XPost: alt.survival, misc.survivalism, uk.politics.misc
XPost: can.politics, aus.politics

On 2/09/2024 10:17 am, Rod Speed wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2024 08:02:41 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 1/09/2024 8:31 pm, Joe wrote:

On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 16:29:53 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Just a reminder moron: I am not the one trying to use measurements
that no one on the planet uses, except Americans. Australia, like the
rest of the planet, uses Metric measurements.

 There are still many electronic components, even those made in the Far >>> East, that fit a 1/10" grid. If you actually use measurements in real
life, you need to be able to deal with any system you may encounter. It
is also not unusual to see dimensions quoted in a strange number of
millimetres which turns out to be an exact number of inches. And don't
bother trying to find a metric screw to fit a photographic mount,
anywhere in the world.

I am well aware of legacy products that are still in Imperial
measurements. Plumbing and, as you say, old school electronic
components. However, common-place measurements (distance, capacity,
etc) are now Metric all over the planet. Except for one, tiny, pocket.

Aircraft aren't one tiny pocket, fuckwit

**Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell us that Airbus Industries use
Imperial measurements when they build aeroplanes?

I call bullshit on that. The Frogs would NEVER use Imperial measurements
for their products.

However, it would appear that Boeing still use Imperial measurements,
but General Motors has been specifying Metric parts for many years.

That said, those companies are NOT nations. Only 5% of the planet's
population uses Imperial measurements. EVERYONE else uses the Metric system.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.survival, misc.survivalism, uk.politics.misc
XPost: can.politics, aus.politics

On 8/30/2024 6:04 AM, Intelligent Party wrote:

On 8/22/2024 11:58 AM, Intelligent Party wrote:

On 8/22/2024 11:45 AM, Intelligent Party wrote:

Raise Lake Shasta 200 Feet and thereby add 10 million acre feet of
water.

Put in the Ah Pah Dam and thereby add 15 million acre feet of water.  On >>> the Klamath River and form a scenic lake.

Put in the Dos Rios Reservoir and thereby add 7 million acre feet of
water.  On the Eel River

Do these projects and then there will be enough water for the Peripheral >>> Canal, and a fledgling UC Fresno.


These would be Federal Water Programs, and there is runoff for the
State.  These are huge projects like the Hoover Dam, yet desperately
needed if we are to have an Empire of 40 million people in California as >>> we have.

The farmers are 80% of the water, and are Federal water.
The homes are 20% of the water, and are State water.
There is runoff from Federal to State.


For comparison purposes, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the nation's two
largest reservoirs are 25 million Acre Feet of water each.

Here is pertinent intelligence accumulated so far, on, ca.water:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ca.water/y5tkrEW4Gkk

The Hoover Dam cost $49 million to build in 1930, equal to $860 million today.  Per Quora, we think it would cost much more today, closer to $10 billion. https://www.quora.com/How-much-would-it-cost-to-build-the-Hoover-Dam-from-scratch-in-todays-dollars-and-under-todays-construction-rules

If it cost $10 Billion

The San Diego County Carlsbad Desalinization plant cost about $1 billion
to build https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_%22Bud%22_Lewis_Carlsbad_Desalination_Plant

It produces 50 million gallons of fresh water per day or 18.25 billion
per year.

If a dam allowing storage of 10 million acre feet, such as the Hoover
Dam cost $10 billion to build, we calculate that 1 acre foot of water is 325,851 gallons, and 10 million acre feet of water 3,258,509,400,000,
3.2 Trillion gallons of stored water.

We also calculate that 10 such desalinization plants as the one in San
Diego County, costing $10 billion total, would produce 18.25 billion x
10, 182.5 billion gallons of fresh water per year.  Or 500,000,000
gallons x 365 days, also 182,500,000,000 gallons yearly.

We thus conclude, that because 3.2 trillion gallons is 17.85 times 182.5 billion gallons, dams still make more sense that desalinization plants.

If you were storing only 1 million acre feet, it would still be 1.785
time more water to have damns.

Maybe we can build desalinization plants more efficiently in the future?
 Maybe there are economies of scale?

If you stored 10 million acre feet, and the dam only cost $1 billion it
would be 178.5 times more water.  However, we should not build damns
that fail, and it should be a Federal project.

If there is anything wrong with this analysis, please correct it.

Might add that dam generates electricity where desalinization requires electricity to run.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.survival, misc.survivalism, uk.politics.misc
XPost: can.politics, aus.politics

On 8/30/2024 3:04 AM, Intelligent Party wrote:

On 8/22/2024 11:58 AM, Intelligent Party wrote:

On 8/22/2024 11:45 AM, Intelligent Party wrote:

Raise Lake Shasta 200 Feet and thereby add 10 million acre feet of
water.

Put in the Ah Pah Dam and thereby add 15 million acre feet of water. On >>> the Klamath River and form a scenic lake.

Put in the Dos Rios Reservoir and thereby add 7 million acre feet of
water. On the Eel River

Do these projects and then there will be enough water for the Peripheral >>> Canal, and a fledgling UC Fresno.


These would be Federal Water Programs, and there is runoff for the
State. These are huge projects like the Hoover Dam, yet desperately
needed if we are to have an Empire of 40 million people in California as >>> we have.

The farmers are 80% of the water, and are Federal water.
The homes are 20% of the water, and are State water.
There is runoff from Federal to State.


For comparison purposes, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the nation's two
largest reservoirs are 25 million Acre Feet of water each.

Here is pertinent intelligence accumulated so far, on, ca.water:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ca.water/y5tkrEW4Gkk

The Hoover Dam cost $49 million to build in 1930, equal to $860 million today. Per Quora, we think it would cost much more today, closer to $10 billion. https://www.quora.com/How-much-would-it-cost-to-build-the-Hoover-Dam-from-scratch-in-todays-dollars-and-under-todays-construction-rules

If it cost $10 Billion

The San Diego County Carlsbad Desalinization plant cost about $1 billion
to build https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_%22Bud%22_Lewis_Carlsbad_Desalination_Plant

It produces 50 million gallons of fresh water per day or 18.25 billion
per year.

If a dam allowing storage of 10 million acre feet, such as the Hoover
Dam cost $10 billion to build, we calculate that 1 acre foot of water is 325,851 gallons, and 10 million acre feet of water 3,258,509,400,000,
3.2 Trillion gallons of stored water.

We also calculate that 10 such desalinization plants as the one in San
Diego County, costing $10 billion total, would produce 18.25 billion x
10, 182.5 billion gallons of fresh water per year. Or 500,000,000
gallons x 365 days, also 182,500,000,000 gallons yearly.

We thus conclude, that because 3.2 trillion gallons is 17.85 times 182.5 billion gallons, dams still make more sense that desalinization plants.

If you were storing only 1 million acre feet, it would still be 1.785
time more water to have damns.

Maybe we can build desalinization plants more efficiently in the future?
Maybe there are economies of scale?

If you stored 10 million acre feet, and the dam only cost $1 billion it
would be 178.5 times more water. However, we should not build damns
that fail, and it should be a Federal project.

If there is anything wrong with this analysis, please correct it.

We have to consider capacity vs. yield.

This 1979 New York Times article states: https://www.nytimes.com/1979/01/18/archives/us-may-add-200-feet-to-a-coast-dam-cheaper-alternative.html


"Many possibilities for tapping more water from the rushing northern
rivers are under consideration. An increasingly plausible one, engineers
say, would be to add about 200 feet to the height of Shasta Dam. That
would triple its storage capacity to 14 million acre‐feet, more than one‐third of the state's annual consumption, and would increase the reservoir's annual yield of four million acre‐feet some 25 percent."
January 18, 1979

This states a 300% increase in capacity, but only a 25% increase in yield!

This may not be the same for the Klammath River, which is dumping water
into the ocean, but the Desalinization numbers above are all yield!

Dams also give hydroelectric power which desalinization doesn't.

"The study even advances the possibility, by adding 300 feet to the
dam's height instead of 200, of increasing the storage capacity more
than sixfold, to 27 million acre‐feet."


"The 200‐foot addition would double the area of Lake Shasta, to 90
square miles."

"The 45-square-mile lake is California's biggest reservoir, storing the equivalent of more than one‐tenth of the state's annual consumption of water."

"The study is only a prospectus. If considered promising, it would be
followed by a four‐year feasibility study, two years of public review
and Congressional consideration, four years of design work, six years of construction time, and four years of filling the reservoir to its
planned operating level. Actual operation, then, would be at least 20
years away." - 1979


33 year old Dam then, is now 78 years old now. Hoover Dam in Nevada is
93 years old.

