http://www.physorg.com/news102259062.html
"Due to extensive damming, nearly six times as much water is held in artificial storage worldwide as is free-flowing, according to the article."
I"m just gonna run with the assumption that they mean FRESH water. It"s rather obvious that if you are counting salt water that the statement is false.
There was a time when beaver activities stored so much water in aquifers of Asia-Europe-North America that Earth was unbalanced enough to develop a wobble. Course those engineers stood up to six feet tall, weighed up to 800 pounds and had dammed virtually every stream in a series of cascading pools.
Was this a 'bad' thing?
Did it contribute to a lower sea level (as much as 220 feet lower than today) that caused changes in ocean currents that led to the long cold glacial spells that cuased widespread loss of species?
The environmental extremist advocates have pushed so hard that they've discredited themselves to many in the general public, done severe damage to the whole notion of protecting 'Nature' by managing all natural resources wisely.
None that I've spoken with had a clear view of Earth's relatively recent history (since humans finally became smart enough to outwit beavers.)
Some wise folks I know are firmly convinced that this extremism is nurtured by shills (they call them 'hired guns') of the private sector that profits from keeping the public too confused and angry to vote effectively. (A majority of honest, sensible politicians is the worst nightmare of profiteers.) Perhaps this is true to some extent.
Whatever the reason, the motives of those who demand that people suffer so that plants and animals may survive 'properly' have done damage to both Nature and people, causing overreactions and backlashes that obscure the commonsense planning/design that would provide an appropriate "co-existence" despite the growing human population.
The best of intentions has paved the wrong road, distracted good people from doing 'the right thing'.
Some folks believe the 'tree-hugger' type are just overly emotional people.
Others see a form of perversion in the focus of what they consider 'liberals' upon the killing and mating functions of animals.
I'm inclined to see the excessive 'preservationism' of this sector as an obstacle to good land/water/energy management acheived through watershed-based planning.
We should be seeing simple 'conservation', defined by Webster's as ''wise management', rather than hysterical preservationism.
As an example: The very healthy and wealthy can enjoy 'true wilderness' areas but the general public is denied this. Until I see that situation corrected I'll doubt that those who scream loudest are genuinely concerned with providing equitable sharing of natural resources, as they claim to be. I'll continue to view them as either shills or clueless followers of false prophets.
Was this a 'bad' thing?
Did it contribute to a lower sea level (as much as 220 feet lower than today) that caused changes in ocean currents that led to the long cold glacial spells that cuased widespread loss of species?
The environmental extremist advocates have pushed so hard that they've discredited themselves to many in the general public, done severe damage to the whole notion of protecting 'Nature' by managing all natural resources wisely.
None that I've spoken with had a clear view of Earth's relatively recent history (since humans finally became smart enough to outwit beavers.)
Some wise folks I know are firmly convinced that this extremism is nurtured by shills (they call them 'hired guns') of the private sector that profits from keeping the public too confused and angry to vote effectively. (A majority of honest, sensible politicians is the worst nightmare of profiteers.) Perhaps this is true to some extent.
Whatever the reason, the motives of those who demand that people suffer so that plants and animals may survive 'properly' have done damage to both Nature and people, causing overreactions and backlashes that obscure the commonsense planning/design that would provide an appropriate "co-existence" despite the growing human population.
The best of intentions has paved the wrong road, distracted good people from doing 'the right thing'.
Some folks believe the 'tree-hugger' type are just overly emotional people.
Others see a form of perversion in the focus of what they consider 'liberals' upon the killing and mating functions of animals.
I'm inclined to see the excessive 'preservationism' of this sector as an obstacle to good land/water/energy management acheived through watershed-based planning.
We should be seeing simple 'conservation', defined by Webster's as ''wise management', rather than hysterical preservationism.
As an example: The very healthy and wealthy can enjoy 'true wilderness' areas but the general public is denied this. Until I see that situation corrected I'll doubt that those who scream loudest are genuinely concerned with providing equitable sharing of natural resources, as they claim to be. I'll continue to view them as either shills or clueless followers of false prophets.
Couldn't be bothered logging in or reading all the post meanings. However:
The equator is 27 degrees to the vertical from what i remember. Further more the Earth oscillates around it's axis over a certain period of time. It's unclear what information is correct because I remember reading books published in the sixty's that claimed the atmosphere had 16% oxygen. Recently I have viewed information saying the atmosphere has 20% oxygen. Information relation to the size of a solar mass differs by a factor of 994! These differences/mistakes are....? what would you like to believe (perhaps anonymous sorcerers loll)
We also understand that most of the geographical landmasses around the earth fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Billions of years ago the was a super-continent surrounded by ocean that drifted apart (tectonic plated). The Earths temperature was different as well meaning there would have been different sea levels. The Ice caps would oscillate 27 degrees around the vertical of the Earth.
What to make of this?
How about a pretty screen saver. That is a time laps map of the world compressing the billion's of years of tectonic drift into a visual understanding. The drifting apart of the continents, rising sea-levels, the oscillation of the equator - Thing ahead invest in uglies what going to have the cap next loll? soak all the paper money there loll. Ah yes as-well with ocean levels rising there could plenty of jobs in the building in dusty to build existing coastal cities inland.
