Science > Physics > Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"hi@anony habshi" |
| Date: |
28 Apr 2006 06:52:12 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:36:48 -0500, me <noreply@noreply.net> wrote:
It has dropped an astonishing average of 2m a year over 40 years.It has dropped an astonishing average of 2m a year over 40 years. So, it's
losing 4e9 tons per year. To replace that would require 125 tons per
second
which is nearly 5,000 cusecs which in turn is 1/8 the peak flow rate
of the
Narmada canal. The Narmada canal is 80m (265 ft) wide and 8 m (27 ft)
deep. <
That is 2m over a 2000 sq km area , or 4b cubic meters of
water. How much energy does it take to evaporate that much water each
year and can we get 10% of that ?
.
|
|
| User: "Alex Terrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
30 Apr 2006 05:23:57 PM |
|
|
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
An alternative is a canal / pipe combination - this is actually better
for the Qatari depression in the Sahara.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
01 May 2006 06:34:00 AM |
|
|
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You are missing a most important piece of data...how long is
that tunnel? Here the politicians built a, not very long,
tunnel. Before the lawyers get through "recovering" what
was overcharged, the whole thing will cost US$28 billion.
It would be cheaper to employ a fire bridage.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
How would that change the weather?
<snip>
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alex Terrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
01 May 2006 11:10:27 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> wrote:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You are missing a most important piece of data...how long is
that tunnel? Here the politicians built a, not very long,
tunnel. Before the lawyers get through "recovering" what
was overcharged, the whole thing will cost US$28 billion.
It would be cheaper to employ a fire bridage.
I guess there must be a study somewhere. Loking at the map, it would
seem to be 125km from the South (fewer mountains, some cut and cover),
50km via Netanya to the Fario (through Palestine - oops) or about 75km
direct to shore.
For the Qataari scheme in Egypt, it was proposed to pump water from the
sea up into the hills off peak, and down into the depression at peak
time. This then also acts as a pumped storage system.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
How would that change the weather?
It could only increase, but I have no idea by how much. Against that,
there may be salt water creep along the new "lake front".
Also, the net effect is that 4 billion tons of sea water comes in, and
a bit less than 4 billion tons of fresh water evaporates. Eventually,
the whole basin would fill up with salt, though this might take a few
centuries.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
30 Apr 2006 05:58:41 PM |
|
|
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> writes:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
More like 65-70 tons per sec, and the drop is 400+m, not 500. Half
your figures. Counting losses you'll be lucky to net 150 MW.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
Wonderful. You'll destroy the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, as well
as flood the whole Jordan valley, up to way north of the Sea of
Galilei. Any more marvellous suggestions like this?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
30 Apr 2006 07:44:49 PM |
|
|
Enviornmemtalists are pleading for raising the Dead sea level
, but its silly to pour Jordan fresh water into it , which can be used
for drinking and irrigation.
Far better to dig a tunnel from the red or dead sea and lower
ocean levels.
The amount of fish that could be stocked there would make
Israel and Jordan food protein surplus.
excerpts
Last rites for shrivelling Dead Sea
Plea to Israeli PM as lake shrinks by a metre a year
Conal Urquhart in Ein Gedi
Sunday April 23, 2006
The Observer
Green campaigners are demanding that the new Israeli government take
urgent action to save the Dead Sea, which is shrinking by more than a
metre a year.
The surface of the salt lake has been reduced by a third - 25 metres
below its historical level - and the receding waters have created
thousands of sinkholes that have swallowed buildings, orchards and
even people.
Israel has won international renown for 'making the desert bloom', but
it is this success which has ruined the Dead Sea by depriving it of
water. In recent decades, Jordan, which also borders the sea, has
sought to emulate Israel, further reducing the flow of water to the
sea.
The Dead Sea is the lowest, and saltiest, body of water in the world
at 400 metres below sea level. It is supplied by the River Jordan,
which links it to the freshwater Sea of Galilee. In the Fifties,
Israel began to divert all the water from the Galilee to cultivate the
desert. In the Seventies, Jordan and Syria also dammed tributaries of
the Jordan to reduce the flow into the Dead Sea to a trickle of highly
polluted effluent.
Gidon Bromberg, the Tel Aviv-based director of the Friends of the
Earth Middle East, which also has offices in Amman and Bethlehem, said
the only way to save the Dead Sea was to stop a proportion of water
going to agriculture and allow 650 million cubic metres to flow down
the Jordan.
