Talk:Belo Monte Dam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greenhouse gas budget[edit]

Under the "Greenhouse gas budget header" (Controversies section) their is a large chunk of un-cited material.

The claims I believe present an opinion without any facts. I feel as though it should be removed but thought I would add a discussion to the talk page to see other opinions. Grayfm (talk) 21:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Lucas75 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfm: You were referring to the un-cited material that was added by user Paiotti on April 19th, correct? This material has since been deleted, I believe. The remaining paragraph from that text still exists under the "Controversies"/"Greenhouse gas budget" section and still requires citations if it is to be valid. Zacharyh (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Financed by Norte Energia?[edit]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8633786.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.116.121 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/04/20/world/AP-LT-Brazil-Amazon-Dam.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=Norte%20Energia&st=cse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.116.121 (talk) 20:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@unsigned: No, Belo Monte is not financed by Norte Energia. Norte Energia is the project consortium that would jointly build the project. The project finance is expected to come mostly from BNDES (up to 80%), as the wiki page states. The remaining finance will come from pension funds, investment funds, and private investors. Zacharyh (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mining Bauxita[edit]

The power output is enougth to power a few small countries, no one would construct such big dam to implement a mining operation. Lucas75 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas75: The hydroelectricity would not be used solely to power mining operations; it would also be integrated into the Sistema Interligado Nacional (SIN) to be distributed across the entire Brazilian power grid. However, past experience shows that large dams in Pará export a very large percentage of their electricity to industrial operations. Such is the case with the Alubrás aluminum operation, which receives half of its energy from the Tucurui Dam. The Empresa de Pesquisa Energética estimates that the 8 companies comprising ABIAPE consume 25% of all electricity in Brazil. These are "autoprodutores" which also produce some of the electricity they consume through their industrial operations. These companies seek to increase their consumption of electricity in order to expand aluminum production in Pará as well as increase their own auto-production of energy, towards bringing their energy budget into a more positive balance. At least 20% of Belo Monte's energy is guaranteed for the "autoprodutores." Yet 18,000 kwh are consumed per ton of aluminum smeltered. If the "autoprodutores" are indeed to increase their operations, the Brazilian government would need to expand the reservoir size of Belo Monte and/or add additional reservoirs upstream to meet the 11,233MW potential of the operation. Zacharyh (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Finance[edit]

Funcef and Petros are private pension funds. (http://www.funcef.com.br, https://www.petros.com.br/petrossite/)

BNDES stands for "National Bank of Developement", which one of functions is to finance Brazil infraestrcuture. Furthemore is a state bank. (http://www.bndes.gov.br/)

In Brazil is not unlike that big project have public funds. The April 10th, odebrech withdraw is a common practice in brazilian public auctions to force the price up. By the way is not unlike what happens in US. Lucas75 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas75: Petros is a private pension fund, yes, that should be fixed. Funcef is the pension fund of the Caixa Econômica Federal, a governmental finance institution that has the character of a public company. Zacharyh (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inefficiency[edit]

Needs clarification, 11,233 MW is close to the total output of Itaipu Dam (12,600 MW) which is equivalent (as in 2009) to 14% of brazillian energy needs. http://www.senado.gov.br/web/comissoes/ci/ap/AP20091210_Dr_Jorge_Miguel_Samek.pdf. Hover Dam, for example has a installed capacity of 2078 MW. Even in the Dry Season (if it is bad as it sounds) Belo Monte will be twice as powerful tham Hover Dam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Dam

The impacts listed in the human aspects are not unlike the ones caused to build the Itaipu Dam and a lot of others (in respect of wikipedia's articles). I am not suggested it is not relevant, I think links with another Dam articles could be helpful to understand the context. Lucas75 (talk) 03:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Lucas75: Belo Monte's minimum installed capacity is 11,233.1 MW. Its guaranteed average capacity across the entire year is 4419 MWMed. See ANEEL. The guaranteed capacity during dry months-- summer in the Amazon, which lasts from July through October, and is expanding due to climate change-- is 1,123 MW. This is half the power of Hoover Dam, roughly. You can obtain precipitation data for Altamira here. Zacharyh (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Small point, but isn't the dry season in Amazonia the winter, ie the part of the year with shorter days? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.72.129 (talk) 15:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes like most (but not all) tropical climates the dry season is after the shortest day, which in temperate regions would typically be called winter and spring. At Altamira nearby the months with less than 100mm of rain are July-November with the driest period being September (34mm) and October (35mm). Note though that even though these are what would be called autumn in more temperate regions, they are also the hottest months as the big difference in cloudiness and raininess makes much more of a difference than the small change in day length. In the tropical Americas people seem to refer to the drier and often hotter part of the year as "summer" in Portuguese or Spanish and the wetter and often cooler part of the year as "winter", even if they occur in the reverse time of year as the temperate summer and winter of that hemisphere. Ie July would be called summer in Altamira even though it's in the time of shortest days. Booshank (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There should be context as most hydro plants fall within a 30-80% capacity factor but care needs to be taken to avoid OR. A reliable source that makes such a comparison or indicates one would suffice.--NortyNort (Holla) 05:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies[edit]

