X-Envelope-to: SLOVAK-L@UBVM.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"SLOVAK-L@UBVM.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:44:03 -0500
From:         PMUZILA@MACALSTR.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Slovakia's Hydro-energy Potentials

To Joe Pannon,
        I think I have an answer on your questions, why was Danube chosen for
this gigantic project. I have no informations on flow of water per second in
Slovak rivers but I think we cannot argue against the fact that the power of
Danube is higher than the power of many other rivers in Slovakia.
        But the major factor influencing a project like a dam is not always the
power of the river but also the terein arount the banks. The project of
Gabcikovo-Nagymarosh was unique because it should have been a complex of more
dams.( I think there should have been two levels.) We now that one of the major
problem of hydroelectric power stations is that they usually have to produce
electricity in both low and high peak periods in a day. The demand for electric
power during day time is much higher that during night time. Some of the dams
are designed in a way that they are able to stop turbines and accumulate water
during the night and that work on maximum power diring the day. Some of the
mountain rivers allow this, but of course you cannot do this think on Danube.
Can you imagine stopping danube during the night and letting it go with double
power during the day? Nevertheless, the Danube dam was originaly designed in
this way. A system of two dams allows such manipulations with the flow of the
river. The top dam should have been producing the high peak power while the
bottom dam (Nagymarosh) should have been acting as balancing dam the would
protect the level of water in Danube from great fluctuations. Of course for
such project you need a realy large upper dam able to accumulate all the water
durring the night. In the first stages of Hungarian protests, the greatest
argument was the fear from such a gigantic dam on such flat area. I remember
the speculations about possible earthquake (the are almost no earthquakes in
that area) damaging the wall of the dam. Just when the inspectors proved that
the dam was build according to the world standards the environmantal argument
became the center of all attention.
        I think there can be a book writen about the political abuse of this
conflict on both Hungarian and Slovak part, and therefore I do not plan to
discuss it.
        I am majoring in Environmental Science and Economics, and I do not
consider myself to be competent enough to express whether the dam shall or
shall not be finished (Although I feel it shall), but I would like the
environmentalist to think on the problem from the economical point of view and
the economist from the ecological one.
        We need to break barrier of absolute conviction that we are right and
the other is wrong. That is on of the reasons why I decided to study both
economics and env. science since I see in our society people that have very
narrow mind beacause of their narrow education. Ecomists do not understand
Environmentalists and vice versa.
        I think, economists should calculate the costs of all the ecological
damages and environmentalists should look at the costs and effects of removing
the dam and the possitive impacts of "clean energy" on other parts of Slavakia.
I think they should look at Novaky, Ziar Nad Hronom. J.Bohunice etc.

        My message would be : "Please open your minds and start facing
reality."

                        Yours, Patrik Muzila
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.slovak-l