Science > Physics > Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"hi@anony habshi" |
| Date: |
29 Apr 2006 06:46:49 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
Just reviving the Dead Sea by pouring ocean water into it will
bring immense benefits in the form of fishing etc.
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
29 Apr 2006 06:49:49 AM |
|
|
In article <44535204.2825703@news.clara.net>, hi@anony (habshi) wrote:
Just reviving the Dead Sea by pouring ocean water into it will
bring immense benefits in the form of fishing etc.
Which ocean? Who pays for transporting that tonnage?
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 ?
You are trying to solve a problem that will never exist. You
first have to work out all the kinks of building your
proposal. Since what you propose can never be done without
a convenient geological age, there's no point in talking about
afterwards.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
29 Apr 2006 11:37:25 AM |
|
|
wrote:
In article <44535204.2825703@news.clara.net>, hi@anony (habshi) wrote:
Just reviving the Dead Sea by pouring ocean water into it will
bring immense benefits in the form of fishing etc.
Which ocean? Who pays for transporting that tonnage?
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 ?
You are trying to solve a problem that will never exist. You
first have to work out all the kinks of building your
proposal. Since what you propose can never be done without
a convenient geological age, there's no point in talking about
afterwards.
Why? Canals can be dug in convenient time. It's plausible a canal
could be dug to replenish the Dead Sea. The question is, are the
economics or political will there to accomplish such a thing.
As for recovering some useful work from the evaporation, I'm not sure
-- I doubt the people who dismiss it off-hand really have an argument
available why it would be impossible to recover any in principle.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
29 Apr 2006 03:11:57 PM |
|
|
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote in message
news:1146328645.736336.214630@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
| wrote:
|
| > In article <44535204.2825703@news.clara.net>, hi@anony (habshi) wrote:
| > > Just reviving the Dead Sea by pouring ocean water into it will
| > >bring immense benefits in the form of fishing etc.
| >
| > Which ocean? Who pays for transporting that tonnage?
| >
| > >
| > > 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 ?
| >
| >
| > You are trying to solve a problem that will never exist. You
| > first have to work out all the kinks of building your
| > proposal. Since what you propose can never be done without
| > a convenient geological age, there's no point in talking about
| > afterwards.
|
| Why? Canals can be dug in convenient time. It's plausible a canal
| could be dug to replenish the Dead Sea. The question is, are the
| economics or political will there to accomplish such a thing.
|
| As for recovering some useful work from the evaporation, I'm not sure
| -- I doubt the people who dismiss it off-hand really have an argument
| available why it would be impossible to recover any in principle.
Since the Dead Sea (a lake) is 1,373 ft. below mean sea level (about the
height of
the World Trade Centre towers before their destruction) the obvious choice
in principle is a canal and hydroelectric power. However, the cost of such
a project in a politically volatile area is astronomical and ridiculous. How
much energy does Israel need, anyway?
http://www.deadsea.co.il/ENA/Index.html
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
30 Apr 2006 05:30:34 AM |
|
|
In article <1146328645.736336.214630@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <44535204.2825703@news.clara.net>, hi@anony (habshi) wrote:
Just reviving the Dead Sea by pouring ocean water into it will
bring immense benefits in the form of fishing etc.
Which ocean? Who pays for transporting that tonnage?
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 ?
You are trying to solve a problem that will never exist. You
first have to work out all the kinks of building your
proposal. Since what you propose can never be done without
a convenient geological age, there's no point in talking about
afterwards.
Why? Canals can be dug in convenient time. It's plausible a canal
could be dug to replenish the Dead Sea.
But not from the Atlantic Ocean. I'm assuming that he doesn't
mean the Pacific, but then...that may be a foolish assumption
given the reality filter of the poster.
The question is, are the
economics or political will there to accomplish such a thing.
I would hesitate to change the chemistry of the area just to
satisfy a small gleaning of electricity. It would be cheaper
and more secure to own a dam. You can protect that.
As for recovering some useful work from the evaporation, I'm not sure
-- I doubt the people who dismiss it off-hand really have an argument
available why it would be impossible to recover any in principle.
Any evaporation I've done uses up power. I don't see any way
to capture it, let alone store it.
