Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Apr '15 11:06
    I recently heard William Shattner propose building a water pipeline from Seattle to California at the cost of $30 billion since California will run out of water in about a year.

    Thoughts?
  2. 20 Apr '15 12:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I recently heard William Shattner propose building a water pipeline from Seattle to California at the cost of $30 billion since California will run out of water in about a year.

    Thoughts?
    What do the people in Seattle think about it?
    Plus it seems like a silly "pipe dream" to begin with, it'd have to be a gigantic pipe to cover all the water California needs, talking about a gazzilion gallons.
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    20 Apr '15 13:58
    It won't be our first aqueduct.

    wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct

    Sounds like a good idea.
  4. Standard member KellyJay
    Walk your Faith
    20 Apr '15 19:04 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I recently heard William Shattner propose building a water pipeline from Seattle to California at the cost of $30 billion since California will run out of water in about a year.

    Thoughts?
    Since California isn't attempting to build means to save the water they
    already do have, why bother? The only thing that will do is raise the cost
    over water else where as it is diverted to California.
  5. 20 Apr '15 19:05
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    It won't be our first aqueduct.

    wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct

    Sounds like a good idea.
    Those are aqueducts coming down from the mountains, gravity does all the work. Shatner is proposing a pipeline, totally different thing. An open aqueduct from Washington to California isn't feasible because it's starting at the same altitude and will have to go up and down as the elevation changes. Water don't flow uphill last I heard.
  6. 20 Apr '15 19:08
    Originally posted by whodey
    I recently heard William Shattner propose building a water pipeline from Seattle to California at the cost of $30 billion since California will run out of water in about a year.

    Thoughts?
    Is it cheaper than:
    1. Reducing water consumption.
    2. Desalination.
    3. Alternative pipelines.
    4. Moving some of the consumers to Seattle. (main consumers are industry, farms and pot growers).
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    20 Apr '15 21:24
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Those are aqueducts coming down from the mountains, gravity does all the work. Shatner is proposing a pipeline, totally different thing. An open aqueduct from Washington to California isn't feasible because it's starting at the same altitude and will have to go up and down as the elevation changes. Water don't flow uphill last I heard.
    As long as the Washington end is higher than the CA end the water will flow, even over mountains. Same principle as stealing gasoline via siphoning.

    wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphon
  8. 21 Apr '15 05:27
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    As long as the Washington end is higher than the CA end the water will flow, even over mountains.
    Not so. You can't siphon water over more than 10m vertically. Siphons are driven by air pressure.
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    21 Apr '15 14:21 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Not so. You can't siphon water over more than 10m vertically. Siphons are driven by air pressure.
    This looks like more than ten meters to me:

    http://clui.org/ludb/site/los-angeles-aqueduct-jawbone-canyon-pipe

    But we can add some solar pumps or even run the pipe along the beach if necessary.

    https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/siphon.htm

    If siphon flow is analyzed, with a (nearly) incompressible liquid like water, the work done at each end of the siphon against air pressure is NET zero, for equal volumes of air are displaced at each end. The two ends (water surface in bucket and at the output end of the tube) are both at the same atmospheric pressure, p, so pdV is the same size for equal volumes displaced, but the signs are opposite. So air pressure does not drive the siphon.

    It isn't atmospheric pressure that sustains the siphon flow. The weight difference of liquid in the tube arms isn't the reason for siphon flow. The siphon's flow is a result of the gravitational potential difference between the liquid level in the reservoir and at of the output tube's opening. Gravity is necessary for siphon operation. The siphon is an unbalanced system with stored gravitational potential energy that sustains the liquid flow.
  10. 21 Apr '15 14:57
    Originally posted by FishHead111
    Those are aqueducts coming down from the mountains, gravity does all the work. Shatner is proposing a pipeline, totally different thing. An open aqueduct from Washington to California isn't feasible because it's starting at the same altitude and will have to go up and down as the elevation changes. Water don't flow uphill last I heard.
    The Romans and the Incas made water run uphill. Still, I think it is a silly idea.
  11. 21 Apr '15 15:02
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Is it cheaper than:
    1. Reducing water consumption.
    2. Desalination.
    3. Alternative pipelines.
    4. Moving some of the consumers to Seattle. (main consumers are industry, farms and pot growers).
    I prefer desalination, and although it may be more costly now, with time and research the cost may be reduced. It also would be local, and paid for by the users. The cost could be reduced by the sale of desalinated water to other shortage States nearby.

    Also, the high cost of water might actually move some consumers away from California to wherever they think is a better alternative.
  12. 21 Apr '15 17:08
    Originally posted by normbenign
    I

    Also, the high cost of water might actually move some consumers away from California to wherever they think is a better alternative.
    The way California is now there's not too many places that aren't better.
    When I think of what Los Angeles/So Cal was like when I was a child in the 1950's compared to what it is today, and what the future looks like for it, I cringe.
  13. 21 Apr '15 17:22
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    It isn't atmospheric pressure that sustains the siphon flow.
    Its complicated, but pressure is an absolute necessity. I could be wrong about the 10m limit if the pipe is artificially pressurised, but surely that constitutes pumping anyway?
    Under normal atmospheric pressure a 10m column of water forms a vacuum at the top just like a mercury barometer but longer.
    You cannot pump water via suction with the pump at the top and a 10m drop below it.
    I can't think of any way to overcome this limit in a siphon system without increasing the pressure.
  14. 21 Apr '15 17:24
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The Romans and the Incas made water run uphill.
    Who told you that?
  15. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    21 Apr '15 18:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Its complicated, but pressure is an absolute necessity. I could be wrong about the 10m limit if the pipe is artificially pressurised, but surely that constitutes pumping anyway?
    Under normal atmospheric pressure a 10m column of water forms a vacuum at the top just like a mercury barometer but longer.
    You cannot pump water via suction with the pump at th ...[text shortened]... an't think of any way to overcome this limit in a siphon system without increasing the pressure.
    The pressure is increased by having a very deep reservoir in Washington. The weight of the water causes the pressure.