GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 21 19, 7:39 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 938 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: August 20 19, 2:38 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19757
Location: Low A Minors
G. Keenan wrote:
Can't pipe water out of the Great Lakes to the desert southwest or wherever else. All the states bordering the lakes have a legal treaty barring sale or transportation of water to a non-great lake state. To access lake waters you must be located within the drainage basin of said lakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact

Passed by US Congress and signed into law by GW Bush in 2008. Sorry my desert-dwelling peeps. Maybe you can pipe it in from the Gulf of Mexico.


That article I posted on the previous page talked about this exact thing.

http://www.startribune.com/the-great-si ... 483743681/

Quote:
The populace all around the Lakes is rock-solid against shipping any water anywhere, and advancing any diversion plan would set off political warfare.

Or perhaps one should say “renew hostilities.” This story isn’t new. In 2007, New Mexico’s then-Gov. Bill Richardson suggested a Great Lakes diversion when the Western drought was only six years old. Following bloodcurdling protest, fellow Democrat Jennifer Granholm, then Michigan’s governor, told Richardson to zip it. A year later the eight Lakes states, including Minnesota, adopted — and President George W. Bush signed — a compact banning diversions without concurrence of all signatories.

Plus, an international pact gives Canada (along with the federal government in D.C.) a veto over any transfer.

But because the ultimate power rests with Congress and the president, multistate compacts and international accords can be false security. What’s done can be undone, as evidenced by all the undoing from today’s Washington crowd. What’s more, some scholars say the compact could be vulnerable to legal challenge, especially if a national emergency were declared.

A political knockdown would pit the Midwest vs. Westerners accustomed to no-holds-barred combat for water (to the death in the Wild West) and who have tended, when all else failed, to get what they wanted by simply taking it (for example, the lands of indigenous tribes).

The West sees some things in its favor, politically. One is mushrooming population that’s tipping the power balance in Congress. Another is the always-powerful agriculture industry in the West. And still another is that Western states stick together like fired clay to leverage their will over all things land and water. Besides, they’ll argue, water is a resource that, like oil, must be shared.

And so, a prediction: Within the lifetime of today’s newborn, Great Lakes water will be piped to the Colorado basin to relieve a region that by midcentury will be in the throes of an unimaginable water crisis.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 20 19, 2:52 pm 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 27129
pioneer98 wrote:
Popeye_Card wrote:
I think they also over-estimate how "staggeringly expensive" such a project would be. DAPL cost ~$4 billion, and has a capacity of about 25 million gallons per day. About 9 billion gallons per year, give or take some operational disruptions.

You add a bit of length, run 2 lines at slightly larger diameters with bigger pumps, subtract some engineering precautions because you are transporting water vs. crude oil, and you can get to that 50 billion gallons pretty easily for likely less than $15 billion. Sure, not cheap, but pretty small pennies for such a large federal project.

Also by my math, Lake Superior is ~3,196,543 billion gallons. So you could drain 50 billion gallons a year for 100 years, and still only drain 0.15% of the lake.


Yes but that was only enough water for a little over 1 million homes. There are like 11 million homes just in California.

You know damn well California farmers will want to use this water. Farming is a much, much bigger user of water than homes. Farming accounts for about 70% of all water use globally. California has an agriculture industry similar in size to the state of Wisconsin, but Lake Michigan is a teeny bit closer to Wisconsin than Cali.


Oh I know. Just calculating on the facts as presented.

This conversation should also tie back to ethanol policy. Use a bunch of water and energy to grow corn to blend back in with hydrocarbons to produce energy. Not exactly an efficient process.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 20 19, 2:58 pm 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21514
Location: Chicago
pioneer98 wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
Can't pipe water out of the Great Lakes to the desert southwest or wherever else. All the states bordering the lakes have a legal treaty barring sale or transportation of water to a non-great lake state. To access lake waters you must be located within the drainage basin of said lakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact

Passed by US Congress and signed into law by GW Bush in 2008. Sorry my desert-dwelling peeps. Maybe you can pipe it in from the Gulf of Mexico.


