The Red Sea Dam: Generating 50x the Power of a Nuclear Plant

[@SerginhoPMoura]

Well I've heard some bad ideas to solve energy shortage problems in my life but this surely takes the cake.

[@Steelrat1994]

There is another video about an even more retarded idea to dam the entire mediterranean.

[@sunkings5972]

I think this is one of the most marvelous bad ideas of all time, I'll sleep a little better knowing our species can f'k mother nature even worse she keeps playing wit us like this 😅

[@PeteTheL337]

All in the name of carbon free energy.

[@Steelrat1994]

​@@PeteTheL337 yeah, right. Because constructing a 1km wide 100km long colossal structure capable of holding back the ocean is completely carbon free. As we all know components production, transportation and construction happen by carbon free magic and does not require any fossil fuels or concrete. I'm amazed they can seriously discuss such braindead megastructures.

[@jaxamilius5237]

more like it takes the red sea 😄

[@AverytheCubanAmerican]

On top of the huge ecological impact, the Red Sea is also one of the most important sea trade routes in the world. And we all saw what the Ever Given did to Suez trade back in 2021! This reminds me of how disastrous China's mass-building dam policy was. During the Great Leap Forward, China built 62 dams in Henan with the help of Soviet experts. The construction of the dams focused heavily on the goal of retaining water and overlooked their capacities to prevent floods, while the quality of the dams was also compromised due to the Great Leap Forward. Not to mention, the "Learn from Dazhai in agriculture" campaign destroyed forest cover. I think you can see where this is going. In 1975, during Typhoon Nina, the Banqiao Dam (which was designed for a calculated one in a thousand year rainfall event of 300 mm/day), got way more than that in just one day. This resulted in the collapse it and all the other dams in the area. Over 10 million people were affected with a death toll of up to 240,000, the collapse of over six million homes, and the Communist Party concealed the disaster's details until the 1990s.

[@TheGameCrafter]

came here to say this

[@Zack-fu4lo]

least destructive communist initiative

[@davidegaruti2582]

there where also several dam failures both in europe ( the vojont dam in my country comes to mind) and several in the Us ... let's just say that dam failures can just delete settlements placed below the dam , because it's essentially a tsunami that is not slowed down by gravity , but accellerated by it ...

[@leaguemastergg3647]

This idea makes The Line look like a work of genius.

[@charlottewolery558]

No, this makes the Line look like divine benevolence. This is the kind of crap the Borg would do to a planet they assimilated.

[@blurglide]

Hey! The Line will utterly REVOLUTIONIZE making any two points in a city as far apart as possible!

[@nitehawk86]

If someone tried to build this, Egypt would do the smart thing and bomb it.

[@jebes909090]

i think some of those engineers were snorting lines when they came up with it.

[@Kainlarsen]

Don't encourage them.

[@thechosenone1533]

When I read the title I thought this idea was crazy. But after watching the video I think it's downright insane.

[@SoMuchFacepalm]

Someone was like "I wanna be bigger than Moses"

[@nicholaskotlarczyk6131]

Would it not be cheaper in concrete and material usage to make 50 nuclear power plants ?

[@j.brendenstookey3437]

Short answer, almost certainly.

[@chaddog313]

That would be the reasonable thing to do

[@mightym]

At an average of $10b per GW, that would be $500b for 50GW, and you would only get 1GW in maybe 10 years. $200b for a 50GW dam is much better. But $50bn for 50GW of solar panels, and $100bn for batteries with a weeks storage is even better

[@mightym]

​@@j.brendenstookey3437definitely not. 50 nuclear plants would be around $500b

[@pinga858]

Short term, maybe. Long term, no.

[@Morndenkainen]

I don't particularly understand this brand of stupidity, but I do admire their total commitment to it...

[@user-zk1zy1fy7o]

Better use of money than what most governments spend money on

[@Johnsmith-zi9pu]

How about a hospital or a power station to service a complete generation of people? This climate hoax will pass but the damage it does will be worse than any climate change.

[@RandomTrinidadian]

So ..... They want to dam to one of most important trade routes???

