BF2S Forums My proposal for a massive public works project

Ataronchronon wrote:

Hmm, no that wouldn't work because even if you had a 100% efficient hydroelectric power station (impossible), you would still need more energy to pipe the water up than you could generate with hydroelectric power stations on the down runs.

correct, but it still saves energy, which is the best we can hope for in any real situation.

It has to be a closed pipeline instead of an open canal because everyone would piss in it as it went by.



_{I know I would.}

Ataronchronon wrote:

I'm not sure if it would save energy either, I don't care to look it up or anything but I would imagine that the water would lose more kinetic energy going through a turbine than it would gain going through a pump powered by the electricity the water generated by going through that turbine.

no it definitely would save energy. you can't dissipate energy like that. the amount lost will equal the amount gained.

Ender2309 wrote:

no it definitely would save energy. you can't dissipate energy like that. the amount lost will equal the amount gained.

You could recoup some of the energy, but not anywhere near 100% of the energy spent pumping water up the mountain.  There are too many inefficiencies.

Regardless, the idea itself is impractical.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

By the time you foot the bill for the maintenance of that giant aqueduct, you might as well have used trucks. How about some of the southern states get their shit together and build reservoirs?

How dare you suggest intelligent forward thinking!

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-04-21 19:48:18)

SenorToenails wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

By the time you foot the bill for the maintenance of that giant aqueduct, you might as well have used trucks. How about some of the southern states get their shit together and build reservoirs?

How dare you suggest intelligent forward thinking!

Alright....but time out.   There's lots of reservoirs.

An example:
You have the Colorado River Basin.



Managed by the Colorado River Compact.  Aqueducts serve: Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Tucson, San Diego, Phoenix, and much of southern Cali.  Has about seven dams on it, including the Hoover.

The Compact decides how much water each state gets.  Usually, this is not a problem.  However, due to the population growth in different areas, the amount of water available is rationed.  It used to be that cities like Phoenix and Vegas didn't need too much, but not anymore.  Plus you have California growing.

So here's the problem - the river isn't running as high as it once was because everyone is tapping into it.  And the West is getting drier.  Each state is apportioned it's own water (million acre feet/year), which used to not be a problem.  Say Utah didn't want to use their limit...so California just used it.  But as the demand grew for the other states (Phoenix and Vegas are examples of massive demand growth outside of California) there's less water available for the other states.

So the crappy reality is water availability in the West is only going to get worse.  The reserviors are like 50% or less fill already.  WHo knows what's going to happen.

So I'm not too sure what the Southern states can do, if you are referring to this area...its not good.

Ataronchronon wrote:

Ender2309 wrote:

Ataronchronon wrote:

I'm not sure if it would save energy either, I don't care to look it up or anything but I would imagine that the water would lose more kinetic energy going through a turbine than it would gain going through a pump powered by the electricity the water generated by going through that turbine.

no it definitely would save energy. you can't dissipate energy like that. the amount lost will equal the amount gained.

The energy would be dissipated as it encountered inefficiencies in the turbine, wires, and pump. So basically, the system you describe will only take kinetic energy from the water, turn it into electrical, and then put less kinetic energy back into the system than it took out due to the inefficiencies involved in the whole process. The water would retain more energy if you just let it flow, which, because this aqueduct isn't feasible in the first place, would still not be enough to travel over the rocky mountains.

The Romans simply cut through the rock and made the Aqueduct water flow on a steady decline, but again you'd be wasting a lot of energy in cutting through all that rock in the first place if you wanted to give the water the best possible kinetic energy over such a distance.

One mistake in over 50 years of using it for power and its demonized to the ground.

That and the fact there is still no solution for waste which will be dangerous for 10,000 years.

The energy would be dissipated as it encountered inefficiencies in the turbine, wires, and pump.

So use a siphon, duh!

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-22 02:52:17)

When the aquaduct is dry you could race 1950s cars down it!