Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You seem to be focused on oil, as the oil supply depletes it will become expensive and that will spur new technology. The market needs to dictate where this goes. If someone figures out how to efficiently and cheaply power rail and trucking with solar where does that leave the canal?
Today's market demands fast service, those that can provide it get the biggest piece of the pie. For example one reason why Wal-Mart is so successful is the little known fact that they have one of the largest if not the largest trucking company in the US that is super efficient. All their stock is in trucks en route to stores, essentially a rolling warehouse which arrives at the store "just in time". That is one things that gives them a huge competitive advantage over other business's.
When the time comes and oil really becomes expensive they aren't going to be looking to a canal that is going to take 1 month to get their package delivered.
You seem to be focused on oil, as the oil supply depletes it will become expensive and that will spur new technology. The market needs to dictate where this goes. If someone figures out how to efficiently and cheaply power rail and trucking with solar where does that leave the canal?
The end of cheap and plentiful oil is going to hit America hard. We don't have the same alternatives that other nations preserved. For example, each successive dominant technology actively destroyed its predecessor. (Railroad companies destroyed canals; Buses / automobiles killed off urban electric rail)
I am not advocating canal construction to make the Susquehanna navigable, but a series of lakes. The canals would be adjuncts, for areas developed into waterfront property or industrial uses.
I do not expect "cheap solar" to appear in the near future. The pronouncements of "the solution" have been touted since the 1970s.
I always hoped that 'new technology' would appear, but from the current state of the art, high efficiency is very very expensive. And low efficiency inexpensive systems are not durable, and often require replacement in as little as seven years.
In addition for solar to be optimized for transportation, the storage problem has to be resolved. At this time, chemical batteries are the bottleneck (size, weight, and cost). If ultracapacitors are feasible, they may offer a more reliable means to store electricity.
After oil depletes, grid electricity will be the motive force for land based transportation. How that grid electricity is produced is another question.
Quote:
Today's market demands fast service, those that can provide it get the biggest piece of the pie. For example one reason why Wal-Mart is so successful is the little known fact that they have one of the largest if not the largest trucking company in the US that is super efficient. All their stock is in trucks en route to stores, essentially a rolling warehouse which arrives at the store "just in time". That is one things that gives them a huge competitive advantage over other business's.
I do not dispute that fast service will be available - but at a premium.
Where speed is not as important, water transportation is superior, and more cost effective. And electric rail is the superior land transportation mode.
When diesel fuel passes $5 / gallon, do you believe those truck fleets will be widespread?
Quote:
When the time comes and oil really becomes expensive they aren't going to be looking to a canal that is going to take 1 month to get their package delivered.
You are exaggerating about the 1 month trip time. 400 miles of river, at the snail pace of 4 MPH computes to 100 hours (4 days). On the other hand, if hydrofoil ferry / freight service is implemented, at 30+ MPH, traversing the 400 miles would only take half a day.
Again, for fast freight, water transport is not optimal. But I doubt that FedEx and UPS will be relying on air cargo, when jet fuel hits the ceiling.
In Europe and other places served by high speed rail, there is also fast freight service.
But that's a whole different topic - high speed rail in America, and the need to electrify mainline railroad.
If the only goal was to make a navigable link from the Chesapeake Bay throughout the Susquehanna River valley, canals would be sufficient. But the idea is to generate more benefits that water transport alone.
[] Flood Control, via dams
[] Hydroelectric power generation, via dams (or other means)
[] Shoreline restoration (eliminate levees, restore natural shoreline, develop waterfront property)
[] Commercial development (industry, manufacturing, transportation, recreation, vacation, entertainment, food production)
[] Water reservoirs for irrigation in times of drought
Again, for fast freight, water transport is not optimal. But I doubt that FedEx and UPS will be relying on air cargo, when jet fuel hits the ceiling.
Ironically that is one thing that is being researched, the US Air Force has been looking into using liquid fuel converted from coal. Successfully I believe. Obviously one reason would be to secure a source within the US borders.
"The total cost of construction was approximately $108 million. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Kinzua more than paid for itself in 1972 when tropical storm Agnes dumped continual heavy rains on the watershed, bringing the reservoir to within three feet of its maximum storage capacity. Over $247 million in downstream damages were prevented."
I wonder what the people in the Susquehanna River valley would have done, if they knew that Hurricane Agnes was in their future?
Agnes brought heavy rainfall along its path, killing 129 and causing $11.6 billion (2005 US dollars) in damage, with railroad damage so extensive it contributed to the creation of Conrail.
Would it be worth spending 11.6 billion to avoid 11.6 billion in damages?
At $108 million / dam, one could afford ten or eleven dams at that price tag.
To put that into perspective, the BIG DIG cost taxpayers over $14 billion - for Boston's benefit... but caused traffic congestion in outlying areas (go figure!).
Obama's nuclear push could boost PPL plans - mcall.com
The other project that could benefit from federal loan guarantees is a hydroelectric plant expansion now under way. PPL is spending $440 million to expand its Holtwood hydroelectric plant along the Susquehanna River in Martic Township, Lancaster County, and has a pending application for a federal loan guarantee.
The project, which will more than double the energy production of the plant, will generate enough electricity to power 100,000 typical homes, PPL said.
The Holtwood plant has been generating electricity since 1910, using the power of the water held back by a 55-foot-high dam across the Susquehanna that creates Lake Aldred.
