Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jpal
One additional consideration: the “probable maximum flood” design criteria for both spillways is more than 600,000 CFS. With 600 feet of head, this would require both spillways to dissipate around 30 GW of power, approximately equal to the instantaneous power consumption of the entire state of California.

It seems unrealistic to expect this amount of power to be dissipated in such a small area without some significant collateral damage.

I would take your final statement a step futher: I am CERTAIN most people vastly underestimate just how hard it is to dissipate that much energy.

As an example, and just for starters, you run a high risk of creating your own weather from the enormous amount of spray you are certain to generate. With that much energy to dissipate, it seems highly likely the spray will be energetic enough to generate lightning.

I'll even go so far as to guess this question was never even asked when the dam was designed. I'm not a civil engineer, but it's easy to see how they may not think of it now either.

REAL WORLD EXAMPLE: Way back in ancient history (only slightly before my time), a volcano erupted in Iceland. The lava flow threatened a developed area. Some genius decided the lava could be stopped by dropping water on it.

The Air Force loaded up some aircraft with water and they took off for Iceland.

Then someone spent a few minutes calculating how much energy would be released if all that water vaporized (it would have). The energy release would have been equivalent to a nuclear bomb. Not released in a single split second, but fast enough to be devastating none the less.

The planes were called back while in flight. I learned this from one of my engineering profs while I was a cadet at the Air Force Academy. I have no idea if it ever made it into the news, but it certainly made a permanent impression on me.

2,710 posted on 03/27/2017 1:00:25 PM PDT by EternalHope (Something wicked this way comes. Be ready.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2699 | View Replies ]


To: EternalHope
That is the reason I found the small scale flow tests from the design phase so interesting and concerning at the same time. Trying to narrow the flow after the water is released is just poor fluid(s) reality and against common physics principles. If any thing the spillway should get wider. AND who the heck decided to put the drop off in the spillway. It should of been a straight line from the gates to the bottom. Probably was chosen to save moving some additional earth. Well they wound up moving it anyway along with 900,000 additional yards at 100+ times what it would of cost in 1967.
2,712 posted on 03/27/2017 1:33:32 PM PDT by mad_as_he$$ ("Try is the first step to failure." Homer Simpson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2710 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson