When low-tech will do the trick
Peres has recently made much ado about adopting a "green" persona. While this is a welcome announcement, many of our environmental problems will be exacerbated by projects he supports.
By Daniel Orenstein Tags: Shimon Peres Israel environmentWe humans love grandiose engineering projects. We marvel at our technological prowess, ancient and modern, when flocking as tourists to the ancient Mayan ruins and Egyptian pyramids or celebrate new skyscrapers and dams that break old records for height and mass. Israelis are no exception, and the draining of the Hula wetlands and the laying of the National Water Carrier remain a tribute to Zionist can-do determination. Yet, as we've learned from the Hula, and may yet learn from the Trans-Israel Highway, some of these projects may have been executed with excessive zeal and deficient environmental and social foresight.
It is with the benefit of this hindsight that we should consider the Red Sea-Dead Sea Canal with some healthy skepticism. Variations of this project have been proposed over the past 150 years. Its key selling point is that it can exploit the drop in altitude between the Red Sea and the Dead Sea to allow water to generate hydroelectric energy. The modern version posits that the energy yielded will be sufficient to desalinate 850 million cubic meters of Red Sea water for much-needed drinking water in Jordan and the Palestinian Authority, with additional water filling up the Dead Sea. A reminder: The Dead Sea is shrinking because its Jordan River source waters have all been diverted for agriculture and household consumption by the countries upstream.
But environmental assessments reveal a veritable rogue's gallery of potential negative impacts: The marine ecology of the Red Sea would be harmed; ground water in the Arava would be threatened with salinization; flash floods and seismic activity would threaten the canal; and the influx of sea water would make the Dead Sea turn milky white, while releasing odorous hydrogen sulfide.
For these reasons, the idea is opposed by many of Israel's hydrologists, geologists, ecologists and environmental scientists. Its estimated $5-billion construction, plus $5 million-a-year operating cost, are additional deterrents. According to Technion professor of agricultural engineering and former Israeli water commissioner Dan Zaslavsky, the proposal for a canal (or pipeline) has been studied some eight times - and rejected each time on economic or environmental grounds.
So why does the proposal continue to rear its head? Perhaps this is a case of what Ben-Gurion University professor Yaakov Garb calls "constructing the inevitability" of a mega-project. In a 2004 article, Garb cogently outlines the decision-making process that led to another mega-project: the Trans-Israel Highway. For decades, while the project was still a proposal, advocates adapted their justification, based on what they thought would resonate most with potential funders, governments and the public. Like the canal, the road was presented, with selective data, as a project that Israel could not live without. Likewise, the Red-Dead Canal has been touted as the answer to the region's water shortage, as a new and clean energy source, a lifeline for the Dead Sea, a boon to tourism, and now, according to President Shimon Peres, a project vital to regional peace and stability. Whatever the season or the problem - the canal can be framed as the solution.
Certainly, both Jordan and the PA are in need of more drinking water. But these needs can be met through less romantic policies, which include restoration of their deteriorating water infrastructure, investment in waste-water treatment, and scaling back agriculture. Israel could also provide a more generous and fair allotment of water to its neighbors. All of these solutions combined would be less expensive than the proposed canal, and their environmental impact would be mostly positive.
There is also a real alternative to the Red-Dead Canal. According to both Zaslavsky and Friends of the Earth Middle East, we can simply allow some of the water that formerly flowed through the Jordan River to the Dead Sea, which has since been diverted, to flow once again. The great peace project can be reframed as the international restoration of this historic and ecologically unique watershed, to the benefit of its wildlife, holy sites, tourists and residents, and of course, the return of the Dead Sea to its former level. As pointed out in Friends of the Earth's critique of the World Bank's most recent report, some canal advocates are simply ignoring this low-tech, but promising, option.
Unfortunately, donors are often less enamored of donating to projects that don't have a plaque with their name on it. Fixing the underground pipes in Amman and helping farmers to stop using inefficient irrigation isn't as sexy as building a 250-kilometer canal with pumps, generators and desalination factories.
Peres has recently made much ado about adopting a "green" persona. While this is a welcome announcement, many of our environmental problems will be exacerbated by projects he supports. We require a fundamental "re-visioning" of how we live on and manipulate the earth. In this case, the low-tech, less expensive solution may provide better economic, social and environmental value than the proposed mega-project. We can hope he and the relevant ministers will listen to the many scientists and activists who have advised them as such.
Daniel Orenstein is a postdoctoral fellow at the Technion Faculty of Architecture and Town Planning and a lecturer at the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
How high is the highest point on this proposed canal?
Since 1985 end of project, "affiliation"? Not really! I lost total contact since then. But I looked in disbelief at the latter efforts in the Red-Med. After all, part of the Med-Dead, among the many alternatives investigated was of course also the Red-Dead. It didn't take long to see the enormous environment problems plus the much higher cost. Now, regardless of "preferences", the Dead Sea has already become a disaster area. It just can't be left becoming an impassable moon environment. Regarding "filling it" with the Jordan, the history of the Dead Sea is very well known. Geology, water marks, etc. Before exploatation, agriculture needs, and the 2 Dead Sea works, there was an equilibrium. What was coming in was evaporating, more or less. The "recent" steady elevation was ~minus 396 if my memory serves. Now it is about 20 m lower. Lots of sinkholes were formed - another story... Just forget a raise of even one meter. And just try to eliminate the two Dea Sea Works and agriculture...!!