I recomend to put the "On the other hand" paragraph together with the inefficiency in a block called "expected results". Lucas75 (talk)

@Lucas75: That paragraph needs citations to support its claims before it is moved anywhere. Zacharyh (talk) 16:54, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Propaganda[edit]

This is written like an anti-propaganda work piece. Couldn't the editors make at least an attempt at balance?Guinsberg (talk) 22:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came to see why there was a "neutrality disputed" tag - is the above comment all there's to it? Or has the offending sections been removed but not the tag? 213.112.196.167 (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Compare versions from mid-2010 (e.g. July or August). The text had major NPOV issues; several editors, working together, just fixed them rather than talk about them. SBaker43 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree as well. I haven't been able to find any sources with engineering specifications yet. It is hard to search the internet for them when their is so much press on the dam. When I find the specs, I will include em' which will further improve the article as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 21:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How come there is absolutely no mention of the opposition of the indigenous people (and least 10 different ethnies) against the dam? The only mention is a link to Raoni at the bottom of the page, but this is not sufficient.

Pwjohnson (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simple, the whole page is biased in favor of the project and no doubt is edited by corrupt government official in brazil. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.208.77.37 (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Local protests are mentioned throughout the article and the "Social effects" section states the opposition of indigenous leaders. This is one of the most controversial dam projects in the world now and a significant effort by several editors has been made to keep the article as neutral as possible. I think the facts are in there and the reader can decide if they want to take an opinion.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Structure[edit]

I believe the article needs to be restructured to improve cohesion. Please provide feedback about the following proposed initial structure:

  • 1 Project history
  • 2 Layout and scale
  • 3 Power generation and distribution
  • 4 Economics
  • 5 Environmental effects
  • 6 Social effects
  • 7 See also
  • 8 References
  • 9 External links

I believe the general transformation could be:

  • 1 Project finance divide between Project history and Economics
  • 2 Project's Impacts divide among Environmental effects and Social effects and Layout and scale
• 2.1 The IBAMA report
  • 3 Inefficiency place under Power generation and distribution
  • 4 Incomplete environmental assessment place under Environmental effects
  • 5 Loss of biodiversity place under Environmental effects
  • 6 Legal challenges place under Project history
  • 7 Controversies
• 7.1 Greenhouse gas budget place under Environmental effects
  • 8 Alternatives place under Economics
  • 9 See also
  • 10 References
  • 11 External links

SBaker43 (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I also put a a NPOV tag on this article as well. It might as well be named the "Belo Monte Dam controversy" as this is an article on a controversy. This article needs to have due weight on both sides. In essence, as much controversy as there is, there must be the same amount of info regarding the specifications, studies, history, etc of the dam. Just like it structured above. I can't even tell how high the dam is from this article. --NortyNort (Holla) 12:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with reorganizing the structure of the article to what you suggest. I agree that much information is missing and the article could include many more references to peer-reviewed studies and publications.Zacharyh (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took 2 months to get to this. Section restructuring is done except for adding Layout and scale. Some text and refs added to History. The other pieces were mostly just moved--with some splitting between Environmental and Social. Please check to see that I didn't lose anything. SBaker43 (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is an improvement on the structure. I want to work on this article in the coming weeks to verify the info, balance it and try to achieve neutrality. It is a highly controversial dam and it seems deservedly so. I will do some research on it and try to get more info on the layout and scale.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just updated the Project History section substantially, mostly using Tenotã-Mo, which had already been cited. I've included some citations from Eletrobras documents regarding the history of the project's design changes and evolution. I've included links to political-economic context already existing on wiki. Thanks for reorganzing the page structure, there is considerable clean up to do still.Zacharyh (talk) 07:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you and others for heavy editing, this is now a very different and much better article than 6 months ago. Obviously sections still need significant improvement. SBaker43 (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement, especially on the history. I am still searching. Usually I can find specifications for dams, especially on the contractor/owner website or in geology/engineering papers but it is particularly hard with this project given the climate around it.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restructured the Power generation and distribution section, adding Capacity and Availability which are also related to the Economics issue, but seemed to me to be better addressed in the technical part. I also added information about the contracted equipment. The equipment details need to move to Layout and Scale when there is more detail about the dam, power houses, and transmission inter-connect facilities.SBaker43 (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better and better. I keep searching for more specifications, I assume more will come out as contracts are awarded and if construction starts. I will work on it a little in the next few days, some of it is spread throughout the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 00:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Number of generators at dam and their capacity[edit]

I am having trouble finding out the generator set-up at the power houses. Regarding the big Belo Monte power house, here, here and here (Eletrobras) and here (Eletrobras) I have 20x 550 MW Francis units. However, the recent contract was for 611 MW units. The only thing I can think of is that only 14 are being installed first and the other 6 later. In addition, sometimes the generator is rated higher than the actual turbine.

