Jump to content
George has been unusually quiet. His last post was just 10 days ago, so maybe he is on blues break still. His past comments are still on file, don't they expunge them when someone gets banned?
Woops my bad, it was the 1815 explosion of Timbora that caused the summer of 1816 to have frosts and snow in the northeast USA,
Krakatoa exploding in 1883 caused years of cold and the massive blizzards of 87/88
As one who has studied geology for decades, it is the observation of evidence of climate change and weather events that gives me some of the most profound reactions. Nearly every line in a formation is a record of a weather event, the more distinct the line, the greater the event. One sometimes sees evidence of gradual change punctuated by highs and lows, but very often there is evidence that something changed dramatically and stayed that way for a while, sometimes returning to the previous condition, sometimes not.
Super-storms are regularly reflected in the record. In fact it is reckoned that the (500 to 1000 year) cloudburst is the primary sculpture of land forms in our region since the retreat of the last glaciation. The one on the front range last year is a good example. I recall excavating for a water than in the foothills of the Uintas, a south slope just above the valley bottom and finding evidence of dozens of debris flows since the last time the glaciers swept it clean. Any one of them would be considered a disaster of major consequence, made me wish we could move the tank out of the way of the next one. But there were few locations not subject to the same risk, and the tank is only made of concrete anyway, probably will last just a couple of hundred years, maybe be replaced a couple of times before it gets hit. Might survive anyway with just some pipe damage.
Some temporary climate events that disrupt a longer trend are medium size volcanic eruptions. Major volcanic episodes also can spell (permanent?) change, one such in Siberia hundreds of millions of years ago is suspected in the most extensive of the great.extinction episodes. Krakatoa caused the "year with no summer". Volcanic releases cna include both sun blocking particles and greenhouse gases, in unpredictable proportions and amounts, for unpredictable results. When Yellowstone goes off again there will be a disruption that may last centuries.
We picked an unstable rock to live on. Want predictable weather then try the Moon.
"Time well wasted". Hahahaha.Thank you Mark, I will remember that one, (I resemble that remark).
I wasn't sure about the siphon although we used them on Utah Valley's Murdock canal, they were in the hundreds of feet, not miles. I tried to conceive of the pressure at the top of the pass, the pipe being subject to crushing from the inside. Oh well, just quadruple the energy to the top of the pass and get what you can back on the down side.
Here is a link to an article describing a diversion from the Mississippi to the south of the San Juan's, probably around Shiprock at about 5000 feet to the divide. Only a 12' pipe but that could easily use existing pump technology, maybe even the existing pumps from the Great Salt Lake diversion. They haven't been used but once, and everybody was shocked at the effect on the salinity of the lake.
And here is the official site for the Colorado river Water Users Association. Good stuff here.
Can you imagine the environmentalist objections? Or maybe more challenging, how you gonna get all that water across West Texas and New Mexico without them demanding to use it there. Better build several pipelines.
The people in Louisiana would be real happy to relieve the pressure on the Achafalaya, that thing could blow any time the way the upper river is constrained by levees.
Time well wasted.
There it is, I knew it was too good to be true. It is 7000 pounds per acre carbon capture, not tons. Still a net plus for carbon sequestration,and the improvement of soils, feeding the planet, more water for wildlife, recreation and agriculture, economic gains, and so on still apply, but not astronomical carbon nets like the incorrect figure. So fergit it.
How about a public / private partnership? Those who don't want the sweeper near their residence in the wee hours agree to hire a private contractor to do it at their convenience and expense. The amount the city saves by skipping those areas would be applied toward quality control inspections of the contractors work.
Most of us downtown residents do accept the noise, and grow accustomed to it. The street sweeper used to bother me, it passes by less than 100 feet away, nothing to block the sound coming through my open window. But in reflection now I can't say it has awakened me in years. Same for the train. But when my dog barks at a bear or my kids close the bathroom door in the middle of the night I am awake immediately.
The council packet had what seemed like hundreds of pages of studies on sleep disturbances. If anyone read it all I wonder, was there research cited on learned behaviors of sleeping through familiar, non alarming sounds?
So if we got the water out there. what could we do with it? Could the carbon capture effected by cultivating desert lands offset the carbon contribution of moving the water?
Using these factors:
Potential carbon capture by organic practices 7000 tons/acre/year
2 per acre per year water use
1000 kw energy/acre foot use (from my last equation above) = 2000 kw/acre
Average national CO2 per kwh ratio 1.34 lb /1kwh
2000 kw x 1.34 = 268,000 lb / acre divided by 2000 = 1,34 tons per acre carbon released to move the water .
So, somebody correct me please, because it looks like the net carbon capture would be thousands of tons per acre, times millions of acres, enough to do the project just for that reason if that's your thing.
I musta done the arithmetic wrong :(
The Mississippi diversion may have to wait for the next great breakthrough in energy production, like say cold fusion. The amount of power required to move a pipe full of say a Colorado river's worth of water (a very small fraction of the Mississippi[pi), would take a station the size of Hayden every five miles. Not impossible, but what a project!
Here are my factors. (I do this for mental exercise, helps keep me off drugs.)
Assume the (fifty foot diameter moving at 2 meters/second?) pipeline and infrastructure was built, what would it require in energy cost and generating capacity deliver the product?
The flow of the Colorado at Lees Ferry pre 1960 was about ten million acre feet annually.
It takes 1 kilowatt hour to lift 1 acre foot one foot in elevation at 100% efficiency
An elevation gain of over 4000 feet is needed to get Mississippi River water over the continental divide near Las Cruses NM, but the elevation of the southwest deserts around Phoenix is about 1000 feet.
If the siphon effect is near 100% that is about 1000 kw/acre foot at 100% efficiency
The Hayden plant produces 446 megawatts at an operating cost of 44.6 million, ($100,000/mw, = $0.10 per kw)
1 acre foot x 1 kw/ foot x 1000 feet elevation x $ 0.10 = $100 per acre foot transport cost.
$100 per acre foot times 10 million acre feet = $1 billion annual transport cost.
At $50 million operating cost for a 500 mw plant, $1 billion covers 200 plants.
The distance from the Mississippi to the divide is about 1000 miles
1000 miles divided by 200 plants is 1 each five miles.
Kinda looks right but am I off an order of magnitude or two? Should I just do drugs instead?
There is still vacant space on Lincoln, despite a lot of recent new remodels, some at Old Town Square and much of the Old West building for starters. And since retail and restaurant space is more valuable than lodging, when the demand is there the conversions will happen without being pushed that way. But predicting or directing trends is tricky. The present boom on Yampa St would not have been expected by many just a few years ago. That is where much retail and restaurant is heading, should we try to stop it, keep it on Lincoln?
Last login: Thursday, February 19, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.