Besides, 800 MW of daytime electricity would, alone, pay for the hydroelectric project, never mind the saving of the Dead Sea. Desalination may, just may, be another benefit. (You need to take the water back up to the country level...).
Since 1985 end of project, "affiliation"? Not really! I lost total contact since then. But I looked in disbelief at the latter efforts in the Red-Med. After all, part of the Med-Dead, among the many alternatives investigated was of course also the Red-Dead. It didn't take long to see the enormous environment problems plus the much higher cost. Now, regardless of "preferences", the Dead Sea has already become a disaster area. It just can't be left becoming an impassable moon environment. Regarding "filling it" with the Jordan, the history of the Dead Sea is very well known. Geology, water marks, etc. Before exploatation, agriculture needs, and the 2 Dead Sea works, there was an equilibrium. What was coming in was evaporating, more or less. The "recent" steady elevation was ~minus 396 if my memory serves. Now it is about 20 m lower. Lots of sinkholes were formed - another story... Just forget a raise of even one meter. And just try to eliminate the two Dea Sea Works and agriculture...!!
I just read the Friends of the Earth report mentioned in the article (http://www.foeme.org/index_images/dinamicas/publications/publ75_1.pdf) - they reviewed four additional studies, including two by the Geological Survey of Israel and gave many other reasons to be skeptical. S, I understand that you also oppose the Dead-Red, but are very enthusiastic about the Dead-Med. For the sake of transparency, do you have a vested interest, or you just like the project? If so, what are it's key selling points for you?
S: Good information. Unfortunately, a 1985 study need to be re-studied. A lot of tech advances were made in 22 years. I am not impressed by who made the previous work, I am sure it was O.K. Can you tell me: (1) Alternatives were evaluated, apart from hydropower? (2) Lab modeling were performed? (3) Actual scaled pilot plant operated? (4) How many years of data colletion exist, other than hydralogic and chemical testing. Thank you.
Finally, please explain why adding water into the Sea from the Jordan won't raise the level? I understand that evaporation will rise because the surface area will be greater, but will it rise to compensate for any additional water?
Ok, S. I'm assuming you are also opposed to the Dead-Red because you prefer the Dead-Med. But for transparency sake, do you have a vested interest here, or just think its a good idea? If so, why do you think its a good idea? I just read the Friends of the Earth report mentioned in the original article - its reviews 4 other reports by Israeli and Jordanian professional groups (Two by the Israel Geological Survey) and finds further environmental reasons to questions the wisdom of this project. The PDF report is here: http://www.foeme.org/index_images/dinamicas/publications/publ75_1.pdf.
Aside from the management of the planning/design/explorations were the top Israeli hydro firm assisted by a multitude of external consultants, followed by a consortium of an American top firm plus a Scotish firm (which designed Dynorwig) who redid the whole work, assisted in their turn by varied foreign consultants, and a final Review Board of 5 absolutely top world experts in the various disciplines who recomended construction of the project. Most of the work was done in 5 years. In 1985 the project was scheduled for completion in 1994. The finance minister blocked the project.
Dont take advice, design/build/operate by yourself. No team work needed, no multidisciplinary specialists to contribute to this type of project. At last, a genius is here to save a lot of effort from all others. If you get a cent to finance your plan I will contribute with the same amount.
2B size project can be design-build-operate project. The state needs to set-up bid open for the international companies with proven records in similar projects. There is nothing exceptional in a size or complexity of the proposed project.
And don't come back with "advice".
A project of this type need to be prepared (to obtain funds from the World Bank) as at least with 12 alternatives, the zero be: "do nothing", each one with pros and cons, with cost-benefits analysis, environmental impacts..as a minimum. If the C/B gives negative benefits it is up to the political decisions to move on with subsidies, no for technical people to decide. A decision comes from policies. When a decision is made, only then comes how to build it, two options appear first: design/build/operate, design/built (owner operate), and others. Dont following these steps is going nowhere. One question: Has the Technion built a test and evaluation small modeling plant next to the Dead Sea to obtain data? If wasn't done, it is useless to continue speaking.
Those that advocate an ecology or environmental permanence doesn't know one of the golden rules of ecol/enviro: works will change the equilibrium of variables existing today, if we change those a new equilibrium will appear,then the question is: is the new equilibrium desirable for us or not? If we don't make changes nature will do as we see it. The Med-Red is interesting but incomplete in my opinion, no matter how many books were prepared. If whitening is not a problem, but deposition will occur, what will happen at the bottom over time? This is one of many answers needed, when all are given and is proved 99.9999 sure what the new equilibrium will be, then it is a political decision to make, no before. If will be built by state or private is not irrelevant at his time. I would like to add a suggestion: Why not get the available pressure at the end of a pipe (40 atm?) only to desalinate water for human consumption (Tel Aviv/Amman?) and discharge brackish and sludge to mineralize...
