Re: great lakes compact -- much ado about nothing
Mark Mathu
news:49d3a6bc...@news.execpc.com...
> Was anyone seriously talking about building interstate
> pipelines to get water from the Great Lakes?
>
> For a lot less money, you could put a giant reverse osmosis
> filter on the outlet of your wastewater plant and drink that.
... and it would be more politically feasible. I just don't see anyone in
the Great Lakes water compact allowing water to be taken out of the basin
for a slurry pipeline. But up-front money is not the only consideration.
Your "reverse osmosis filter" would not answer the question of where the
source water could come from.
We can only hope that HankVC <han...@julie.lostwells.net> was just not
thinking far enough when he wrote this:
news:gr4252$ald$1...@aioe.org.
Water from the Great Lakes for this idea does not seem viable, even in the
most long-term outlook... if a slurry pipeline were ever viable, surface
water from Wyoming would be a much more practical option
HankVC
rivers is allocated already, both in-state and downstream. I will
remind you that the normal annual rainfall in the Wind River and
Powder River basins is on the order of 10 inches/year. So, your
assumptions about surface water lead to "what?? surface water"?
Wyoming is sagebrush country, as are Western Nebraska, Eastern Montana
and Colorado.
Aside from that, if you are going to send coal from the Powder River
basin, just where are you going to send it? How many hundreds of
miles are you going to pipe this coal? Don't forget that the nearest
cities to Gillette with a population of a million are Denver,
Minneapolis/St. Paul, etc.---only a few hundred miles away.
This is the heart of flyover country, my boy. Only those of us live
here know that it's here.
Hank
Mark Mathu
news:gr9ah1$p16$1...@aioe.org...
>>Water from the Great Lakes for this idea does not seem viable, even in the
>>most long-term outlook... if a slurry pipeline were ever viable, surface
>>water from Wyoming would be a much more practical option
>>
> And just how far do you want me to think? Water in all of Wyoming's
> rivers is allocated already, both in-state and downstream. I will
> remind you that the normal annual rainfall in the Wind River and
> Powder River basins is on the order of 10 inches/year. So, your
> assumptions about surface water lead to "what?? surface water"?
> Wyoming is sagebrush country, as are Western Nebraska, Eastern Montana
> and Colorado.
The Powder River no doubt.. I was under the impression that the Bighorn on
the other side of the range had more volume and less water use restrictions.
Certainly the Powder River doesn't seem to have the capacity to supply
enough. But that's why, if a pipeline were to succed in this area,
recycling the slurry will have to get serious consideration if any plans
wants to pass a NEPA review.
But taking it out of the Great Lakes basin? Even though water is plentiful,
the politics won't let it happen. It takes all eight states to unanimously
agree to have that happen.
> Aside from that, if you are going to send coal from the Powder River
> basin, just where are you going to send it? How many hundreds of
> miles are you going to pipe this coal? Don't forget that the nearest
> cities to Gillette with a population of a million are Denver,
> Minneapolis/St. Paul, etc.---only a few hundred miles away.
Long distance coal slurry pipelines don't seem to be viable compared to rail
transportation. You'd have to keep the pipeline full and running (or at
least from pump station to pump station), whereas coal on a rail only needs
power where and when the coal is moving, not on the entire line.
On the other hand, if the movement is too short, pipelines probably can't
cut it either... the effort of making a slurry and then separating the
product would be too great for the efficiencies to overcome.
I picture distances from 100 - 500 miles would be the most likley - from a
remote location to a spot where either a plant can tie into the power grid
or the coal can connect to another form of transportation.
The coal doesn't necessraily have to wind up in a large population center.
It just needs to get to point where it can be convereted into power.
wreckgang
isn't just a US situation and lake superior is still low from average
levels.
"Mark Mathu" <ma...@mathu.com> wrote in message
news:greibg$itv$1...@news.motzarella.org...
o n e @none.com o u t e n d
> plentiful, the politics won't let it happen. It takes all eight states to
> unanimously agree to have that happen.
>
>
You need to take a look at the basin that supplies the Great Lakes. Most
of the water in the Great Lakes falls on the lakes. As such they are
subject to large fluctuations in water levels. To say that the water
supply of the Great Lakes is plentiful enough to send around the continent
is not an accurate statement.
We will be happy to give our water away for free right after everyone else
sends us their oil, gas and coal natural resources for free. I say this,
because whenever a diversion is proposed, nobody has ever stated that they
were willing to pay a market cost for our valuable resource.
Dave O
David Lesher
>> And just how far do you want me to think? Water in all of Wyoming's
>> rivers is allocated already, both in-state and downstream. I will
>> remind you that the normal annual rainfall in the Wind River and
>> Powder River basins is on the order of 10 inches/year. So, your
>> assumptions about surface water lead to "what?? surface water"?
>> Wyoming is sagebrush country, as are Western Nebraska, Eastern Montana
>> and Colorado.
>The Powder River no doubt.. I was under the impression that the Bighorn
>on the other side of the range had more volume and less water use
>restrictions.
You are going to explain to the current users why they should go thirsty?
>But taking it out of the Great Lakes basin? Even though water is
>plentiful, the politics won't let it happen. It takes all eight states
>to unanimously agree to have that happen.
Eight states ain't the only issue. The Compact includes someone you
forgot: Canada. No party involved is going to be interested in such a
project. They grasp how important the often-variable Great Lakes supply
is to their survival. The Compact even restricts intra-state export
beyond the point where it drains back to the Lakes. In Ohio, for example,
that's between Cleveland and Akron.
--
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433