Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: AZRedhawk44 on July 21, 2022, 01:16:38 PM

Title: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on July 21, 2022, 01:16:38 PM
No, I don't really support any government superprojects.

But:  Do you have any notions for modern equivalents for Depression-era superprojects that might actually be beneficial?

I think a pumped diversion of the Mississippi and/or Missouri rivers, over the Rockies and into the Colorado River or Rio Grande, would be very impressive.  Or perhaps the Columbia or Snake rivers, down south to the Colorado River.  It could help with the flooding that frequently strikes the lower half of the Mississippi, it would burgeon the faltering reservoirs on the Colorado River, and while it wouldn't be energy neutral, it could be buffered by recapturing pump energy used to pump water up-hill via hydroelectric dams on the downstream end.

Arizona already moves thousands of cubic feet per second through the canal systems that were largely put in place in the late 19th and early 20th century, on the Salt River.  The CAP canal is 336 miles long and delivers almost 500 billion gallons of water to Phoenix every year, or 16,000 gallons per second, which is about 2100-ish cubic feet per second.  On a daily basis, the Granite Reef diversion pushes 1000-1500 CFS uphill through the Goldfield mountains, off the Salt River and into canals that move to the south and east for hundreds of miles.  These are all largely 1900's era technological feats.

I'd be horrified by the amount of Eminent Domain that would inevitably be flexed by such a project, and the scope of corruption and graft that would line contractor pockets.

I bet that pumping from lake to lake through Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico or Colorado could be possible.  Aiming for the San Juan River at Navajo Lake in New Mexico would eliminate the need to meet up with the Colorado River itself; the San Juan tumbles downhill on its own to feed Lake Powell from the east while the Colorado comes in from the north.

I admit that when we're talking about Mississippi River flooding, we're talking in excess of 4.5 million CFS.  A diversion of 10,000 CFS is a pittance compared to that, and honestly would be about the most you could put through smaller tributary rivers that feed the Colorado River Basin from the Rockies.  The Colorado River itself can't handle much more than 25,000 CFS and that's in a flood state.  But managed well, preemptively, it could offer an additional threshold of buffering to frequently flooded cities between St Louis and New Orleans. 
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: dogmush on July 21, 2022, 01:21:07 PM
Be cheaper to just rebuild NOLA on 50 ft stilts.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on July 21, 2022, 01:21:38 PM
I still come down to the fact that with the amount of Eminent Domain needed to accomplish such a project, you might as well forcibly condemn several of the California and Arizona superfarms downstream of Lake Mead that are huge water consumers on the scale of hundreds of CFS per day, relocate them to west of the Rockies, use Eminent Domain to give them farm land with better access to water, and leave CA/AZ fallow in those areas.  It would probably come out to less Eminent Domain use, less construction, and a quicker net positive to water efficiency on the Colorado River system.

But it'd be an impressive piece of engineering to build such a bridge between river systems.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: RoadKingLarry on July 21, 2022, 01:23:47 PM
Big problem with pumping water to California is it would bolster California's refusal to build more water storage reservoirs and encourage them to further increase their dependence on the other states money
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: French G. on July 21, 2022, 01:54:15 PM
Yeah. A going to the moon level urgency build of fifty large scale nuke power plants. Build them on federal land. Streamline the permit process. Take every surplus nuke sub and tie them into the grid while the build is going on. If it’s an emergency then it’s an emergency right? We flooded a fair bit of Tennessee and that helped win the last big one.

Also electricity related look at least he wiki on pumped storage. I live twenty miles from the largest in the US. Look at how many we have planned vs how many China has planned. Renewables make a ton more sense if you have a gravity battery.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: zahc on July 21, 2022, 02:05:25 PM
I'd be happy if we could just manage passenger rail.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: WLJ on July 21, 2022, 02:07:37 PM
Rebuilding our power grid to a level that could actually properly support EVs would be nice.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: Jim147 on July 21, 2022, 02:24:24 PM
Rebuilding our power grid to a level that could actually properly support EVs would be nice.

.GOV says they will have chargers in place by 2030. They didn't say anything about getting power to them.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: Pb on July 21, 2022, 02:54:55 PM
I don't know.   =|

I kind of think rivers are supposed to flood periodically, like God made them to.

And we should just not build anything of value in the floodplains.

