4 ms·
The article mentions their plan is to bury the tanks. That is stupid expensive, and one of the reasons existing water storage tanks are never buried in the US.
by mike_d 3y ago
The article mentions their plan is to bury the tanks. That is stupid expensive, and one of the reasons existing water storage tanks are never buried in the US.
- Animats 3y agoBuried water storage tanks are not rare. The San Francisco Water Department has some in their system.[1][2] They're basically roofed concrete reservoirs. Those store clean, processed water. Those could have been fully buried or hidden, but, being visible only from the air, it wasn't worth it. [1] https://earth.google.com/web/@37.48236017,-122.3128578,104.79600237a,1047.65270829d,35y,0h,0t,0r https://earth.google.com/web/@37.48236017,-122.3128578,104.7... [2] https://earth.google.com/web/@37.53843703,-121.85711496,126.41496859a,679.56044537d,35y,0h,0t,0r https://earth.google.com/web/@37.53843703,-121.85711496,126....
- almostnormal 3y agoThat's easy and cheap per volume: Drill a small hole into a mountain. Add a nuke. It's not for water suitable for consumption, but it doesn't have to be.
- aydyn 3y agoJust nuke a mountain, that'll solve climate change. Peak HN.