Jordan and Israel heavily subsidise the price of water to farmers. In
Israel agriculture uses a third of its water to produce 2 per cent of
GDP. Jordan uses 75 per cent of its water to produce 6 per cent of its
GDP. Israel has by far the largest supplies of water in the region:
340 cubic metres per person per year. Jordan has 140, and the
Palestinian Authority only 70. By comparison the UK has 1,500 cubic
metres per person.
Bromberg said Israel was misusing its water to grow produce unsuited
to the environment. 'We have to ask, "Why are we growing bananas, a
tropical plant, in the desert?" The economic returns do not make
sense,' he said.
One solution is to provide more fresh water and refill the Dead Sea.
This plan, being examined by the World Bank, envisages the
construction of a 165km system of pipes and canal linking the Red Sea
to the Dead Sea. The water would be pumped high into the Moab
mountains in Jordan where it would be desalinated for the use of
Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian Authority. The remaining water
would then cascade down to the Dead Sea, providing hydro-electricity
and salty water to replenish the Dead Sea.
ur little planet never ceases to amaze me. We keep kicking the
stuffing out of her and she keeps finding a way to bounce back.
Look at the Aral Sea. Six years ago, I was there to film an episode of
The Nature of Things. It was a sobering reminder of what happens when
poor planning and mismanagement combine with blind ideology and a
failure to respect biological limits.
Once, the Aral Sea was the world's fourth-largest inland body of
water, teeming with fish and popular for recreation. But in the 1950s,
the Soviet Union decided that the great plains around the sea were
ideal for growing cotton on a massive scale, so it constructed a
number of dams along the two main rivers feeding the sea, the Amu
Darya and the Syr Darya. Water from those dams was diverted into a
vast series of canals and used to irrigate crops.
Cut off from its water supply, the sea began to die. By the time of my
visit, waters had receded so much that some fishing towns were more
than 100 kilometres from the sea. In between was a scorched seabed,
littered with the rusting hulks of ships. The sea itself had become
saturated with poisonous runoff from the cotton fields and most of its
fish species had died off.
Human health suffered the most, as dust storms whipped up pesticides
and other toxins from the dry seabed. Tens of thousands of people fled
the region. Those that stayed suffered from the world's highest
incidence of tuberculosis and a host of other chronic illnesses. One
pediatrician told me that nearly 90 per cent of the area's children
suffered from serious ailments, including chronic bronchitis,
infections and skin lesions.
But there is hope. Recently, the North Aral Sea has been showing signs
of improvement, thanks to a rescue mission funded through the World
Bank. After years of rehabilitation, including the construction of new
dams, dykes and sluices to repair previous damage, the Syr Darya River
now flows freely and the amount of water reaching the sea has doubled.
For the North Aral's main port city, Aralsk, the project has been a
lifesaver. When sea levels started to fall decades ago, more than half
of the population left and residents found eventually themselves 80
kilometres from the water's edge. Today, the water has risen to within
15 kilometres of the city and fish have even started to return,
providing a source of food and income once more.
Although it will be a long time before we can say the Aral has truly
returned to its former glory, the recent improvements show that if we
make an effort to change our ways, the planet is capable of healing
itself. With enough political will, we can move mountains.
But does this mean we don't really have to worry about environmental
problems since we can just
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
30 Apr 2006 08:15:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
Enviornmemtalists are pleading for raising the Dead sea level
, but its silly to pour Jordan fresh water into it , which can be used
for drinking and irrigation.
Far better to dig a tunnel from the red or dead sea and lower
ocean levels.
The amount of fish that could be stocked there would make
Israel and Jordan food protein surplus.
Utter nonsense.
Real issues here: http://www.american.edu/ted/deadsea.htm
<snip remaining>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
01 May 2006 10:56:28 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alex Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> writes:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
More like 65-70 tons per sec, and the drop is 400+m, not 500. Half
your figures. Counting losses you'll be lucky to net 150 MW.
Sorry - I meant 400m. The 125t/s was taken from "That is 2m over a 2000
sq km area , or 4b cubic meters of water." I don't know if this correct
- do you have a reference?