1. I am not religious. I am a strong advocate of environment protection. 2. The Med-Dead: Starts with a relatively short open canal at Katif. (Was liked by Arafat and made a condition of Oslo). Intake location can be moved to Israel proper. Continues with a pressure steel pipe taking the water up to elevation 100. There it continues with a 25 KM open canal up to where the elevation goes up. (I am writing from memory). Next comes an 80 Km tunnel, 5.8m inner diameter constructed with 6 TBM's, free flow to 2 reservoirs at elevation ~0. (Today only one reservoir is needed). From there water falls ~400 m down at Parsa (Pan 5 of DS works) providing 800 MW daytime in an underground power station. (In the system, water flows 24 hrs/day). Finally the water is directed to the Dead Sea. 1980 cost $1.4 b calculated in 3 independent cost estimates of which the most expensive was selected. The final report consists of some 20 books. Cost of planning and explorations $15 m (donated).
in which I didn't agree to private enterprise managing such a major national hydroelectric project. The project is way too complex for that. I don't feel like writing again why.
It is nice to hear something real. I have lost contact with new findings. Regarding whitening tests were made by the Med-Dead team and the precipitate fell to the bottom of the pans. It is not a certain phenomenon.Even EJ considers it a "distinct chance. Regarding water level drop, of course the diversion of the water is the reason, where did I say differently? I only said that this diverted water was only maintaining the annual balance of gain vs losses. Keeping a more or less constant water level. Not capable of raising the level!! Only water brought from the sea, Med or Red, lots of it, can do that. I guess this is obvious to you Mr EJ...
S is incorrect about the whitening - there is a distinct chance of hydrogen sulfide release and whitening of the surface through precipitation of certain salts - see, for example, Gavrieli et al. 2005. "THE EXPECTED IMPACT OF THE “PEACE CONDUIT” PROJECT (THE RED SEA - DEAD SEA PIPELINE) ON THE DEAD SEA" Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (2005) 10: 3–21. Regarding water level drop, both S and Orenstein are only partially correct - it is going down because the main source has been diverted, and because evaporation has been accelerated by industrial activity. See Asmar (2003) "The Science and Politics of the Dead Sea: Red Sea Canal or Pipeline" The Journal of Environment and Development; 12:325-339. We all need less heat and more light.
Sorry. You are wrong too. A major hydroelectric project of such magnitude, traversing the small country that Israel is, is not for private enterprises to undertake. It is way too complex, involving too many national properties and various interests. It is a national requirement and a national project. Sooner or later, when the damage to the Dead Sea will finally be recognized as intolerable - it was already 20 years ago - it will be constructed under the management of some Governmental Company. By private construction companies, of course...
#1 You need to give a little detail of what the Dead-Med project is (perhaps by writing a second post) before claiming it's better than the Red-Dead project. What you have displayed is simply amatuer demagoguery (pardon my spelling). #2 Stop being such a flat earther. The whole political-economic landscape is evolving around the issue of environmental consciousness and you're stuck in the 70's. Look at what happened to PM Howard of Australia. Utterly humiliated in the last election because he refused to change his tune. People like free enterprise. People also like the environment. The two needn't be mutually exclusive, and are increasingly proving for the wise investor mutually reinforcing these days. Sharpen up your ideas! And if either of you are religious...shame on you. This is Holy Land so you have an obligation to protect. Why religious people in Israel feel they can throw their trash wherever they please is beyond me. Isn't this "adama kodesh"? Go soak your heads in dishwater
You do not understand the magnitude and complexity of such project. This can only be a NATIONAL PROJECT. A major hydroelectric project affects an entire nation in a multitude of ways. Obviously it is more than you can understand, if even Dr Orenstein doesn't. Not to speak of Technion!
Let private enterprise build whatever canal is best economically - Red_Dead, Med-Dead, or none at all. I don't think there are major ecological problems that cannot be addressed. Let Peres keep presidencing, no need for him to engage in economic activity, especially as everything he touches is doomed to fail. The notion that we have enough water to let flow through the Jordan river into the Dead Sea is utterly idiotic (Peres also mentioned this demented idea).
Simple citing others, without checking, is not enough for criticism of projects. First, Dr Daniel Orenstein didn't mention, nor investigate, the Med-Dead project that was studied in enormous detail (forget the "eight" other projects) and where most environmental problems with the Red-Dead project do not exist (the whitening is a falacy). Second, the statement "of course, (the Jordan river alternative) would return the Dead Sea to its former level" is simply stupid! The Jordan river was only MAINTAINING the Dead Sea level, which now is some tens of meters below the former historical level because of evaporation, and keeps going down. IT CANNOT RAISE IT!Finaly, as there is no room here to write more, the Med-Dead project is half the length of the Red-Med and is much, much, cheaper. It was abandoned because the electricity provided was only in a cost breakeven with the expense of construction, not profit. Now, the profit would be enormous. But not the Red-Dead.