Technical Debts: Neglected dams across the US

[7Wannabe5]

It's quite possible that dam breach in northern Michigan could do more damage than I can visualize. I meant my comment literally; I can't picture where the water would go and hit a lot of people, but I am not an expert on that sort of thing.

One of the best pieces of advice I ever received in my life was when the wise older country-woman real estate agent (who was obviously, secretly core Buddhist) on the day we closed the deal on the old house told me "Just clean it for a year." The older I get, the more I value this wisdom.

[7Wannabe5]

@Riggerjack:

Oh, I meant some universal "you" doing a standard economic analysis. I did a short online course on energy, water, and food stocks and flow, and in real life analysis current cost of human labor became huge factor. For instance, good part of the reason why bio-fuel is economically feasible in South America using sugar cane, but not in North America using corn. Other reasons being that sugar cane is even more solar efficient at converting calories than corn and the debris from processing sugar can be more easily burned/converted to energy used in the process.

Anyways, I applaud the intent of your project, and actually do not see why it would not be on some level feasible in world of 10 billion, given emergence of something like Crafts Person Ethic.

[Riggerjack]

Well, I think your math skills exceed mine, so maybe eventually.

Certainly not as I envision the possibilities, but my focus is on getting people working on preserving their environment, for selfish, rather than altruistic reasons.

Maybe they will surprise me.

[7Wannabe5]

Gotcha. The selfish reason for engaging in activities coherent with Crafts Person Ethic would be that using hands to make things is known to alleviate depression and anxiety. That's why those adult coloring books are so popular. Just need to transfer that potential energy to something slightly more practical like hand-hewing

[tonyedgecombe]

Mediaeval bridges lasted for centuries with a perpetual income from tolls and rent from the houses along the sides.

The ones that didn't fall down lasted for centuries. I suspect there is an element of survivorship bias in all this.

[Riggerjack]

The ones that didn't fall down lasted for centuries. I suspect there is an element of survivorship bias in all this.

The ones that didn't fall down, were probably blown up. We can build, and we can destroy, and we can build to destroy (weapons). I'm curious to find out if we can build to avoid destruction...

[chenda]

@tonyedgecombe - the point though is that mediaeval builders had the means to build to last for centuries and were able to finance the maintenance for centuries. We still use their cathedrals and churches.

[Mister Imperceptible]

Something that makes the burning of Notre-Dame de Paris not insignificant.

https://www.bartleby.com/312/0502.html

[Gilberto de Piento]

The documentary Damnation is good: http://damnationfilm.com/

A lot of small dams across the midwest are being taken down when the cost of repairs exceeds the cost of removal. Most haven't provided any useful function in a long time but removal is often controversial anyway.

[tonyedgecombe]

@tonyedgecombe - the point though is that mediaeval builders had the means to build to last for centuries and were able to finance the maintenance for centuries. We still use their cathedrals and churches.

Whilst the mass of people lived in squalor. There was an immense amount of human energy in those buildings, too much to build homes in the same style except for the very rich.

I sometimes wonder if we should go the other way, accept that many buildings will be transient but build them in a way that all the materials can be recovered and reused at the end of their life.

[jacob]

I sometimes wonder if we should go the other way, accept that many buildings will be transient but build them in a way that all the materials can be recovered and reused at the end of their life.

I think that is a good point ... and probably also the reason why current buildings are built with such a short lifespan, except rather than recovering/reusing the materials, it's expected that humanity will just discover new materials and resources. I mean, humans are currently building houses of what is largely junk wood and plastics (vinyl siding, plastic pipes, ... ) which has mostly been invented, made, grown, or discovered within the past 50-75 years. Craftsmanship and durability aside, a new home is functionally better than an old one ... easier to maintain, better indoor climate, better designed for whatever the family/resident activity structure is, and cheaper than an old house/design that must often be adapted---not that some people aren't into this. If home builders/owners expect this pattern to repeat why make a house that lasts if rebuilding it in 50 years gets you an even fancier home. In some sense, the modern housing stock is transient even if it's contingent on an eternally growing economy.