[@shabayaba123]

They'll have a system locks and a toll

[@RandomTrinidadian]

​@@shabayaba123 still a terrible idea

[@nntflow7058]

They could have instead opted for smaller Gulf of Aqaba. It's not hindering the most important trade routes and it's gonna be way easier to build and manage.

[@TheWoblinGoblin]

damn them all to hell!

[@mukkah]

That was kinda one of my first thoughts upon clicking on le video, lol

[@theenergizer248]

I am planning to build a dam from Alaska to Antartica, right through the middle of the Pacific Ocean.

[@Clickbait86]

That’s hawt

[@mho...]

cooool, can you connect that to the tunnel from england to newyork?!

[@theenergizer248]

@@mho... Yes, no problem , will start straight after I build the Bridge to Nowhere!

[@elusive6119]

The Penzhinskaya Tidal Power Plant (115-120 GW) is a project of a tidal power plant in the Penzhinskaya Bay, located in the northeastern part of the Shelikhov Bay of the Sea of Okhotsk. Geographically, it should be located in the Magadan region and the Kamchatka Territory of Russia. Depending on the chosen project, it can become the world's largest hydraulic power plant in terms of installed capacity and electricity generation per year. The Lena-Kamchatka railway can pass through the dam of the power plant. In order to fully realize the hydropotential of the Penzhinskaya Bay, two projects have been developed, which differ in capacity and annual electricity generation: The southern section is larger, with depths up to 67 meters and a length of about 72 km. It is planned that the capacity of this facility will reach 87.4 GW, that is, over 200 billion kWh of electricity per year. The maximum tide in the Southern alignment is 11 meters. The northern channel will have a length of about 32 km, and the depths will be up to 26 meters with a maximum tide of up to 13.4 meters. According to calculations, its capacity will reach 21 GW, which will allow to receive 72 billion kWh of electric energy annually. The construction of the Penzhinskaya power plant was discussed back in Soviet times. In the 1980s, research was conducted in the Sea of Okhotsk for future construction, but during the development of the project, Soviet engineers faced high costs for its implementation. At that time, the average construction costs were estimated at $260 billion. The decision to start creating the project reappeared in 2021. The choice in favor of Shelikhov Bay was not made by chance. The height of the tides here reaches 9 meters, and sometimes the water rises to 13 meters, which is the highest indicator for the Pacific Ocean. Considering the area of the Penzhinskaya Bay, it can be noted that the daily passage of water is 360-530 km3, and this exceeds the flow rate at the mouth of the Amazon (the largest river on the planet) at least 20 times. If we compare the Penzhinskaya NPP with the largest hydroelectric power plants in the world, we can see that the Northern section will approach the Chinese Three Gorges power plant in terms of its capacity, and the Southern section will surpass it four times. The commissioning of the enterprise will effectively solve the energy problems of the Far East. The power plant has a great export potential and can make a profit by supplying electricity to other countries. The station's capacity can be used in the following areas: hydrogen production in the Kamchatka Territory; laying of power lines to Primorsky Krai and Khabarovsk region; electric energy supplies to Japan, China, other countries; processing of coal into combustible carbons (methanol or synthetic oil). It is planned that fish-passing facilities and locks will be built into the design of the station, ensuring the passage of vessels of various capacities. On the upper part of the dam there will be a highway that will connect Kamchatka and Magadan. In 2021, the company "N2 Clean Energy" and JSC "Kamchatka Krai Development Corporation" started to create a project of the Penzhinskaya PES, which can become the largest tidal power plant in the world in terms of power and electricity generation. Construction will be carried out in Shelikhov Bay, in the Sea of Okhotsk. The location for the power plant was chosen in the Penzhinskaya Bay, which gave the name to the object. Completion of construction works and commissioning of the facility is scheduled for 2035.

[@clairenollet2389]

Even before Simon mentioned the Aral Sea, I immediately thought of it. When the Aral Sea dried up after decades of mismanagement, the salt sediments got picked up by the wind, including any pollutants therein, and there's a big increase in thyroid cancer in the region, not to mention the significant rise in local temperatures. Drying up the Red Sea would provoke a similar environmental catastrophe.

