ruining a river and the habitat of many plants and animals.

It has to be the waterfalls, they are already there so it would have a lesser impact on the environment.

Thanks for replying Avenanap!

That is my quandry. If you build the dam the river will be gone. The plan is to build it above the waterfalls. So, you get clean renewable energy, but the river will only occasionally have water. So, the salmon and trout will disappear, along with other creatures in the river. The nature and the environment around the river will change, to lack of sufficient water. The roads to the power plant will go through virgin forest and the habitat of red deer, moose and other forest animals and insects. People with holiday cottages along the river is not happy, they will lose their drinking water and they love the river. The people who live there permanently will lose their river too. (The needs of weekenders is really not on the top of my priory list, tbh)

But are all these issues shortsighted? There is a lot of forest, and many rivers, and energy has to come from somewhere?

Is it just a classical not in my backyard - not in my river syndrome?
Rather many small waterpowerplants than one big coal/nuclear powerplant?

They tend to look at whatever will make the least impact on the environment. I love wind turbines and solar pannels, stick them high up and there's tones of light and wind, however, people don't like them because they don't look nice or are a bit noisy. I suupose we all want our cake and want to eat it!

As far as I'm aware, they can move the salmon and trout so they wouldn't be affected (don't ask). Have they done an envirnmental impact assessment (assuming they have these where you are, they have them here and in the US)?

They may have problems with the red deer as they should come under the protected species list.

They have done an environmental impact study. However, it says there is no salmon and no trout in the river, there are no suitable breeding grounds for fish in the river, and no suitable spots to rest before tackling water falls, etc. This is wrong. This means I dont believe the rest of the report, I think it is paid for by the company that wants to build the waterfall, and thus "tailored". There has been no independent study. They have not even measured the potential energy output of the river. At least they have not made their findings official.

They have to inform the public and ask public opinion, it's part of the EIA. You should contact the council if you know that it's incorrect. It's a criminal offence to be dishonest. There is a chance they carried out the study over one week where there were no salmon, this is where public consultation should come in as the locals know what species are there.
The company that wants to build is the one that pays for the EIA, this is normal and standard practice however the consultants who did the EIA would not want to risk their reputation by doing it incorrectly or dishonestly.

Your best bet is getting the media and your community involved. Big developments like this are more likely to be given the go ahead if the community is apathetic and not interested. It's been proven where I live, developers tend to get planning permission in areas that are less afluent because these communities tend to not want to get involved. They stear clear of ones that are more well off and better educated. It's unfair IMO.

I'm looking for an independent study for my disertation. When are they looking to do this?

Avenanap, I am in Norway, so although what you say is correct regards to procedure, the problem is a little complex. (And maybe wont fit your dissertation criteria) The local landowners are mostly fore the project, they envisage $$$ for themselves. Especially the bloke who owns the land where the actual plant will be built. They are compensating him a one off £5k. Laughable, I think when you consider the profit. Electricity here is horrendously expensive, more so than in the UK.

While most norwegians pay a hand and a foot to heat their freezing artic homes in the winter, many energy companies dump the energy to sweden at rock bottom prices. The other landovners will get a a tiny renumeration of a percentage of the profit divided by the "fall" on their properties along the river. Possibly £2k per year. But big companies being big companies, they can manipulate the figures to get the profit on paper down quite a bit, so in reality the compensation will be measly. I dont think the other landowners get this.

And of course, only landowners in a specific region of the river is compensated. The rest, isnt.

This is aside of my concerns for the environmental impact. I guess I should speak to a River and Waterfall organization and Environmental organization. (names are norwegian and will possibly not make sense to you.)

What are you studying? What do you plan your dissertation on?

I'm doing a MSc in Environmental Management, I have also studied and done an EIA for a proposed canal. I can do the dissertation in anything. It's the same principle all over, get as much of the community on your side. There should be an equivalent to British Waterways, RSPB and Greenpeace where you are. I can put you in touch with the module leader, she's based in the peak district and knows alot more than me. She had us all doing an EIA for a canal a bunch of idiots enphusiasts were planning on dredging, regardless of the effects on the environment. She's rather useful.

My dilemma is actually that my family own 3 of the 4 part of waterfalls in this river. If we refuse to sign, the powerplant cant be built. It is one heck of a decision.

Ooh- avenanap- I did my thesis on the ecosystem of a canal, for English Nature! (sorry- I'm so boring!)

QS -5k sounds ridiculous!

Oh just saw that bit about Greenpeace. that would be overkill. Everybody hates them around here, whalehunting-- fishing community!

I see why you are stuck. There are other ways of generating energy, solar panels, wind turbines, have they looked at these rather than destroy ecosystems? The EIA should have been indepth as it sounds like a big project. It needs to include everything, from bottom feeders to red deer, all flora and fauna. It doesn't sound as if this project will be of benefit to anyone other than the power companies. If the ecosystem is going to be destroyed and land owners misrably compensated so they can route any excess energy to sweden and reap the profits then this seems off IMO. There's only maximum gain for the energy company here. I understand your problems in the winter, it must be terribly cold but you need to decide whether it's worth it. I'm a hippy and environmentalist at heart so I'm biased here by the way.