125t/s * 400m = 500MW * efficiency; so 400MW would be possible.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
Wonderful. You'll destroy the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, as well
as flood the whole Jordan valley, up to way north of the Sea of
Galilei. Any more marvellous suggestions like this?
I haven't proposed it - just pointed out its possible. Whether its a
good idea, and to what extent, would need a detailed environmental
impact assessment.
On this score, I suspect the Qattari depression would be a beeter
candidate to flood. evaporation from the new sea would increase
rainfall in some of North Africa.
.
|
|
|
| User: "me" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
01 May 2006 12:34:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alex
Terrell" < > writes:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
More like 65-70 tons per sec, and the drop is 400+m, not 500. Half
your figures. Counting losses you'll be lucky to net 150 MW.
Sorry - I meant 400m. The 125t/s was taken from "That is 2m over a 2000
sq km area , or 4b cubic meters of water." I don't know if this correct
- do you have a reference?
2 m/yr*(2000*1000*1000 m^2)/(365.25*24*3600 s/yr) = 126.75 m^3/s
125t/s * 400m = 500MW
You missed a conversion factor and a term. Potential energy is mgh. So,
(126.75*1000)kg/s * 9.8m/s^2 * 400m = 50700941 m^2/s^3 = 51 MW
* efficiency; so 400MW would be possible.
80% efficiency? Even if it were all downhill, are there generators that
would recover that much? As it happens, it has to be pumped 125m uphill and
the drop from there is a little over 500m. If pumping and generation are
each at 50% efficiency, then all the power generated from water cascading
downhill toward the Dead sea would be spent on lifting water uphill from
the Red sea to the highest point between the Red and Dead sea. So, how much
power can be generated would depend on how much over 50% the efficiency can
get.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
01 May 2006 03:52:52 PM |
|
|
In article <1146498988.721824.61360@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alex Terrell" < > writes:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
More like 65-70 tons per sec, and the drop is 400+m, not 500. Half
your figures. Counting losses you'll be lucky to net 150 MW.
Sorry - I meant 400m. The 125t/s was taken from "That is 2m over a 2000
sq km area , or 4b cubic meters of water." I don't know if this correct
- do you have a reference?
The number is exaggerated. 2000 sq km is about OK but the evaporation
rate is about 1 m per year or less. I recall that the figure for the
Dead Sea elevation some 30-35 years ago was -392m, while the most
current I've seen is -411m. that's about 20m in 30 years.
125t/s * 400m = 500MW * efficiency; so 400MW would be possible.
See above.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
Wonderful. You'll destroy the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, as well
as flood the whole Jordan valley, up to way north of the Sea of
Galilei. Any more marvellous suggestions like this?
I haven't proposed it - just pointed out its possible. Whether its a
good idea, and to what extent, would need a detailed environmental
impact assessment.
Sorry, no. There are cases which need detailed environmental impact
assessment, then there are cases where one can say within 5 seconds,
"forget it". The case above is in the second category.
On this score, I suspect the Qattari depression would be a beeter
candidate to flood. evaporation from the new sea would increase
rainfall in some of North Africa.
It may be a better candidate simply because it is bigger overall. Its
depth*area figure is 4 times higher than this for the Dead Sea. As
for increasing rainfall, the depression is quite adjacent to the
Mediterrenean (few tens of km) so I wouldn't expect a 25 thousand km^2
lake to make much of a noticeable difference comparing to what a 3
million km^2 sea already does.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
13 May 2006 01:32:35 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <1146498988.721824.61360@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, writes:
On this score, I suspect the Qattari depression would be a beeter
candidate to flood. evaporation from the new sea would increase
rainfall in some of North Africa.
It may be a better candidate simply because it is bigger overall. Its
depth*area figure is 4 times higher than this for the Dead Sea. As
for increasing rainfall, the depression is quite adjacent to the
Mediterrenean (few tens of km) so I wouldn't expect a 25 thousand km^2
lake to make much of a noticeable difference comparing to what a 3
million km^2 sea already does.
Perhaps I'm obsessed with this catastropic flood idea after seeing a
PBS special about geological evidence that there was such a flood in
Canada or the US Northwest, possible after a glacier broke through.
Now you've already poo-pooed the idea, but consider: tunnels and canals
may have a limited capacity, but surface channels are subject to
erosion. And if you dug a canal in the cheapest possible way, you
wouldn't have concrete lined sides, but simply a ditch in the ground.
