[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
And because the major refineries and pumping facilities are
there. We should take the geologists and hydrologists advice
and work out a design that does less damage to the wetlands
because we are pissing in the soup.
I don't want to abandon. Again, it is a multiple inheritance
problem. We may need to rethink the abstract classes. :-)
Seriously, we have to something about the erosion, the
levee designs, and the canal designs. It costs. So
I want to see more in kind investments from the petroleum
companies that don't get passed on to consumers. Obscene
profits are profits but still obscene. A bit of cultural
adjustment is necessary. If that puts more pressure on
the auto designers, I believe that's a good thing. Hey,
the web is killing fat clients, yes?
len
From: Ken North [mailto:kennorth@sbcglobal.net]
Len Bullard wrote:
>> ... as an engineer, I recommend bulldozing New Orleans and rebuilding in
Arizona.
Your remark may be tongue-in-cheek, but it hasn't been in other online
discussions. People have asked why we plan to rebuild in locations that are
at
risk because of proximity to the sea. The answer is because they are by the
sea.
We can't replace major seaports with airports, even if we convert half of
Arizona to runways and the other half to air freight terminals.
New Orleans and the nearby ports struck by Katrina handle 8-9,000 foreign
vessels per year, about 500,000,000 tons of cargo.
A very large crude carrier has a cargo capacity of 300,000 tons. The C-17
aircraft has a cargo capacity of 85.45 tons. It would take 5.88 million C-17
flights to move that amount of cargo.
>> as an engineer ... as a musician
Wearing either hat, you'll find there are good reasons to rebuild. We're
going
to be dependent on shipping for generations.
|
