/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11103679

672KiB, 1284x1825, naw1.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 01:08:19 2019 No.11103679 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11103704

Should this plan still be put forth into creation or is it too late?

Would the frequency or magnitude of wildfires, tornadoes, drought, flooding, snowstorms, and desertification in certain areas the modern US be decreased or increased around it and further West if it encouraged tree, shorter vegetation, and agricultural growth?

How would it have affected the history of world agriculture, US settlement patterns, Mexican migration, and US elections and politics?

How would it have affected the history of transport in the regions it would have been built?

Would NAFTA have still been implemented?

Would or (theoretically) could it have been useful for shipping goods in large amounts at all or even better than current methods?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 01:13:43 No.11103704 Report

Quoted By:

>>11103679
you should post this on >>>/his/ not only because its off-topic and autistic but it would also make a gr8 thread over there

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gc1.gif, 102KiB, 500x691

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 01:13:55 No.11103707 Report

Quoted By:

How about this similar, but different plan?

Should either plan still be put forth into creation or is it too late?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO naw2.gif, 57KiB, 506x688

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 01:18:12 No.11103716 Report

Quoted By:

The North American Water and Power Alliance (NAWPA or NAWAPA, also referred to as NAWAPTA from proposed governing body the North American Water and Power Treaty Authority) is a proposed continental water management scheme conceived in the 1950s by the US Army Corps of Engineers. The planners envisioned diverting water from some rivers in Alaska south through Canada via the Rocky Mountain Trench and other routes to the US and would involve 369 separate construction projects. The water would enter the US in northern Montana. There it would be diverted to the headwaters of rivers such as the Colorado River and the Yellowstone River. Implementation of NAWAPA has not been seriously considered since the 1970s, due to the array of environmental, economic and diplomatic issues raised by the proposal

The project would provide 75 million acre feet (93 km3) of water to water-deficient areas in the North American continent,[7] including Canada and the United States, as well as irrigation water for Mexico, which Parsons claimed would receive enough water to reclaim 7 or 8 times more land than Egypt reclaimed with the Aswan High Dam.[8

The plan would potentially have included a navigable waterway in Canada from Alberta to Lake Superior, to be called the Transcontinental Canal.

A technical and economic blueprint for the plan was developed in 1964 by the Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, California.[3] The total cost was estimated in 1975 as $100 billion, comparable in cost to the Interstate Highway System.[4][5]

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gc2.jpg, 133KiB, 480x600

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 01:21:47 No.11103726 Report

Quoted By:

The project would generate a vast amount of electricity from a number of hydroelectric and nuclear power facilities (the latter of which would be required to power the multiple pumping stations needed to move the water across the continent).[1] The issue of electricity generation has created some controversy, with some commentators such as Marc Reisner arguing that the plan would be a net consumer of energy, while others estimate a net gain of 60 to 80 million kilowatts after meeting the needs for pumping.[7]

The Great Recycling and Northern Development (GRAND) Canal of North America or GCNA is a water management proposal designed by Newfoundland engineer and visionary Thomas Kierans to alleviate North American freshwater shortage problems

This plan arose as water quality issues threatened the Great Lakes and other vital areas in Canada and the United States.[1]

His solution was to dam James Bay, using the techniques of the Zuiderzee / IJsselmeer, to prevent its waters mixing with the salt water of Hudson Bay to the north. This would produce an enormous freshwater lake, rivaling the largest of the Great Lakes in area. A percentage of that water would then be pumped south into Georgian Bay where it would increase the freshwater levels of the lower Great Lakes. The flow would be the equivalent to 2.5 Niagara Falls.

The project would capture and make available for recycling the entire outflows of the La Grande, Eastmain, Rupert, Broadback, Nottaway, Harricana, Moose, Albany, Kapiskau, Attawapiskat and Ekwan rivers.