In another newsgroup, we've been talking about sails and how
solar cells are still too heavy.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Revd" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
30 Apr 2006 09:43:49 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Apr 06 10:30:34 GMT, wrote:
In article <1146328645.736336.214630@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>,
"Edward Green" <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
wrote:
In article <44535204.2825703@news.clara.net>, hi@anony (habshi) wrote:
Just reviving the Dead Sea by pouring ocean water into it will
bring immense benefits in the form of fishing etc.
Which ocean? Who pays for transporting that tonnage?
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 ?
You are trying to solve a problem that will never exist. You
first have to work out all the kinks of building your
proposal. Since what you propose can never be done without
a convenient geological age, there's no point in talking about
afterwards.
Why? Canals can be dug in convenient time. It's plausible a canal
could be dug to replenish the Dead Sea.
But not from the Atlantic Ocean. I'm assuming that he doesn't
mean the Pacific, but then...that may be a foolish assumption
given the reality filter of the poster.
The question is, are the
economics or political will there to accomplish such a thing.
I would hesitate to change the chemistry of the area just to
satisfy a small gleaning of electricity. It would be cheaper
and more secure to own a dam. You can protect that.
As for recovering some useful work from the evaporation, I'm not sure
-- I doubt the people who dismiss it off-hand really have an argument
available why it would be impossible to recover any in principle.
Any evaporation I've done uses up power. I don't see any way
to capture it, let alone store it.
In another newsgroup, we've been talking about sails and how
solar cells are still too heavy.
Your computer's calendar is 100 years out of date.
Is this intentional?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
01 May 2006 06:28:21 AM |
|
|
In article <4454cc7c.653018@news.onetel.net.uk>,
(The Rev"d) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 06 10:30:34 GMT, wrote:
Your computer's calendar is 100 years out of date.
Is this intentional?
Yes. People are still writing Y2K bugs. Banks and
financial instrument issuers, and some government code,
still need working code.
Since you think I'm 100 years out of date, you are running
software that has a big bug it.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Revd" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
01 May 2006 10:33:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 01 May 06 11:28:21 GMT, wrote:
In article <4454cc7c.653018@news.onetel.net.uk>,
reniggged@anglickcan.org.ua (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 06 10:30:34 GMT, wrote:
Your computer's calendar is 100 years out of date.
Is this intentional?
Yes. People are still writing Y2K bugs. Banks and
financial instrument issuers, and some government code,
still need working code.
Since you think I'm 100 years out of date, you are running
software that has a big bug it.
Or maybe it's your computer that's fucked?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
02 May 2006 05:09:01 AM |
|
|
In article <44562a45.322954@news.onetel.net.uk>,
(The Rev"d) wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 06 11:28:21 GMT, wrote:
In article <4454cc7c.653018@news.onetel.net.uk>,
(The Rev"d) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 06 10:30:34 GMT, wrote:
Your computer's calendar is 100 years out of date.
Is this intentional?
Yes. People are still writing Y2K bugs. Banks and
financial instrument issuers, and some government code,
still need working code.
Since you think I'm 100 years out of date, you are running
software that has a big bug it.
Or maybe it's your computer that's fucked?
Sigh! It is yours that has the bug.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Revd" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
03 May 2006 12:26:42 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 02 May 06 10:09:01 GMT, wrote:
In article <44562a45.322954@news.onetel.net.uk>,
reniggged@anglickcan.org.ua (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 06 11:28:21 GMT, wrote:
In article <4454cc7c.653018@news.onetel.net.uk>,
reniggged@anglickcan.org.ua (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 06 10:30:34 GMT, wrote:
Your computer's calendar is 100 years out of date.
Is this intentional?
Yes. People are still writing Y2K bugs. Banks and
financial instrument issuers, and some government code,
still need working code.
Since you think I'm 100 years out of date, you are running
software that has a big bug it.
Or maybe it's your computer that's fucked?
Sigh! It is yours that has the bug.
No, it's yours. Everybody else's posts show up as year 2006.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
03 May 2006 04:38:56 AM |
|
|
In article <44583ef5.2468950@news.onetel.net.uk>,
(The Rev"d) wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 06 10:09:01 GMT, wrote:
In article <44562a45.322954@news.onetel.net.uk>,
reniggged@anglickcan.org.ua (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 06 11:28:21 GMT, wrote:
In article <4454cc7c.653018@news.onetel.net.uk>,
reniggged@anglickcan.org.ua (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 06 10:30:34 GMT, wrote:
Your computer's calendar is 100 years out of date.