[chenda]

@tony - Contrast the durability and adaptability of Victorian terraces with post-war council flats. This is what I'm getting at; we can build better for the longer term. You may be right about portability and reuse. Oak frames were often reassembled and the building moved; concrete slabs and the like are probably difficult to reuse.

[jacob]

@chenda - In the early US, a way to relocate was to burn the cottage down. This made it easier to recover all the nails for reuse. The existence of trees free for the cutting was expected at the new location.

[Campitor]

There's plenty of money for maintaining infrastructure which includes dams but I believe the barriers to doing it is rooted in politics. The government has no problem seizing property via imminent domain when it's politically expedient but somehow a dam in neglect that can kill hundreds and decimate real-estate is a problem because they can't find the owner?

The cost of infrastructure maintenance is ballooned because of political patronage and excessive regulation that drives up the wage floor in construction. And it's more politically sexy to talk about a new construction project than maintaining bridges and damns; the former generates votes and construction boondoggles and the latter not so much.

[tonyedgecombe]

@chenda Any housing is going to degrade if it doesn't get maintained, that nice Victorian house in Oxford that costs half a million might be worth almost nothing in Toxteth Liverpool.

[Riggerjack]

And it's more politically sexy to talk about a new construction project than maintaining bridges and damns; the former generates votes and construction boondoggles and the latter not so much.

I hear that a lot. I'm not sure it's true. It certainly feeds into a storyline that routes money from taxpayers to unions, and unions route money from members to politicians, while doing a wonderful job of maintaining narrative.

But in my experience, there's just as much room for shenanigans in maintenance as construction, the scale is just smaller, so the money doesn't spread as far.

My point wasn't that "golly folks, we need to do some maintenance around here." It was that the way we build, limits how much we can build and maintain. If we want more infrastructure, and/or better maintained infrastructure, we need to build with that goal.

We are currently building with the idea that anything we do is temporary, and will be replaced by something new and shiny soon. Just like we buy cars, with all the features, on a lease. Then we replace them because they weren't built to maintain. If we replace them too often, we build debt, getting back to the theme, here.

We can afford that right now. See Cuba for how that looks when things change. They still have some nice classic cars that shine like new, with handbuilt custom belts, because they have to fabricate parts. We will be able to maintain something, as long as we have a society. The question is how much, and who gets it. Cars are not the property of the common Cuban, but maybe, if one is lucky, one can wash and polish a car.

Right now, America is the richest country in the world. That is subject to change. When it does, we will settle at the level of infrastructure we can support, without pulling resources from the rest of the globe. How much maintenance is required, will be very important, then.

How we build today, limits our options for tomorrow.

[fiby41]

Diversions, an alternative to dams: https://youtu.be/ZNdyUWuJwtc?t=1322

[Riggerjack]

@ fitby

We are building many of those as "wetland mitigation areas" around here.

Want to build condos on the river flats? Sure, but you have to buy an old farm, dig out the top soil, (and sell it). Then dig out the farm, making a "wetland" when it rains. Move the dirt you just dug up to use as fill under the condos you want to build.

Everyone is taken care of. The original landowner gets paid what unbuildable land is worth (can't build in a river Delta that occasionally becomes a lake). A small army of lawyers and wetlands consultants get paid. Continuing work is provided for the "maintenance" of the wetland. The county gets paid in permits, and fees (we pay over $30k/ dwelling in "impact fees" outside of construction fees.) Developers get paid, because even after all the fees and permits and construction costs, condos will make a profit.

A generation of upper middle class workers will enjoy new condos on the riverfront, then a generation of less affluent workers will live there as it gets run down. Within another generation, it gets stripped, and we do it again.

Ecotopia in action.

I don't see any way of digging out the parasitic interests while the $$$ are still flowing. That would be political, and I have no faith that political forces are capable of, or interested in, cleaning this up. This is, after all, the political solution. A different political solution would require different politics, either a different system, or a different populace. I hope I won't live to see either.

Rather, I just want that 3 generation cycle to extend out as many generations as we can.

We know how to build more enduring structures, but high growth (fossil fuels) means high discount rates. But that too, is subject to change.