World's Worst Dams

1 of 9

More Than a Trickle

In search of cleaner alternatives to burning fossil fuels, many countries have turned to dams. By damming up a powerful stream or river, a population can generate consistent amounts of hydroelectric power that, on the surface, appears to be clean, emission-free energy. Controlling the water flow of the stream allows for a dependable source of drinking water, irrigation for crops, and flood-prevention farther downstream.

However, dams do have a profound environmental impact that is not always positive. Larger dams usually require substantial reservoirs, drowning a large area that can displace homes, increase erosion and release greenhouse gases from the flooded sediment. Additionally, people who are dependent on the natural flow of the river have to adjust to potentially losing their livelihoods and source of food or clean water. Lastly, dams that are hundreds of feet tall and have many turbines are not cheap to build, and their continued maintenance can be incredibly expensive.

Is this form of so-called energy really worth the environmental impact?

Click through this gallery of current and proposed dams and decide for yourself.

Photo: Stringer/Reuters

Itaipu Hydroelectric Dam—Brazil

Located on the Parana River, the Itaipu Hydroelectric Dam straddles the Brazilian and Paraguayan border. Construction began in 1970 and finished in 1984. In 2012, its 18 generators produced 98.29 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. In 1994, the American Society of Civil Engineers called the Itaipu Dam one of the seven modern wonders of the world.

While at least 10,000 people were relocated to build the dam, the biggest travesty involving its construction was the drowning of the Guaira Falls, which were dynamited and can never be restored. “We’re not destroying Seven Falls. We’re just going to transfer it to Itaipu Dam, whose spillway will be a substitute for its beauty,” said dam director Jose Costa Cavalcanti, at the time.

Really? Can a spillway replace this?

Photo: Rickey Rogers/Reuters

Belo Monte Dam—Brazil

The Belo Monte Dam is currently under construction on the Xingu River in northern Brazil. Once completed, the $18 billion project is expected to have the capacity to produce 11,233 megawatts of energy, putting it third in generating capacity behind The Three Gorges Dam and the Itaipu Dam.

Opponents claim the dam could displace up to 40,000 people and impact nearly 579 square miles of the Amazon River basin, a fragile and unique ecosystem along the Xingu River. According to one estimate, it will take 41 years for the dam to have a positive impact on greenhouse gas emissions.

Photo: Jual Doblas/Reuters

Sayano-Shushenskaya Dam—Russia

Completed in 1978, the Sayano-Shushenskaya Dam is located in the south-central Siberian Republic of Khakassia, a federal subject of Russia. Located on the Yenisei River, it is Russia’s largest power plant, complete with ten hydroelectric generators each with a capacity of 640 megawatts.

The dam had three small accidents with its spillway under Soviet rule, but the worst accident occurred in 2009. A short circuit caused two generators to explode, destroying four other generators, killing ten people with 72 missing. Due to power being knocked out in the surrounding area, local smelters were unable to contribute to repairing the dam. Worse still, 44 tons of oil were spilled and 440 tons of trout downstream were killed.

Photo: Alexander Nemenov/Getty Images

HidroAysén Project—Chile

The HidroAysén Project is a proposed dam in Chile that would add 2,750 megawatts of hydroelectric power to the country’s energy coffers. It’s expected to be completed by 2025, but is currently being delayed. This project is part of a plan that calls for the creation of five dams in Chile’s Aysen Region, two on the Baker River and three on the Pascua River. Collectively, these dams would flood over 4,000 acres of forest.

The Aysen Region is in the southern Andes mountains, an area virtually untouched by developed civilization. Building the dams would displace the natives, as well as the habitat of the endangered southern river otter. The dams themselves are only the tip of the ecological-killing iceberg. To deliver their energy, extremely long power lines—the equivalent of the distance between Los Angeles and Houston—would have to be built.

The majority of Chileans are opposed to the project.

(Photo: gpoo/Creative Commons via Flickr)

Three Gorges Dam—China

China’s Three Gorges Dam, which lies on the Yangtze River in the Hubai province, was completed in 2008 after 14 years of construction. The project cost roughly $26 billion. It has 32 large turbines, each of which can produce 700 megawatts of energy.

To construct the monstrous dam, over 1.3 million people were relocated from the surrounding farmlands—that’s a lot of displaced citizens for a plant that’s only expected to last 50 years. One of the largest problems with the dam is soil erosion in the reservoir and surrounding area—roughly 500 million tons of silt is yanked into the Yangtze every year.

Photo: Stringer/Reuters

Xayaburi Dam—Cambodia, Laos

Currently under construction in northern Laos, the Xayaburi Dam will have a 1,285-megawatt capacity when completed.