[@jckc9598]

Rebirth island was soviet bio germ warfare base on an island. It’s closed now but before soviets left the poured all the weapons on the ground , now after the U.S. and others did there best to clean it but it’s been blowing up in the wind for yrs. The soviets largest production was death now it’s the Russians turn. Gross.

[@stephanc6138]

good thing the 'scientists' isn't in a position to carry it out. better prevention than cure. from extinction than relying on science to bring them back. mammoth anyone?

[@LeoDomitrix]

Same. My first thought was, "Oh, thi sis going wrong eighteen ways just in concept.". Mys econd was "See Lake Meade". .... Nope.

[@JacobBax]

It was even found in Antarctica

[@57thorns]

In Olkiluoto 3 with all the cost overruns and issues, Findland just got 1.6GW for 6 billion dollars. That is less than 190 billion dollars for the same amount of power this project claims , and you can place these wherever you have cooling available. So not only is this project a total environmental and logistical disasters, it is also expensive. It might however be less expensive than the same amount of wind/solar with batteries (heck, they would probably need this dam as a pump storage).

[@stian1236]

This makes the line seem like a very good idea.....There is so many downsides that i dont even know where to begin

[@levismith7444]

Just build it and blame “climate change” for whatever problems occur afterwards… problem solved

[@deltax4144]

Also who needs the Suez anyway lmao?

[@diegoferreiro9478]

Let's try: 1) 50 nuclear power plants are cheaper to build, will be available in less time and could be built closer to the areas where their output is really needed. 2) What about the closure of the Suez Canal and its trade route. The extra mileage imposed to the shipping lanes is it also 'carbon free'? 3) What about of killing one live sea and its replacement by a desert stretch? 4) Global cost. 5) Political feasibility. 6) Geotechnical instability on a dam built on two different tectonic plates.

[@_Sami_H]

​@diegoferreiro9478 7) Solar power exists, and the region is one of the most driest deserts in the world .Clearly, there are better green alternatives to a dem that size

[@furanduron4926]

The guy who thought this one up: "Man, I should do something stupid today."

[@mattpeacock5208]

This sounds like an ecological disaster way beyond any carbon offset.

[@joeyr7294]

For sure!

[@connormoylan2466]

Right

[@ashscott6068]

It's never going to happen.

[@orunenf5533]

We're already ruining Africa, seems on par with our species

[@theursulus]

Exactly, it's bonkers!

[@adamesd3699]

This sounds like madness. Real mad scientist stuff.

[@bbbb98765]

Not a hope in hell of getting countries to agree to borking the Suez canal.

[@pauljaworski9386]

That was my thought. How much extra oil would ships burn to make the trip around cape horn?

[@bbbb98765]

@@pauljaworski9386 For sure. Also, every country that has a navy sometimes sends it's warships through it. You can't rely on governments to make good environmental choices, but if it costs money and restricts their military they sure act swiftly

[@jonathanpfeffer3716]

They would obviously build locks into it lol. Dams aren’t just walls you plop down into the water.

[@MiniDevilDF]

There would be a system of locks, of course.

[@pauljaworski9386]

@@MiniDevilDF Did you listen to the whole clip? After how ever many years the locks would be not usable

[@Timmycoo]

I remember reading about this and thinking just how crazy the idea was lol. The fact it would affect the globe was insane.

[@kilo6490]

No chance in hell they can build that for $200 Billion. No way. It would push $1 Trillion easily.

[@rogerblackwood8815]

That's what I was thinking! In the UK they spent almost that amount and still haven't completed a little 100 miles highspeed railway from London to Birmingham!

[@giantred]

I mean yeah, if you do not know a guy who knows a guy who "Found" about 10 billion pounds of concrete that fell off a truck.

[@TheBooban]

You know the Arabs use indentured workers, don’t you?

[@TheObsesedAnimeFreaks]

the materials and labor costs alone, they haven't factored in the corrupt funneling of ill gotten gains to donors, and supporters. when it's all said and done, it would have cost probably 30 trillion and made some people some very wealthy men.

[@Samstrainsofficially]

​@@rogerblackwood8815 probably spent 50 quid on the actual railway building bit and the rest on mid level management positions and advisory groups in what adhesive might work on the stickers to put on the project resources along with a working group to come up with the little slogans to put on the fences around building sites. All very important. They also have a huge team of photoshop experts making pictures of what it might look like.