The project was estimated in 1994 to cost C$100 billion to build and a further C$1 billion annually to operate, involving a string of nuclear reactors and hydroelectric dams to pump water uphill and into other water basins.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO naw3.gif, 126KiB, 658x528

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 01:40:34 No.11103814 Report

Quoted By:

Improved fisheries and shipping in Hudson Bay. Oceanographer Professor Max Dunbar pointed out in his paper "Hudson Bay has too much fresh water"[4] that as a result of its low salinity Hudson Bay currently "offers no possibilities for commercial fisheries". By recycling the fresh water runoff from James Bay south to the Great Lakes and away from Hudson's Bay the GRAND Canal will increase Hudson Bay's now harmfully low salinity and consequently improve the commercial fisheries. Increasing the salinity of Hudson Bay will also have the benefit of reducing the freeze-over period during the winter and thereby lengthen the navigation season in Hudson Bay;

Some potential environmental impacts of this proposal that would require study prior to its implementation include:

Later ice formation, and earlier ice breakup outside the dike corresponding to an opposite change in the fresh waters inside;
Diminished ecological productivity, possibly as far away as the Labrador Sea;
Fewer nutrients being deposited into Hudson Bay during spring melts;
Removal of James Bay's dampening effect on tidal and wind disturbances

The reduced freshwater flow into Hudson Bay will alter the salinity and stratification of the bay, possibly impacting primary production in Hudson Bay, along the Labrador coast, and as far away as the fishing grounds in the Grand Banks of Newfoundland, the Scotian Shelf, and Georges Bank.

If the James Bay dike is built, "Virtually all marine organisms would be destroyed [in the newly formed lake]".[9] Freshwater species would move in, but northern reservoirs tend to fail to produce viable fisheries. The inter-basin connections would be ideal vectors for invasive species to invade new waters.

In the 1990s, Canadian conspiracy theorists believed the "GRAND Canal" was part of a conspiracy to end Canadian sovereignty and force it into a union with the U.S. and Mexico.[10]

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gc4.gif, 264KiB, 1634x1986

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 01:48:28 No.11103847 Report

Quoted By: >>11103954

Since 1971, the government of Quebec has built hydroelectric dams on rivers in the James Bay watershed, notably La Grande and Eastmain rivers. Built between 1974 and 1996, the James Bay Project now has a combined generating capacity of 16,021 MW and produces about 83 billion kWh of electricity each year, about half of Quebec's consumption. Power is also exported to the United States via a direct transmission high voltage line. The James Bay Project continues to expand, with work that began in 2010 on a new phase that involves the diversion of the Rupert River.

The project covers an area of the size of the State of New York and is one of the largest hydroelectric systems in the world. It has cost upwards of US$20 billion to build[citation needed] and has an installed generating capacity of 16,527 megawatts. If fully expanded to include all of the original planned dams, as well as the additional James Bay II projects, the system would generate a total of 27,000 MW,[citation needed] making it the largest hydroelectric system in the world.

Located in a region inhabited by Cree and Inuit 1,000 km (620 mi) north of Montreal, the La Grande River watershed stretches over 177,000 km2 (68,000 sq mi) or approximately 11% of the total area of Quebec, an area larger than the state of Florida or twice the size of Scotland.

The development of the James Bay Project led to an acrimonious conflict with the 5,000 Crees and 4,000 Inuit of Northern Quebec over land rights, lifestyle and environmental issues. A ruling against the Quebec government in 1973 forced the Robert Bourassa government to negotiate a far-reaching agreement, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, involving the Cree, the Naskapi First Nations, the Quebec and Canadian governments, Hydro-Québec and the SEBJ. In the 1990s, forceful opposition by the Crees and their environmental allies caused the cancellation of the Great Whale Project, a proposed 3,000 MW complex north of La Grande River.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 02:32:31 No.11103951 Report

Quoted By:

That seems like a project on par with the Panama canal in terms of scale and scope. No way the US or Canada could stop bickering amongst themselves to pull that off now.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO gc3.jpg, 205KiB, 744x800

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 02:32:45 No.11103954 Report

Quoted By:

>>11103847

A group of people probably less than 35000 in number could have greatly delayed or possibly even stopped a multi billion dollar project similar to the Keystone Pipeline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cree
About 27,000 live in Quebec.[4]

In February 2002, the Bernard Landry government and the Grand Council of the Crees signed the Peace of the Braves (French: Paix des Braves) and the Boumhounan Agreement, establishing a new relationship between Quebec and the Crees and agreeing on environmental rules for the construction of three new power stations built between 2003 and 2011 — the Eastmain-1, Eastmain-1-A and Sarcelle generating stations — and the diversion of the Rupert River.