Regarding the bulb turbines at the Pimental power house, I have seen a 6, 8 or 9 setup, all at 25.9 MW. Eletrobras states 7 x 25.9 MW (181.3 total). For the article, I think we should stick with 25.9 MW for the bulb turbines. Regarding the larger units, I think Eletrobras is a better source and we should stick with the 550 MW number. Anyone else's insight would be helpful before I make the changes. If we use Eletrobras' number, we get 11,181 MW which is about where it is supposed to be.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original plan, as per the rendition of the main dam, was for 20 generators. But the construction project, as per contract, has decided for 18, more powerful, generators. The rendition picture shows three sections: 7+6+7. Today, 8 years later, Google map satellite pictures show instead two blocks, one of 8 penstocks and one with 10 penstocks. So I will say that reality settles the question ;-)
The Pimental site should be at 3°06'57.0"S 51°47'45.0"W, but, today I can't see it on Google maps. A actual construction link, describes: "Composto por uma Casa de Força Complementar com potência instalada de 233,1 MW, abrigará 6 turbinas do tipo Bulbo e o Vertedouro.". Conclusion: 18 x 611 MW and 6 x 38.85 MW --Robertiki (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Altamira Dam[edit]

The article contains numerous references to the Altamira Dam, formerly known as Babaquera dam. This is described as an additional, upstream dam, with a proposed reservoir of over 6,000 km². However, the information is contradictory, and there doesn't appear to be any on the internet at large; and the Altamira, Pará article refers to the Belo Monte Dam itself as the Altamira Dam. What is this additional Altamira Dam? --pmj (talk) 07:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What information do you see as contradictory? Information on the upstream proposed dams is either not public or in Portugues. Much of the specifications I got for the Belo Monte was from Portugues sources. I am not surprised you don't see much in English sources. The closest and biggest town to Belo Monte and Altamira is Altamira, so I can see some confusion there. The Altamira dam is planned just upstream of the the town of Altamira, Belo Monte downstream and around the "big bend". Right now, there are no plans to build the Altamira Dam, as just "one" dam is supposed to be built on the Xingu. Personally, I think they will try to build it down the road as it will greatly improve the efficiency of Belo Monte.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. What I found contradictory is that sections of the article imply the Altamira dam will be built, while other sections talk about various changes in planning, and yet others seem to assume it won't be. We should clear this up. Portuguese references are fine, but yes, it's time consuming for me to hunt them down. --pmj (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The flow of the article is that the Altamira Dam was in planning but a reported resolution was signed stated only one dam would be on the Xingu. I don't know when that resolution was signed but the flow of the article, regarding the Altimara Dam, is chronological. The dam is proposed, renamed and supposedly cut. It is mentioned in other sections as a needed option to make the Belo Monte more efficient. What would help would be more info and better placement of the resolution text. Tracking down the specifications for Belo Monte was difficult. I had to navigate through the Eletrobras website and download a bunch of files which are all sourced.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's additional confusion in that there's both a Belo Monte Dam and a Belo Monte Dam Complex. The latter includes this dam, the Altamira dam, and four other, smaller dams that were planned upstream. The plans for all bar the current Belo Monte Dam are indeed in 'hiatus', but building the Altamira dam and perhaps some of the others is a necessity if the current Belo Monte Dam is ever going to achieve rendable power output. We can all draw our conclusions from here. 132.229.246.243 (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I clarified that it is a complex in the design section. The lead also describes it as a complex. Overall, this complex as a whole is commonly referred to as the Belo Monte Dam, Belo Monte being the main dam where the power house is located.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third-largest[edit]

"world's third-largest in installed capacity, behind the Three Gorges Dam in China and the Brazilian-Paraguayan Itaipu Dam. ". When dam will be completed it would at least forth (also after Xiluodu Dam) --Valodzka (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Xiluodu should start commissioning this year and be complete by the next, way ahead of Belo Monte. I did some tweaking to the text. I don't want to overwhelm the reader in the lead with specifics and technicalities.--NortyNort (Holla) 15:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Co² compensation ?[edit]

I'm not sure but is the co² that would be emitted by the destroyed/rotting trees in the basin compensated ? If it's compensated (and new trees are planted with that money in other locations on the planet), then the destruction of the trees isn't an issue, at least not when it comes to contributing to global warming (fauna and flora could be hurt a bit nonetheless).

The easiest method (and cheapest method, if the co² is compensated) seems to be cutting of the trees before flooding the area (see Deforestation_in_Brazil#Hydroelectric_dams), but if that's not done for some reason, co² compensation could be a good alternative.

KVDP (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resurvey?[edit]

Under History, I feel that this phrase is confusing and unclear: "Eletronorte also stated they would "resurvey the fall", meaning resurvey the dams on the river." The citation for it also does not work (https://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/tenot%C3%A3%E2%80%93m%C3%B5-executive-summary-4065). Acozad (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belo Monte Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Belo Monte Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Belo Monte Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:14, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Belo_Monte_Dam&oldid=1206235213"