "Yes". The question is simple: Are the benefits of the dam worth the cost, both financially and otherwise?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:21:00 -0800

British Columbia has a dam that exists for the pleasure of Alcan. Not to anyone's great surprise, the buggers are wholly slimey. They are putting a lot of pressure on the government to allow them to divert more water for their use, destroying a vital and very large river in the process. And simultaneously they are selling excess electricity, which goes against the terms of the agreement that allowed them to do this in the first place. Give them an inch and they take a mile. Anyway, re: hydroelectricity itself, I love it. It's cheap and because generation technology continues to improve, we get more and more from our original investment. There are huge environmental consequences, and one can only justify them by determining the very longterm benefits. There's no way some of BC's dams would be allowed by today's standards. Yet... we have very inexpensive electricity, incredible capacity for growth without further damming, and it's an atmospherically clean source of energy, which I think is pretty important these days. It probably helps that BC is a monstrously large bit of land. The loss of wooded environment is mostly unnoticeable when seen in the context of the humongous wilderness we still have left. It's kinda like the utility room in a house -- woulda been great living space, is a mess behind the door, and is needed despite the cost.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:22:24 -0800

(er, but back to Alcan: give them any more of BC's generation capacity? No. Greedy bastards. Give Alcoa a chunk of Iceland? Guess the citizens of that country better decide if they really want to take that tiger by the tail.)

By: blasdelf

blasdelf — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:28:26 -0800

Oh My. I've personally experienced the havoc wrouht by hydroelectric dams and mining on the american southwest, and it's heartbreaking. I cried the first time I saw the bathtub ring in the canyons of the Escalante river (feeds 'Lake' Powell, damned by the Glen Canyon Dam), and now I'm crying for Iceland's Karahnjukar. OmniWise: Your reactions aren't knee-jerk. Potential anthropogenic climate change might suck, but dams suck a lot more. This hydroelectric dam, like many, doesn't feed consumer electrical demand. It powers a mine and a smelting plant. Directly wounding the environment, and then raping it in the festering wound left behind. I'll take global warming over hydroelectricity any day. Why is Karahnjukar not a protected national park of some sort?

By: Elpoca

Elpoca — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 19:41:41 -0800

Indirectly it does feed consumer demand, as the aluminum produced by the smelter goes into consumer goods.

By: rocket88

rocket88 — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 21:38:24 -0800

It takes huge amounts of energy to smelt aluminum. If this kind of project bothers you, stop buying stuff made from it.

By: Busithoth

Busithoth — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:34:35 -0800

The problem is that the hydro is replacing fossil fuel power. And fossil fuel power would put half the coast of Iceland underwater. It's just not as dramatic a picture since there is no identifiable part of Iceland that would be submerged. Ah, I see. So this single smelter will off-set Iceland' problems with sea levels rising? I'm actually shocked that this is going forward. It's not as if they're hard up for the money. Everyone I met there was extremely proud of their environment's quality. I kept marveling at how great everything tasted and smelled there. Then I came back to NYC.

By: thedevildancedlightly

thedevildancedlightly — Thu, 16 Jun 2005 23:32:05 -0800

So this single smelter will off-set Iceland' problems with sea levels rising? ... I kept marveling at how great everything tasted and smelled there Did I ever claim that it would solve ALL problems? It doesn't make global warming worse. If that's not good enough for you, then it'll help Iceland's "taste and smell" by not creating new particulate emissions from a coal plant. Or new NOx and sulfer emissions and the resulting acid rain and smog. It's not an end-all and be-all solution, but for Iceland it might make sense more than a fossil plant.

By: asok

asok — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 03:23:48 -0800

Hydroelectric is not neccessarily a way to cut down on greenhouse gases, however in this case it might reduce them in comparison to a fossil fuel burning power station. It depends on the amount of flora (not the marge) that will be covered by the proposed resevoir.

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:21:01 -0800

They were just replanting trees when I left the island. Icelanders are nothing if not practical. I suspect if those folks are for it, it'll probably work. Damn fine engineers too.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 17 Jun 2005 13:56:10 -0800

And cute! Those cute shoes with the turned up toes, those cut conical red hats, those cute green jackets, those cute lederhosen! Ain't nothing so cute as an Icelander!