Hydroelectric dam construction cost

Started by P3D, February 05, 2008, 02:20:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

P3D

I was looking into how much the huge hydroelectric dam construction would cost. There are three major powerplant on the Zambezi, now in Orange hands: the Cahora Bassa (2GW installed 4GW capacity), the Kariba Dam (1.3GW) an the Itezhi-Tezhi Dam (300MW).

Cost estimates:
Cahora Bassa dam (2GW): $520m (1970 US dollars), equals $113m (in 1905 dollars). Full capacity would cost another $50m.
As a BB cost roughly ~$500k per 1000t, this is equivalent of a battleships. So US$1m = N$2. Therefore US$113m = N$226 - roughly the cost of 3IC

Kariba dam:
Total cost $420m (1960-1977), $90m~$180, ~2.5IC

Construction time 5 year, time needed to fill up the reservoir 3-4 year.

The electric power generated would be used for electrosmelting and refining various materials (domestic Copper, Cobalt, Nickel, Chromium, and imported Bauxite). Also, rail lines could be electrified.
The first purpose of a warship is to remain afloat. Anon.
Below 40 degrees, there is no law. Below 50 degrees, there is no God. sailor's maxim on weather in the Southern seas

Korpen

Why bother with breaking the costs out? This kind of infrastructure development is after all part of what IC represents.
Card-carrying member of the Battlecruiser Fan Club.

P3D

It's a bit major project that cannot be calculated in half steps. And I wanted to know how many IC such a project would correspond to.
The first purpose of a warship is to remain afloat. Anon.
Below 40 degrees, there is no law. Below 50 degrees, there is no God. sailor's maxim on weather in the Southern seas

Borys

Ahoj!
Interesting calculation. Although it is indeed part of IC.
But wouldn't this be a bit of an anachronism?
I have some learned papers (tell me if you want them) on energy and economic growth in the turn of the previous century era.
Italy went "big" into hydropower, as it did not have coal. Italy paid double that of the UK, Germany, France or Austro-Hungary for coal, and at that time coal=energy/power.
Early XXth century hydro was very expensive to setup versus coal. Running costs are of course the reverse. But it's the upfront cost which was the deciding factor.
With the coalfieleds of Transvaal, why bother with dams?
Borys
NEDS - Not Enough Deck Space for all those guns and torpedos;
Bambi must DIE!

maddox

Keeping it simple.   Dams and stuff are IC.
No strings attached, unless it's also propaganda and or obviously military defensive.


P3D

The Zambian copper would welcome some smelting in situ, and not having to deliver shiploads of coal from Transvaal would be great.

The IC approach works - with delaying some the effects until the required
2-3 IC is done, and stretching the investment over 5 years.
The first purpose of a warship is to remain afloat. Anon.
Below 40 degrees, there is no law. Below 50 degrees, there is no God. sailor's maxim on weather in the Southern seas

Borys

NEDS - Not Enough Deck Space for all those guns and torpedos;
Bambi must DIE!