Desalination is energy expensive which makes the water expensive relatively speaking.
I agree the solution is desalination but the economics are not there till there is no other choice.
Yes, it’s this infernal fladding !!!
Duh. Dehydrate it, ship it over the Rockies in that form, and reconstitute it on the other side. Forget all that expense about tunnels. Sheesh.
If they ever tried to siphon over a 35’ tall wall, they might better appreciate the engineering problems.
They might also want to calculate the hoop stress in a pipe pressurized by several thousand feet of head.
Giggity.
it looks like this was merged…
No, it’s an old thread that Pluto revived. The mods would not have merged a new thread with a thread from 2 years ago. This ain’t TWOP.
IIRC, in Cadillac Desert (well worth the read) there was a description of a plan to pump the water west by building a string of nuclear powered pumping stations across the southwest.
If you have read that book, you will remember that in the east, wasting water is letting the tap run - in the west, it is letting a river run unused into the sea. So, the Bureau of Reclamation wanted to stop the easterners from ‘wasting’ the Mississippi River…
This reminds me of a classic Sam Kinison bit. He is talking about food in it but I think it works just as well for water and about all that needs to be said on the matter (2 minutes long…worth a watch).
I’m sure we could drain the flood water extra as fast as needed to the dry states and then, stop once the excess is done. Sarcasm there. Please remember that even deserts flood.
This seems to have been revived by a recent episode of “Inspector America” on the History Channel - this was one of the ideas pushed by the host, Timothy Galarnyk. From what I have read, however, he’s a complete nutjob. The show doesn’t seem that bad, just a bit sensational, and pretty much unrelated to History (like most of the other shows on that channel nowadays).
You got punked (see post 29) on April 20 of 2009 by dropzone, and I haven’t seen that mofo in years .
**
Ohhhhhhhh… OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHH!!!**
The Chinese are diverting 6 trillion gallons of water a year from the South to the North.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/02/world/asia/02water.html
They are pumping the water rather than using canals.
I wonder how long belong the Chinese start enclosing their rivers to prevent evaporation losses?
Also, what about diverting water from Washington and Oregon to Southern California instead of the Mississippi?
No, the real trick is the engineering. (And there’s no economic case for it.)
The North-South project in China forced 350,000 people to be relocated, and some have described the result as an ecological disaster. The cost was around $70 billion dollars, and the distance from the Danjiangkou Reservoir to Beijing is about 700 miles. As I mentioned in the thread two years ago, this OP is suggesting a canal that covers more than twice that distance and traverses a major mountain range.
And we haven’t even mentioned the unintended consequences of such a massive redistribution of resources. Look at what happened with the Owens River Valley with the construction of the Los Angeles Aqueduct, and how that project decimated a large area in order to provide a small amount of costly water to another. Now imagine than on a scale 500 times greater.
I think we did touch on that back in the depths of the thread, along with all of the environmental issues involved and the issue of keeping enough water in the Mississippi to support the million-ton barge trade.
Why The Great Mississippi - Pacific Canal (GMPC) Would Work and Become a Great Economic Boom for the USA.
Let’s Get Down to The Facts:
-
The technical obstacles mentioned earlier are without foundation, but there have been some excellent observations.
-
We did the Panama Canal done and gave it away. We can do the GMPC and make a huge profit and get our money back.
-
THE GMPC would be for Pleasure and Commercial Crafts/Ships.
-
The Southern route from Mississippi through Texas like the Interstate would work.
-
Financing of the project could come from (1) exchange of the sale of some US Park Land then using these fund to create a like amount of Park Land along the GMPC. (2) a portion of the GMPC land would be auction off to the Private Travel, Hotel/Restaurant, Entertainment and Transportation Industries to produce an on-going land-lease income. (3) A Reservation Charge would be paid in advance from International Shipping to Get Premium Shipping Rights and the Hotel/Restaurant Businesses, Land/Vacation Home Developers for premium locations.
-
A land dispute council could resolve purchase issues with income incentives from investors.
-
To facilitate the building of the project, work crews would work in several stages along the route and connect within a target of three years.
-
Let’s Build The GMPC.
Why not to do it:
-
Your lack of water is partly your own fault so you suffer with the consequences or move to where the water is.
-
all you would do is continue your wasteful practices and proceed to drain two major rivers dry.
-
there is no #3.
Read: Local and state governments would condemn any property or otherwise exercise eminent domain, giving current landowners pennies on the dollar (if anything), then give the land to a private entity so investeros can profit off it.
Yep. The reason there is no canal between those places is that the water would flow the wrong way.
The widening of the Panama Canal took eight years and was budgeted at $5.25 billion but costs rose. The Egyptians added a second lane to the Suez canal planning a parallel Suez Canal for $8.25 billion but are forecasting a ridiculous 10% yearly rise in revenues to justify the cost. The Chinese are planning a new canal in Nicaragua which will take five years to build and cost $40-50 billion.
There is no flat route across the lower U.S. Hundreds of locks would be needed. Costs for canals run over $100 million per mile because of locks. New Orleans to Los Angeles is roughly 1700 miles, so that’s a cost of $170 billion. You of course need to double estimates to arrive at real future costs, so say $350 billion. The Panama Canal nets about $1 billion a year. The Erie Canal, which is used by pleasure craft and oil barges, makes about $2 million a year, a tiny fraction of the cost to maintain it.
Build a hyperloop instead. It’s imaginary but so is this, and the imaginary hyperloop is a better deal than this imaginary canal.