3 ms·

As I posted elsewhere [1], I have no intention of debating with you or other posters here about the merits of the project. I'm simply letting people know the pr

As I posted elsewhere [1], I have no intention of debating with you or other posters here about the merits of the project. I'm simply letting people know the project exists, and is feasible from an engineering standpoint. If someone finds my comment intellectually gratifying, then I consider it a success. Something worth mentioning though is that right now China is building its own version of the NAWAPA called the South-to-North Water Diversion Project (Nánshuǐ Běidiào Gōngchéng) [2]. This would divert water from the wet regions in the south to the dry regions in the north. They've built the largest dams in the world and hundreds of miles of aqueduct to make this happen. They've also relocated hundreds of thousands people too. In my opinion, this is one of the largest engineering projects on the planet. NAWPA is very similar to the Chinese project, except on a larger scale. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11665546 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11665546 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93North_Water_Transfer_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93North_Water_Tran...

jmcgough 10y ago
[deleted]
- amake 10y ago
  Bizarre non sequitur.
CaptainZapp 10y ago
That's what the Economist, certainly not a lefty rag prone to criticize great engineering feats, has to say on NAWAPA. I quote parts of the article, since non-subscribers may not be able to open the link: Shifting billions of cubic metres across the country has caused huge disruption. The government says it has moved 330,000 people to make way for the central route. Laixiang Sun of the University of Maryland in America reckons the number uprooted is at least half a million. There will also be health and environmental costs. Diverting river-water northward could promote the spread of diseases common in the south, particularly schistosomiasis, a debilitating snail-borne disease. Reduced flow in the Yangzi may make coastal water supplies vulnerable to intrusion by seawater and increase the potential for drought. The financial cost is also high. Mr Sun puts the cost of the project at more than $62 billion—far higher than the original $15 billion price tag. His estimate does not include the running of the project or the building of 13 new water-treatment plants to clean the water. By increasing supply, the government is failing to confront the real source of the problem: high demand for water and inefficient use of it. Chinese industry uses ten times more water per unit of production than the average in industrialised countries, according to a report by the World Bank in 2009. A big reason for this is that water in China is far too cheap. In May 2014 Beijing introduced a new system that makes tap water more expensive the more people use. But prices are still far from market levels. Officials turn a blind eye to widespread extraction of un-tariffed groundwater by city dwellers and farmers, despite plummeting groundwater levels." So, sure. It can be done and it may be an engineers wet dream. If it should be done is a very different question.
- newjersey 10y ago
  Two thoughts: 1. Half a million people is nothing if your population is a billion. (I'm less willing to hand wave away the disease concerns. Some sort of feasibility study would be nice.) 2. Defer optimization until necessary. Market competition trumps environmental efficiency. There will be no environmental concerns to worry about in Chinese manufacturing if there is no Chinese manufacturing. We can optimize usage later. I understand that the environmental concerns are real. I'm just trying to put things in perspective.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    > Market competition trumps environmental efficiency. There will be no environmental concerns to worry about in Chinese manufacturing if there is no Chinese manufacturing. Just as there will be no Chinese manufacturing concerns if there is no Chinese environment to sustain life.

jmcgough 10y ago

[deleted]

amake 10y ago
Bizarre non sequitur.

CaptainZapp 10y ago

That's what the Economist, certainly not a lefty rag prone to criticize great engineering feats, has to say on NAWAPA. I quote parts of the article, since non-subscribers may not be able to open the link: Shifting billions of cubic metres across the country has caused huge disruption. The government says it has moved 330,000 people to make way for the central route. Laixiang Sun of the University of Maryland in America reckons the number uprooted is at least half a million. There will also be health and environmental costs. Diverting river-water northward could promote the spread of diseases common in the south, particularly schistosomiasis, a debilitating snail-borne disease. Reduced flow in the Yangzi may make coastal water supplies vulnerable to intrusion by seawater and increase the potential for drought. The financial cost is also high. Mr Sun puts the cost of the project at more than $62 billion—far higher than the original $15 billion price tag. His estimate does not include the running of the project or the building of 13 new water-treatment plants to clean the water. By increasing supply, the government is failing to confront the real source of the problem: high demand for water and inefficient use of it. Chinese industry uses ten times more water per unit of production than the average in industrialised countries, according to a report by the World Bank in 2009. A big reason for this is that water in China is far too cheap. In May 2014 Beijing introduced a new system that makes tap water more expensive the more people use. But prices are still far from market levels. Officials turn a blind eye to widespread extraction of un-tariffed groundwater by city dwellers and farmers, despite plummeting groundwater levels." So, sure. It can be done and it may be an engineers wet dream. If it should be done is a very different question.

newjersey 10y ago
Two thoughts: 1. Half a million people is nothing if your population is a billion. (I'm less willing to hand wave away the disease concerns. Some sort of feasibility study would be nice.) 2. Defer optimization until necessary. Market competition trumps environmental efficiency. There will be no environmental concerns to worry about in Chinese manufacturing if there is no Chinese manufacturing. We can optimize usage later. I understand that the environmental concerns are real. I'm just trying to put things in perspective.
- stephenr 10y ago
  > Market competition trumps environmental efficiency. There will be no environmental concerns to worry about in Chinese manufacturing if there is no Chinese manufacturing. Just as there will be no Chinese manufacturing concerns if there is no Chinese environment to sustain life.