In the 1960s, Quebec began developing potential hydroelectric resources in the north, and in 1971 created the James Bay Development Corporation to pursue the development of mining, forestry and other potential resources starting with the James Bay Hydroelectric Project. This massive undertaking, which was directed by an increasingly assertive government of Quebec without consulting Indigenous people, was opposed by most of northern Quebec's Cree and Inuit. The Quebec Association of Indians – an ad hoc representative body of Indigenous northern Quebecers – sued the government and, on 15 November 1973, won an injunction in the Quebec Superior Court blocking hydroelectric development until the province had negotiated an agreement with the Indigenous nations.

This judgment was overruled by the Quebec Court of Appeal seven days later, after the government's efforts to quickly negotiate an agreement failed. Nonetheless, the legal requirement that Quebec negotiate a treaty covering the territory had not been overturned, even though construction continued.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 02:42:09 No.11103979 Report

Quoted By:

Over the course of the next year, the government of Quebec negotiated the required accord. On 15 November 1974 – exactly a year after the Superior Court decision – an agreement-in-principle was signed between the governments of Canada, Quebec, publicly owned Hydro-Québec, the Grand Council of the Crees, headed by Billy Diamond, and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association.[1] The final accord – the James Bay And Northern Quebec Agreement (French: La Convention de la Baie James et du Nord québécois) – was signed on 11 November 1975. This convention originally only covered claims made by Quebec Cree and Inuit; however, on 31 January 1978, the Naskapi of Quebec signed a parallel agreement – the Northeastern Quebec Agreement – and joined the institutions established under the 1975 accord.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement has been further modified by some 20 additional accords affecting the implementation and details of the original agreement, as well as expanding their provisions. Furthermore, the Constitution Act, 1982, entrenched in the Constitution of Canada all the rights granted in treaties and land claims agreements enacted before 1982, giving the rights outlined in the original agreement the status of constitutional rights.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 03:01:35 No.11104022 Report

Quoted By:

The Mississippi levee system represents one of the largest such systems found anywhere in the world. It comprises over 3,500 miles (5,600 km) of levees extending some 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) along the Mississippi, stretching from Cape Girardeau, Missouri, to the Mississippi Delta. They were begun by French settlers in Louisiana in the 18th century to protect the city of New Orleans.[10]

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, in conjunction with the Mississippi River Commission, extended the levee system beginning in 1882 to cover the riverbanks from Cairo, Illinois to the mouth of the Mississippi delta in Louisiana.[10] By the mid-1980s, they had reached their present extent and averaged 24 feet (7.3 m) in height; some Mississippi levees are as high as 50 feet (15 m). The Mississippi levees also include some of the longest continuous individual levees in the world. One such levee extends southwards from Pine Bluff, Arkansas, for a distance of some 380 miles (610 km).

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 03:04:44 No.11104035 Report

Quoted By:

The Ogallala Aquifer (oh-guh-LAH-luh) is a shallow water table aquifer surrounded by sand, silt, clay, and gravel located beneath the Great Plains in the United States. One of the world's largest aquifers, it underlies an area of approximately 174,000 sq mi (450,000 km2) in portions of eight states (South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and Texas).[1]

Large scale extraction for agricultural purposes started after World War II due partially to center pivot irrigation and to the adaptation of automotive engines for groundwater wells.[4] Today about 27% of the irrigated land in the entire United States lies over the aquifer, which yields about 30% of the ground water used for irrigation in the United States.[5] The aquifer is at risk for over-extraction and pollution. Since 1950, agricultural irrigation has reduced the saturated volume of the aquifer by an estimated 9%. Once depleted, the aquifer will take over 6,000 years to replenish naturally through rainfall.[6]

The aquifer system supplies drinking water to 82% of the 2.3 million people (1990 census) who live within the boundaries of the High Plains study area.[7]

The depletion between 2001 and 2008, inclusive, is about 32% of the cumulative depletion during the entire 20th century.[22] In the United States, the biggest users of water from aquifers include agricultural irrigation and oil and coal extraction

Since the 1940s, pumping from the Ogallala has drawn the aquifer down by more than 300 feet (90 m) in some areas. Producers have taken steps to reduce their reliance on irrigated water.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 30 Oct 2019 03:10:03 No.11104046 Report

Quoted By:

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches