Opened RU-vid hoping to have a B1M video that could watch while having a lunch break! Video published 2min ago. Perfect timing! thank you for creating such good content!
Because it would ruin the drinking water for all Panamanians. They get their drinking water from the lake and pumping seawater into their only freshwater source is…no bueno
@@StarlordStavanger Each to their own, but I'd argue that our host has a more relaxed _modus operandi_ than the ever effervescent Mr. Scott. One might also say, easier to digest.
It seems to be forgotten that as Panama Canal was refurbised 2015, it became wider and deeper, which means it also consumes more water as ships go by. So it's not only change in rains but also consume that dries up the canal.
If the canal was the same as it was in the past there would be no water issue but it seems the expansion just greatly exaggerated the problem. Water has always been a problem for canals, this isn't really new just more dramatic i guess.
Actually, the newer canal is bigger and wider but uses less water than the old, as some of the water in the last lock is pumped back into retaining ponds. The problem is that they also kept the old one, that worked solely on gravity (which means it dumps something like 27 million liters of fresh water into the sea every time the last lock is open), so while the new one is more efficient, it still wastes fresh water. Add to that the fact that we are in the midst of the El Nino phenomenon, which reduces rainfall, and the ever-growing needs of nearby population for fresh water, and the water level of the Gatun Lake has dropped a lot. It's cyclical. It'll come back once it rains.
Something most people won't care about: the Gatun locks were made with over 2 million cubic yards of concrete, all from Atlas Cement in a little town called Northampton, Pennsylvania, my hometown. In all, 8 million barrels of concrete were used, with not one batch failing multiple inspections. To this day, that concrete is still used in the original 6 Gatun locks. In 2016 when bigger locks were built, they ran into multiple issues delaying construction, some of which were issues with bad concrete. Though I do not know where that concrete was from, I do know it was not from the same region in PA
@monketok141 No, they don't. I'm sure part of the problem would be that they shopped for the lowest bidder in 2016 (my guess). In 1909, though, Atlas would have been one of the only companies in the world to be able to produce that much cement
When you get down to it, having multiple options for getting across the Isthmus would be hugely beneficial to trade. This will inevitably lower shipping costs, thereby increasing volume.
Yes, but I suspect that before any other plan gets started panama suddenly decides that new reservoirs are totally worthwhile. Canal fees are a huge portion of their budget and people usually care about the environment up until the point they'd have to shell out money for it.
@@petergerdes1094 I don't think I'd put such a cynical spin on it. Especially in Central and Latin America, $100 could easily make the difference between a family starving or not. I think it's a bit unreasonable for us to expect people to be happy about starving to death for something as abstract as "the environment".
@@hughmungusbungusfungus4618 I didn't mean to make a moral judgement about it. I think it's a totally reasonable choice -- environmental goods need to be balanced against other concerns and, as you point out, this is an important one. It's just a factual observation.
@@zonian1966 the tunnel alignment is parallel to the new 4th bridge, about 100m away from it. The TBM launch shaft is in farfan and there are underground stations at balboa and albrook.
I still think they should've done the french idea of going sea level. They could make a ship tunnel or something like that. There are a couple of them in Norway i think
The biggest reason why the canal was never built through Nicaragua was because of the volcano that sits close to where the route would be. Its highly volatile and active.
Good presentation! One thing, though: It was not the U.S. who "came up" with the idea of a lock-and-dam network for Panama. That credit goes to French Engineer Gaudin DeLepenet [I likely butchered the spelling - sorry] who presented this information way back at Ferdinand DeLesseps' pitch meeting in Paris, but his idea was dismissed as "needlessly complicated." 20,000 deaths later, the French company gave-up trying to dig to sea level.
isn't that Scotts first that proposed connection from Atlantic to pacific by building colony there which fail spectacularly making them extremely broke
Yes the lake and lock method was also proposed by the 1st American who tried and failed with the sea level route then resigned,later replaced by a US Army engineer (who couldn't resign!) for the third attempt.
@@raisofahri5797 The Darien scheme (also called New Caledonia - not the tropical paradise of today though!) was supposed to establish a Scottish colony in the area to set up overland trade. They realised pretty quickly that the whole area is far too mountainous and full of tropical diseases for that, and the massive funds spent on the failing colony contributed to Scotland's willingness to unify the crowns in 1707.
Back in 1914, they didn't much of it, especially since the reservoir gets filled up fast in a country where it rains like 7 months a year. They couldn't foresee the amount of traffic, and the new, wider canal being built a 100 years later, all while keeping the old one. They only dump water from the last lock, not most of the water from the reservoir. But yeah, it's not ideal, hence why the newer locks pump some of the water back in adjacent ponds.
@@fnorgen yeah, pumping water is expensive and especially tough to retrofit a whole canal. But If they did I'd hope that they'd be capturing some of that energy on the way down. But it really looks like they didn't think about all that extra water when they made the canal bigger.
Water has always been a major problem for canals. I live in New York and the struggle to find water was a major driver of expansion of the Erie Canal system with a number of large reservoirs and lakes being constructed to keep up with the need for water.
Facts, with NYC continuing to have the cleanest drinking water in America. I’ve tested 100+ locations with a Total Dissolved Solids meter finding TDS 8-40 Parts Per Million with a 18 PPM average. Manhattan’s world best pizza secret :)
It's worth noting there's a railroad that runs alongside the canal, and is used to carry containers as well as passengers from one coast to the other. The Panama Railroad first opened in 1855, rebuilt in 1912, two years before the opening of the canal. Following WW2 it fell into disrepair until 1998, reopening as the Panama Canal Railway in 2001 to carry intermodal traffic. Since 1998 it's been jointly owned by Kansas City Southern, now Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC), and Mi-Jack Products, and leased to the Panama government. Ships offload their containers on one coast, and the railroad transports them to the other coast where they're loaded onto an awaiting ship to continue their journey. Currently 10 trains operate during a 24-hour period, with potential capacity of up to 32 trains. While it doesn't solve the canal's problem, it does help provide some relief.
The RR continued to operate while I was growing up in the Canal Zone all through the 1950's and 1960's. We used it regularly and could go coast to coast in about 1hr 20min. I do know that at some point it did fall into disrepair as the U.S. began turning over areas of the Canal Zone, as well as the RR to Panama, before Panama took over the operation of the canal in 2000.
Why can’t the Americans build a railway on their land to do this? Has to be easier then sailing a few thousand miles, unloading onto a train and back onto a boat for another few thousand miles?
@@user-fm3pw4jk2x- Actually thousands of containers are landed every year at the ports of LA - Long Beach and distributed throughout the USA through the Class 1 railroad systems. It’s a matter of time and money. As the Panama Canal is further restricted, more and more containers will be diverted through the rail network.
@@user-fm3pw4jk2x Container ships are incredibly efficient and have a much higher capacity than a cross-continent rail network could support. Also the cost to build new rail lines that could provide that capacity would be immense.
The railroads are already there but need extensive upgrades and overhauls that are long overdue. plus there is an ongoing labor shortage since the rail companies don't want to part with money to entice new workers. We almost had the whole thing shut down to a massive strike because of the mismanagement. That's only part of the problem, the Navy uses to canal to transfer fleet assets quickly. The longer routes take almost 3 additional weeks of transport time. For military planning that's an eternity especially once war with china inevitably breaks out.
@@zonian1966 I mean, if they predictions were that the canal would have ran dry 23 years ago then I'd say their management has been exceptionally good.
That's the main reason why the first engineer wanted so hard to build it at sea-level, to mitigate this problem : If it's built at sea level, you don't need waterlocks to allow ships through and you limit the loss of water through evaporation. Unfortunately it didn't go as planned for him >
US engineers did not "come up with the ingenious idea" of building the canal above sea level. This was already done by French engineers in the 17th century at the famous Canal du Midi connecting the Atlantic ocean and the Mediterranean sea.
It may be due to the need to keep as much salt water out of the lake as possible. I see your logic but the lake has fish and drinking water inside. It can't become to salty. Maybe desalination and refill the lake instead?