The equator is 27 degrees to the vertical from what i remember. Further more the Earth oscillates around it's axis over a certain period of time. It's unclear what information is correct because I remember reading books published in the sixty's that claimed the atmosphere had 16% oxygen. Recently I have viewed information saying the atmosphere has 20% oxygen. Information relation to the size of a solar mass differs by a factor of 994! These differences/mistakes are....? what would you like to believe (perhaps anonymous sorcerers loll)
We also understand that most of the geographical landmasses around the earth fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Billions of years ago the was a super-continent surrounded by ocean that drifted apart (tectonic plated). The Earths temperature was different as well meaning there would have been different sea levels. The Ice caps would oscillate 27 degrees around the vertical of the Earth.
What to make of this?
How about a pretty screen saver. That is a time laps map of the world compressing the billion's of years of tectonic drift into a visual understanding. The drifting apart of the continents, rising sea-levels, the oscillation of the equator - Thing ahead invest in uglies what going to have the cap next loll? soak all the paper money there loll. Ah yes as-well with ocean levels rising there could plenty of jobs in the building in dusty to build existing coastal cities inland.
In 500 Years on one will remember this century but for the advent of the computer and maybe movies. We will be a blip on the map and life on earth will have continued to progress and get over itself. Global warming will eventually be seen as if not a hoax then completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of the history of the world. Hopefully we will have figured out stable and consistent energy sources ( I mean we have only been using Biofuel for at least 6,000 to 8,000 years and that other stuff like coal for around 2000, no big whoop. I wish that those that thought that man was evil would off themselves for being evil, I mean come on people how can you live with that kind of guilt and not kill yourselves? Oh that's right it is your 'job' to try to convince me to feel as bad for destroying the world as possible. <sigh>
"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." - Genesis 1:28
* Mission Accomplished *
Next we have to turn everything into a garden...
* Mission Accomplished *
Next we have to turn everything into a garden...
If baby seals took over the world, they would call it "natural". But when humans take over the world, it's an environmental travesty.
For any Darwinists who dislike God's clear instruction I can help. Anything produced by evolution cannot be faulted for doing everything possible to ensure their survival. Humans are no exception. We've withstood nature's assault in spectacular fashion, but still are just another organism. Resistance to continued development and use of every resource is not only arrogant cruelty to millions of our species trying to survive in squalor. It is the arrogant futility of trying to stop the irresistible momentum of eons of evolution.
Even if we talk only about fresh water, I can't believe more water is held in artificial storage as is free-flowing.
I've seen a couple of south American rivers: It's an awful lot of water. Even a giant dam like Itaipu (very nice, go visit it) looks small by comparison.
What about a look at Google Earth? Dam lakes are easily spotted. You'll see they are relatively short and not that wide as compared to the rivers. The biggest rivers - like the Amazon - have no dam at all.
I've seen a couple of south American rivers: It's an awful lot of water. Even a giant dam like Itaipu (very nice, go visit it) looks small by comparison.
What about a look at Google Earth? Dam lakes are easily spotted. You'll see they are relatively short and not that wide as compared to the rivers. The biggest rivers - like the Amazon - have no dam at all.
Ignorance is a blessing :)
" Scientists estimate there are 10 to 30 million plant and animal species on the planet, most of them unidentified. Each year as many as 50,000 species disappear. Most die of because of human activity. "
http://newyork.sierraclub.org/conservation/esa/esa1.html
There is some simple reasons why we don't notice it. One is that things doesn't happen overnight. But I can bet that if you ask Grandpa he could tell you about animals that used to live right where you are, that you don't see around anymore. Another is the diversity and abundance of fauna and flora.
And, oh yes, we have a problem with this too.
The current rate of CO2 increase is some 30X higher than anything recorded in the ice cores, meaning that what took 1000 years in the past is happening in about 35 years now. When cows and other ruminants release methane, they are getting the carbon for the methane from grasses, which photosynthetically fixed the CO2 from the atmosphere (and the methane gets converted back to CO2 within a few decades in the atmosphere) - so it's a different proposition from using buried fossil fuels for transportation.
The rise in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil-fuel carbon has a different isotopic composition than other sources; it's depleted in C-13 (because its origin is organic plant matter) and depleted in C-14 (because it's been buried underground for millions of years). The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 is changing in exactly the way we'd expect if the source is the burning of fossil fuels. The natural carbon dioxide is balanced by things like the respiration/photosynthesis cycle.
We're adding extra that the system can't take out in a reasonable amount of time, and as a result, CO2 has increased 40% since the industrial revolution began. And the new CO2 is mostly from fossil fuels, not the biosphere, because it's deficient in carbon-14 (i.e., very old). So, like it or not, you too will have to grow up someday. The Party is mostly over. The only way we can continue the feast will be by exterminating a great deal of the human population, which will give those left a bigger cake to munch on. And for those believing that they know how to stand excluded by this. Life has a strange way of righting such missconcepts.
