PowerSwitch

"the energy generated by the dam for the next 50 years, at an average of 4419 MW, is 1.14 bboe (billion barrels of oil equivalent). This is approximately 9% of the proven oil reserves of Brazil (12.6 bbl), or 2% of the total oil reserves of Russia (60 bbl), or 5.5% of the proven oil reserves of the U.S (21 bbl). The environmental consequence of energy generated by the dam is much less carbon-dioxide than if the same energy were produced by oil or thermo-electricals. In addition, the electricity currently generated to power cities and plants in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS region come from dirty and unreliable sources such as thermo-electricals (using wood, coal or oil to produce energy)"

"the energy generated by the dam for the next 50 years, at an average of 4419 MW, is 1.14 bboe (billion barrels of oil equivalent). This is approximately 9% of the proven oil reserves of Brazil (12.6 bbl), or 2% of the total oil reserves of Russia (60 bbl), or 5.5% of the proven oil reserves of the U.S (21 bbl). The environmental consequence of energy generated by the dam is much less carbon-dioxide than if the same energy were produced by oil or thermo-electricals. In addition, the electricity currently generated to power cities and plants in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS region come from dirty and unreliable sources such as thermo-electricals (using wood, coal or oil to produce energy)"

Can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

An Inspector Calls wrote:"the energy generated by the dam for the next 50 years, at an average of 4419 MW, is 1.14 bboe (billion barrels of oil equivalent)....

A MW electrical is not the same as a MW thermal from burning oil! The BP Review use a 39% thermal to electrical conversion efficiency, so when making comparisons against oil, it's ~2.5x better than that. Around a quarter of Brazil's oil... from an energy generation per unit CO2 point of view, it's a no-brainer from a global perspective. There'll be less 'global average' impact from this hydro scheme than the same energy from oil.

However from the locals point of view, it's a no-brainer in the opposite direction as all the (admittedly smaller) total impact will be concentrated in their 400,000 hectare backyard rather than distributed globally.

It is not a straightforward decision.

Yep, unlike our UK NIMBY's, a lot of these indigenous folk don't even use grid electricity (????) so its all for someone else's benefit. I suppose its not possible to compensate them for their loss of land in a way that is really meaningful.