Is this intentional?
Yes. People are still writing Y2K bugs. Banks and
financial instrument issuers, and some government code,
still need working code.
Since you think I'm 100 years out of date, you are running
software that has a big bug it.
Or maybe it's your computer that's fucked?
Sigh! It is yours that has the bug.
No, it's yours. Everybody else's posts show up as year 2006.
That is because their software explicitly inserts the data
'2006'. Mine only inserts '06'. If a 2-digit year is
used, the code needs to decipher the difference between
100 years ago and now. Naive programmers never think that
there exist people whose birth years are 100 years ago
and the results of this forgetfulness causes all kinds of
troubles. Think about code that is run in behalf of
social security.
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Revd" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
03 May 2006 07:59:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 03 May 06 09:38:56 GMT, wrote:
In article <44583ef5.2468950@news.onetel.net.uk>,
renigggede@angglickcan.org.usa (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 06 10:09:01 GMT, wrote:
In article <44562a45.322954@news.onetel.net.uk>,
reniggged@anglickcan.org.ua (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 06 11:28:21 GMT, wrote:
In article <4454cc7c.653018@news.onetel.net.uk>,
reniggged@anglickcan.org.ua (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 06 10:30:34 GMT, wrote:
Your computer's calendar is 100 years out of date.
Is this intentional?
Yes. People are still writing Y2K bugs. Banks and
financial instrument issuers, and some government code,
still need working code.
Since you think I'm 100 years out of date, you are running
software that has a big bug it.
Or maybe it's your computer that's fucked?
Sigh! It is yours that has the bug.
No, it's yours. Everybody else's posts show up as year 2006.
That is because their software explicitly inserts the data
'2006'. Mine only inserts '06'. If a 2-digit year is
used, the code needs to decipher the difference between
100 years ago and now. Naive programmers never think that
there exist people whose birth years are 100 years ago
and the results of this forgetfulness causes all kinds of
troubles. Think about code that is run in behalf of
social security.
OK, if you say so. I just wonder why this is the first time I've seen
it happen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
04 May 2006 05:11:21 AM |
|
|
In article <4458a8ff.1227515@news.onetel.net.uk>,
(The Rev"d) wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 06 09:38:56 GMT, wrote:
In article <44583ef5.2468950@news.onetel.net.uk>,
(The Rev"d) wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 06 10:09:01 GMT, wrote:
In article <44562a45.322954@news.onetel.net.uk>,
reniggged@anglickcan.org.ua (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 06 11:28:21 GMT, wrote:
In article <4454cc7c.653018@news.onetel.net.uk>,
reniggged@anglickcan.org.ua (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 06 10:30:34 GMT, wrote:
Your computer's calendar is 100 years out of date.
Is this intentional?
Yes. People are still writing Y2K bugs. Banks and
financial instrument issuers, and some government code,
still need working code.
Since you think I'm 100 years out of date, you are running
software that has a big bug it.
Or maybe it's your computer that's fucked?
Sigh! It is yours that has the bug.
No, it's yours. Everybody else's posts show up as year 2006.
That is because their software explicitly inserts the data
'2006'. Mine only inserts '06'. If a 2-digit year is
used, the code needs to decipher the difference between
100 years ago and now. Naive programmers never think that
there exist people whose birth years are 100 years ago
and the results of this forgetfulness causes all kinds of
troubles. Think about code that is run in behalf of
social security.
OK, if you say so.
I don't just say so; I know so. That is why I purposely still
run old software--so people can learn that Y2K bugs can still
be written. It is a passive teaching lesson.
I just wonder why this is the first time I've seen
it happen.
<shrug> That could be a number of things. I can speculate
but I have zero information. 1. You might not have read
the date before. 2. New software was installed (either on
your system or your ISP's system. 3. Cosmic ray.
(Number 3 is an inside joke in our biz.)
/BAH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hal S." |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
04 May 2006 01:28:01 PM |
|
|
<> wrote in message
news:e3ck09$8ss_001@s786.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com...