Of course there is that with coal to.
We have China, India, Indonesia, Brazil etc. They are growing at a speed that will make EU and USA a small player. Today 30% of Global CO2 emissions. In 2023 it could be USA+EU combined. over 500,000,000 years, the biosphere has gradually taken most of the CO2 out of the air, and turned it to coal and oil. Now humans are digging up all that fossil carbon, and putting it back in the atmosphere a million times faster than it came out. Burn it all, and we might indeed get back where we started, to a planet with lots of CO2 but no oxygen, and a warmer sun. Not a place most of us would want to live, even supposing we could.
And hey, how about this "Worldwide frog population threatened by fungus". We're one heck of a clever spieces, aint we. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-02/...ent_5750524.htm
Don't you worry, we're gonna fix it ;)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sperm-...2019118145.html
And how about this.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/aim/mult...first_view.html
The ionosphere is starting to change too.
Btw: http://www.innovations-report.de/html/beri...icht-20701.html
Textbook case of tectonic movement is wrong, says new study
" Scientists estimate there are 10 to 30 million plant and animal species on the planet, most of them unidentified. Each year as many as 50,000 species disappear. Most die of because of human activity. "
http://newyork.sierraclub.org/conservation/esa/esa1.html
There is some simple reasons why we don't notice it. One is that things doesn't happen overnight. But I can bet that if you ask Grandpa he could tell you about animals that used to live right where you are, that you don't see around anymore. Another is the diversity and abundance of fauna and flora.
And, oh yes, we have a problem with this too.
The current rate of CO2 increase is some 30X higher than anything recorded in the ice cores, meaning that what took 1000 years in the past is happening in about 35 years now. When cows and other ruminants release methane, they are getting the carbon for the methane from grasses, which photosynthetically fixed the CO2 from the atmosphere (and the methane gets converted back to CO2 within a few decades in the atmosphere) - so it's a different proposition from using buried fossil fuels for transportation.
The rise in CO2 is due to the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil-fuel carbon has a different isotopic composition than other sources; it's depleted in C-13 (because its origin is organic plant matter) and depleted in C-14 (because it's been buried underground for millions of years). The isotopic composition of carbon in atmospheric CO2 is changing in exactly the way we'd expect if the source is the burning of fossil fuels. The natural carbon dioxide is balanced by things like the respiration/photosynthesis cycle.
We're adding extra that the system can't take out in a reasonable amount of time, and as a result, CO2 has increased 40% since the industrial revolution began. And the new CO2 is mostly from fossil fuels, not the biosphere, because it's deficient in carbon-14 (i.e., very old). So, like it or not, you too will have to grow up someday. The Party is mostly over. The only way we can continue the feast will be by exterminating a great deal of the human population, which will give those left a bigger cake to munch on. And for those believing that they know how to stand excluded by this. Life has a strange way of righting such missconcepts.
Of course there is that with coal to.
We have China, India, Indonesia, Brazil etc. They are growing at a speed that will make EU and USA a small player. Today 30% of Global CO2 emissions. In 2023 it could be USA+EU combined. over 500,000,000 years, the biosphere has gradually taken most of the CO2 out of the air, and turned it to coal and oil. Now humans are digging up all that fossil carbon, and putting it back in the atmosphere a million times faster than it came out. Burn it all, and we might indeed get back where we started, to a planet with lots of CO2 but no oxygen, and a warmer sun. Not a place most of us would want to live, even supposing we could.
And hey, how about this "Worldwide frog population threatened by fungus". We're one heck of a clever spieces, aint we. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-02/...ent_5750524.htm
Don't you worry, we're gonna fix it ;)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sperm-...2019118145.html
And how about this.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/aim/mult...first_view.html
The ionosphere is starting to change too.
Btw: http://www.innovations-report.de/html/beri...icht-20701.html
Textbook case of tectonic movement is wrong, says new study
Reservoirs hold more than rivers, yes.
But before providing facts re this I'[ll discuss an economic point to consider for person not locked into the misperceptions of water resource management that allowed cunning criminals in the public and private sector to steal many trillions of public dollars over the past century through complex waterscams:
More water is lost from the two largest reservoirs on the Colorado River by evaporation than people use from it. Reminiscent of the "Chinatown" movie theme, yes? The chronic "water shortage" of the Southwestern states that was created by this waste justified forming California's omnipotent Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and its massive State Water Project that continue to nourish a plethora of land/water/energy schemes for unseen directors in the private sector.
The Colorado River misplanning was promoted by Professional Engineers who pretended to be misguided by their fixation upon huge projects/structures into misinforming politicians and journalists about the need for these. (This gave them 'deniability' when thoughtful citizens finally began asking why they prescribed the most complex, least cost-effective flood control-water supply-electriticy generation mode.)
With considerable pressure brought to bear on dissenters by the private sector, plus studious avoidance of this issue by the major news media, those few thoughtful citizens were persuaded to drop the matter so that fifty huge dams could be built intstead of the thousands of small ones and onsite retention practices that would have done the job far better at much less cost. The cooperating civil engineers-bankers-lawyers-agency managers and other professional liars were rewarded generously for their 'cooperation' while the public got what it invariably gets when dissenting voices are stifled without due consideration of their information.
