Why dont we have water pipelines ?

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: skunkape23

Cool.. So what made you think it should be moveable..

So how does it work? Let's say the forecast is tornados for your area for the next week. Would you be able manage a move in such short period? and can you just put it anywhere? Or what can you do..

It would be a challenge to get it moved within a week, but not at all impossible.
It would depend on the availabilty of the right moving equipment...pretty much a large flat-bed truck with a strong wench, and two heavy-duty fork-lifts can get the job done.
It is basically built on a heavy steel skid instead of a solid foundation and solidly anchored to the ground.
It is sort of hybrid of a trailer-home and a tank.
It was designed to be movable specifically to avoid city ordinances and taxes on permanent structures.

a reply to: skunkape23

It would be a challenge to get it moved within a week, but not at all impossible.

Where you gonna move it to?
Seems that tornado warnings (a week out) sort of cover a pretty broad area. You'd be doing a lot of moving I would think. Or just move for the season. A nomad.

a reply to: Phage

I am confused

The Alaskan pipeline one suggestion I have attached.. estimated cost : $110 billion and distance: 1400 miles


Our pipeline to Kimberly was $14.5 billion
distance: 2300 miles

a reply to: MimiSia

Why are you confused? Again, I'm have a hard time figuring out your point. Let me guess, you're on a "device", right?

1400 million miles?
What are you confused about?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: skunkape23

It would be a challenge to get it moved within a week, but not at all impossible.

Where you gonna move it to?
Seems that tornado warnings (a week out) sort of cover a pretty broad area. You'd be doing a lot of moving I would think. Or just move for the season. A nomad.

Strong tornadoes are not really very common in this area.
Occasional hurricanes are, but I don't see them posing a problem.
Tornadoes are pretty unpredictable. It wasn't designed with the idea of dodging tornadoes.
It's definitely not a yurt.

a reply to: Phage


Yes on my phone.. How did you know..
sorry I edited the million

Maybe confused is the wrong word..
I would have guest the price of pipeline would be similar.. Given that the idea is to put it under sea there are not many things to get in way. Our one the Kimberly one I added is a surface one.

a reply to: MimiSia
I guess the guy to ask would be the one with the proposal.

If we are speaking of California , the idea of a water pipeline would not work for long. Along would come some special interest group and declare the pipeline is endangering ________(fill in the species of newt , toad , small fish ,etc) as they have basically shut down every new reservoir in Southern Cali. Sad but true

a reply to: Phage

My point is pipelines sound like a sound option for water supply

a reply to: MimiSia

My point is pipelines sound like a sound option for water supply

Until the snow went away, so was the current system.
Do you think building a pipeline in case of drought is a practical solution? Do you think it would be able to supplement the required amounts of water?

a reply to: Phage

It makes him look like the Pipeline mafia:/

a reply to: MimiSia

It wouldn't be the first time.

a reply to: Phage

America wants the world to abandon one child policy ..so just from that I will assume that the USA governments is nowhere near the future aiming to downsize the counties population to remain sustainable. So,yes , pipelines alongside with recycling and desalination looks like future solution.. for now anyway..
assumption: at what cost doesnt matter

a reply to: MimiSia

America for example wants the world to abandon one child policy

What?

so just from that I will assume that the USA governments is nowhere near the future aiming to downsize the counties population to remain sustainable.

What?

So,yes , pipelines alongside with recycling and desalination looks like future solution.. for now anyway..

A future solution for now. What a wonderful oxymoron.

originally posted by: MimiSia
a reply to: Phage

My point is pipelines sound like a sound option for water supply

indeed. People 2000 years ago thought the same way.

upload.wikimedia.org...

originally posted by: Gothmog
If we are speaking of California , the idea of a water pipeline would not work for long. Along would come some special interest group and declare the pipeline is endangering ________(fill in the species of newt , toad , small fish ,etc) as they have basically shut down every new reservoir in Southern Cali. Sad but true

Enough libel. California has a extensive system of water projects, one of the biggest around.

sites.uci.edu...

a reply to: alienjuggalo

You think we could have figured that out by now, we can pipe oil from Alaska but not water from Washington to Cali? Is it really all about the" money" or "water rights" and only when water becomes as valuable as oil will they figure it out?

Basically yeah. If it ever gets to the point where water can be sold for $60 dollars a barrel they will be sure to spend billions on a pipeline to get that water to thirsty customers.

There are pipelines, but California isn't best place to live in. 40 million people living in the desert, geez. what possibly could go wrong.

Also, moving the great amounts of water isn't very wise, when speaking about environment. Aral Sea anyone? Today it's only 10% from it's original size, because of water diversions. It's hard to know consequences in such large scale project. We have limited amount of water on this Earth.

a reply to: Phage

oxymoron revised after suggestion:

In the near future..

To the rest of my comment, this is what I meant..

Let's talk two largest economies in the world being USA and China..
The import export free trade agreement depends on demands.. USA is demanding China to band one child policy so they sustain export of cheap labour.. It is in the interest of the governments to sustain or grow their economy.. Population is going to grow.. California is going to grow..

Some of you are making California sound like a piece of nothing.

This is what I am reading..

California has an enormously productive economy, which for a nation would be one of the TEN largest in the world.

So I say if they want a freakin pipeline you should want to give them one.

At least a pipeline is a proposition of some type of solution to water supply shortage..

I think the pipeline is only a matter of doing it when you absolutely have to.


Back to Cali , who knows how much profit from exporting California goods is pumped back into projects from all states and other stuff you all as a whole nation require.

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: alienjuggalo

Why don't we have pipelines for water? Scale.

Take the Keystone XL:

Phase III has capacity to deliver up to 700,000 barrels per day (110,000 m^3/d) to the Texas refineries.

That's a lot of capacity.

One of the lower per capita users is Santa Cruz, California (at least, in California), where the average resident uses 47 gallons per day and has a population of 94,887 according to this article. That works out to 4,459,689 gallons a day or 16,881 m^3/d.

The total population of California is something like 38.8 million; Santa Cruz, CA represents less than 0.25% of that. If all residents consumed the efficient Santa Cruz level of 47 gallons/day, the Keystone XL could support 618,275 people (with water instead of oil). That is, however, a mere 1.5% of the state's population.

Check the maths there, 47 gallons per day per person?! I would imagine it's less than 47 litres