Here is what keeps me thinking at night, we just recently took a return cruise to the canal , we only went through the new locks and literally turned around and went right through them a few hours later. Yes bucket list and spent many months worried it would be cancelled, but here is my doubt/concern, we were not on a repositioning cruise, it was literally pleasure, but to me all those cargo ships have more priority and needed. So why were we not cancelled and that position given to a higher priority?
That's because you pay more for the cruise ticket than the goods being shipped in containers. They can afford to pay higher premium for the priority pass.
In 2014 the canal accounted for around 5.4% of Panama’s GDP, it’s now still a sizeable 2.2%. The country has a 37.8% government debt and 22% of its population is below the poverty line. You would think building a new damn/ lake to maintain the canal and create employment would be in their national interest. Very strange to see protests against it. Edit: it’s also in other countries national interest. Delays to shipping increase costs of goods, makes manufacturing nations less competitive, creates inflation which makes consumers poorer. Just look at the impact of the stranded ship in the Suez Canal. It’s the kind of thing that needs international pressure and support.
I have no idea why he put that in the video. The protests were for a mining company, not the canal. Also the protests ended months ago. He just said it may cause protests but that's no true as far as I know.
You'd think Panama would be doing everything in it's national power to continue working on the canal. I thought the expansion was suppose to address these problems, only to find out it just made it worse? Does the US really need to get more involved again?
I was not aware a vessel could skip the queue if they paid enough money lol. That’s crazy because I’ve read the regular usage toll is already high as it is
Panama is going to have to build more dams. Gatun Lake is the biggest drinking water reservoir in the country, so they can't just pump sea water into the lake.
no need to pump into lake, pump into lock or some feeding storage (similar to basins on new locks, these big pools aside of main lock body). It does not completely substitute fresh water from Gatun but significantly reduce its consumption. And what is between locks, in canal itself, fresh or salt water, does not matter at all.
@@hugolafhugolaf when you raise the lock, you would need to pump water right? If this water is pumped from the ocean, it will mix with the reservoir when the gates open. As of now, the water comes from the reservoir, going down to the ocean. This is the most efficient way, no need for any pump, just gravity. The downside for this method is consuming water from the reservoir. Relying on rain to fill it back up.
There is a feasibility study to build a 180 km elevated cargo train through the Darien jungle in Colombia. It’s a populist proposal of our leftist president Gustavo Petro. The country will spend a fortune on studies and nothing will be built.
In the future, I believe more ships will be using the Northwest Passage as an alternative to the Panama Canal and the Drake Passage as arctic ice continues to melt and allow ships to traverse the region. This would be very beneficial to Canada and by extension the US as it’s not only cheaper and faster but also more secure since the US navy can patrol those waters
Can you make a video on Mexicos 'The Tehuantepec Interoceanic Corridor' railway? Seems like they are trying to capitalize on this issue in the Panama through railway and port investments.
@@astefanlopez the biggest advantage of the Panama canal was that you didn’t have to spend time off unloading and loading to cross to the other side but now with the drought, if conditions “force” you to cross via train instead then most companies would rather do it further north in Mexico because it’ll leave you inside the Gulf of Mexico with much quicker/shorter access to the port of Houston and Georgia Ports compared to crossing the Panama Canal by train leaving you a lot further away. I think that’s the main advantage the Mexicos Interoceanic Corridor has.
@@javier452 we actually have two othr ways of inteoceanic transportation as alternative to the panama canal. I already mentioned the Panama Canal Railway, but we also have the Trans Isthmian Highway which hundreds of trucks carry containers everyday to the ports. The Panama Canal Railway is a 70 minute long path from port to port.
@@astefanlopez I understand that but the biggest issue here is the unloading and reloading of the cargo containers onto trains and/or trucks and the severals days it takes to do that. There's a reason why the great majority of shipping cargo companies prefer to cross the Panama Canal even though travel time through the canal takes 8-10 hours rather than offload all their cargo and then load it back onto the Panama Railway and take the 2 hour ride across to the other port. The reason they don't do the second option is because of off-loading and on-loading times being a much bigger factor. That "2 hour" long trip on railway ends up taking several days with the unloading/loading time included. United States was the origin or destination for 72.5 percent of the total incoming and outgoing cargo passing through the Panama Canal. If a shipping company has to unload their cargo onto trains, it seems like Mexicos interoceanic railway would be the better fit compared to Panamas railway simply because at the other end Mexico's Interoceanic railway would leave you closer to your destination, United States, inside the Gulf of Mexico and directly to Houston and Georgia Ports. Hopefully the government of Panama can figure out a way to fix the Panama Canal drought issue through engineering because it's very obvious that if they just leave it up to Mother Nature they'll end up loosing a lot. Plus traveling through the Canal/water will always be faster than unloading and loading stuff onto trains.
