From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 10:29:52 MDT
In a message dated 7/2/01 7:01:29 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mlorrey@datamann.com writes:
> NOTE: my entire idea could be financed by the sale of the hydropower
> generated from flooding it up to sea level. Selling that power at retail
> to consumers, then building nuke plants to power the pumping to fill it
> above sea level (and getting that power at cost) would likely break even
> or close to it.
The flood could generate a lot of energy *if* you could
build a channel with a big drop. That's a major problem- cheap routes
across the north causasus plain have low gradients; digging the
requisite ditch is very expensive. Building nukes to power above-sea
level flooding is obviously a losing proposition. While it's true that
the coast increases, you trade improved coastal land for unimproved
coastal land, and that's a loss. Plus you just plain lose everything
inbetween, often more than 100 miles wide.
> If the local governments also bought all the land along
> the projected new coast line, then sold it to land owners displaced by
> flooding at sea-shore prices (note with a bigger sea, there will be more
> sea shore), they could definitely break even.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:25 MST