That article I posted on the previous page talked about this exact thing.

http://www.startribune.com/the-great-si ... 483743681/

Quote:
The populace all around the Lakes is rock-solid against shipping any water anywhere, and advancing any diversion plan would set off political warfare.

Or perhaps one should say “renew hostilities.” This story isn’t new. In 2007, New Mexico’s then-Gov. Bill Richardson suggested a Great Lakes diversion when the Western drought was only six years old. Following bloodcurdling protest, fellow Democrat Jennifer Granholm, then Michigan’s governor, told Richardson to zip it. A year later the eight Lakes states, including Minnesota, adopted — and President George W. Bush signed — a compact banning diversions without concurrence of all signatories.

Plus, an international pact gives Canada (along with the federal government in D.C.) a veto over any transfer.

But because the ultimate power rests with Congress and the president, multistate compacts and international accords can be false security. What’s done can be undone, as evidenced by all the undoing from today’s Washington crowd. What’s more, some scholars say the compact could be vulnerable to legal challenge, especially if a national emergency were declared.

A political knockdown would pit the Midwest vs. Westerners accustomed to no-holds-barred combat for water (to the death in the Wild West) and who have tended, when all else failed, to get what they wanted by simply taking it (for example, the lands of indigenous tribes).

The West sees some things in its favor, politically. One is mushrooming population that’s tipping the power balance in Congress. Another is the always-powerful agriculture industry in the West. And still another is that Western states stick together like fired clay to leverage their will over all things land and water. Besides, they’ll argue, water is a resource that, like oil, must be shared.

And so, a prediction: Within the lifetime of today’s newborn, Great Lakes water will be piped to the Colorado basin to relieve a region that by midcentury will be in the throes of an unimaginable water crisis.


You would have Senators from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin opposed, at least in theory. 16 Senators opposed would be hard to overcome unless you get rid of the filibuster (might happen, probably not). Perhaps the President could issue some executive emergency order to spend the next two decades building the pipeline, which would inevitably spawn a million lawsuits, eminent domain issues, environmental protests, and so on. Would there really be political will to drain what in this scenario has become the nation's single most valuable resource and spend billions to piss it away (literally) on a bunch of worthless tract housing in an uninhabitable desert hellscape where by 2100 it will probably be 130 degrees in December?

How about people in Phoenix and Las Vegas just stop living there? It's a freakin' desert guys. The city of Chicago will sell you a vacant lot for one dollar. Detroit has plenty of room. Come on up guys, water's fine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 20 19, 3:48 pm 
Offline
just can't quit you.
User avatar

Joined: April 18 06, 4:33 pm
Posts: 24391
Location: Lost
G. Keenan wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
Can't pipe water out of the Great Lakes to the desert southwest or wherever else. All the states bordering the lakes have a legal treaty barring sale or transportation of water to a non-great lake state. To access lake waters you must be located within the drainage basin of said lakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Compact

Passed by US Congress and signed into law by GW Bush in 2008. Sorry my desert-dwelling peeps. Maybe you can pipe it in from the Gulf of Mexico.


That article I posted on the previous page talked about this exact thing.

http://www.startribune.com/the-great-si ... 483743681/

Quote:
The populace all around the Lakes is rock-solid against shipping any water anywhere, and advancing any diversion plan would set off political warfare.

Or perhaps one should say “renew hostilities.” This story isn’t new. In 2007, New Mexico’s then-Gov. Bill Richardson suggested a Great Lakes diversion when the Western drought was only six years old. Following bloodcurdling protest, fellow Democrat Jennifer Granholm, then Michigan’s governor, told Richardson to zip it. A year later the eight Lakes states, including Minnesota, adopted — and President George W. Bush signed — a compact banning diversions without concurrence of all signatories.

Plus, an international pact gives Canada (along with the federal government in D.C.) a veto over any transfer.

But because the ultimate power rests with Congress and the president, multistate compacts and international accords can be false security. What’s done can be undone, as evidenced by all the undoing from today’s Washington crowd. What’s more, some scholars say the compact could be vulnerable to legal challenge, especially if a national emergency were declared.

A political knockdown would pit the Midwest vs. Westerners accustomed to no-holds-barred combat for water (to the death in the Wild West) and who have tended, when all else failed, to get what they wanted by simply taking it (for example, the lands of indigenous tribes).

The West sees some things in its favor, politically. One is mushrooming population that’s tipping the power balance in Congress. Another is the always-powerful agriculture industry in the West. And still another is that Western states stick together like fired clay to leverage their will over all things land and water. Besides, they’ll argue, water is a resource that, like oil, must be shared.

And so, a prediction: Within the lifetime of today’s newborn, Great Lakes water will be piped to the Colorado basin to relieve a region that by midcentury will be in the throes of an unimaginable water crisis.


You would have Senators from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin opposed, at least in theory. 16 Senators opposed would be hard to overcome unless you get rid of the filibuster (might happen, probably not). Perhaps the President could issue some executive emergency order to spend the next two decades building the pipeline, which would inevitably spawn a million lawsuits, eminent domain issues, environmental protests, and so on. Would there really be political will to drain what in this scenario has become the nation's single most valuable resource and spend billions to piss it away (literally) on a bunch of worthless tract housing in an uninhabitable desert hellscape where by 2100 it will probably be 130 degrees in December?

How about people in Phoenix and Las Vegas just stop living there? It's a freakin' desert guys. The city of Chicago will sell you a vacant lot for one dollar. Detroit has plenty of room. Come on up guys, water's fine.


Give me a Job I can support my family on, and I would move out of Az in a heartbeat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 21 19, 8:56 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19757
Location: Low A Minors
G. Keenan wrote:
You would have Senators from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin opposed, at least in theory. 16 Senators opposed would be hard to overcome unless you get rid of the filibuster (might happen, probably not). Perhaps the President could issue some executive emergency order to spend the next two decades building the pipeline, which would inevitably spawn a million lawsuits, eminent domain issues, environmental protests, and so on. Would there really be political will to drain what in this scenario has become the nation's single most valuable resource and spend billions to piss it away (literally) on a bunch of worthless tract housing in an uninhabitable desert hellscape where by 2100 it will probably be 130 degrees in December?



Again, the bulk of the water would not be used for homes, it would be used for agriculture. And are you familiar with America? We do awful [expletive] to the environment all the time, especially in the ag industry. I don't know. I guess I don't think the outcome is certain, but I think that article is correct that there is going to be a political battle over the Great Lakes at some point in the future. Last year a city of 20,000 people burned to the ground in California. 16,000 houses and buildings. It's pretty dry there. They are just going to get more desperate for water, and a quarter of the country lives there.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 21 19, 9:17 am 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 24286
Location: St. Louis
Desalination? Maybe worth another look? I guess I could look it up . IIRC - it requires a lot of energy, not feasible along that line. Might need some ocean windmills as part of the mix.

Another thing I could look up- harnessing tides for energy?

https://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program-Overview/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 21 19, 9:22 am 
Offline
Sucking on the Rally Nipple
User avatar

Joined: April 16 06, 6:03 pm
Posts: 21514
Location: Chicago
pioneer98 wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
You would have Senators from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin opposed, at least in theory. 16 Senators opposed would be hard to overcome unless you get rid of the filibuster (might happen, probably not). Perhaps the President could issue some executive emergency order to spend the next two decades building the pipeline, which would inevitably spawn a million lawsuits, eminent domain issues, environmental protests, and so on. Would there really be political will to drain what in this scenario has become the nation's single most valuable resource and spend billions to piss it away (literally) on a bunch of worthless tract housing in an uninhabitable desert hellscape where by 2100 it will probably be 130 degrees in December?