First a companion video with Practical Engineering and now one with Real Life Lore? Or is this one a coincidence? I enjoy the content and seeing each side's perspective!
I was lucky enough to go through the canal (in the 70s) when there was no problem with the water supply. A very enjoyable passage. Weather systems are always changing so the rains may yet return. In the meantime, perhaps pumped seawater in the lower locks may reduce the freshwater consumption?
Suppose The Mexican Option is adopted and they shuttle those containers coast to coast in 30 minutes. You would still have work to get all those containers onto another huge vessel. So, once get them off and on the other side you stack them on again! Not sure you'd save much expense or time!
Container unload / load can be highly automated nowadays, and you might even be saving time as Tehuantepec is a tad closer to say, Shanghai and New York, shaving a few days of navigation.
@@ignaciocampos8435 The Mexican Option! ONLY the Mexican Option... TUBE SHUTTLE. On the Pacific side = off the large ship stack them, then into the tube. Arrives on the Atlantic side, stack them and onto the container ship. How would that be faster? And don't lecture me on distance and automation! I know how that works.
I'm a 2nd navigation officer. I've unfortunately never been so lucky as to be signed on a vessel which has the Americas as part of the voyage. But I can tell you from experience of having to to wait on anchor outside of a harbour can be excruciating boring and the worst is you are signing off once you get alongside but until the ship actually docs you are still at work your relief will only come once the vessel is alongside
The only thing that is maybe more amazing than the technical achievement and benefit of the canal, is that most people have no idea how amazing it is and how much their quality of life depends on it.
It won't, they built the canal for a reason. Some rail capacity is useful as a side asset but by no means can replace the waterway's efficiency. They just need to fix the damn canal.
@@Bob-Fields You fix the canal by saving the water. Reducing capacity back down to what it was a decade ago would be a good start. The expansion was greedy and shortsighted, blaming climate change is a cop out. It's not like nobody saw it coming, Panama were warned about water levels repeatedly about expansion and they did it anyway. Second is to recycle water by introducing pumps. Right now the canal is just gravity fed wasting thousands of tonnes of water per transit. That's it take responsibility instead of blaming the climate and take actions to address your fuck up.
1:43 NGL I paused & did the math on container ship evolution from 1956 to now 24 containers on the first vessel, wild evolution. TY B1M for the A+ reporting, always.
If trains are going to be used, then it makes more sense to use the intercontinental railways of USA and Canada than shipping cargo to Mexico to reload it twice
@@pottertheavenger1363 That sounds like a better plan, but I still feel like the corridor wouldn't be competing with the scale of finished, and bulk goods moving through the Panama canal
I've actually been thinking about this for a bit I've been in Panama for two and a half years and seen the water levels dropping but sometimes we question how much water is actually going through to the locks if they're actually dumping but for a solution I may have it may not all be full of air but they have an interesting system some of the water is recycled back through but the lower docks and the saltwater side has to be lit go back into the sea. Now we could capture that water in big underwater bags and pump it back up through to the top dock after a ship gets through the fresh water lake and continue to recycle that water not using so much of the fresh water. So is it better to have one lock than three reducing the amount of water that's needed. Or displace the water that is required to lift a ship. And talk about lifting ships what do we use to launch a ship or lift the ship up over land we use air. So the most immediate cheapest and possibly speed up shipment through the canal would be floating the ships across on airbags. Overtime I'm sure that they will expand and dig deeper the canal for bigger ships again but for now we couldn't possibly just float them across with less water or no water on the water. I think I should finally go and talk to the canal authorities give them the solution to the problem that they're facing.
LMAO of COURSE the US company with a tech startup-type name wants to build a "maglev tunnel across Colombia", rather than something more sensible like normal railroads.
