OT: California Dreamin': Density is the Future.

[bicycletricycle]

Originally Posted by ORMojo

Wow, just wrong. Tell that to our PNW Native American tribes. And the dams haven't just hurt salmon runs, they have changed entire ecosystems.

yes they have, so has farming, houses, highways etc. Modern life impacts the environment and changes ecosystems.

There are no solutions, just trade offs. Dams represent a good set of trade offs.

[Clean39T]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

Dams are probably one of the cleanest ways to make power and you get flood control and fresh water out of the deal.

Removing them to save the salmon is silly.

Dams are generally "clean" once built - true - but they don't last forever and the water behind them isn't guaranteed. Not only is there less of it each year, it's coming off the mountains differently and disrupting the ability to manage flows and use the power production the way it used to be done. Not just in Nevada and California, but in the PNW too.

The ones being removed aren't worth saving and probably should never have been there in the first place. If we can get some of those gone before the salmon runs are forever lost, that'd be great. But it's an upstream battle for sure.....

[FlashUNC]

I applaud any cognitive dissonance that, on the one hand, extolls the simple values of country life, then just casually tosses out there that massive engineering projects like dams, which completely remake an ecosystem to the benefit of people at the exclusion of all else, ain't no big thang.

What happened to getting connected with nature and understanding it's ebbs and flows?

That's some Olympic level mental gymnastics.

[Clean39T]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

I applaud any cognitive dissonance that, on the one hand, extolls the simple values of country life, then just casually tosses out there that massive engineering projects like dams, which completely remake an ecosystem to the benefit of people at the exclusion of all else, ain't no big thang.

What happened to getting connected with nature and understanding it's ebbs and flows?

That's some Olympic level mental gymnastics.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ts-now/619900/

Apropos.

[bicycletricycle]

You have me mistaken with some kind of ideologue. Caring about the natural world does not require the rejection of all things man made, I love man made stuff as well.

I like nature but I don't worship it. I like having a stream in my yard but I am also totally fine with diverting it so that it doesn't flood my house when it rains.

I enjoy all kinds of things that are harming nature, medicine, internet, books, housing, travel, roads, bicycles, etc. etc. etc.

We got a lot of people and a lot of people requires a lot of power. We have to get it from someplace. Dams are a good option, they have downsides but I think when compared to the downsides of other rival technologies they don't look too bad.

Am I sad to see the natural environment change, yes. We have no choice though, it will change because of our presence here and we can't be afraid of that fact. We have to make decisions even when no perfect (or even good) option is available.

How is this mental gymnastics?

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

I applaud any cognitive dissonance that, on the one hand, extolls the simple values of country life, then just casually tosses out there that massive engineering projects like dams, which completely remake an ecosystem to the benefit of people at the exclusion of all else, ain't no big thang.

What happened to getting connected with nature and understanding it's ebbs and flows?

That's some Olympic level mental gymnastics.

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

I applaud any cognitive dissonance that, on the one hand, extolls the simple values of country life, then just casually tosses out there that massive engineering projects like dams, which completely remake an ecosystem to the benefit of people at the exclusion of all else, ain't no big thang.

What happened to getting connected with nature and understanding it's ebbs and flows?

That's some Olympic level mental gymnastics.

This has been an interesting thread, and discussion of the issues is good and healthy. This response is not a good faith discussion topic, this is a personal attack and is uncalled for.

[bicycletricycle]

Ya, that article is about right. Off the grid living is hard and not for most people. Distributed power and growing your own vegetables isn't a "solution" for the "worlds problems", mostly because they have no "solution". That is to say, the way people frame the problems makes a solution impossible.

I would never advocate that everyone move to the woods and try to live off grid, especially not as some kind of technical solution for environmental impact.

Originally Posted by Clean39T

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...ts-now/619900/

Apropos.

[Ozz]

Originally Posted by FlashUNC

....
That's some Olympic level mental gymnastics.

Life is pretty simple when you look at it thru a straw.....

No intent to dis mr. bicycletricycle, but the whole point is that everything is interconnected.....maybe start with this: Environmental impact of salmon decline: This isn’t just about fish

[Ozz]

Originally Posted by Red Tornado

Textbook definition of super high population density right there. I would prefer to reside on Naboo, or maybe Alderaan.

As long as there was a stable Galactic Republic.....

[chrismoustache]

Definitely an interesting thread so far.

If nothing else, I really appreciate these 'extra-curricular' topics on the forum. Even when some threads get a little tense, they are still much tamer than any other online venue or public meeting.

[jm714]

Originally Posted by paredown

A question about water resources for California residents--are the storm drains and waste sewers still connected, run into the same waste treatment plants and then get dumped out to sea?

Or have there been programs for returning gray water or ground water through groundwater reclamation sites?