California uses is 40 million acre feet of water per year, and this has
not increased in 50 years, even as the population has doubled.
See chart on 2nd page: https://cwc.ca.gov/-/media/CWC-Website/Files/Documents/2019/06_June/June2019_Item_12_Attach_2_PPICFactSheets.pdf


"The dam, 3,400 feet across its rim, impounds in Lake Shasta 4.5 million
acre feet of water, normally releasing it at the staggering rate of
79,000 cubic feet a second. An acre‐foot is some 325,000 gallons, equal
to an acre of water a foot deep."

4.5 million acre feet = 1.46 Trillion gallons.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.survival, misc.survivalism, uk.politics.misc
XPost: can.politics, aus.politics

On 2024-08-30 03:04, Intelligent Party wrote:

On 8/22/2024 11:58 AM, Intelligent Party wrote:

On 8/22/2024 11:45 AM, Intelligent Party wrote:

Raise Lake Shasta 200 Feet and thereby add 10 million acre feet of
water.

Put in the Ah Pah Dam and thereby add 15 million acre feet of water.  On >>> the Klamath River and form a scenic lake.

Put in the Dos Rios Reservoir and thereby add 7 million acre feet of
water.  On the Eel River

Do these projects and then there will be enough water for the Peripheral >>> Canal, and a fledgling UC Fresno.


These would be Federal Water Programs, and there is runoff for the
State.  These are huge projects like the Hoover Dam, yet desperately
needed if we are to have an Empire of 40 million people in California as >>> we have.

The farmers are 80% of the water, and are Federal water.
The homes are 20% of the water, and are State water.
There is runoff from Federal to State.


For comparison purposes, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the nation's two
largest reservoirs are 25 million Acre Feet of water each.

Here is pertinent intelligence accumulated so far, on, ca.water:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ca.water/y5tkrEW4Gkk

The Hoover Dam cost $49 million to build in 1930, equal to $860 million today.  Per Quora, we think it would cost much more today, closer to $10 billion. https://www.quora.com/How-much-would-it-cost-to-build-the-Hoover-Dam-from-scratch-in-todays-dollars-and-under-todays-construction-rules

If it cost $10 Billion

The San Diego County Carlsbad Desalinization plant cost about $1 billion
to build https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_%22Bud%22_Lewis_Carlsbad_Desalination_Plant

It produces 50 million gallons of fresh water per day or 18.25 billion
per year.

If a dam allowing storage of 10 million acre feet, such as the Hoover
Dam cost $10 billion to build, we calculate that 1 acre foot of water is 325,851 gallons, and 10 million acre feet of water 3,258,509,400,000,
3.2 Trillion gallons of stored water.

We also calculate that 10 such desalinization plants as the one in San
Diego County, costing $10 billion total, would produce 18.25 billion x
10, 182.5 billion gallons of fresh water per year.  Or 500,000,000
gallons x 365 days, also 182,500,000,000 gallons yearly.

We thus conclude, that because 3.2 trillion gallons is 17.85 times 182.5 billion gallons, dams still make more sense that desalinization plants.

If you were storing only 1 million acre feet, it would still be 1.785
time more water to have damns.

Maybe we can build desalinization plants more efficiently in the future?
 Maybe there are economies of scale?

If you stored 10 million acre feet, and the dam only cost $1 billion it
would be 178.5 times more water.  However, we should not build damns
that fail, and it should be a Federal project.

If there is anything wrong with this analysis, please correct it.

A dam doesn't create more fresh water.

It only stores it.

So if demand for water exceeds what the dam's watershed supplies, the
store will disappear.

A desalination plan actually creates fresh water.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.survival, misc.survivalism, uk.politics.misc
XPost: can.politics, aus.politics

On 30/08/2024 8:04 pm, Intelligent Party wrote:

On 8/22/2024 11:58 AM, Intelligent Party wrote:

On 8/22/2024 11:45 AM, Intelligent Party wrote:

Raise Lake Shasta 200 Feet and thereby add 10 million acre feet of
water.

Put in the Ah Pah Dam and thereby add 15 million acre feet of water.  On >>> the Klamath River and form a scenic lake.

Put in the Dos Rios Reservoir and thereby add 7 million acre feet of
water.  On the Eel River

Do these projects and then there will be enough water for the Peripheral >>> Canal, and a fledgling UC Fresno.


These would be Federal Water Programs, and there is runoff for the
State.  These are huge projects like the Hoover Dam, yet desperately
needed if we are to have an Empire of 40 million people in California as >>> we have.