The politicians were talked-pushed-bribed into approving tremendously expensive structures instead of the many many tiny off-stream dams that would have turned the Colorado's huge (157 million acre) watershed into a sponge that kept its immense natural underground reservoir full through the worst of droughts.
An indication of the misinformation that still pervades public information sources may be found at http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ce-Cr/Col...-Basin.html>. Careful analysis of this site will reveal the masterful misguidance that has kept honest politicians and journalists from recognizing the deceits of dishonest ones.
Example: We see a relatively meaningless figure for this drainage basin's runoff; "about 700 cubic meters (24,700 cubic feet -) per second". We do not see this translated to 185,250 gallons per second so that it can be readily compared to the only significant figure, total rainfall. (That amounts to more than 100 TRILLION gallons yearly.) Is it unreasonable to suspect that the total rainfall figure was withhelf to keep readers from wondering why planners-politicians-professional water managers have been unable to capture enough to serve all needs of people and wildlife?
Many of the legislators and local politicians-experts were wise enough to recognize that if the natural evaporation-proof underground reservoir were kept full then the springs and seeps that used to feed the Colorado River would come back to life, nurturing stable flows of much greater average total volume. But wise and honest persons were shouted down by professional liars so that the Big Dam Foolishness could go forward.
Competent professionals in the engineering field know quite well that a multitude of offstream reservoirs kept full by diversion of a portion of the much greater year-round flow that comes from sensible onsite retention of rainfall would have provided adequate flood-proofing and even more electricity than Hoover Dam, along with abundant drinking and irrigation water, without blocking the river flow. But capable PEs were wise enough to not jeopardize their careers by speaking these simple truths.
America's US Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation has served the private sector well since corrupted US Congressmen invented it to give their mentors in the private sector direct control over the public's natural resource management. Deceiving and coercing politicians who cannot be bought has been its primary function and it has done a fine job of this. Its absurd management scheme for the Colorado River, deliberately wasting more water from it than is used, stands as an all-time classic in the art of water/power scamming.
Re river flow vs reservoirs:
If my memory serves me right it would take more than 7 years of average Colorado River flow to to fill its two largest reservoirs, ignoring the other 48 major dams on in this watershed. Assuming an average 15 mph flow rate for the main river indicates that its total volume wuld be emptied in just four days.
Using this yardstick, how do the world's other major rivers measure up in reservoir volume versus in-flow volume?
USA Daily Streamflow Conditions - http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/rt has useful data. Surface reservoirs hold a lot more water than is generally supposed but we'd be a lot better off if our public servants were to focus upon guiding rainwater into subsurface reservoirs with due diligence.
But before providing facts re this I'[ll discuss an economic point to consider for person not locked into the misperceptions of water resource management that allowed cunning criminals in the public and private sector to steal many trillions of public dollars over the past century through complex waterscams:
More water is lost from the two largest reservoirs on the Colorado River by evaporation than people use from it. Reminiscent of the "Chinatown" movie theme, yes? The chronic "water shortage" of the Southwestern states that was created by this waste justified forming California's omnipotent Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and its massive State Water Project that continue to nourish a plethora of land/water/energy schemes for unseen directors in the private sector.
The Colorado River misplanning was promoted by Professional Engineers who pretended to be misguided by their fixation upon huge projects/structures into misinforming politicians and journalists about the need for these. (This gave them 'deniability' when thoughtful citizens finally began asking why they prescribed the most complex, least cost-effective flood control-water supply-electriticy generation mode.)
With considerable pressure brought to bear on dissenters by the private sector, plus studious avoidance of this issue by the major news media, those few thoughtful citizens were persuaded to drop the matter so that fifty huge dams could be built intstead of the thousands of small ones and onsite retention practices that would have done the job far better at much less cost. The cooperating civil engineers-bankers-lawyers-agency managers and other professional liars were rewarded generously for their 'cooperation' while the public got what it invariably gets when dissenting voices are stifled without due consideration of their information.
The politicians were talked-pushed-bribed into approving tremendously expensive structures instead of the many many tiny off-stream dams that would have turned the Colorado's huge (157 million acre) watershed into a sponge that kept its immense natural underground reservoir full through the worst of droughts.
An indication of the misinformation that still pervades public information sources may be found at http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Ce-Cr/Col...-Basin.html>. Careful analysis of this site will reveal the masterful misguidance that has kept honest politicians and journalists from recognizing the deceits of dishonest ones.
Example: We see a relatively meaningless figure for this drainage basin's runoff; "about 700 cubic meters (24,700 cubic feet -) per second". We do not see this translated to 185,250 gallons per second so that it can be readily compared to the only significant figure, total rainfall. (That amounts to more than 100 TRILLION gallons yearly.) Is it unreasonable to suspect that the total rainfall figure was withhelf to keep readers from wondering why planners-politicians-professional water managers have been unable to capture enough to serve all needs of people and wildlife?