As far as large scale projects, I tend to think it would be useful to invest a lot into enhanced geothermal energy... It would be good to up our electricity generation, and slowly start winding down coal if feasible.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: WLJ on July 21, 2022, 03:32:31 PM
.GOV says they will have chargers in place by 2030. They didn't say anything about getting power to them.

Chargers are the easy part and you can bet dollars to donuts dem pols will be at each and every opening for photo ops.
Not having the power grid crash when everyone plugs their cars in is going to be the hard part
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: Nick1911 on July 21, 2022, 03:53:49 PM
Yeah. A going to the moon level urgency build of fifty large scale nuke power plants. Build them on federal land. Streamline the permit process. Take every surplus nuke sub and tie them into the grid while the build is going on. If it’s an emergency then it’s an emergency right? We flooded a fair bit of Tennessee and that helped win the last big one.

Also electricity related look at least he wiki on pumped storage. I live twenty miles from the largest in the US. Look at how many we have planned vs how many China has planned. Renewables make a ton more sense if you have a gravity battery.

This.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: HankB on July 21, 2022, 04:41:01 PM
I'd work on finishing a serious barrier between the USA and Mexico. Then form a bus company with, oh, around 1000 buses designated to move people from the USA to the other side of our border with Mexico and drop them off there.

If fed.gov got involved as THE major supplier of electricity to the nation, I shudder to think of how much we'd be paying per kWH. They'd probably have different rates for POCs, alphabet people, illegal aliens, and white devils too.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: Pb on July 21, 2022, 07:04:06 PM
I agree with you HankB.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: kgbsquirrel on July 21, 2022, 09:59:08 PM
Yeah. A going to the moon level urgency build of fifty large scale nuke power plants. Build them on federal land. Streamline the permit process. Take every surplus nuke sub and tie them into the grid while the build is going on. If it’s an emergency then it’s an emergency right? We flooded a fair bit of Tennessee and that helped win the last big one.

Also electricity related look at least he wiki on pumped storage. I live twenty miles from the largest in the US. Look at how many we have planned vs how many China has planned. Renewables make a ton more sense if you have a gravity battery.

There are no surplus nukes, the reactors burn out via neutron embrittlement of the pressure vessels, especially on navy reactors without a lot of volume for things like a sacrificial barrel on the inside.

But I do agree, nuclear is the answer.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: JTHunter on July 21, 2022, 11:42:41 PM
AZ - speaking of those diversion canals, there was an idea floated several years ago to cover the canals with PV solar panels.  These would have shaded the canals, reducing water loss and no problems of "right of ways" for building the panels as they are already on "state land".
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on July 22, 2022, 04:23:26 PM
AZ - speaking of those diversion canals, there was an idea floated several years ago to cover the canals with PV solar panels.  These would have shaded the canals, reducing water loss and no problems of "right of ways" for building the panels as they are already on "state land".

The attenuation and loss over 336 miles of serial linear connections would be pretty bad.  Also, reducing radiative heating of the water due to the sun would reduce some evaporation but it's still a desert and the wind still blows convective heat over the water that scoops up moisture with low humidity high temperature air.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: MillCreek on July 22, 2022, 04:27:34 PM
There are no surplus nukes, the reactors burn out via neutron embrittlement of the pressure vessels, especially on navy reactors without a lot of volume for things like a sacrificial barrel on the inside.

But I do agree, nuclear is the answer.

I have heard of the old sub reactors buried out in Idaho Falls. Are they defueled first?
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: AZRedhawk44 on July 22, 2022, 04:43:21 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LseK5gp66u8

Germany, in the Ruhr valley, has had so much subsiding of ground after a century of coal mining, that they now have to pump a river up-hill constantly or else they lose the valley.  40,000 liters per second, or about 1400 CFS.  About on par with the Arizona Granite Reef diversion of the Salt River.

The pumps do shut down periodically... but if they fully shut down supposedly in 5 days in dry conditions, or as little as 5 hours in a bad storm, the valley will flood and get out of control.  It could become a massive lake if left to natural processes.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: French G. on July 22, 2022, 05:38:21 PM
I have heard of the old sub reactors buried out in Idaho Falls. Are they defueled first?