They already have normal railroads which have existed since before the Canal. I think the problem is topography meaning the railroad routes are inefficient. Sure it could be changed but that's a massive investment also. They should just fix the damn canal from a poorly engineered design choice of not recapturing the water in the locks.
Why dont they build the water saving basins they built with the new locks at the old locks? They make it so you can essentially reuse the water multiple times. Seems like the most reasonable solution.
That does seem like a reasonable concept given the opposition to other reservoir. It seems like it could be accomplished faster than the major project, and cost a fraction. It would be challenging given the restricted amount of land available near the old locks, but still doable.
@@richdobbs6595 Lots of people started blaming climate change which is hilarious given the canal is an artificial waterway. It's not like the climate "built" the damn thing people are so easily fooled by that. It's just a matter of engineering and nothing more (well money too).
@@Knight_Kin Money has always been a part of engineering - really the difference between engineering and science. So I'd say it is just a matter of engineering, finance, and politics!
I always had this weird idea: cover lake Gatun with a square kilometre of photovoltaics and use the enormous amount of electricity to desalinate pacific water to top up the lake. I know it’s not the fastest or most efficient fix but I still find it really neat.
i always thought Mexico should dig a sea level canal there with all the modern machinery we have. Think those huge bucket excavators germany uses for open pit coal extraction. Cemex can supply all the concrete for lining the canal. Be a huge money maker for Mexico. Transferring to railroad off of ships adds a significant price to transit. Transport by ship is unbelievable cheaper than rail transport.
Here's an honest question. Why can't they just use seawater in the canal? I know there's problems with accelerated corrosion of steel with salt water and all that, but to me, that sounds like a much easier problem to deal with than building an entire man-made lake and tunnel to supply it with sufficient fresh water.
It will be easier for the us military to accuse panama for holding weapons of mass destruction and just destroy the country so that the trade routes are secured.
My cat, who is a genius, is engineering a tunnel through the center of the earth for freight transport. The plans are simply amazing. He will be looking for backers very soon, so get out your money because he only takes cash. Smart kitty🙀😺
I imagine you'd have to close the whole canal for years if you wanted to do that, and you'd probably have to disconnect it from Lake Gatún. It would solve the issue, but it'd be very disruptive.
@@Nighthunter006 Rather than closing the canal, you could parallel the Cumbres Cut and create a ship tunnel like they are building in Sweden to pass under the Chagres River. Just a thought experiment! Not serious.
Definitely like the idea of having a crossing in Panama, Nicaragua, and Mexico to increase competition (and possibly warfare!) and lower shipping costs.
It makes a lot more sense, the rail option is good as well if the ship isn't full, it can drop off and continue on another route to another drop off, the ship picking up being much smaller and cheaper to run.
The idea of a canal connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans also passes through the borders of Nicaragua. Lake Nicaragua can connect two oceans with canals. And even better, ports can be established around this lake. A canal can also be built between Lake Nicaragua and Lake Managua. Another canal can be opened to the west of Lake Managua. In other words, all oceans and lakes will be united with 4 canals. This positively impacts Nicaragua and the region economically. Also, I think that with a small border change, a part of the southern part of Lake Nicaragua can be given to Costa Rica. Thus, both countries will benefit from the ports to be built in the south and north of Lake Nicaragua. This is a project that will improve regional cooperation. In addition, Guatemala and Mexico can build canals to connect the Oceans in their regions.
No disrespect, but what does your country think about the Panama Channel and the likely hood it could be useless in the future if something is not done?
The reduction in freshwater in the lagoon is not because of supposed climate change. Panama recently doubled the canal in some sections and modernized the locks, to more than double ship traffic. The locks use water from the lake, which before modernization was already limited and has now become much worse.
It all starts with water recycling. Dig out small reservoirs near the exits, and divert the pipes emptying into the ocean, to empty back into those small reservoirs. Then use a small wind turbine/solar pumping station to bring it back until a mechanical alternative can be found. That would be a good start, unless they like dumping millions of liters into the ocean for every single ship that travels by...