[@Cyberplayer5]

I am more convinced of the need for energy dense generation of electricity now than I have ever been. This is another example of why it is necessary, all the objections revolve around the amount of land,water,etc used to make it. Dam the Red Sea and Damn the consequence I see what you did there.

[@BearsTrains]

This should have its own channel - Megastupidprojects

[@waynetemplar2183]

I live close to the Severn Estuary in the UK and the building of a barrage to generate electricity from the tidal action of the river has been mentioned on and off for 30 years. The potential output would dwarf any current nuclear power station and would be reasonably continuous (except for the period when the tide turns). Not sure of the price or the impact on the surrounding ecosystem but I'd say both would be huge - although nothing compared to the project covered in this video

[@korimiller379]

50 gigawatts does seem like a lot of power. Except it's not going to get to that level initially, nor in the short-term, nor in the medium term. 300+ years to get the full output is a long time, particularly with the rate to technological development. This whole project seems like a massive long term loss even with the proposed power gain (assuming a better method of generation isn't found before it hits its stride.)

[@shuaige3360]

Plus you need to maintain it for 300 years…

[@highdesertutah]

Saved me some typing.

[@jdilksjr]

No way that humans can build a complex structure that will last that long.

[@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine]

@@jdilksjr Except we did. There's plenty of human structure that were built centuries or millennia ago that are still usable. Sure, they're not very complex by our standard but they were when they were built.

[@hillockfarm8404]

@@JeRefuseDeBienPrononcerBaleine Not in a destructive environment with moving tectonic plates and salt water. Buildings on dry, solid ground are way simpler due to the stability of the factors involved.

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

As for GOOD dams, we've built the Nampo Dam. It is a large, eight-km-long system of dams, three lock chambers, and 36 sluices, allowing the passage of ships up to 50K tons. The dam closes the Taedong River off from the Yellow Sea. It was built by the Korean People's Army from 1981 to 1986, with the resources of the whole country directed to this main construction project. The West Sea Barrage Line runs over the dam. The goals were to prevent seawater intrusion into the fresh water, thus solving the water supply problem as well as allowing the irrigation of additional land, enlarging the arable territory of the region

[@locomotive9000]

Thank you for your family's wise leadership, Dear Leader 😂

[@SeedemFeedemRobots]

💪🇰🇵 💪🇰🇵 💪🇰🇵

[@EthanWord]

I think one other huge thing was glossed over here, the danger of putting all your eggs in one basket for power production. Imagine if something did go wrong or this thing got attacked? 50 gigawatts is a HUGE loss of power to a grid system and would be basically impossible to reproduce in a moderate amount of time. Grids are supposed to be designed to be resilient, but this kind of power production at a single site wouldn't be. It goes back to the same issue the internet has today, AWS, GCP, and Azure run like 50% of the web, when ones goes down everything stops working. Distributed power systems make way more sense, such as small modular reactors (SMR).

[@texasslingleadsomtingwong8751]

Kind of like Norde stream 1 and 2 .

[@gomahklawm4446]

Who would attack it? We all know....USA....because of increased shipping costs to European vassal states.

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

Well dam, that's a crazy idea! Sealing the Red Sea is the equivalent of shutting down the Panama Canal. This is a horrendous disaster in the making for both the environment AND global trade! It's like they looked at the Aral Sea and said, "I'll do you better". Not just Egypt's success because of the Suez, but Djibouti's economy has done tremendously well because of its location at the mouth of the Red Sea. Countries like France, the US, and even China and Japan all have bases there because of the country's strategic importance. All of this success would disappear if this dam became reality. So they'd need more than just a little "compensation".

[@gordesmihaela4635]

China will make the Belt. Then, all the trade will be done by 5 km trains. No more ships...

[@YanBaoQin]

Nuclear power plants would make a lot more sense

[@QwoaX]

Not in this area, though. Which river would you get water from for cooling? There is none. The giant deserts are great for solar and the coastlines are great for wind. For example, Saudi Arabia could become a Saudi Arabia but for renewables instead of for oil.

[@YanBaoQin]

@@QwoaX why not just use the Red Sea as the heat sink?

