Grand Inga Dam gets built

Fascinating to consider, but it would be genocide to carry out. Flooding over a million square kilometers would displace enourmous numbers, and drown many isolated people who were not contacted, and end up trapped on shrinking islands.

The impoundment would be about 190 000 cubic kilometers, holding nearly two thirds of all the world's fresh surface water.

It would weigh about 190 trillion tons, 1.9x10^14 kg. This is considerably greater than the mass of the British isles above sea level, and would increase the frequency and severity of earthquakes and volcanoes over a huge part of Africa for thousands of years.

It would bend the entire continent, already at a breaking point just to the east. The Congo basin would sink down considerably, the land hundreds of kilometers from it's rim would raise up slightly.

It would store some 1.4x10^17 joules of potential energy, 5 hundred billion kilowatt hours, roughly similar to the energy releasable from all the nuclear weapons in the world, enough to power a small town for the age of the earth.

The overflow would be a torrent the size of the Congo, but not constrained to any banks. It would fall north from the CAR to Chad, fill that basin, then overflow into the Niger, drastically changing the most populous part of that river's course.
 

kernals12

Banned
Fascinating to consider, but it would be genocide to carry out. Flooding over a million square kilometers would displace enourmous numbers, and drown many isolated people who were not contacted, and end up trapped on shrinking islands.
The Belgians didn't seem too concerned about indigenous people IOTL.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
I was under the impression only Hermann Sorgel's idea was ever proposed, whose map was the one I posted; could you share any resources on this more moderate one? Would certainly be interesting to compare the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Chad_replenishment_project

http://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/april-2012/africa’s-vanishing-lake-chad

https://www.cblt.org/sites/default/files/documentbase_eng.pdf

The actual proposed project is roughly the size of the Colorado River to California water diversion. It takes a dam on the Congo, a dam on the Ubangi, plus canals to lake Chad. It also requires a dam on the outlet of lake Chad from the higher basin (Lake Chad) to the lower basin (now empty desert). It also gives a agricultural area similar in size to California central valley. Lake Chad will only be a little bit bigger than OTL peak water level, last 200 years. The excess water is drained to the Sahara to evaporate.
 

trurle

Banned
The impoundment would be about 190 000 cubic kilometers, holding nearly two thirds of all the world's fresh surface water.

It would weigh about 190 trillion tons, 1.9x10^14 kg. This is considerably greater than the mass of the British isles above sea level, and would increase the frequency and severity of earthquakes and volcanoes over a huge part of Africa for thousands of years.

It would bend the entire continent, already at a breaking point just to the east. The Congo basin would sink down considerably, the land hundreds of kilometers from it's rim would raise up slightly.

It would store some 1.4x10^17 joules of potential energy, 5 hundred billion kilowatt hours, roughly similar to the energy releasable from all the nuclear weapons in the world, enough to power a small town for the age of the earth.

The overflow would be a torrent the size of the Congo, but not constrained to any banks. It would fall north from the CAR to Chad, fill that basin, then overflow into the Niger, drastically changing the most populous part of that river's course.
I should point the dam will reduce global seal level by nearly 2mm by trapping that much water. Therefore, the "sea level rise" panic will begin a year later compared to OTL. This is a "mega-project" in any metric, so some negative effects are expected of course. The question is rather good/bad balance, not the absence of adverse effects. No need for fearmongering.
 
What will the long term effects on the Sahara be? Is it possible it will become productive land again?
 
What will the long term effects on the Sahara be? Is it possible it will become productive land again?
Almost certainly not, at least on a large scale. Limited portions perhaps, if properly handled. The long term effects would be massive environmental change, always a chancy business.
 
This likely mean less bloodier Second Congo War. Resolution of conflict by European force like it happened later in Mali.
Or whatever colonial power controls the Congo either staying there or setting up and maintaining a stable, functional, government.
The effects of that would be as great as the dam, the irrigation, the environmental changes and the industrialisation combined.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
What will the long term effects on the Sahara be? Is it possible it will become productive land again?

Depends on which plan you do. Most of the water will evaporate. The winds are generally easterly in this area and the current humidity is quite low. You will see some additional rain down wind in the Sahara, but I suspect the bulk will fall far away, where there is some elevation to trigger the rain. Just to hazard a guess. If not on a slope of a mountain range rising a few thousand feet, the additional rain will be 2-5 inches per year. Yes, it is a much wetter area, but still a desert.
 
Would it bring prosperity or strife?

Given what happened in Ghana with the Volta dam, it would bring considerable prosperity, but probably not as much prosperity (nor as quickly) as its builders would hope for.

So ITTL, the dam would be seen as a poor investment, but travellers from OTL would be shocked at how much richer and more stable the ATL Congo would be.

fasquardon
 

kernals12

Banned
Given what happened in Ghana with the Volta dam, it would bring considerable prosperity, but probably not as much prosperity (nor as quickly) as its builders would hope for.

So ITTL, the dam would be seen as a poor investment, but travellers from OTL would be shocked at how much richer and more stable the ATL Congo would be.

fasquardon
This dam would produce 40 times as much power as the Volta in a country with just over twice as many people. So the revenue per person would be 20 times greater. It could pay for a lot of very good things even with Mobutu's expensive tastes.
 
This dam would produce 40 times as much power as the Volta in a country with just over twice as many people. So the revenue per person would be 20 times greater. It could pay for a lot of very good things even with Mobutu's expensive tastes.

Right, but you still need to build roads, railways, smelters, factories, cities etc, etc, etc in order to take advantage of all that power.

The first step would logically be to build an aluminium smelter, as was done on the Volta. But the world aluminium demand wasn't enough to make best use of the Ghanaen smelters. So Congo getting a smelter 40 times as big could not go too well.

It occurs to me that uranium isotope separation takes alot of electricity. Maybe Congo could set itself up to supply uranium to the Western powers? It would need a very special political situation though...

fasquardon
 

kernals12

Banned
It occurs to me that uranium isotope separation takes alot of electricity. Maybe Congo could set itself up to supply uranium to the Western powers? It would need a very special political situation though...
Screen Shot 2017-11-02 at 9.50.56 AM.png

This New York Times article from April 1958 about the project says that processing nuclear fuel was one of the advertised uses for the power.
 

kernals12

Banned
Right, but you still need to build roads, railways, smelters, factories, cities etc, etc, etc in order to take advantage of all that power.

The first step would logically be to build an aluminium smelter, as was done on the Volta. But the world aluminium demand wasn't enough to make best use of the Ghanaen smelters. So Congo getting a smelter 40 times as big could not go too well.

It occurs to me that uranium isotope separation takes alot of electricity. Maybe Congo could set itself up to supply uranium to the Western powers? It would need a very special political situation though...

fasquardon
Rural electrification would be a good use of the power. And the Congo is rich with rare earth minerals. It would be appropriate to build factories that would turn the rare earths into finished products. As they say, build it and they will come.
 
Rural electrification would be a good use of the power. And the Congo is rich with rare earth minerals. It would be appropriate to build factories that would turn the rare earths into finished products. As they say, build it and they will come.

Even rural electrification requires distribution networks for electrical goods, education for people on how to use the electrical goods, lots of power lines, sub stations, etc. It will take a long time for rural electrification to come close to using a significant amount of the output of the dam system on the river (and thus a long time before it provides a significant source of revenue for the dam).

If you look at the history of the Votla dam, it is clear that if you build it, they do come. But it takes time.

fasquardon
 
Top