(I ask because we are still running almost everything into the Hudson, even though we have a sole source aquifer for drinking water that suffers in dry years, while our population is growing like crazy. (We do have one operational gray water treatment site--but a few years ago they tried to ram through a desal plant, on the Hudson, just below the Indian Point nuclear generating plant.)

There is treatment of waste water to be used for irrigation purposes. However, when California had our last drought and restrictions were placed on water use that negatively impacted the amount of wastewater available for treatment. Now when I talk to my director of water resources and I ask if we can pull “purple pipe” water to a park or golf course I am told there isn’t any of that water left to plan for.

[bicycletricycle]

Ya, I know the ecosystem is interconnected. I am not claiming our changes to the environment don't hurt it in ways much bigger ways than we can even understand.

All the intrusions we can make to provide power for ourselves have similar long chains of environmental disturbance and destruction. Large scale technology always has as much downside as upside.

We have to acknowledge this before moving forward or we will just get stuck in an infinite criticism loop. Dams obviously disturb nature, they are also basically required to support humans living in large parts of this country and in my opinion still seem like a good option going forward.

Imagine telling the dutch to remove all the dams and surrender their country to the sea because they are ruining their ecosystem. Should New Orleans feel guilty for keeping the water out of their homes and the barges moving on the river?

Originally Posted by Ozz

Life is pretty simple when you look at it thru a straw.....

No intent to dis mr. bicycletricycle, but the whole point is that everything is interconnected.....maybe start with this: Environmental impact of salmon decline: This isn’t just about fish

[Ozz]

Originally Posted by bicycletricycle

...
Imagine telling the dutch to remove all the dams and surrender their country to the sea because they are ruining their ecosystem. Should New Orleans feel guilty for keeping the water out of their homes and the barges moving on the river?

They already know it...the first step is deciding there is a better way: "‘Ruimte voor de Rivier"

[bicycletricycle]

One more point, when we look at all the ways we can provide power for ourselves, some of the risks are really hard to compare for a whole variety of reasons. A couple strange examples to illustrate my point.

solar power kills more people than nuclear (installers falling off of roofs)
coal puts more radiation into the environment than nuclear

I guess my point is, it is very hard to know what the total negative effects of a technology are or what should even be included in that list. Were the solar installers killed by solar power or bad safety practices? If you answer safety practices than can't you say the same for Fukushima?

Even after you start to characterize risks they can still be hard to digest, sure nuclear seems safe when you go by the numbers but for some reason it just seems hard to accept (they still don't know what to do with the waste, most of it is still at the nuclear plants just waiting for a solution that never comes) and of coarse one can dig up more data showing counter examples.

I am not sure what this means exactly except that it is hard to know what the best thing to do is and it seems to me like the most common use of data is confirmation bias.

Originally Posted by Ozz

Life is pretty simple when you look at it thru a straw.....

No intent to dis mr. bicycletricycle, but the whole point is that everything is interconnected.....maybe start with this: Environmental impact of salmon decline: This isn’t just about fish

[bicycletricycle]

looks interesting, but not a surrender to the sea for the sake of the purity of nature. Seems more like a renovation plan of structures and zoning so they work better given the current circumstances and more advanced understanding of how to protect against seasonal flooding.

wiki-

The Rhine delta experiences annual flooding. In 1993 and 1995, floods threatened to devastate regions surrounding the delta. In the neighbouring vicinity over 200,000 people were evacuated. Contrary to popular belief no dikes broke. Climate change is ongoing, and as the river floods each year the water distributes sediments throughout the floodplain which in turn reduces the space that was initially allowed for annual floods. In 2006 the Cabinet of the Netherlands proposed the Spatial Planning Key Decision (SPKD). The SPKD is a design plan for more highly innovated structures and the modification of existing structures in the immediate floodplain site. Meander Consultancy and Research Partners contributed to the site analysis and interpretation. The project was active from 2006 to 2015.

The Room for the River project site encompasses four rivers: the Rhine, the Meuse, the Waal, and the IJssel. The project area is in the Netherlands, but morphological impacts extend upstream into Germany, portions of France and Belgium, and may reach to the Rhine headwaters in Switzerland over time.

The design presents an integrated spatial plan with the main objectives of flood protection, master landscaping and the improvement of overall environmental conditions. Completion of a basic package of forty projects is foreseen for 2015, with a budget of €2.2 billion.

Measures in the plan include: placing and moving dykes, depoldering, creating and increasing the depth of flood channels, reducing the height of the groynes, removing obstacles, and the construction of a "Green River" which would serve as a flood bypass. This will result in lower flood levels. By 2015 the Rhine branches will safely cope with an outlet capacity of 16,000 cubic metres of water per second; the measures implemented to achieve this will also improve the quality of the environment of the river basin

Originally Posted by Ozz

They already know it...the first step is deciding there is a better way: "‘Ruimte voor de Rivier"