In article <4458a8ff.1227515@news.onetel.net.uk>,
renigggede@angglickcan.org.usa (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Wed, 03 May 06 09:38:56 GMT, wrote:
In article <44583ef5.2468950@news.onetel.net.uk>,
renigggede@angglickcan.org.usa (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Tue, 02 May 06 10:09:01 GMT, wrote:
In article <44562a45.322954@news.onetel.net.uk>,
reniggged@anglickcan.org.ua (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Mon, 01 May 06 11:28:21 GMT, wrote:
In article <4454cc7c.653018@news.onetel.net.uk>,
reniggged@anglickcan.org.ua (The Rev"d) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Apr 06 10:30:34 GMT, wrote:
Your computer's calendar is 100 years out of date.
Is this intentional?
Yes. People are still writing Y2K bugs. Banks and
financial instrument issuers, and some government code,
still need working code.
Since you think I'm 100 years out of date, you are running
software that has a big bug it.
Or maybe it's your computer that's fucked?
Sigh! It is yours that has the bug.
No, it's yours. Everybody else's posts show up as year 2006.
That is because their software explicitly inserts the data
'2006'. Mine only inserts '06'. If a 2-digit year is
used, the code needs to decipher the difference between
100 years ago and now. Naive programmers never think that
there exist people whose birth years are 100 years ago
and the results of this forgetfulness causes all kinds of
troubles. Think about code that is run in behalf of
social security.
OK, if you say so.
I don't just say so; I know so. That is why I purposely still
run old software--so people can learn that Y2K bugs can still
be written. It is a passive teaching lesson.
I just wonder why this is the first time I've seen
it happen.
<shrug> That could be a number of things. I can speculate
but I have zero information. 1. You might not have read
the date before. 2. New software was installed (either on
your system or your ISP's system. 3. Cosmic ray.
(Number 3 is an inside joke in our biz.)
/BAH
-----------------------------------------
You apparently also "have zero information" on how not to cross-post. -- Hal
S.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
29 Apr 2006 12:45:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics Edward Green <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
jmfbahciv@aol.com wrote:
In article <44535204.2825703@news.clara.net>, hi@anony (habshi) wrote:
Just reviving the Dead Sea by pouring ocean water into it will
bring immense benefits in the form of fishing etc.
Which ocean? Who pays for transporting that tonnage?
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 ?
You are trying to solve a problem that will never exist. You
first have to work out all the kinks of building your
proposal. Since what you propose can never be done without
a convenient geological age, there's no point in talking about
afterwards.
Why? Canals can be dug in convenient time. It's plausible a canal
could be dug to replenish the Dead Sea. The question is, are the
economics or political will there to accomplish such a thing.
The idea first came up in the 19th century.
Such a project has been under serious study for over 30 years by the
nations involved.
Irael and Jordan agreed to such a project in March, 2005.
The big questions are if the project will get financed and if the
politial situation in the Middle East will ever be stable enough
that the work can actually be done.
Current estimates are the project will take at least 20 years to
complete once started.
As for recovering some useful work from the evaporation, I'm not sure
-- I doubt the people who dismiss it off-hand really have an argument
available why it would be impossible to recover any in principle.
There is no such thing as an evaporation to electricity generator.
Any energy converted would be through falling water.
Dead Sea water loss comes from numerous causes, not just evaporation.
If anyone has the slightest interest in what the real issues are, look at
http://www.american.edu/ted/deadsea.htm
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
29 Apr 2006 07:18:16 PM |
|
|
On 29 Apr 2006 09:37:25 -0700, "Edward Green"
<spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
Why? Canals can be dug in convenient time. <
Why this obsession with a surface canal ? it would be
horrendously costly to lift the med water uphill.
Why not buld an underground tunnel say 2 meters wide , one
mouth at the med sea and the other at the dead sea which is 1000ft
below sea leave and the tunnel would therefore slope downhill all the
way , and the water generate power.