My plan once I am god emperor is to send older nuke vessels to power grid duty whilst we build lots more new ones quicker.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: Bogie on July 22, 2022, 07:17:36 PM
Small to medium size reactors on every major river. All the TVA lakes.
 
Massive cash spent on education for tech stuff - including, gasp, healthcare. If the ACA was about actual healthcare, it would have been about infrastructure and education. And research.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: MechAg94 on July 22, 2022, 11:06:39 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LseK5gp66u8

Germany, in the Ruhr valley, has had so much subsiding of ground after a century of coal mining, that they now have to pump a river up-hill constantly or else they lose the valley.  40,000 liters per second, or about 1400 CFS.  About on par with the Arizona Granite Reef diversion of the Salt River.

The pumps do shut down periodically... but if they fully shut down supposedly in 5 days in dry conditions, or as little as 5 hours in a bad storm, the valley will flood and get out of control.  It could become a massive lake if left to natural processes.
They aren't pumping it a 1000 miles. 

The town I live in is behind a 15 foot storm levy.  There are pumps that move storm water over the levy into the river on the other side.  Not sure how much.  The levy surrounds a decent sized area and 2 or 3 towns. 

I don't like the idea at all.  There comes a point at which we shouldn't be subsidizing people moving to the desert or building water intensive farms in the desert.  Better to spend a much, much, much, much, much, much smaller amount building reservoirs and such for the rare times it does rain and flood in those states. 
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: MechAg94 on July 22, 2022, 11:19:51 PM
My plan once I am god emperor is to send older nuke vessels to power grid duty whilst we build lots more new ones quicker.
We already have a lot of coal plants that are either shut down or underutilized.  No need to use Navy vessels. 

If the regulations were made more reasonable, you would likely see private efforts to build nuclear plants.  I heard South Texas Nuclear was going to expand back in the 2000's after W. Bush talked about permitting more plants, but I don't think it ever happened. 

One thought is to design a small to medium size nuclear plant and install them on military bases to supply power and feed the grid.  Might be a way to prove the tech and build public confidence.  Just think military bases are often on the grid or near cities.  Not sure how much cooling water is needed.  Not as much federal land on the East side of the nation.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: MechAg94 on July 22, 2022, 11:24:54 PM
I worked near Las Vegas for a month earlier this year.  The city was encouraging people to switch yards to a natural state instead of grass lawns, but many people still used a lot of water to keep lawns.  I don't think a giant nationally subsidized project to supply water is something I want to pay for if the locals are still somewhat wasteful with the water they do have.  There are probably cheap ways to make more water available that can be done within the state and the state can pay for it.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: dogmush on July 23, 2022, 10:48:03 AM
My plan once I am god emperor is to send older nuke vessels to power grid duty whilst we build lots more new ones quicker.

Nuke vessels are set up for steam turbine propulsion, not electrical generation.  Sure they might have a 5MW reactor, but how much of that output is available for putting into the grid without a lot of reengineering?
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: Northwoods on July 23, 2022, 11:10:12 AM
Yeah. A going to the moon level urgency build of fifty large scale nuke power plants. Build them on federal land. Streamline the permit process. Take every surplus nuke sub and tie them into the grid while the build is going on. If it’s an emergency then it’s an emergency right? We flooded a fair bit of Tennessee and that helped win the last big one.

Also electricity related look at least he wiki on pumped storage. I live twenty miles from the largest in the US. Look at how many we have planned vs how many China has planned. Renewables make a ton more sense if you have a gravity battery.

Like Nick, I was going to say something similar.  But, instead of 50 large scale nukes, 300-500 much smaller nukes distributed for powering everywhere in the country would be perhaps better.  As they get built out retire coal and gas plants, and maybe even hydro-power dams.  Definitely dismantle solar and wind generators.  Since nukes don’t like to change their output rapidly, deal with demand fluctuations by diverting excess energy to plants that can make synthetic hydrocarbons or something that can handle variable energy inputs.  And by using TWR or other molten salt cooled reactors you don’t need cooling water which dramatically expands places they can be built.

Also, hardening our electric grid against EMP, whether from nuclear bombs or massive solar flares is necessary.
Title: Re: Government Superprojects That Wouldn't Suck
Post by: dogmush on July 23, 2022, 02:20:29 PM
A whole bunch of these: https://www.energy.gov/ne/advanced-small-modular-reactors-smrs