[@andrewlucia865]

@@YanBaoQin You couldn't use the water from the sea directly, primarily because it's saltwater and saltwater tends to be extremely corrosive to any sort of machinery. That said, the nuclear power plants could just power a desalination plant specifically for the production of coolant and steam feedwater. It's not like saltwater has been a major obstacle for steam based power for a while, ships have had their own onboard desalination plants for a while now for the production of freshwater, both for human use and to help replenish their feedwater supply. Honestly, speaking of desalination plants, we really ought to be building a lot more of them. Would certainly help with the depletion of river and groundwater resources that some regions of the world are contending with.

[@hughparsonage4446]

@@QwoaX There's a fairly big one in Egypt I seem to remember.

[@YanBaoQin]

@@andrewlucia865 the US Navy uses seawater almost exclusively for its nuclear power plants

[@pmg15]

A dam on top of an active tectonic rift....what could go wrong

[@oculosprudentium8486]

I highly doubt that Eygpt will allow it to go anywhere as it will kill their economy which is heavily dependent on the Suez Canal to transports ships

[@petergerdes1094]

I don't think it's a good idea either but it's absolutely good to put it out there so it can be evaluated and considered. Sharing ideas isn't irresponsible. It's what's necessary to have an informed discussion about potential options.

[@FT4Freedom]

They blew up the Nord pipe without a second thought They'd blow up this damn in a geopolitical heartbeat.

[@stephencrowsen8537]

I suspect the rate of constructing power stations is such that by the time this project becomes viable (100 - 300 years from now) its contribution to the world wide demand for electricity would be insignificant.

[@HisCarlnessI]

You know how annoying qualifiers like: "50x the power of a nuclear plant" are? Like, there are all shapes and sizes of reactors, and nuclear plants have different numbers of reactors. It's as bad as, "x times as powerful as a gun." Like, man, what caliber? There's a couple orders of magnitude in there.

[@captiannemo1587]

It’s to chase likes…

[@garretth8224]

Its even better when they don't show you how they got that number.

[@nonconsensualopinion]

They addressed it in the video. They said the biggest approaches 8GW and most are 1GW. Did you not watch before commenting?

[@SweBeach2023]

Most nuclear power plants are around 1 GW. Some slightly larger, some slightly smaller. But 50x is a good enough approximation for a KZbin channel like this one.

[@HisCarlnessI]

@@nonconsensualopinion That's nearly an order of magnitude. Could literally just list the wattage and move on with it. And no, I did not watch the video. I try not to reward that type of title with view time.

[@addgame7961]

I’m so glad that every country in this world have a Red Sea they can dam

[@V3RTIGO222]

Maybe we should just make 50 nuclear reactors instead?

[@SebastianLarsen]

At least they are safe, unlike dams.

[@luxurybuzz3681]

@@SebastianLarsen nuclear reactors aren't safe

[@bronzedivision]

You'd only need about 30 or so if they're EPR's a proven and operating design. And there's really no limit on size, it's sadly unstudied but nuclear reactors are probably economical up to several gigawatts depending on type.

[@luxurybuzz3681]

@@bronzedivision 1.21 Gigawatts???!!! I'm sorry future boy but the only power souce that can produce that is a bolt of lightning!

[@V3RTIGO222]

@@SebastianLarsen not sure if sarcasm, but actually yes lol... The amount of people who died constructing Hoover Dam alone is greater than any direct deaths from Three Mile, Chernobyl, and Fukushima combined. The irony is that when people start to treat things that are dangerous as anything less than inevitably call upon the grave. There are untold scores of men who make up parts of the Hoover Dam's foundation, irrecoverably buried in concrete.

[@anthonymullen6300]

The guys who propose this mega Project are the very definition of a mad scientist.

[@shawnnewell4541]

I don't think this is ever going to happen. It has more negative side effects than benefits.

[@jennyanydots2389]

That's what your mom said about anal.... now her bee whole is getting blasted out by multiple homeless men on the regular. The point is, Shawn, something might look like a painfully bad idea but in the end, might be massively cost-effective. You don't have to apologize to me son, as the bigger man I don't need those kinds of things from boys like you.

