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.
The major arguments for engineering the Susquehanna river, length = 444 mi (715 km) into a navigable waterway:
[] Eliminate flood threat - stabilize river level - dismantle levees - restore natural shore line
[] Reduce silt and sediment pollution in the Chesapeake Bay
[] Construct hydro power projects - reduce dependency on fossil fuels
[] Upgrade waste treatment facilities along the river - improve health of the watershed and bay
[] Navigable waterway would open up the watershed to development for commercial shipping, recreational use, waterfront development, and the economic boost from tourism
[] Provide alternative transportation options
[] Expand facilities for enhanced fish migration (locks, fish ladders, etc)
[] Improve shore habitat and wetlands for filtration of pollutants
[] Expand aquaculture and agriculture along river and in watershed
[] Increased reservoir capacity to relieve droughts
Disagreement?
Inspirations:
[] Rhone River, in Europe, 813 km (505 mi)
[] Rhine River, in Europe, 1,320 km (820 mi)
[] The Grand Canal (China) roughly 1,770 km (1,114 miles)
[] Mississippi River, 2,340 miles (3,770 km)
[] Missouri River, measuring 2,540 miles (4,090 km)
[] Nile River, 6,650 km (4,132 mi)
I DO. I am an avid kayaker and smallmouth fisherman and spend considerable time on our river.
[coal man,I am a Lot Road regular. We may have met]
I am on the river from Laceyville to Falls and anywhere in between yaking and fishing at least 3 days a week, so we have all had to have seen each other out there I'm sure.
I am on the river from Laceyville to Falls and anywhere in between yaking and fishing at least 3 days a week, so we have all had to have seen each other out there I'm sure.
We'll have to get together one of thes days and *** fish.
You can't miss miss me. Orange OT possibly with training wheels.
Have trailer for shuttle.
Planning a long float trip right now for this summer.
We go every weekend for 2 days on the river and have been planning some longer trips maybe a week.....I have also been thinking of doing the length of the river from top to bottom and take a little over 2 weeks to do it so I can journal the fishery from top to bottm and see what is where and why.
I'm in a yellow 12' *** with rod holders or a yellow 17' expedition boat, can't be missed...Day trips usually are in and around the lower Tunkhannock lauch to Whites Ferry or we just stay in and around the Tunkhannock area.....
Why a retrospective on the vision of a navigable Susquehanna, with flood control dams, hydroelectric dams, locks, and best of all - recreational shoreline that runs for hundreds of miles?
As the USA enters a protracted recession / depression, and unemployment surges, this might be a great time to use some of that surplus labor energy to build it. A nice 10 - 15 year civil engineering project would help take the edge off the doldrums.
While reading about the Erie Canal, there was a note that though the Erie canal was bypassed by commercial shipping (due in part to the St Lawrence Seaway), in 2008, a surge in commercial shipping occurred. One reason - fuel costs. Shipping by water may be slow, but it is the cheapest.
Let us consider that petroleum is increasingly more expensive, and difficult to acquire. America's oil reserves are far too small to continue assuming that we can burn up an irreplaceable fossil fuel. Ergo, we must start transitioning to alternative transportation methods not dependent upon petroleum or other fossil fuels.
The Susquehanna River as a vital water highway
In the heyday of canal building, in the 1820 - 1860s, it was far cheaper to build a canal than to engineer a river. The Susquehanna River was augmented by many canals, to facilitate shipping from the Chesapeake Bay to upstate New York and even the Finger Lakes.
In the impending oil-poor future, waterways (and electric railroads) will be the vital to the economy. Prosperity depends on transportation of surplus goods and services. So why should we skip canals and make our goal more expansive?
Flood control, for one. Prosperity, for another. A navigable network of lakes, most of all.
Envision a series of low head dams with locks from the Chesapeake Bay to the tributaries of upper New York State, and high head dams in the many tributaries feeding the Susquehanna. Once the network of dams can control water volume, the risk of floods is eliminated. And the levees can come down, allowing for a restored natural shoreline, as well as the construction of port facilities and docks... and perhaps more canals linking the Susquehanna riverway. (Imagine the real estate opportunities and tax base boost when additional waterfront property and boat docks can be created via canals. See the Florida coast for inspiration.)
