Brian,

This is quite sad.  Hydro is cheap power, and though it does severely impact
local hydrogeology, we have been led to believe it is a clean power source.
This certainly appears be a poor site for it due to geology and proximity to
urban centers.  I assume that your citing more greenhouse gasses per kWh
than coal is due to the decay of organic matter in the flooded areas.  Once
that material is gone, I would think there would be very little additional
greenhouse gasses produced.  Apparently, there's more to this than my
oversimplification above, so give us a little more on this aspect, if you
would.

Since the Chinese are not exactly rolling in capital, are there any better
options available to them, aside from siting this project in a more sensible
place?  They hardly want to turn down the opportunity for increased
industrialization and the jobs it brings.  Profiteering by Western
corporations and banks aside, there would seem to be tremendous internal
pressure to provide infrastructure for more industry.  With both internal
and external forces aligned this way, I agree with Steve that this is
probably unstoppable.  It is unfortunate that if things go poorly in the
future, the outside investors will be expressing their sympathies and the
Chinese will be left holding the bag.

Regards,

Seth Goodman
Goodman Associates, LLC
tel 608.833.9933
fax 608.833.9966