HOLTWOOD HYDROELECTRIC PLANT EXPANSION
Location: Martic Township, Lancaster County
Price: $440 million
Generation: 125 megawatts (enough for 100,000 homes)
I find myself completely agreeing with jetgraphics. We need to concentrate on energy efficient transportation even if it is a bit slower. We also need to redevelop hydroelectricity and nuclear as well as the other smaller alternates. My wife and I plan on visiting the Finger Lakes Region of NY this spring. I think a trip on the Erie Canal is in order.
What we don't need is wasting our troops and our wealth trying to maintain control of a dying expendable resource. Let the rest of the world hook itself on oil why we prepare our selves for the next energy century. Then when the oil gets very expensive we will have the alternates set up to dominate the world's production of good and services. Think Big, think Long Term.
I find myself completely agreeing with jetgraphics. We need to concentrate on energy efficient transportation even if it is a bit slower. We also need to redevelop hydroelectricity and nuclear as well as the other smaller alternates. My wife and I plan on visiting the Finger Lakes Region of NY this spring. I think a trip on the Erie Canal is in order.
What we don't need is wasting our troops and our wealth trying to maintain control of a dying expendable resource. Let the rest of the world hook itself on oil why we prepare our selves for the next energy century. Then when the oil gets very expensive we will have the alternates set up to dominate the world's production of good and services. Think Big, think Long Term.
Thanks for the support.
"In every deliberation, we must consider the impact on the seventh generation... even if it requires having skin as thick as the bark of a pine."
—Great Law of the Iroquois
Based on a population doubling rate of 40 - 50 years, Americans have to think ahead. In 2010, we have over 300 million people. By 2060, we may have 600 million or more. By 2110, we may have 1.2 billion people... and on our way to 2.4 billions by 2160.
It is imperative that our plans include them. Since we have a finite surface area, we have to "thicken" the life bearing capacity. We have to engineer our planet to support greater life. Environmental preservation of the status quo is suicidal. Our only viable option is to amplify the environment's capacity.
In that sense, engineering the Susquehanna and its tributaries, is a "Green" solution, a vital preparation for the seventh generation to come.
I foresee a burgeoning prosperity, and great potential for economic expansion, attracting folks from BOSWASH, as well as increased opportunities for natives.
Susquehanna River Vision - - -
[] Flood Control, via dams
[] Hydroelectric power generation, via dams (or other means)
[] Shoreline restoration (eliminate levees, restore natural shoreline, develop waterfront property, establish nature preserves)
[] Commercial development (industry, manufacturing, transportation, recreation, vacation, entertainment, food production)
[] Water reservoirs for irrigation in times of drought
We need only look to the TVA for inspiration and wisdom: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Prior to the Tennessee Valley Authority Act, the region was one of the most disadvantaged in the South. The TVA was given an assignment to improve the economic and social circumstances of the people living in the river basin.
To this day, people have a favorable opinion of the TVA, and its benefits - electrical power, flood control, recreational parks and making the Tennessee river navigable.
One can safely say that the Susquehanna River basin has some of the most disadvantaged areas in Pennsylvania and New York, plagued with population decline, economic decline, and erosion of hope for its natives. Given an economic transformation, not unlike the TVA, would we not expect a vast improvement?
I do not believe in continous population growth. I hope it would stabilize at our current level but I actually believe it might be less in 50 years. I also think the world wide population will sustain a major decrease because of changing climate, disease, famine and war.
I do not believe in continous population growth. I hope it would stabilize at our current level but I actually believe it might be less in 50 years. I also think the world wide population will sustain a major decrease because of changing climate, disease, famine and war.
It would be nice, if population didn't expand geometrically. But it appears that any population that doesn't keep pace, is replaced by neighbors who do not practice restraint in procreation.
Human Population Growth
Doubling rate = 70/ % rate
The U.S. population is currently doubling every 72 years (not counting the influx of immigrants, legal or illegal)
World average is 60 years
India is doubling every 47 years
Some of the highest birthrates are in countries that can least support it... or in countries with a major portion of the world's population (India = 1.17 billion).
Though China's doubling rate is down to 106 years, it is at 1.3 billions. So in 2110, 2.6 billions is not out of the question. And India's population will have quadrupled to 4.6 billions, if that birthrate stays constant and does not increase. The U.S.A. population may be 900 million in 2110... or far more, if immigrants flood in unabated.
Common sense tells us that emigration from expanding populations will continue, whether or not other countries keep pace. (Explains why Mexicans are migrating to the USA and not vice versa)
Of course, we might go negative, like some eastern European nations:
Georgia - (-0.33%)
Russia - (-0.47%)
Ukraine - (-0.63%)
But that only means the descendants of the procreative will inherit their lands.
So, we're back to making plans for that seventh generation (140 years hence) that will be quadrupled or more. Thus it is still advisable to plan for them and their descendants, instead of hoping that a tragedy will decimate the planet's human population.
Some general strategies:
[] Recovery of arable land, destroyed by suburban sprawl
[] Consolidation of population into villages, towns, and cities
[] Transition to low energy consumption transportation modes
[] Construction of long lasting, low maintenance, disaster resistant structures
[] Decentralization of production of necessities, where practical
Will wisdom win out over short term thinking? I doubt it. But one can hope.
Utterly impractical. Completely incomprehensible. I started rattling off the reasons it wouldn't work and realized I'd be here 20 minutes typing stating the obvious.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- for Boston's benefit... but caused traffic congestion in outlying areas (go figure!).