Even at 260MW a year , that is enough to supply all Israeli
homes with free electricity .And once the Dead Sea becomes less salty
it can support huge amounts of fish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
30 Apr 2006 07:29:09 AM |
|
|
"habshi" <hi@anony> wrote in message news:445401a7.2605606@news.clara.net...
| On 29 Apr 2006 09:37:25 -0700, "Edward Green"
| <spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
|
| >Why? Canals can be dug in convenient time. <
|
| Why this obsession with a surface canal ? it would be
| horrendously costly to lift the med water uphill.
| Why not buld an underground tunnel say 2 meters wide , one
| mouth at the med sea and the other at the dead sea which is 1000ft
| below sea leave and the tunnel would therefore slope downhill all the
| way , and the water generate power.
Nah.. syphon it over the tops of the hills. What's 30 ft have to do with it?
ROFLMAO!
Androcles.
| Even at 260MW a year , that is enough to supply all Israeli
| homes with free electricity .And once the Dead Sea becomes less salty
| it can support huge amounts of fish.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
30 Apr 2006 07:46:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 12:29:09 GMT, "Hexenmeister"
<vanquish@broom.Mickey_c> wrote:
Nah.. syphon it over the tops of the hills. What's 30 ft have to do with it?
ROFLMAO!
Androcles.
Why? Why not use the gravity mother nature gives for free and
build an UNDERGROUND tunnel from the red sea , sloping DOWN the 1000ft
to the dead sea , and why desalinate it when it will get diluted in
the Dead sea anyway ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
29 Apr 2006 07:45:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
On 29 Apr 2006 09:37:25 -0700, "Edward Green"
<spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
Why? Canals can be dug in convenient time. <
Why this obsession with a surface canal ? it would be
horrendously costly to lift the med water uphill.
Why not buld an underground tunnel say 2 meters wide , one
mouth at the med sea and the other at the dead sea which is 1000ft
below sea leave and the tunnel would therefore slope downhill all the
way , and the water generate power.
Even at 260MW a year , that is enough to supply all Israeli
homes with free electricity .And once the Dead Sea becomes less salty
it can support huge amounts of fish.
Go babble this to the governments of Isreal and Jordan who have a treaty
to build something real, not your comic book fantasies.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ed Earl Ross" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
02 May 2006 07:11:55 AM |
|
|
habshi wrote:
On 29 Apr 2006 09:37:25 -0700, "Edward Green"
<spamspamspam3@netzero.com> wrote:
Why? Canals can be dug in convenient time. <
Why this obsession with a surface canal ? it would be
horrendously costly to lift the med water uphill.
Why not buld an underground tunnel say 2 meters wide , one
mouth at the med sea and the other at the dead sea which is 1000ft
below sea leave and the tunnel would therefore slope downhill all the
way , and the water generate power.
Even at 260MW a year , that is enough to supply all Israeli
homes with free electricity .And once the Dead Sea becomes less salty
it can support huge amounts of fish.
Adding salt from the Med. Sea adds salt. If the level of the Dead
Sea is maintained as it currently exists, the salt level will
increase. If the level of the Dead Sea is increased, the salt level
will decline temporarily, but will increase eventually.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
13 May 2006 01:09:42 PM |
|
|
Ed Earl Ross wrote:
Adding salt from the Med. Sea adds salt. If the level of the Dead
Sea is maintained as it currently exists, the salt level will
increase. If the level of the Dead Sea is increased, the salt level
will decline temporarily, but will increase eventually.
One way or the other, the salt concentration is going to increase over
time -- unless it's saturated already, in which case the sea will leave
an encrustation behind and percipitate salt as it evaporates. When
it's saturated, and we keep adding make up brine to maintain the level,
the same thing will happen. Over long times the basis will fill up
with salt with a layer of brine over it.
It's lucky, anthropically speaking, that the ratio of water to surface
salts on the Earth was such that the seas are salty, but not too salty
to allow life! Could life evolve on a planet covered by saturated
brine seas? Maybe in fresh water lakes created by rainfall. Or maybe
I don't give life enough credit -- we would simply have blood a lot
saltier than we do now. Are there microbes in the dead sea?
.
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
14 May 2006 06:00:08 PM |
|
|
The Indus is a mighty river but delivers only about 150m acre
feet of water and generates about 5000MW of power.
BBC had a documentary about the med being closed at the
Gibraltar state and emptying , 4000 cubic km of water evaporate each
year and it takes 1000 years to dry out . When the dam bursts - and it
had done over ten times - it takes 100 years to fill.
So if the Indus generates 5000 MW from 150m acre feet = 150m/
600 sq mile, ft ie 250,000 sq miles x 1ft ie 600,000 sqkm x ift or
600,000 x 0.0003 oe 200 cubic km
So 4000 cu km should generate 100,000 MW . This is many times
the Three Gorges Dam , and it should not be that expensive to put
steel plates 14 km wide , 100 or so feet deep to generate this much
energy forever enough to supply all the power needs of Spain and
Morroco
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
14 May 2006 07:15:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
The Indus is a mighty river but delivers only about 150m acre
feet of water and generates about 5000MW of power.
Power isn't generated by the area of the water, it is generated by
the height of the fall of the water.
Right out of the starting gate you have babbling nonsense.
<snip remaining nonsense>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
15 May 2006 06:47:15 PM |
|
|
Are there not turbines which generate power from the river
flow?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
15 May 2006 08:35:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
Are there not turbines which generate power from the river
flow?
Yes in minuscule amounts.
Ask yourself what makes the water flow in the first place.
Hint, it isn't area.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
16 May 2006 06:34:23 PM |
|
|
True , but here you are impounding the Atlantic ocean and
letting it flow through a small tunnel in the dam to drop into the
closed off med sea which is losing 4000 cubic miles of water yearly
On Tue, 16 May 2006 18:00:23 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<> wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2006 01:35:02 +0000, jimp wrote:
er flow in the first place.
Hint, it isn't area.
Actually, it might be -- specifically, the area which is heated by
sunlight in the ocean. :-) Regrettably, most of the energy is lost
when
the water falls in the mountains and eventually makes its way to the
river; that's partly the reason dams work better (unless the dam is
built so high that clouds can't go *over* it :-) ).
I'll admit to some curiosity as to how much of that solar energy
falling
on the ocean gets absorbed where.
Followups to sci.physics exclusively.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
16 May 2006 07:35:02 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
True , but here you are impounding the Atlantic ocean and
letting it flow through a small tunnel in the dam to drop into the
closed off med sea which is losing 4000 cubic miles of water yearly
Did someone dam up the Strait of Gibraltar while I wasn't paying
attention?
Damn, I hate when that happens.
I'll bet Spain, France, Italy, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania, Turkey,
Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, and
Morocco are really pissed too.
<snip babble>
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
16 May 2006 10:00:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 17 May 2006 00:35:02 +0000, jimp wrote:
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
True , but here you are impounding the Atlantic ocean and
letting it flow through a small tunnel in the dam to drop into the
closed off med sea which is losing 4000 cubic miles of water yearly
Did someone dam up the Strait of Gibraltar while I wasn't paying
attention?
No, but habshi did completely mangle my post. :-)
Damn, I hate when that happens.
Aye.
[.rest snipped]
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
16 May 2006 01:00:23 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 16 May 2006 01:35:02 +0000, jimp wrote:
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
Are there not turbines which generate power from the river
flow?
Yes in minuscule amounts.
Ask yourself what makes the water flow in the first place.
Hint, it isn't area.
Actually, it might be -- specifically, the area which is heated by
sunlight in the ocean. :-) Regrettably, most of the energy is lost when
the water falls in the mountains and eventually makes its way to the
river; that's partly the reason dams work better (unless the dam is
built so high that clouds can't go *over* it :-) ).
I'll admit to some curiosity as to how much of that solar energy falling
on the ocean gets absorbed where.
Followups to sci.physics exclusively.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "me" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
16 May 2006 08:32:00 PM |
|
|
wrote:
In sci.physics habshi <hi@anony> wrote:
The Indus is a mighty river but delivers only about 150m acre
feet of water and generates about 5000MW of power.
Power isn't generated by the area of the water, it is generated by
the height of the fall of the water.
Generators placed in moving water can generate electricity.
Right out of the starting gate you have babbling nonsense.
<snip remaining nonsense>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "hi@anony habshi" |
|
| Title: Re: Time for the Israelis to build the cheap med-dead canal |
14 May 2006 04:21:27 AM |
|
|
The oceans dont get more salty because its buried by the soil
falling on top and is then recycled in salt mines .
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
