|
|
| Re: The left plays both sides of the fence (Was: Ology of [T]Error) (1452184) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: The left plays both sides of the fence (Was: Ology of [T]Error) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jul 31 13:01:40 2017, in response to Re: The left plays both sides of the fence (Was: Ology of [T]Error), posted by AlM on Mon Jul 31 12:24:53 2017. The elevation of Las Cruces NM, which is on the Rio Grande, is 3,900'.Google Earth's elevation profile shows several peaks in excess of 6000', in particular north of El Medio, Mexico, and in the range between Nogales, Mexico and Douglas, NM. The higher elevations tend to be on the north side of the border, so it'd be more problematic to build away from the border. One could cut through the mountains, but getting anywhere near the elevation of Las Cruces would be a geotechnical nightmare. So if you wanted to kill off NM's and southern TX's agriculture, Pretty sure they use a lot of groundwater for irrigation. That isn't going to be particularly useful for filling Olog's canal as it'd have to be pumped as well. But I suppose once it's laden with frack chemicals there won't be much other use for it so it might as well be put to some other use. Or sure, what the hell, pump sea water up the hill. So long as we're considering a ridiculous proposal we might as well consider everything. I'm a bit surprised that there's only 4177MW of hydroelectric generating capacity on the lower Colorado to Glen Canyon at 3700'. So we're likely talking less than 10GW to get seawater to Las Cruces, and less than 20GW to the highest point. It almost sounds doable when put like that. |
|
|
|