Talk:Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam

Unclear formulation

"Ethiopia's move to fill the dam's reservoir could reduce Nile flows by as much as 25%" In an article covering such an emotionally charged topic it would be helpful to make it clear that the original source only says that this would be the case during the initial filling period — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.153.231.177 (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Largest reservoir claims

This dam supposedly stores 63 billion cubic metres. The Aswan/Nasser reservoir has a capacity of 132 billion cubic metres. So how is this new one supposed to be the largest reservoir in Africa, when an existing one is twice as large ? Eregli bob (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The sources are wrong on the claim of biggest reservoir in Africa, but correct it is the largest power generating dam (by megawatts), as far as I can tell. Green Cardamom (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up on that, the word I meant was "country's", what a goof-up. Volta and Kariba are bigger as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Name change

This dam's name has been changed. Here are several sources concerning the name change:

http://www.waltainfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=26352

http://www.zehabesha.com/?p=68

http://debrebirhan.blogspot.com/2011/04/name-of-grand-millennium-dam-changed.html

http://danielberhane.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/ethiopia-millennium-dam-gets-a-council-and-new-name/

It should be moved. --Simfan34 (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I put in a request to move it to "Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam" per the sources. I also found the original gov't announcement and placed that source in there along with info about the name changes, from your additions at Hidase Dam. Thanks for pointing it out.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Generating capacity of the Dam has been raised from 5,250MW to 6000MW

Recently in the news here in Ehiopia, the dam's capacity of generation has been upgraded from 5,250MW to 6000MW. This makes the dam to share the number 7 spot in the world with the Russian Krasnoyarskaya dam in terms of generating capacity.

Here is the article from the Ethiopian Radio and News agency

http://www.ertagov.com/erta/erta-news-archive/38-erta-tv-hot-news-addis-ababa-ethiopia/1562-first-anniversary-of-commencement-of-renaissance-dam-project-to-be-celebrated.html Please someone also verify and may the article stand  :) Good days for all

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brookyitna (talk • contribs) 14:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I left comments at User_talk:Brookyitna as I am unsure whether the power station was actually upgraded or the number was just exaggerated or "rounded-up" a little too much.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:03, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

References

Egypt has threatened to destroy the dam if it is completed

I think this is more than bluster - could mean a military conflict. Many news stories online about this. HammerFilmFan (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I added it into the article, thanks.--NortyNort (Holla) 18:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Links

[1]>> Ethiopia Sees Output at Africa’s Biggest Power Plant by 2015(Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)).

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.water-technology.net/projects/grand-ethiopian-renaissance-dam-africa/

  Triggered by \bwater-technology\.net\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II <sup>Notify</sup><sub>Online</sub> 12:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Rendering failed

When im trying to download this article as pdf-file, message appears: "Status: ! Package polyglossia Error: The current roman font does not contain the Ethiop". Fix pls. 109.187.204.123 (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I get the same problem. I think it may be with the Ethiopic font in the lead.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

40 km east of the border with Sudan?

In File:Renaissance Dam site.jpg, the dam is less than 20 km from the border. --Mewaqua (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The map scale is fairly correct. I measured on Google Earth and, depending which part of the border you start at, the dam is about 14-19 km east.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ena.gov.et/EnglishNews/2011/Apr/16Apr11/138447.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 14:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120322030951/http://www.inewsone.com/2011/04/17/ethiopias-biggest-dam-to-help-neighbours-solve-power-problem/43904 to http://www.inewsone.com/2011/04/17/ethiopias-biggest-dam-to-help-neighbours-solve-power-problem/43904
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122124816/http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/EthioReport06Feb08.pdf to http://www.internationalrivers.org/files/EthioReport06Feb08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Section "Alleged over-sizing" should be reworked

Section Alleged over-sizing should be reworked: The section contains certain critic against the dam project and some countering of that. The presented technical details of the discussion are a bit murky however:

• The capacity factor would be improved most directly by having lesser generators, or a bigger reservoir, not by making the dam smaller.
• A capacity factor around 30% for a hydroelectric plant is rather average, not low.
• The capacity factor is not a measurement of cost-efficiency. It can be related, but the chapter text does not hint at anything relevant.
• Better arguments of oversizing would discuss for example the annual flow, the topography, different overall-layout (e.g. multiple dams, different positions), the cost of the structures, precipitation rate, environmental impact or social impact.
  • Actually the first cited source (Beyene) hints at a study with a cascade of dams. That argument is still not complete, but a lot better than the capacity-factor argument.
• Any efficiency (some technical efficiency or cost-efficiency) is only an argument if there are valid alternatives. In extreme cases there could be the argument that efficiency is zero or negative.
  • On critic side the mentioned cascade of dams would be such a thing, if brought up and completed.
  • On counter side there would have been good counter arguments by relating to the failures on critic's side. Even the most simple argument is missing, of Ethiopia needing more electric power with the dam being an (alleged) viable way of doing so.
• An increase of the installed power on some dam does not help the problem of another dam running dry in a drought. Instead it would increase the risk of running dry itself.
• There would be a good counter argument, that the size of the reservoir would help in a situation of drought, but you need to read text out of context to see it in the chapter.

There are two good ways of presenting critic and counter: Direct citing of the statements, or presentation of the core arguments in a scientifically solid manner. The current chapter text tries the latter, but fails (on both sides).
In any case, more and better citations are needed. If one side of the discussion is lacking in good citations, a good way is to link against established facts elsewhere. Often a simple wikilink is good enough. If the Wikipedia text starts to look biased, it should switch to direct citing of statements.
Apart from that: The first cited source (Beyene) also hints at heated inner-Ethiopian confrontation. If there is more of that, it should be presented (or linked) in some other part of the article.
Tomdo08 (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Regarding heated inner-Ethiopian discussions: There is more material in the subject page. Time to start a separate section ... Tomdo08 (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Alleged over-sizing" argument does not hold any water, it is totally fossilized thinking. The water reservoir is a perfect energy storage mechanism. With the turbines shut down, the reservoir potential energy actually increases. To benefit from this phenomenon, dam powerhouses are best utilised at peak demand, and shut down when demand is very low, and other power sources are efficiently used. Peak demand power is the most valuable. This way, the turbines are sized for peak demand, and average/annual river flow has little to do with it, within reason. If one were only to consider capacity factor, pumped storage would make no sense. - baden k. 189.250.248.134 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree. There is no reason to include the alleged over-sizing because Beyene's argument originates from a political not engineering standpoint. He has not given any engineering evidence to any of these claims. Turtlewong (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I can only share your accurate, constructive and well-founded 'critic' (Oh, if all here would behave like you!) and I myself jumped on the chair raising an eyebrow reading it but "Ok…" I told myself, after reading the following statements that nobody had to raise new critics when the ratio was lowered even further by raising the efficiency (no details about that!!!!) bringing the output from 375 MW to 400 (with the same pressure differential??).

GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

This section is not about the references section in the subject page: There are references in this talk page; without putting the reflist into a separate chapter, it looks like they belong to the random chapter which happens to be the last.

Siltation?

Can someone explain how the silt accumulation could be be greater in the upstream GERD relative to the immediate downstream Roseires Reservoir? I would fully expect the river silt load to be similar, and primarily deposited in the first still water.

200.68.142.33 (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Baden K.

I'm an engineer working in machinery for settling tanks for refinery wastewater and know far well the topic BUT I haven't understood precisely your question; if you can explain it better, I would be glad to contribute as much as I can.

GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 10:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Deleting well souced informations without reason

Someone (using a mobile phone, just to let you know the level of the guy) reverted this information maybe just for fun: "Egypt is demanding to increase its share of the Nile's water flow from 66% to 90%. Naturally, there could be a good reason, I give a chance to this possibility BUT NOT to act autocratically without explaining why, like a troll. So I'm here to ask for a fair and well-founded explanation (no, the excuses for such behaviour are useless because highly probably not sincere and rooting in a bad education that they would call into question parents and school education). Thanks and have a good day! GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 10:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

New arguable informations deletion (about China financing) for 'political reasons'?

The following paragraph was simply deleted and not changed nor integrated or updated. This is not the way the content of a page should grow but the way it's MANIPULATED and, once again, by an obscure 'user' without an identity through a toy phone!

Worrying is also that Wikipedia claims: "(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)" This is the second time that I notice and refer here to a 'politically manipulating intrusion' deleting politically sensitive pieces of information by someone that has no identity and had no reply to my previous claim here.

I ask Wikipedia if there is any control to prevent a Wikipedia page to become PROPAGANDA instead of a document.

"The Ethiopian government has stated that it intends to fund the entire cost of the dam by itself in order to prevent relying on foreign countries who may be brought under pressure by Egypt to withdraw their support. Ethiopia has issued a bond targeted at Ethiopians in the country and abroad to that end. The turbines and associated electrical equipment of the hydropower plants costing about US$ 1.8 billion are reportedly financed by Chinese banks. This would leave US$ 3 billion to be financed by the Ethiopian government through other means. The estimated US$ 4.8 billion construction cost, apparently excluding the cost of power transmission lines, corresponds to about 5% of Ethiopia's gross domestic product of US$87 billion in 2017. GianMarco Tavazzani (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@GianMarco Tavazzani: "(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)" just means that you are comparing two revisions that have other revisions in between. Please refer to Help:Diff for more information. What are the specific parts you think are "propaganda"? Also you are free to edit the article yourself citing reliable sources. --Ita140188 (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ita140188: Dear young (and also Italian, I see) friend, 'propaganda' ('g'oebels teaches) starts by burning books and hiding governemt embarrassing informations, in this case it seems to be -TWICE NOW!- the 'financial growing dependency' from China, after the well knows SCANDAL of spying political reunions and activities by installing microphones in the political used buildings, halls and officies.

This is the only way a government -has HERE on Wikipedia!- to manipulate the public opinion: hiding the truth, being 'fake news' 'fact-checked'.

Where the already published but then deleted and clearly quoted sources (Economist) 'not reliable'? I don't think so: against free press are usually the dictatorships; should we come to a conclusion then by this behaviour? I would ask the opinion of 'g'oebels but he suicided with his wife after having killed hos 6 children, you know…

By the way, you didn't help me to understand WHO was deleting those texts, his user identity, something highly suspicious, if it stays hidden!

RE-editing the deleted paragraphs would only start a loop of 'reverts' and not stop this 'subtle' way to hide and manipulate the (mostly inner) public opinion, while reporting the situation could open the eyes to other readers and contributors.

I like to know your opinion about my remarks and also to thank you for your kind attention.

Oh… by the way… what about talking in 'j'apan about their war crimes like the 'human (deadly!) experiments' using Chinese persons or and paying for the forced prostitution (and sadistic raping!) of Korean females, just to cite few? Is there a censorship of the same kind (hiding-deleting) too? ;-)

References

who are the TRAKboys?

In the "Reactions: cooperation and condemnation" section of this article, a South African political group called the TRAKboys is mentioned. According to WikiBlame, they were added to the article by user @AnthonyJBrant on April 27th of 2023. I wanted to learn more about them, but none of the referenced articles mention the TRAKboys. I had a very difficult time finding anything on the internet about them. They're also referenced in the Wikipedia article for Sudan... Also by @AnthonyJBrant, on the same day as the addition to this article.

Here is the only thing I found online that references TRAKboys that wasn't submitted by @AnthonyJBrant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDS8IQSdZ-E

For all I know, they're a legitimate organization that has played key roles in recent South/East African politics, but one would think they would have more of an online presence.

Who are the TRAKboys? 173.164.73.234 (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Reservoir Now Full?

Looking at the latest (2023-12-25) Sentinel2 imagery, the GERD dam looks completely topped off, and the water level is well above the control spillway intake gates at 624 m.

201.114.229.190 (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2023 (UTC) baden k.

Got any links to articles stating that? And is it significant enough to mention? If so, feel free to edit the article to include this info. And cite your source(s) using <ref></ref> tags. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

syntaxhighlight tag

User:Novem Linguae, if you use syntaxhighlight please supply the lang as if you don't it adds it to an error category. Btw, if you just want to note a tag, {{tag|ref}} is perfect for that (<ref>...</ref>). --Gonnym (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gonnym. <syntaxhighlight inline></syntaxhighlight> is laborious to type out, and adding lang="wikitext" adds even more mental burden since then the editor then has to pick a language and make sure they get the language code right. We really should revisit this entire workflow. It seems inefficient in multiple ways (tag name way too long, the fact that no language specified is considered a bad thing and is patrolled unlike a code tag where no language specified is fine). <code><nowiki></nowiki></code> is also laborious to type so is not a great alternative. phab:T311518 –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)