So you have a unlined ditch in the ground terminating in a big hole,
and now, say, you have the 100 year storm surge in the Med... strong
low pressure area stalls over sea near canal mouth in freak storm. Sea
level goes up, flow rate through canal increases erosion rate increases
significantly, suspending solids from banks, canal gets larger, flow
rate further increases ... suddenly you've bootstrapped a river into
being where you had a canal. You may not have a levee wash out,
because of the kilometers of intervening land, but you may find
yourself with the Nile emptying into your hole, when you started with
the Eire Canal. One can only hope.
Though New Orleans levee wash out was instructive: you had the
unimaginable disaster predicted for the last 50 years, and yet it
occured in slow motion. No tidal wave, just an inexorable rise in
water level.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
05 May 2006 09:58:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Wonderful. You'll destroy the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, as well
as flood the whole Jordan valley, up to way north of the Sea of
Galilei. Any more marvellous suggestions like this?
I haven't proposed it - just pointed out its possible. Whether its a
good idea, and to what extent, would need a detailed environmental
impact assessment.
Sorry, no. There are cases which need detailed environmental impact
assessment, then there are cases where one can say within 5 seconds,
"forget it". The case above is in the second category.
Not really - there seems to be some debate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4968942.stm
<quote>
Environmentalists are now warning that drastic action has to be taken
to avert an ecological disaster as the Dead Sea drops by a metre every
year.
"It's a catastrophe," says Gideon Bromberg, the director of Friends of
the Earth in Israel. There's nothing natural about the demise of the
Dead Sea"
<end quote>
On this score, I suspect the Qattari depression would be a beeter
candidate to flood. evaporation from the new sea would increase
rainfall in some of North Africa.
It may be a better candidate simply because it is bigger overall. Its
depth*area figure is 4 times higher than this for the Dead Sea. As
for increasing rainfall, the depression is quite adjacent to the
Mediterrenean (few tens of km) so I wouldn't expect a 25 thousand km^2
lake to make much of a noticeable difference comparing to what a 3
million km^2 sea already does.
You may be right. However,
1. The winds tend to be East - West, so not much Meditarranean moisture
comes over the Sahara.
2. The Mediterranean is typically between 12 and 25 C (about 18 at
present). The Qattari sea would be around 30C, so evaporation would be
much higher.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
05 May 2006 11:21:52 AM |
|
|
In article <1146841122.385548.133320@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Wonderful. You'll destroy the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, as well
as flood the whole Jordan valley, up to way north of the Sea of
Galilei. Any more marvellous suggestions like this?
I haven't proposed it - just pointed out its possible. Whether its a
good idea, and to what extent, would need a detailed environmental
impact assessment.
Sorry, no. There are cases which need detailed environmental impact
assessment, then there are cases where one can say within 5 seconds,
"forget it". The case above is in the second category.
Not really - there seems to be some debate:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4968942.stm
<quote>
Environmentalists are now warning that drastic action has to be taken
to avert an ecological disaster as the Dead Sea drops by a metre every
year.
"It's a catastrophe," says Gideon Bromberg, the director of Friends of
the Earth in Israel. There's nothing natural about the demise of the
Dead Sea"
<end quote>
I don't see any debate here. Just run of the mill environmentalist
whining.
On this score, I suspect the Qattari depression would be a beeter
candidate to flood. evaporation from the new sea would increase
rainfall in some of North Africa.
It may be a better candidate simply because it is bigger overall. Its
depth*area figure is 4 times higher than this for the Dead Sea. As
for increasing rainfall, the depression is quite adjacent to the
Mediterrenean (few tens of km) so I wouldn't expect a 25 thousand km^2
lake to make much of a noticeable difference comparing to what a 3
million km^2 sea already does.
You may be right. However,
1. The winds tend to be East - West, so not much Meditarranean moisture
comes over the Sahara.
Take a look at a map and check how much of Qattari moisture will end
up over the Sahara. It is not as if the Qattari depression is deep
inland. And, the prevalent winds for most of the year are not just
East-West but from West to East, so the Qattari moisture won't be
going over North Africa.
2. The Mediterranean is typically between 12 and 25 C (about 18 at
present). The Qattari sea would be around 30C, so evaporation would be
much higher.
May be as much as twice higher. So, instead of a ratio of 1/1000
you'll have 2/1000. Just as pitiful.