EachPeach. That sounds really interesting. I did mention that dredging would disturb sediment from heavy industry located around the river/canal, the ancient scheduled monument bridges that would result in fines and prison sentences, the people we did the EIA for didn't care as long as they get their canal. I would be very interested in reading your thesis, we've been waiting for english nature to get in touch.

Local fishing groups are good for support.

Umm, well, it was undergraduate, and a looong time ago!

It does seem like a lot of loss of diversity QS

You could try to encourage farting in a jar: methane is an energy source

What about thermal energy? They stick massive rods very, very, very deep underground which absorb the heat energy from the earth's core (not far down enough to get too close though. This could work for heating a house with minimal impact to the ecosystem.

I'll contact English Nature and beg for some info. I know they have it now. Thanks EachPeach.

dunno if it would be any use- was all about water quality really... didn't do any EIA stuff until MSc...

It's alright. It's just what I'm missing. I shall ask them.

So my best course of action would be to first of all speak to some nature protection agency or other group that has a better idea of the environment and ecosystem in that particular area?

So my best course of action would be to first of all speak to some nature protection agency or other group that has a better idea of the environment and ecosystem in that particular area?

Yes. Tip them off, speak to them, all the dame to me.

qs is it norsk hydro who want to build the dam/power station?

For me it comes down to the balance of benefits: how much electricity will be produced (for how many homes); at what money cost; and at what 'cost' to environment, people, etc.

Why can't they build several micro hydro schemes instead of a big one? That way (as far as I understand, am not an expert) you divert a small bit of the water, leaving the rest running as usual, make it run down a steep pipe, it runs a turbine at the bottom (different ways it can do this) and then put it back in the river further down. Ok, it won't produce energy for 1000s, possibly even not for 100s of houses - though that depends on the drop, quantity of water etc. - BUT you don't lose the river.

For me it comes down to the balance of benefits: how much electricity will be produced (for how many homes); at what money cost; and at what 'cost' to environment, people, etc.

Why can't they build several micro hydro schemes instead of a big one? That way (as far as I understand, am not an expert) you divert a small bit of the water, leaving the rest running as usual, make it run down a steep pipe, it runs a turbine at the bottom (different ways it can do this) and then put it back in the river further down. Ok, it won't produce energy for 1000s, possibly even not for 100s of houses - though that depends on the drop, quantity of water etc. - BUT you don't lose the river.

very strange building above a waterfall. niagara is a very good example, during the day 50% of the water that goes over the edge is diverted into turbines that produce one hell of a lot of electricity, at night it diverts 75%. at the time of adding in the extra water it sounds like someone turning off the water as the roar becomes noticably less. here, no dams, no environmental damage no nothing except that the waterfall does not creep backwards up the river like it used to so creating a relatively stable environment, why go to the expense of building dams, creating a dam lake and the environmental cost when you can use the natural gravity/dam type features of the waterfall?

Thanks all.

It is not Norsk Hydro, I think they make fertilizier? It is a small powercompany specilizing in "small nature friendly" mountain based powerplants.

There are other ways to make power, of course, they are building a windmill park not far away on a very windy island. That doesnt help me as long as there are plans for making a powerplant "on my river".

I am back now, as the other landowners are involving the courts to clarify the rights of the fall. There are two of us not signing, the other has involved the nature protection agencies, so they are in the know.

The river was a major spawning place for salmon. And also the Norwegian National Bird the Cinclus Cinclus is laying eggs in these waterfalls, and there are only registered between 5000 and 25000 eggs laid each year in the entire country, so not a lot.

But, I really am stuck now, as I thought by not signing, it might just "go away". It wont. Can the court force me to sign? Can the court demand our rights sold to the other landowners? They own land along the river, but me and the other landowner not signing own on either side of one waterfall, while we own on both sides of the other waterfall.

QS,

I'm very intrigued about the comment about energy going to Sweden at low price. Why are your energy companies doing that, when the home market has a better price?

On the whole, I think the overall threat to many of the species you mention from a +2-5 c rise in temperature is probably greater than the loss of one specific bit of habitat, but I appreciate it probably doesn't feel like that from where you are.

"On the whole, I think the overall threat to many of the species you mention from a +2-5 c rise in temperature is probably greater than the loss of one specific bit of habitat"

So, what you are saying is that by allowing the development of this powerplant, which is clean sustainable energy that does not contribute to global warming, I am actually aiding the very habitat I am concerned with MORE than by refusing it?

Interesting, you see, this is what my poor Classicaly trained brain is grappling with. Thank you.

As for sweden, I dont know why. There is apparently excess energy floating around.

Does Norway have a large amount of windpower? If it does, one explanation might be that Norwegian generators have to choose to export power when the wind is blowing and generation is greater than local demand. If they're doing that, then the spot price of the exported energy is likely to be very low.

It could be, there are wind generators on island, and some wave turbines too.