The dam’s reservoir will only displace 2,000 people and probably only affect 200,000 relying on the water downstream.

Despite what might look like a minimal environmental impact, the major problem with the Xayaburi is its effect on fish. The Mekong river stretches over 2,700 miles, crossing five countries from China to Laos. Fish are the main source of protein and make up the vast majority of the diets for people living near the river for the more than 40 million people in the Lower Mekong Basin. It’s believed that the dam could result in the destruction of the critically endangered Mekong Giant Catfish.

Photo: Pornchai Kittiwongsakul/Getty Images

The Narmada Valley Project—India

If built, the Narmada Valley project would contain 30 large dams, 135 medium dams, and 3,000 small dams covering an 815-mile stretch along the Narmada River and its subsidiaries. The project has dragged on for over a half century due to concerns of citizen groups and poor planning.

The foundations for the Sardar Sarovar—the largest and first dam in the project—were laid in 1961, but full construction did not begin until 1979. Starting in 1999, when the dam was 80 meters tall, its height rose five separate times, and now stands at almost 122 meters. Each time the height of the dam has been raised, more of the surrounding land has become submerged, and more of the surrounding people have been displaced.

When completed—and who knows when that will be—the full project is expected to displace up to 1.5 million people in the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh.

The Narmada Valley Project is not without its positive aspects, however. It could irrigate enough land to feed 20 million people, provide industrial water for 30 million people, and is expected to generate 4000 megawatts of energy.

Photo: Dinodia Photos/Getty Images

Gilgel Gibe III Dam Project—Ethiopia

If built on Ethiopia’s Omo River, the Gilgel Gibe III Dam would be the largest hydroelectric power plant in Africa with a capacity of 1870 megawatts—but there is a strong opposition to the dam because of its impact on the environment and the indigenous peoples.

“The Gibe III dam will be a disaster of cataclysmic proportions for the tribes of the Omo valley,” said Survival International Director Stephen Corry, referring to the 200,00 people that depend on the land for survival. “Their land and livelihoods will be destroyed, yet few have any idea what lies ahead. The government has violated Ethiopia’s constitution and international law in the procurement process. No respectable outside body should be funding this atrocious project.”

There are also allegations of corruption surrounding the construction of the dam as the government did not open it to the bidding process.

(Photo: Ariadne Van Zandbergen/Getty Images)

See More Actions

The average American generates roughly 15,000 pounds of carbon dioxide each year. Where is it coming from? Cars, home energy use, everyday products, and even food contribute to our carbon footprint.

There is no denying that climate change is a massive problem that requires a global response. But there are simple things you can do in your daily life to reduce your carbon footprint.

Not sure how much carbon you're producing? You can easily calculate it online.

Think that you won’t make an impact? Well imagine if your pledge inspires one person, who in turn inspires another … and so on … and so on … If enough of us act, these small changes can have a big impact!

89% Complete

Ongoing

2,247 pledges of 2,500 goal

I pledge to take the following actions to reduce my carbon footprint:

Thank You!

Thank you for pledging to reduce your carbon footprint!

Related Stories on TakePart:

• Alternative Alternative Energy with Guest Sal Cardoni

• No Kidding Around: KidWind Teaches Kids About Renewables

• Can Wave Power Really Make Waves Against Fossil Fuels?

Related Gallery

Tapping Into Tidal Power: 5 Ways the Ocean Could Energize Our Future See Full Gallery

Andrew Freeman is a California native with a degree in history from UCLA. He’s covered a wide range of topics for TakePart, but is particularly interested in politics and policy. Email Andrew |@natureofdabeast | TakePart.com

Sealing Our Fate: 8 of the World’s Worst Dams

More Than a Trickle

Photo: Stringer/Reuters

Itaipu Hydroelectric Dam—Brazil

Photo: Rickey Rogers/Reuters

Belo Monte Dam—Brazil

Photo: Jual Doblas/Reuters

Sayano-Shushenskaya Dam—Russia

Photo: Alexander Nemenov/Getty Images

HidroAysén Project—Chile

(Photo: gpoo/Creative Commons via Flickr)

Three Gorges Dam—China

Photo: Stringer/Reuters

Xayaburi Dam—Cambodia, Laos

Photo: Pornchai Kittiwongsakul/Getty Images

The Narmada Valley Project—India

Photo: Dinodia Photos/Getty Images

Gilgel Gibe III Dam Project—Ethiopia

(Photo: Ariadne Van Zandbergen/Getty Images)

TakePart Pics

Popular Galleries

Related Stories