It is simple math, really. The annual rainfall over well (naturally)
irrigated areas is of the order of 0.5-1 m/(m^2*year), which happens
to be the annual evaporation rate from a well insolated body of water.
In other words, in order to provide an adequate amount of
precipitation to a body of land of given area, you need a body of
water of comparable area. That's an order of magnitude comparison
only, of course, so we won't quibble about factors of two either way,
but that gives the sense of scale involved.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
13 May 2006 04:52:02 PM |
|
|
In article <1147545155.349254.236840@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1146498988.721824.61360@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, writes:
On this score, I suspect the Qattari depression would be a beeter
candidate to flood. evaporation from the new sea would increase
rainfall in some of North Africa.
It may be a better candidate simply because it is bigger overall. Its
depth*area figure is 4 times higher than this for the Dead Sea. As
for increasing rainfall, the depression is quite adjacent to the
Mediterrenean (few tens of km) so I wouldn't expect a 25 thousand km^2
lake to make much of a noticeable difference comparing to what a 3
million km^2 sea already does.
Perhaps I'm obsessed with this catastropic flood idea after seeing a
PBS special about geological evidence that there was such a flood in
Canada or the US Northwest, possible after a glacier broke through.
Now you've already poo-pooed the idea, but consider: tunnels and canals
may have a limited capacity, but surface channels are subject to
erosion.
Yes, certainly.
And if you dug a canal in the cheapest possible way, you
wouldn't have concrete lined sides, but simply a ditch in the ground.
Oftentimes, but not all the times. More about it later.
So you have a unlined ditch in the ground terminating in a big hole,
and now, say, you have the 100 year storm surge in the Med... strong
low pressure area stalls over sea near canal mouth in freak storm. Sea
level goes up, flow rate through canal increases erosion rate increases
significantly, suspending solids from banks, canal gets larger, flow
rate further increases ... suddenly you've bootstrapped a river into
being where you had a canal. You may not have a levee wash out,
because of the kilometers of intervening land, but you may find
yourself with the Nile emptying into your hole, when you started with
the Eire Canal. One can only hope.
Yes, a possible scenario, for the ditch case. The reason this doesn't
apply to the Dead Sea scenario (it may apply to Qattari, I didn't
check) is topography. True, it is cheaper to dig a ditch then a
tunnel, in a reasonably flat land. Not necessarily true for a hilly
terrain. Once it is hilly enough, the ditch needs to be so deep that
the costs become unrealistic and a tunnel is a better option. Now,
the terrain between the Mediterrenean and the Dead Sea is anything bu
flat, there is a wide range of hills running between the two, reaching
elevations of few hundred meters (at the passes, not the peaks). In
this situation a significant part of the route will be through a tunnel,
that's incomparably cheaper than the alternatives.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
01 May 2006 06:38:17 AM |
|
|
In article <Bib5g.5$25.153@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alex
Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> writes:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
More like 65-70 tons per sec, and the drop is 400+m, not 500. Half
your figures. Counting losses you'll be lucky to net 150 MW.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
Wonderful. You'll destroy the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, as well
as flood the whole Jordan valley, up to way north of the Sea of
Galilei. Any more marvellous suggestions like this?
And not a drop to drink.
Would you like a breath of sanity? In another newsgroup,
a guy did a seatofthepants calculation and started to
measure building one of our OSes in joules (this is so
kewl) then and now. The ratio power comsumption was
50,000::1. I had never ever thought about measuring
code builds using a joule metric; it's obvious now
that somebody did it.
I also have an example of insanity; our Democrats have been
very busy beavers. :-)
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
01 May 2006 03:27:16 PM |
|
|
In article <e34rv9$8qk_005@s873.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, writes:
In article <Bib5g.5$25.153@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alex
Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> writes:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
More like 65-70 tons per sec, and the drop is 400+m, not 500. Half
your figures. Counting losses you'll be lucky to net 150 MW.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
Wonderful. You'll destroy the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, as well
as flood the whole Jordan valley, up to way north of the Sea of
Galilei. Any more marvellous suggestions like this?
And not a drop to drink.
Indeed.
Would you like a breath of sanity? In another newsgroup,
a guy did a seatofthepants calculation and started to
measure building one of our OSes in joules (this is so
kewl) then and now. The ratio power comsumption was
50,000::1. I had never ever thought about measuring
code builds using a joule metric; it's obvious now
that somebody did it.