Yes agreed! This is precisely what needs to be done. The technology exists and is well understood. Other canals have been doing this for a long time now, it's time Panama step up and fix their canal. They wanted it so badly from the USA, it's up to them to fix it. Makes everyone question whether they are worthy of maintaining the canal on their own if they can't get their act together.
Having seen RealLifeLore's video on this same topic two days ago, I find it fascinating how you covered it in a third of the time, at half the speed of talking 😆
I've noticed that in every RealLifeLore video I've seen. Dangling participles and other extraneous words. RLL really need to up their script editing skills.
Out of curiosity, would having the cargo of these ships unload on either coast of the US, and then have train haul the freight across the country be a feasible option? A resurgence of freight trains perhaps?
i know it would cost a few bucks, but you would have to think in the long run a sea level canal across Mexico or Nicaragua would be worth it. first it would be drought proof. second you could dig it out wide enough for a large volume of ships to pass through under their own power (or tugs) reducing the labor force required by the current lock system in Panama. third, maybe they could start making even larger ships to move more product with less trips. i don't know at what limit, the ships size can be to be both safe and maximize its profits/productivity. also, with more options and competition, prices to use the canals would come down possibly. with world trade going up year after year and no end in sight, it would only seem reasonable to have several options.
yes, i know this. but with today's machinery it would be a much easier and quicker job, and the biggest problem they had back when the canal was first being constructed was the mosquitos and disease killing off the manual workforce. @@professorsip7242
@@professorsip7242but that's the thing, technology has advanced so much that something like that it's possible now. They could make a sea level tunnel Big enough for 2 ships at once. Again, the technology exists and the concept has been used already in other parts of the world. There are ship tunnels across land already.
They are. That's not the problem. Unless sea levels rise 26 metres, there is going to be an unnavigable stretch of land in the middle of what used to be the canal.
The best way to reduce Panama Canal demand would be to reallocate more resources to freight rail. Instead of bypassing the West Coast ports via the canal freight rail can carry the goods instead. This is why Amtrak should be abolished and the US should focus on a separte passenger rail system. No need to share freight lines with passenger rail.
They could build desalination plants and install large pumps (on both coasts) the would pump desailnated water into the Gatun lake (or straight into the locks) through pipelines. It would be a massive undertaking but it could prolong the canal's existence and operation.
@@meiko_kajiThey're having a catch-22 problem in California. They need more fresh water but they're also tight on power growth, they don't want to build more power plants to power the desalination plants. What they need is more nuclear power but they won't do it. So thus they won't build more desalination. It's 100% a management issue.
@@Knight_Kin No idea. I'm neither an engineer nor a specialist in any related field. I live on the other side of the globe and I amnot privy to internal politics of Panama but allocatiion of those funds would benefit the country further down the road and it would clearly be better than letting the canal dry up and losing 6% of their GDP.
@@johnmorsley If you are going to pump 200 million liters of water from every passage then expect the record 4 million bid for passage the new normal instead of 400k. Canals primarily use gravity instead of pumps for their locks because gravity is free, pumps are on the other hand more expensive in the long run than just making new reservoirs. The issue with pumping isn't technical difficulties but the cost of the extremely energy intensive process of lifting water. There wouldn't be any point to a system that costs the ships more than just sailing the longer route around South America as that is exactly what they would do instead of paying.
"Climate Change" is not a modern problem. The UN's IPCC has said in its Scientific Reports that there is no significant change in precipitation over the last decades. It has also stated that there is no change going on that is beyond normal variation. This channel must be receiving money for mentioning climate change since it is almost always mentioned and without necessary connection to the topic
It's actually rather pathetic given the canal's problems are 100% an engineering issue. It's cute and a bit dastardly of people to mention "CLIMATE CHANGE" as the reason an ARTIFICAL waterway is having a problem given there is no scientific basis or data point to back up this claim. Climate change may be response for other issues, but certainly not this one.
@@HoomanPlays They are causing mass extinction though by forcing ships to go around South America, if you really believe the science on C change then it's a sacrifice you would be willing to make.
Good place to install a small modular reactor to pump water for reuse in the locks. The other project that can help shipping is a new canal across Honduras. No locks needed. I've been through the canal three times.
Everywhere has a once in a hundred year event. Like the 1987 hurricane in the south of England. Now these events are classed as climate change. 100 year events have been happening way before humans walked the Earth.
....."Climate Change" is not a modern problem. The UN's IPCC has said in its Scientific Reports that there is no significant change in precipitation over the last decades. It has also stated that there is no change going on that is beyond normal variation. This channel must be receiving money for mentioning climate change since it is almost always mentioned and without necessary connection to the topic.....@@JonMartinYXD
Panama is the most useful canal on Earth because of certain features. 1. Going round South America is worse than going round Africa (distance) 2. crossing the Pacific Ocean (the biggest ocean covering half the total area of all seas/oceans) is minimised 3. being the shortest, at 50 mile (82 km) width (in contrast Suez canal cuts across a with of 175km) Yet the chief draw-back of Panama canal is the height (28 m) to which the ships need to be hauled up, that is energy intensive (affecting Gatun lake indirectly)as well as depending on vagaries of tropical weather of rainfall (locks don't get enough water if Gatun lake doesn't gets it). This is the chief flaw of the canal (energy expenditure & drawing it naturally, from the lake). But this idea needs to be abandoned. While initially building (digging) the canal, itself, it'd have been ideal if the canal is dug to mean sea level. Of course, there is a host of objections to it, besides the cost that blooms to several fold. Cost-saving then, is now affecting the very usefulness leading to shutting down the canal itself. Abandoning it altogether (looking for a new canal across Nicaragua or Tehuantepec (Mexico) looks rosy but horribly expensive. The alternative is to repair or re-model the Panama canal itself - by abandoning Gatun lake or draining it to sea level. The cost of this can be viewed as marginal, while being effective. It can be done by removing the locks (Gatun at Atlantic end, Miraflores at Pacific end as well as at Cocoli) to allow sea water ingress. But first the part of the canal above the locks may have to be deepened (& after blocking the water supply from Gatun lake). The floor of the Gatun lake (after draining it) may be above MSL, in which case they need to be dug too, to lower than sea level to provide the required draft (may be 55m at the most) to ships. These if considered, may prove to be less expensive. If the Panama government wishes to keep Gatun lake in tact, a barrier may have to be erected - by way of lengthy dams - to hold back that water on the west. [these suggestions were made possible because of (free) availability of Google Earth maps, that needs to be acknowledged]
It’s like climate change is serious and will affect all of us or something….yeah, I’m tired of hearing about that……uggghh, I don’t wannna….nah nah nah……
@@DaveyNerdburg lol. Every 10 to 20 years they come up with a new pending doom disaster scenario and none of them come to fruition. The sooner you realize it's about making money and not the environment and that government doesn't care about you. The sooner you'll be able to believe none of it is true.
Teddy Roosevelt overcame political challenges in building the Panama canal in Nicaragua by creating the new country of Panama out of Nicaragua. Sounds like a similar dose of ingenuity is needed to overcome opposition to fixing the canal's water shortage.
Okay, how about this? Pump some of the water from the old locks to the new intermediate basins and back again. Since you are not pumping over long distance or uphill, the head requirements wouldn't be too much. You wouldn't necessarily be expanding the basins, so that wouldn't face land use opposition. When the basins were full, you wouldn't bother to pump. This plan would result in somewhat decreased water efficiency in the new locks, but better efficiency overall. It could be incrementally implemented, building and installing pumps and electrical infrastructure as equipment arrived. No salt water issues, since the water is still following downhill.
To make the pumped hydro feasible, it might be necessary to install additional small basins to get the head requirements to match up. Or some fancy valve configurations, to get all of the pumps to switch between being in parallel and being in series.
Australia is also affected by El Nino / La Nina cycles. For last few years it has been La Nina which means "wet" in Australia, and I thought dry in central America. I understood El Nino was the reverse, ie dry in Oz and wet in Americas.
Building additional methods of transporting freight across Central America is the best option. Not only will it take the Monopoly away from Panama so shipping can become cheaper, but multiple methods increases redundancy, lessening the risk to the global economy if one fails.
I like the Nic-Kanal competitive idea, it has to be massive to succeed. There's a thousand villages along that route that will be exploited and forgotten.