Many of the legislators and local politicians-experts were wise enough to recognize that if the natural evaporation-proof underground reservoir were kept full then the springs and seeps that used to feed the Colorado River would come back to life, nurturing stable flows of much greater average total volume. But wise and honest persons were shouted down by professional liars so that the Big Dam Foolishness could go forward.
Competent professionals in the engineering field know quite well that a multitude of offstream reservoirs kept full by diversion of a portion of the much greater year-round flow that comes from sensible onsite retention of rainfall would have provided adequate flood-proofing and even more electricity than Hoover Dam, along with abundant drinking and irrigation water, without blocking the river flow. But capable PEs were wise enough to not jeopardize their careers by speaking these simple truths.
America's US Department of the Interior - Bureau of Reclamation has served the private sector well since corrupted US Congressmen invented it to give their mentors in the private sector direct control over the public's natural resource management. Deceiving and coercing politicians who cannot be bought has been its primary function and it has done a fine job of this. Its absurd management scheme for the Colorado River, deliberately wasting more water from it than is used, stands as an all-time classic in the art of water/power scamming.
Re river flow vs reservoirs:
If my memory serves me right it would take more than 7 years of average Colorado River flow to to fill its two largest reservoirs, ignoring the other 48 major dams on in this watershed. Assuming an average 15 mph flow rate for the main river indicates that its total volume wuld be emptied in just four days.
Using this yardstick, how do the world's other major rivers measure up in reservoir volume versus in-flow volume?
USA Daily Streamflow Conditions - http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/rt has useful data. Surface reservoirs hold a lot more water than is generally supposed but we'd be a lot better off if our public servants were to focus upon guiding rainwater into subsurface reservoirs with due diligence.
QUOTE
With considerable pressure brought to bear on dissenters by the private sector, plus studious avoidance of this issue by the major news media, those few thoughtful citizens were persuaded to drop the matter so that fifty huge dams could be built intstead of the thousands of small ones and onsite retention practices that would have done the job far better at much less cost.
I take it YOU were one of those "FEW THOUGHTFUL CITIZENS" who felt that THOUSANDS of Small Dams were a BETTER solution than 50 large dams?
Right.
Thousands is ALWAYS more managable than 50.
NOT.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 1 2007, 04:56 AM)
I take it YOU were one of those "FEW THOUGHTFUL CITIZENS" who felt that THOUSANDS of Small Dams were a BETTER solution than 50 large dams?
Right.
Thousands is ALWAYS more managable than 50.
NOT.
Arthur
release the beavers!
Neil
You say "release the beavers". Its been done. They typically build a $50,000 dam in two weeks with no more investment than planting several hundred dollars worth of tree seedlings a few years before releasing them back into the wild. Then they take very good care of this structure without close supervision by politicians and bureaucrats.
Professional engineers - lawyers - bankers - corporate contractors and the politicians they fool-pressure-bribe really hate this simplest of all approaches to providing plenty of pure water to for the public.
---------------------------
Arthur
You say thousands of small dams are not more manageable than 50 large ones:
The Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) has been managing millions of the small dams it built through cooperation with landowners with no significant effort because the landowners are happy to preserve their ponds and the full wells these produce.
The Forest Service has expended very little effort managing the many beaver it persuaded to build dams. (Merely by planting trees alongside creeks where a dam would be useful.) These little devils do a fine job of maintenance and repair without supervision and each of their little dams typically refills public aquifers with enouigh water to serve more than 100 homes.
Meanwhile the Bureau of Reclamation has been handing out fat wages to its hugely bloated bureaucracy and fat contracts to private contractors necessary to watch over and maintain the huge dams.
Offstream dams less than 15 feet high can be built at less than a tenth the per-gallon-storage cost of huge dams. They need an insignificant amount of care and can produce enough electricity for several dozen homes. Search the Waterforum for descriptions of this low-tech rainwater management.
Why build millions of microcathcments and tens of thousands of little ponds instead of a few big dams? Because the tiny rainwater catchers;
a) are much less expensive in total
b) can be built much more quickly
c) recharge groundwater reservoirs with every rainfall
d) minimize evaporative loss of precious rainwater
e) intercept contaminated rainfall runoff and filter/bioremediate this pollution
f) eliminate flood hazard and damage in direct ration to how well they are applied
g) provide a steady flow of water to keep microhydroturbines operating despite dry spells
h) provide abundant water for wildlife habitat and for recreational reservoirs
Big dams require big budgets, big public debts, big corruption of officials.
Little dams are built by 'little people', landowners and small contractors who don't deceive and bribe politicians, don't mess with the heads of journalists so that these misinform the public.
If you research the record of SCS manager Hugh Bennett you can learn much about sensible water resource management, This could give you new ideas about how to make commonsense management of energy and water seem impractical.
You say "release the beavers". Its been done. They typically build a $50,000 dam in two weeks with no more investment than planting several hundred dollars worth of tree seedlings a few years before releasing them back into the wild. Then they take very good care of this structure without close supervision by politicians and bureaucrats.