Well, that's neat. And, yes, the ration sounds reasonable.
I also have an example of insanity; our Democrats have been
very busy beavers. :-)
Aren't they always?-)
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
02 May 2006 05:17:52 AM |
|
|
In article <Eau5g.9$25.691@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <e34rv9$8qk_005@s873.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <Bib5g.5$25.153@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alex
Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> writes:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
More like 65-70 tons per sec, and the drop is 400+m, not 500. Half
your figures. Counting losses you'll be lucky to net 150 MW.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
Wonderful. You'll destroy the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, as well
as flood the whole Jordan valley, up to way north of the Sea of
Galilei. Any more marvellous suggestions like this?
And not a drop to drink.
Indeed.
Would you like a breath of sanity? In another newsgroup,
a guy did a seatofthepants calculation and started to
measure building one of our OSes in joules (this is so
kewl) then and now. The ratio power comsumption was
50,000::1. I had never ever thought about measuring
code builds using a joule metric; it's obvious now
that somebody did it.
Well, that's neat. And, yes, the ration sounds reasonable.
I'm still trying to recover from culture shock. I used to
trip over 3" diameter power cables.
I also have an example of insanity; our Democrats have been
very busy beavers. :-)
Aren't they always?-)
Oh, but they have reached a new level. The state legislature
ethics committee edicted that noone is allowed to talk politics
in the state capitol. I am in awe and can't wait for the next
one. MTBF (mean time between failures) is about three weeks
for this group.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
02 May 2006 11:44:31 AM |
|
|
In article <e37bkg$8qk_001@s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, writes:
In article <Eau5g.9$25.691@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e34rv9$8qk_005@s873.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
writes:
In article <Bib5g.5$25.153@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alex
Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> writes:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
More like 65-70 tons per sec, and the drop is 400+m, not 500. Half
your figures. Counting losses you'll be lucky to net 150 MW.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
Wonderful. You'll destroy the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, as well
as flood the whole Jordan valley, up to way north of the Sea of
Galilei. Any more marvellous suggestions like this?
And not a drop to drink.
Indeed.
Would you like a breath of sanity? In another newsgroup,
a guy did a seatofthepants calculation and started to
measure building one of our OSes in joules (this is so
kewl) then and now. The ratio power comsumption was
50,000::1. I had never ever thought about measuring
code builds using a joule metric; it's obvious now
that somebody did it.
Well, that's neat. And, yes, the ration sounds reasonable.
I'm still trying to recover from culture shock. I used to
trip over 3" diameter power cables.
I also have an example of insanity; our Democrats have been
very busy beavers. :-)
Aren't they always?-)
Oh, but they have reached a new level. The state legislature
ethics committee edicted that noone is allowed to talk politics
in the state capitol.
Ehh? So, what are they supposed to be talking about? On second
thought, perhaps it is best if they don't talk at all.
I am in awe and can't wait for the next
one. MTBF (mean time between failures) is about three weeks
for this group.
Sounds like Chicago aldermen.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
03 May 2006 04:47:35 AM |
|
|
In article <P%L5g.21$25.1170@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <e37bkg$8qk_001@s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <Eau5g.9$25.691@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <e34rv9$8qk_005@s873.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
jmfbahciv@aol.com writes:
In article <Bib5g.5$25.153@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alex
Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> writes:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
More like 65-70 tons per sec, and the drop is 400+m, not 500. Half
your figures. Counting losses you'll be lucky to net 150 MW.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
Wonderful. You'll destroy the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, as well
as flood the whole Jordan valley, up to way north of the Sea of
Galilei. Any more marvellous suggestions like this?
And not a drop to drink.
Indeed.
Would you like a breath of sanity? In another newsgroup,
a guy did a seatofthepants calculation and started to
measure building one of our OSes in joules (this is so
kewl) then and now. The ratio power comsumption was
50,000::1. I had never ever thought about measuring
code builds using a joule metric; it's obvious now
that somebody did it.
Well, that's neat. And, yes, the ration sounds reasonable.
I'm still trying to recover from culture shock. I used to
trip over 3" diameter power cables.