The farmers are 80% of the water, and are Federal water.
The homes are 20% of the water, and are State water.
There is runoff from Federal to State.


For comparison purposes, Lake Mead and Lake Powell, the nation's two
largest reservoirs are 25 million Acre Feet of water each.

Here is pertinent intelligence accumulated so far, on, ca.water:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/ca.water/y5tkrEW4Gkk

The Hoover Dam cost $49 million to build in 1930, equal to $860 million today.  Per Quora, we think it would cost much more today, closer to $10 billion. https://www.quora.com/How-much-would-it-cost-to-build-the-Hoover-Dam-from-scratch-in-todays-dollars-and-under-todays-construction-rules

If it cost $10 Billion

The San Diego County Carlsbad Desalinization plant cost about $1 billion
to build https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_%22Bud%22_Lewis_Carlsbad_Desalination_Plant

It produces 50 million gallons of fresh water per day or 18.25 billion
per year.

If a dam allowing storage of 10 million acre feet, such as the Hoover
Dam cost $10 billion to build, we calculate that 1 acre foot of water is 325,851 gallons, and 10 million acre feet of water 3,258,509,400,000,
3.2 Trillion gallons of stored water.

We also calculate that 10 such desalinization plants as the one in San
Diego County, costing $10 billion total, would produce 18.25 billion x
10, 182.5 billion gallons of fresh water per year.  Or 500,000,000
gallons x 365 days, also 182,500,000,000 gallons yearly.

We thus conclude, that because 3.2 trillion gallons is 17.85 times 182.5 billion gallons, dams still make more sense that desalinization plants.

If you were storing only 1 million acre feet, it would still be 1.785
time more water to have damns.

Maybe we can build desalinization plants more efficiently in the future?
 Maybe there are economies of scale?

If you stored 10 million acre feet, and the dam only cost $1 billion it
would be 178.5 times more water.  However, we should not build damns
that fail, and it should be a Federal project.

If there is anything wrong with this analysis, please correct it.

**What the fuck are "gallons", "acres" and "feet"?

NO ONE on this planet uses those measurements, except an insignificant
5% of the planet's population. Please use accepted international
measurements and re-post so everyone can understand.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.survival, misc.survivalism, uk.politics.misc
XPost: can.politics, aus.politics

On 6/09/2024 8:05 pm, Rod Speed wrote:

On Fri, 06 Sep 2024 14:08:44 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 2/09/2024 10:17 am, Rod Speed wrote:

On Mon, 02 Sep 2024 08:02:41 +1000, Trevor Wilson
<trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 1/09/2024 8:31 pm, Joe wrote:

On Sun, 1 Sep 2024 16:29:53 +1000
Trevor Wilson <trevor@rageaudio.com.au> wrote:

**Just a reminder moron: I am not the one trying to use measurements >>>>>> that no one on the planet uses, except Americans. Australia, like the >>>>>> rest of the planet, uses Metric measurements.

 There are still many electronic components, even those made in the >>>>> Far
East, that fit a 1/10" grid. If you actually use measurements in real >>>>> life, you need to be able to deal with any system you may
encounter. It
is also not unusual to see dimensions quoted in a strange number of
millimetres which turns out to be an exact number of inches. And don't >>>>> bother trying to find a metric screw to fit a photographic mount,
anywhere in the world.

I am well aware of legacy products that are still in Imperial
measurements. Plumbing and, as you say, old school electronic
components. However, common-place measurements (distance, capacity,
etc) are now Metric all over the planet. Except for one, tiny, pocket.

 Aircraft aren't one tiny pocket, fuckwit

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to tell us that Airbus Industries use
Imperial measurements when they build aeroplanes?

Nope, that the ENTIRE FUCKING INDUSTRY except for the
russian military uses FEET for altitude, KNOTS for airspeed
and TONS for fuel, and MILLIBARS for QNH fuckwit.

**A knot is NOT an Imperial measurement. The Imperial measurement of
speed is mph. A knot is one nautical mile per hour. A nautical mile is a
radial measurement equivalent to one minute of arc.

I call bullshit on that. The Frogs would NEVERuse Imperial
measurements  for their products.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that
you have never ever had a fucking clue, ever.

**Nonetheless, a fact to prove you wrong.

However, it would appear that Boeing still use Imperial measurements,

And so does RR, GE and P&W engines.

**Again: A piddling 5% of the planet bothers with imperial measurements. EVERYONE else uses Metric.


--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)