Again, the bulk of the water would not be used for homes, it would be used for agriculture. And are you familiar with America? We do awful [expletive] to the environment all the time, especially in the ag industry. I don't know. I guess I don't think the outcome is certain, but I think that article is correct that there is going to be a political battle over the Great Lakes at some point in the future. Last year a city of 20,000 people burned to the ground in California. 16,000 houses and buildings. It's pretty dry there. They are just going to get more desperate for water, and a quarter of the country lives there.


You're probably right that they'll pitch a scheme to pump water over the Rockies or whatever, but the lake states won't just roll over and take it. Would probably be political suicide for any politician supporting such a plan.

Maybe you could end up with a dividend system like in Alaska where residents get an annual check from oil revenues. That might help get it done. Citizens of these states are not going to just happily oblige when left coast elitists and all those Hispanics in Arizona and Nevada want to steal their water.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 21 19, 10:34 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19757
Location: Low A Minors
G. Keenan wrote:
pioneer98 wrote:
G. Keenan wrote:
You would have Senators from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin opposed, at least in theory. 16 Senators opposed would be hard to overcome unless you get rid of the filibuster (might happen, probably not). Perhaps the President could issue some executive emergency order to spend the next two decades building the pipeline, which would inevitably spawn a million lawsuits, eminent domain issues, environmental protests, and so on. Would there really be political will to drain what in this scenario has become the nation's single most valuable resource and spend billions to piss it away (literally) on a bunch of worthless tract housing in an uninhabitable desert hellscape where by 2100 it will probably be 130 degrees in December?



Again, the bulk of the water would not be used for homes, it would be used for agriculture. And are you familiar with America? We do awful [expletive] to the environment all the time, especially in the ag industry. I don't know. I guess I don't think the outcome is certain, but I think that article is correct that there is going to be a political battle over the Great Lakes at some point in the future. Last year a city of 20,000 people burned to the ground in California. 16,000 houses and buildings. It's pretty dry there. They are just going to get more desperate for water, and a quarter of the country lives there.


You're probably right that they'll pitch a scheme to pump water over the Rockies or whatever, but the lake states won't just roll over and take it. Would probably be political suicide for any politician supporting such a plan.

Maybe you could end up with a dividend system like in Alaska where residents get an annual check from oil revenues. That might help get it done. Citizens of these states are not going to just happily oblige when left coast elitists and all those Hispanics in Arizona and Nevada want to steal their water.



I know it would be a helluva fight but the argument is Midwesterners are just vastly outnumbered.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 21 19, 10:39 am 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: July 15 08, 8:24 pm
Posts: 19757
Location: Low A Minors
Freed Roger wrote:
Desalination? Maybe worth another look? I guess I could look it up . IIRC - it requires a lot of energy, not feasible along that line. Might need some ocean windmills as part of the mix.

Another thing I could look up- harnessing tides for energy?

https://www.boem.gov/Renewable-Energy-Program-Overview/



I’ll have to dig up the old article. It said desalinization could help a little, but is not a solution by itself. It has a couple big environmental issues. One is you have to be very careful not to suck up ocean life and ocean habitat in the process, which is really hard. The other is after you pull out the fresh water, you end up with a “slurry” that is like 50% salt. You can’t just dump it all in one place back in the ocean, you have to spread it out. The old article said because of these environmental issues, you could probably not have more than about 10 or 12 desalination plants along the west coast. There is a big desalinization plant near San Diego, but it only provides about 7% of the water they use.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 21 19, 10:50 pm 
Offline
Seeking a Zubaz seamstress

Joined: September 4 07, 1:48 pm
Posts: 24286
Location: St. Louis
Image
Record rate for Amazon Rainforest fires


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 938 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group