The website measures power units in multiples of "Chernobyl" and lists a positive of the proposed project as "no more drought" (in the submerged area, underwater). Also, it's literally proposing to annihilate Prague. How obvious can irony get?
I think you're missing the point that I am trying to make... and I think the website author, or perhaps whoever dreamed up the idea if it wasn't the same person.
We are not just hurtling but accelerating into rapid climate change, on a scale of 2-3 orders of magnitude faster than the PETM.
That means no snowpack in the mountains anywhere except Antarctica. No melting ice keeping rivers flowing. That means several billions more people without reliable water, and those are people from rich powerful nations, not poor folk in the developing world and the tropics.
That leaves stark choices, such as "abandon continental Europe and move half a billion people from 10,000 cities to the Arctic", versus "abandon half of one small country and make it the reservoir to keep rivers wet in Western and Central Europe."
Desperate times, desperate measures. Things that in normal times are inconceivable ludicrous ideas, getting done because they are the only ideas anyone has.
Ideas that seem funny: ha-ha -- suddenly being evaluated: only serious.
That is what I, and the author of this idea, are talking about.
Agreed. Sadly, remarkably, one of the only individuals who might have forced that through was Muammar Gadaffi, who initiated the Great Man-Made River Project:
This may be a joke, but a Dead Sea Channel would work; not only it would bring a body of water and humidity by filling the Dead Sea, but it would generate electricity in the process. As the evaporation of the Dead Sea will increase a lot (currently the saltiness reduces evaporation to some degree), it will work ongoing without building any dam.
It's only wild and very criticized because of scale. But it's "just" a hydroelectric plant, and all hydroelectric projects result in ecological alterations.
That's one of the reasons why anything with "hydro" in it when proposed for renewable energy (generation or storage) is wrought with problems.
I don't understand these two sentences in the article:
>Natural evaporation would rapidly lower the level of the enclosed Red Sea. The dam would also lower the Red Sea by about 2.1 meters per year (6.8 feet per year).
"Also?" What's the second mechanism which would the water level besides evaporation?