Imagine the vista of boats with wind filled sails, cruising oil-free, up and downstream, from lake to lake.
But WHY should we be so fired up about weaning ourselves from petroleum?
Proven oil reserves in the United States are 21 billion barrels (3.3×10^9 m3), excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The U.S. Department of the Interior estimates the total volume of undiscovered, technically recoverable prospective resources in all areas of the United States, including the Federal Outer Continental Shelf, the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska, and the Bakken Formation, total 134 billion barrels (21.3×10^9 m3) of crude oil. This excludes oil shale reserves, as there is no significant commercial production of oil from oil shale in the United States.
In simple terms, if we drilled "everywhere" possible, it would only delay the inevitable by a little more than a decade.
TOTAL OIL RESERVES = 134 months (11 years)
1 billion barrels of oil = one month U.S. consumption
(based on 2007 - last year of "booming" economy)
Proven oil reserves in Saudi Arabia are the largest in the world, estimated to be 267 billion barrels (42×10^9 m3) including 2.5 billion barrels in the Saudi-Kuwaiti neutral zone. This is around one-fifth of the world's total conventional oil reserves.
1 billion barrels of oil = one month U.S. consumption (2007)
Ergo, if the U.S. bought ALL of Saudi Arabian reserve, it would last 267 months (22 years).
( And at $100 / barrel, the cost to us would be $26 trillion or more)
2 years to exhaust U.S. reserves, if we do nothing.
11 years to exhaust U.S. domestic supply, by drilling everything.
22 years to exhaust Saudi supply. (Assuming the USA acquired it all)
In 2007 consumption rates
1 million barrels of oil = one hour U.S. consumption
1 billion barrels of oil = one month U.S. consumption
1 trillion barrels of oil = one human lifetime ...
In 2007, 12 billion barrels of oil were consumed. 70% of that was imported: 8.4 billion.
Extrapolating forward - - -
At $50 / barrel, we export $420 Billion / year.
At $75 / barrel, we export $630 Billion / year.
At $100 / barrel, we export $840 Billion / year.
At $125 / barrel, we export $1050 Billion / year.
Recently, oil reached $73.23/barrel at the NYMEX. So we can estimate that we're exporting $630 billion for our "oil fix".
What if part of that $630 billion per year was used to build, restore, and revive alternative transportation systems? And among those options, consider engineering the Susquehanna River and its branches and tributaries, into a navigable waterway.
Benefits:
Flood control, reservoir, drought protection, restoration of shoreline, navigable waterway, commercial and recreational shipping, vacationing, tourism, aquaculture, shoreline development (where applicable), investment opportunities, and more.
Do we wish to endow our children and grandchildren with an impoverished USA, drained of its wealth, so that we can 'drive' another decade or two?
Or do we awaken to the need to BUILD ALTERNATIVES NOW.
We still have options and the time to exercise them - - -
Electrify our mainline railroads. (save on diesel fuel!)
Transfer truck shipping to rail or boat (save more diesel fuel)
Build urban electric rail mass transit (streetcars, subways, funiculars, etc.)
Engineer navigable waterways, wherever possible.
Construct hydroelectric power plants, at every possible location.
If you have any better ideas, let's hear them!
Tick tock tick tock tick tock.
I theoritically agree with all 5 of the options you have alluded to; however I feel (unfortunately) that our country does not have the political will/backbone to implement some of these policy changes...afraid to upset the apple cart. However I think we should embark on an "Apollo type" program and develop fusion power as soon as possible....with a urgency seldom seen outside of total war. In the meantime we should pursue advanced liquid metal reactors and fast breeder reactors....or gas-cooled pebble bed reactors......all vastly safer than our current liquid cooled designs. Nuclear power(whatever the final form) along with solar , wind...etc. should supply ALL of our electrical needs and fossil fuels diverted to transportation until we can develop a more earth friendly way to economically travel and convey commerce. Remember nuclear power is our main option to produce the electricity we need without the release of green house gases...and global warming consequences. The new reactor types extract up to 99% of the thermal energy inherent in the fuel with MUCH less nuclear waste and what is left has a much shorter half-life as far as future generations are concerned. Either way we will leave our descendants some problems that THEY will need to rectify. OOPS...The only place I can envision damming the Susquehanna River is far upstream of the Lackawanna River; but that is the most scenic part of the river.....would be very difficult to acquire the land necessary, considering we seem to have lost our love affair with dams...unlike China.
Though we all hope for some technological breakthrough that will resolve the fossil fuel issue, the current situation is only resolved by switching off the oil pump.
I dislike the idea of scaling back our technological civilization, and all the advantages it offers. And if it wasn't for "cheap and plentiful oil" combined with skulduggery of the oil-rubber-auto cartel to scuttle electric rail mass transit, America might have easily endured the loss of oil.
The Streetcar Conspiracy - How General Motors Deliberately Destroyed Public Transit (http://saveourwetlands.org/streetcar.htm - broken link) GM killed [public transit] by employing a host of anti-competitive devices, which, like National City Lines, debased rail transit and promoted auto sales.
This is not about a "plot" hatch by wild-eyed corporate rogues, but rather about a consummate business strategy crafted by Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., the MIT-trained genius behind General Motors, to expand auto sales and maximize profits by eliminating streetcars. In 1922, according to GM's own files, Sloan established a special unit within the corporation, which was charged, among other things, with the task of replacing America's electric railways with cars, trucks and buses.
A year earlier, in 1921, GM lost $65 million, leading Sloan to conclude that the auto market was saturated, that those who desired cars already owned them, and that the only way to increase GM's sales and restore its profitability was by eliminating its principal rival: electric railways.
------------
Now, we're faced with the necessity to implement every possible alternative to maintain transportation options.
The Susquehanna River represents a synergistic opportunity to combine several tasks, goals and benefits into one massive project. Why not make a better future for the folks who will live in the Susquehanna watershed?
However I think we should embark on an "Apollo type" program and develop fusion power as soon as possible....with a urgency seldom seen outside of total war. In the meantime we should pursue advanced liquid metal reactors and fast breeder reactors....or gas-cooled pebble bed reactors......all vastly safer than our current liquid cooled designs. Nuclear power(whatever the final form) along with solar , wind...etc. should supply ALL of our electrical needs and fossil fuels diverted to transportation until we can develop a more earth friendly way to economically travel and convey commerce. Remember nuclear power is our main option to produce the electricity we need without the release of green house gases...and global warming consequences. The new reactor types extract up to 99% of the thermal energy inherent in the fuel with MUCH less nuclear waste and what is left has a much shorter half-life as far as future generations are concerned. Either way we will leave our descendants some problems that THEY will need to rectify.
I agree that FUSION power would be far superior. My problem is that the current theorists who said "it's just over the horizon" still don't have anything that closely resembles a workable reactor.
Embarking on a "Manhattan style" money-is-no-object program would be premature, if not fool hardy.
FISSION reactors are a bit of a problem. It's not the ionizing radiation, but the accumulation of neutrons destabilizing nuclei. Half lives of some of the toxic isotopes run into the hundreds of thousands of years. It does seem unrealistic that we can safely contain the wastes for what amounts to "eternity".
Since water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas, I am not persuaded that trace gases in the atmosphere have a significant effect on the global climate. I am of the opinion that variations in the climate have more to do with our variable star, the sun, and perturbations of our planet's orbit, than humanity. However, I support the transition to non-fossil fuel technology, simply because totally consuming a resource that took 65 millions years or more to produce is patently insane. The widespread and continued use of petroleum as fuel, means that humanity will have destroyed an irreplaceable resource in under 200 years. That's not a proud achievement.
I think you are both nuts!.One person from Ga., and another from Fla. telling us what we should do with our beutifull river.
Where do you get such pipe dreams?
Why do you waste your time with all of that mindless research that nobody reads past the first sentance or two?
I Am the river, I live on the river, I am now as I type.... ON THE RIVER! on a 100 mile sojourn kayaking from Vosburg to Sunbury......Keep yoiu hands Off my river ! Your ideas are as stupid as trying to build a whole new river from scratch. CHEEEEEEZ!
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.
Fuelish behavior