Professional engineers - lawyers - bankers - corporate contractors and the politicians they fool-pressure-bribe really hate this simplest of all approaches to providing plenty of pure water to for the public.
---------------------------
Arthur
You say thousands of small dams are not more manageable than 50 large ones:
The Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) has been managing millions of the small dams it built through cooperation with landowners with no significant effort because the landowners are happy to preserve their ponds and the full wells these produce.
The Forest Service has expended very little effort managing the many beaver it persuaded to build dams. (Merely by planting trees alongside creeks where a dam would be useful.) These little devils do a fine job of maintenance and repair without supervision and each of their little dams typically refills public aquifers with enouigh water to serve more than 100 homes.
Meanwhile the Bureau of Reclamation has been handing out fat wages to its hugely bloated bureaucracy and fat contracts to private contractors necessary to watch over and maintain the huge dams.
Offstream dams less than 15 feet high can be built at less than a tenth the per-gallon-storage cost of huge dams. They need an insignificant amount of care and can produce enough electricity for several dozen homes. Search the Waterforum for descriptions of this low-tech rainwater management.
Why build millions of microcathcments and tens of thousands of little ponds instead of a few big dams? Because the tiny rainwater catchers;
a) are much less expensive in total
b) can be built much more quickly
c) recharge groundwater reservoirs with every rainfall
d) minimize evaporative loss of precious rainwater
e) intercept contaminated rainfall runoff and filter/bioremediate this pollution
f) eliminate flood hazard and damage in direct ration to how well they are applied
g) provide a steady flow of water to keep microhydroturbines operating despite dry spells
h) provide abundant water for wildlife habitat and for recreational reservoirs
Big dams require big budgets, big public debts, big corruption of officials.
Little dams are built by 'little people', landowners and small contractors who don't deceive and bribe politicians, don't mess with the heads of journalists so that these misinform the public.
If you research the record of SCS manager Hugh Bennett you can learn much about sensible water resource management, This could give you new ideas about how to make commonsense management of energy and water seem impractical.
QUOTE (JMARPL+)
The Soil Conservation Service (now NRCS) has been managing millions of the small dams it built through cooperation with landowners with no significant effort
I don't for one second believe that ANY GOVT AGENCY was involved in the building of or in the maintainance of MILLIONS of small dams.
PURE Bovine Poo.
See: http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.act...contentId=13953
The watershed structures built by NRCS account for only a fraction of the nation's 74,000 dams,
Far short of MILLIONs
But even so, all is not rosy in the world of small dams:
The REAL problem with your arguement though is that the BIG dams DON'T preclude the building of MICRO dams.
So there is NO reason (besides COST and PROPERTY RIGHTS) that preclude the building of these small power power generating hydro stations.
The difference is the Govt and Industry DID build the BIG power generating dams while small investors DID NOT build the many tens of thousands of MICRODAMS with MICROHYDRO TURBINES that you apparently think are the solution.
You might consider that we are the fouth largest producer of hydropower in the world (China is now number 1) with the second largest capacity.
Yet even so, you might consider that ALL the hydropower in this country only produces about 10% of our electricity and SMALL hydro only accounts for 1%.
Yet even with the rising price of fossil fuels and the fact that no new Nukes have been ordered since the 70s the number of new resevoirs has plateaued.
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/wuhycapacity.gif
Why?
Because MOST of the really good spots are taken.
Still
The Natl HydroPower Association believes that there are ~ 5,400 potential sites for new hydro power.
BUT
If ALL of these 5,400 sites were developed they also believe that it would ONLY increase the amount of Electricity generated by hydro by 50%, which would bring Hydropower's contribution up to ~ 15% of our needs.
See: http://www.hydro.org/hydrofacts/docs/potential_of_hydro.pdf
OOPS.
Doesn't sound like its the MAGIC solution after all.
Arthur
I don't for one second believe that ANY GOVT AGENCY was involved in the building of or in the maintainance of MILLIONS of small dams.
PURE Bovine Poo.
See: http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.act...contentId=13953
QUOTE
Since the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the federal government has helped communities in 46 states construct over 10,400 dams for the purposes of flood prevention and watershed protection.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Since the passage of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the federal government has helped communities in 46 states construct over 10,400 dams for the purposes of flood prevention and watershed protection. |
The watershed structures built by NRCS account for only a fraction of the nation's 74,000 dams,
Far short of MILLIONs
But even so, all is not rosy in the world of small dams:
QUOTE
Georgia, ..., has 357 watershed dams, many of which will need a complete overhaul in order to meet standards and avoid eventual failures.
"There is simply not enough money on a local basis or state basis to rehabilitate these dams," said Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes. Barnes notes that the state's dam safety officials receive new complaints and requests for help every week.
Fiegle, who doubles as the manager of Georgia's Safe Dams Program, says completed repairs and upgrades on two state-funded projects cost Georgia nearly $1 million apiece.
"We're one of the few states that has actually funded repairs from our own pocket. But at the rate we're going, we probably won't be done for another 50 years," he said.
"There is simply not enough money on a local basis or state basis to rehabilitate these dams," said Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes. Barnes notes that the state's dam safety officials receive new complaints and requests for help every week.
Fiegle, who doubles as the manager of Georgia's Safe Dams Program, says completed repairs and upgrades on two state-funded projects cost Georgia nearly $1 million apiece.
"We're one of the few states that has actually funded repairs from our own pocket. But at the rate we're going, we probably won't be done for another 50 years," he said.
The REAL problem with your arguement though is that the BIG dams DON'T preclude the building of MICRO dams.
So there is NO reason (besides COST and PROPERTY RIGHTS) that preclude the building of these small power power generating hydro stations.
The difference is the Govt and Industry DID build the BIG power generating dams while small investors DID NOT build the many tens of thousands of MICRODAMS with MICROHYDRO TURBINES that you apparently think are the solution.
You might consider that we are the fouth largest producer of hydropower in the world (China is now number 1) with the second largest capacity.
Yet even so, you might consider that ALL the hydropower in this country only produces about 10% of our electricity and SMALL hydro only accounts for 1%.
Yet even with the rising price of fossil fuels and the fact that no new Nukes have been ordered since the 70s the number of new resevoirs has plateaued.
http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/graphics/wuhycapacity.gif
Why?
Because MOST of the really good spots are taken.
Still
The Natl HydroPower Association believes that there are ~ 5,400 potential sites for new hydro power.
BUT
If ALL of these 5,400 sites were developed they also believe that it would ONLY increase the amount of Electricity generated by hydro by 50%, which would bring Hydropower's contribution up to ~ 15% of our needs.
See: http://www.hydro.org/hydrofacts/docs/potential_of_hydro.pdf
OOPS.
Doesn't sound like its the MAGIC solution after all.
Arthur
JMARPL you're saying that the total rainfall. is ' more than 100 TRILLION gallons yearly' in Colorado'? And that due to the building of to large reservoir's 'More water is lost from the two largest reservoirs on the Colorado River by evaporation than people use from it'. Ok sounds possible, and i agree that that lost water would have been better of in the ground. Then you continue with ' Many of the legislators and local politicians-experts were wise enough to recognize that if the natural evaporation-proof underground reservoir were kept full then the springs and seeps that used to feed the Colorado River would come back to life, nurturing stable flows of much greater average total volume. ' In which way are the yearly rainfall over Colorado hindered from seeping into the ground, and filling the 'natural evaporation-proof underground reservoir'? Those two 'overground' reservoirs can't take that much surface area? and the rest of Colorado's surface then? It's still there i presume, or have those politicians asphalted it and made them all into shoppingmalls?
This kind of problem with the natural reservoir's being emptied (in Sweden we call that 'groundwater' ) is created by an overuse of water from the population (talking firstmost of the western world here, nota bene). Not by Dams, damn it ;).
If you mean that Colorado changed the waterways and a lot of small rivers/streams have disappeared by the building of those Dams then i sympathize leaving land arid. But you're supposed to have good rainfalls in Colorado?
This kind of problem with the natural reservoir's being emptied (in Sweden we call that 'groundwater' ) is created by an overuse of water from the population (talking firstmost of the western world here, nota bene). Not by Dams, damn it ;).
If you mean that Colorado changed the waterways and a lot of small rivers/streams have disappeared by the building of those Dams then i sympathize leaving land arid. But you're supposed to have good rainfalls in Colorado?
JMARPL seems prone to EXAGGERATION.
I don't believe that evaporation exceeds use, but regardless, that's not how you determine if the dam was a benefit. Worse, a thousand small dams would have a MUCH higher surface to volume ratio and thus even HIGHER rates of evaportation.
Lake Meade (created by Hoover Dam) water helps meet the municipal and industrial needs of over 14 million people. Hoover's turbines generate low-cost hydroelectric power for use in Nevada, Arizona and California. About 4 billion kilowatt-hours are generated annually.
Hoover Dam assures a steady flow of municipal and industrial water to Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas (1982) Phoenix (1985), Tucson (1991).
Part of the hydroelectric energy generated at Hoover and Parker dams helps pump water along the Colorado River Aqueduct. The 242-mile-long aqueduct has an annual capacity of 1.212 million acre-feet which is 1 billion gallons of water a day. Five pumping stations lift the water 1,617 feet over the mountains between the Colorado River and the coastal plain.
Hoover Dam's ~$175 million cost was repaid over a 50-year period (including interest). Hoover Dam and power plant revenues from the sale of water and power have repaid ~$260 million, including interest as of May 1987.
Arthur
I don't believe that evaporation exceeds use, but regardless, that's not how you determine if the dam was a benefit. Worse, a thousand small dams would have a MUCH higher surface to volume ratio and thus even HIGHER rates of evaportation.
Lake Meade (created by Hoover Dam) water helps meet the municipal and industrial needs of over 14 million people. Hoover's turbines generate low-cost hydroelectric power for use in Nevada, Arizona and California. About 4 billion kilowatt-hours are generated annually.
Hoover Dam assures a steady flow of municipal and industrial water to Los Angeles, San Diego, Las Vegas (1982) Phoenix (1985), Tucson (1991).
Part of the hydroelectric energy generated at Hoover and Parker dams helps pump water along the Colorado River Aqueduct. The 242-mile-long aqueduct has an annual capacity of 1.212 million acre-feet which is 1 billion gallons of water a day. Five pumping stations lift the water 1,617 feet over the mountains between the Colorado River and the coastal plain.
Hoover Dam's ~$175 million cost was repaid over a 50-year period (including interest). Hoover Dam and power plant revenues from the sale of water and power have repaid ~$260 million, including interest as of May 1987.
Arthur
You're perfectly right on the evaporation Arthur. Which ever way one turn the coin the evaporation should be much higher building a lot of smaller dam's. Still, he has a point, but i don't see any way to stop evaporation short of building in them.
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 1 2007, 03:33 PM)
You're perfectly right on the evaporation Arthur. Which ever way one turn the coin the evaporation should be much higher building a lot of smaller dam's. Still, he has a point, but i don't see any way to stop evaporation short of building in them.
Its a non issue.
The 100 of Trillions of gallons of rain he's talking about all STARTED with Evaportation.
Of course he's even got that number wrong.
He's off by 400%
http://www.betweenwaters.com/etc/usrain.html
But you asked the right question:
Its a non issue.
The 100 of Trillions of gallons of rain he's talking about all STARTED with Evaportation.
Of course he's even got that number wrong.
He's off by 400%
http://www.betweenwaters.com/etc/usrain.html
But you asked the right question:
QUOTE (yor_on+)
In which way are the yearly rainfall over Colorado hindered from seeping into the ground, and filling the 'natural evaporation-proof underground reservoir'?
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (yor_on+Jul 1 2007, 08:33 PM)
You're perfectly right on the evaporation Arthur. Which ever way one turn the coin the evaporation should be much higher building a lot of smaller dam's. Still, he has a point, but i don't see any way to stop evaporation short of building in them.
Couldnt they be covered with something? Monolayers of harmless molecules
or skins of buckytubes or lots of pond scum?
Couldnt they be covered with something? Monolayers of harmless molecules
or skins of buckytubes or lots of pond scum?
My solution to the evaporation problem:
grow giant amazon water lillies on top of the resevoirs. Theyt are the fastest grwoing plants in the world, they grow two feet per day. They look like giantic leaves that float on top of the water. They will block evaporation, and so will pond scum. Pond scum will be easier to clean up- so use it.
grow giant amazon water lillies on top of the resevoirs. Theyt are the fastest grwoing plants in the world, they grow two feet per day. They look like giantic leaves that float on top of the water. They will block evaporation, and so will pond scum. Pond scum will be easier to clean up- so use it.
QUOTE (Neil Farbstein+Jul 1 2007, 09:00 PM)
My solution to the evaporation problem:
grow giant amazon water lillies on top of the resevoirs. Theyt are the fastest grwoing plants in the world, they grow two feet per day. They look like giantic leaves that float on top of the water. They will block evaporation, and so will pond scum. Pond scum will be easier to clean up- so use it.
What do you know, it turns out there ISN'T an evaporation problem.
(Why am I not surprised as virtually every "Fact" posted by JMARPL seems to be a major exaggeration)
grow giant amazon water lillies on top of the resevoirs. Theyt are the fastest grwoing plants in the world, they grow two feet per day. They look like giantic leaves that float on top of the water. They will block evaporation, and so will pond scum. Pond scum will be easier to clean up- so use it.
What do you know, it turns out there ISN'T an evaporation problem.
(Why am I not surprised as virtually every "Fact" posted by JMARPL seems to be a major exaggeration)
QUOTE (JMARPL+)
'More water is lost from the two largest reservoirs on the Colorado River by evaporation than people use from it'.
But see:
http://ndep.nv.gov/forum/system_status_041007.pdf
and
http://www.livingrivers.org/pdfs/LRlibrary...eDocs/Dawdy.pdf
Turns out that CONSUMPTIVE use is 13 - 14 Million Acre Feet.
While
Evaporation losses for Mead and Powell AND Glen Canyon are ~ 1 Million Acre feet
or less than 10% of Consumptive use.
Arthur
But see:
http://ndep.nv.gov/forum/system_status_041007.pdf
and
http://www.livingrivers.org/pdfs/LRlibrary...eDocs/Dawdy.pdf
Turns out that CONSUMPTIVE use is 13 - 14 Million Acre Feet.
While
Evaporation losses for Mead and Powell AND Glen Canyon are ~ 1 Million Acre feet
or less than 10% of Consumptive use.
Arthur
I think i will tip the authority's to your suggestion of Giant waterlilies Neil. Here in Sweden we're not scared of new innovations. And to make it even 'greener' one could implant some of those soon to be dead poor frogs. They should have ample room on those gigantic blades. I saw one of those brave survival programs some years ago wherein this guy used some rifled plastic which he angled to catch the moisture of the dew (sounds almost poetic) to collect water. Perhaps one could build something like that over the dam to keep the frogs in and to increase the amount of water even more?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.