I also have an example of insanity; our Democrats have been
very busy beavers. :-)
Aren't they always?-)
Oh, but they have reached a new level. The state legislature
ethics committee edicted that noone is allowed to talk politics
in the state capitol.
Ehh? So, what are they supposed to be talking about?
I don't think that was in the memo. It was my first thought.
What do they think they're supposed to be doing in that
building?
On second
thought, perhaps it is best if they don't talk at all.
<GASP> They might even think for a picosecond. I'm still
wondering about the process. This couldn't have been
a verbal suggestion. It had to have gone through hours of
discussions, writeups, corrections, reviews and distributions.
And not one single person objected enough to make any of them kick
in their political instincts, including and especially the pol
leaders.
I am in awe and can't wait for the next
one. MTBF (mean time between failures) is about three weeks
for this group.
Sounds like Chicago aldermen.
Have they lost all of their political instinct, too? I thought
Chicago was merely crook-based and the old political machine was
alive and well.
At least this explains how Kerry lost all of his instincts.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
03 May 2006 11:55:57 AM |
|
|
In article <e39u7n$8qk_001@s1014.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, writes:
In article <P%L5g.21$25.1170@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e37bkg$8qk_001@s826.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
writes:
In article <Eau5g.9$25.691@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <e34rv9$8qk_005@s873.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>,
writes:
In article <Bib5g.5$25.153@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
In article <1146435837.555668.209010@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, "Alex
Terrell" <alexterrell@yahoo.com> writes:
125 tons per sec, over a 500m drop, gives 500 MW, less efficiency
losses.
More like 65-70 tons per sec, and the drop is 400+m, not 500. Half
your figures. Counting losses you'll be lucky to net 150 MW.
This might need a tunnel about 5m wide.
You could increase the flow to raise the level of the red sea. This
would reduce the head, but would increase the evaporation rate.
Wonderful. You'll destroy the mineral wealth of the Dead Sea, as well
as flood the whole Jordan valley, up to way north of the Sea of
Galilei. Any more marvellous suggestions like this?
And not a drop to drink.
Indeed.
Would you like a breath of sanity? In another newsgroup,
a guy did a seatofthepants calculation and started to
measure building one of our OSes in joules (this is so
kewl) then and now. The ratio power comsumption was
50,000::1. I had never ever thought about measuring
code builds using a joule metric; it's obvious now
that somebody did it.
Well, that's neat. And, yes, the ration sounds reasonable.
I'm still trying to recover from culture shock. I used to
trip over 3" diameter power cables.
I also have an example of insanity; our Democrats have been
very busy beavers. :-)
Aren't they always?-)
Oh, but they have reached a new level. The state legislature
ethics committee edicted that noone is allowed to talk politics
in the state capitol.
Ehh? So, what are they supposed to be talking about?
I don't think that was in the memo. It was my first thought.
What do they think they're supposed to be doing in that
building?
Aha.
On second
thought, perhaps it is best if they don't talk at all.
<GASP> They might even think for a picosecond. I'm still
wondering about the process. This couldn't have been
a verbal suggestion. It had to have gone through hours of
discussions, writeups, corrections, reviews and distributions.
And not one single person objected enough to make any of them kick
in their political instincts, including and especially the pol
leaders.
Yes, that's the amazing thing. It appears that the preoccupation with
processes reached a level where content is not considered at all
anymore.
I am in awe and can't wait for the next
one. MTBF (mean time between failures) is about three weeks
for this group.
Sounds like Chicago aldermen.
Have they lost all of their political instinct, too? I thought
Chicago was merely crook-based and the old political machine was
alive and well.
Would be nice but no, not anymore.
At least this explains how Kerry lost all of his instincts.
Yep. In an environment like this, sanity goes fast.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
28 Apr 2006 08:15:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 23:36:48 -0500, me <noreply@noreply.net> wrote:
It has dropped an astonishing average of 2m a year over 40 years.It has dropped an astonishing average of 2m a year over 40 years. So, it's
losing 4e9 tons per year. To replace that would require 125 tons per
second
which is nearly 5,000 cusecs which in turn is 1/8 the peak flow rate
of the
Narmada canal. The Narmada canal is 80m (265 ft) wide and 8 m (27 ft)
deep. <
That is 2m over a 2000 sq km area , or 4b cubic meters of
water. How much energy does it take to evaporate that much water each
year and can we get 10% of that ?
Babbling idiot.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