[@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing]

And it would be a bombing attack magnet, considering the geopolitical status quos native to the region

[@jennyanydots2389]

@@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing Your bee whole is already a BBC sea men dump magnet so you would know about the nature of such things.

[@adamorick2872]

I like it. It's incredibly stupid. It doesn't address stopping extinctions from it all together. It doesn't have a design to allow continued use for trade. Nor any use for the increased salt and other minerals

[@GrayFlare]

Simon Whistler making a mega projects video on the topic of the F22 Raptor also remains a thought experiment to this very day.

[@EdMcF1]

This is looking really relevant in light of the current situation around and in the Red Sea.

[@TraderDan58]

I can see a new meme come out of this. When someone has an idea that is possibly the stupidest thing ever come up with we can all shout “AT LEAST ITS SMARTER THAN DAMNING THE RED SEA!”

[@drcovell]

This has a showstopper of huge proportions that goes beyond engineering. All the shipping traffic would then have to go around the southern tip of Africa, breaking a long-established supply chain and dramatically increasing traffic prices for imports from Asia.

[@larrybolhuis1049]

AND increasing carbon emissions due to all those ships burning all the extra fuel to make the longer journey.

[@cookingonthego9422]

For this much money, you could develop thorium nuclear plants and just fix the entire world energy problem.

[@hubertino855]

You could probably solve fusion for this money...

[@RJM1011]

Thorium has already been sorted out how to use it but sadly the USA, UK and others keep shitting on it. In a few years China will have it up and running and be years ahead.

[@MrOMGtime]

​@@hubertino855 yea, just throw money at your problems and they will be solved lmao

[@hubertino855]

@@MrOMGtime That was sarcasm? It's obvious that money will not solve every problem but it helps... Obviously spending it on building modern nuclear or nuclear research like thorium or SMR's will be better and with faster returns... And not building giga tarded dam... But aiming for fusion in the future is not an bad idea.

[@I.C.Weiner]

​@@MrOMGtime works in the education system.

[@abarratt8869]

Ideas like this are very interesting, especially when considering all the consequences. It all goes to show that we really, really need nuclear fusion on a large scale.

[@valeriej291]

The fish told me they want to take their chances with coal.

[@hazonku]

Literally my first thought was about the Aral Sea. Might have made sense for a moonshot of a mega project 50 years ago but now it'd make far more sense to just slap $500 Billion in nuclear, solar, and wind in the most arid parts of the world. You'd get a larger and more widespread ROI, lessoned ecological impact, and most desert nations that aren't major oil producers are the definitive example of third world, they could definitely use the boost in development.

[@gaius_enceladus]

This dam makes thalidomide seem like the best invention ever.

[@nasis18]

This project would have a massive carbon footprint. There would be an insane amount of concrete for both dams. Manufacturing concrete takes a lot of power, but the chemical process of making concrete creates a lot of carbon dioxide. 1,300 pounds of CO2 are produced for one metric ton of concrete.

[@flavio_spqr]

Lets dry out an entire sea! What could possibly go wrong?!

[@andrewstevens2133]

Beyond a bad idea, but do it! We are smarter than nature!

[@matsv201]

"Aater about 300 years" Yea... I kind of think I stick to nuclear for now.

[@perryrush6563]

300 years?! Damn don't even last that long! Wowzer

[@johnashleyhalls]

Strange to see your production team miss the correct release date for this presentation, 1 April! Also strange that it was not released on your Into the Shadows channel considering the unknowable depth of the ecological down side.

[@JackieOwl94]

Yeah, I mean, who needs electricity if you’re starving to death from lack of food due to drought and no more fishing, right?

[@bronzedivision]

The amount of effort people put into not using nuclear power which is better than this in every conceivable way really never ceases to amaze.

[@Paktofon90]

GOOD RESEARCH THANK YOU

[@Aloh-od3ef]

The guy who came up with this idea must of been so high when he thought of this 😂😂😂

[@mennol3885]

Dutch

[@patrickjordan2233]

"and didn't share.."🤣😂🤣

[@kbuckendorf4287]

There are ways around this. Even a causeway crossing the Gulf of Aqaba, with a opening containing tide based impellers, would generate a significant amount of power and would have minor environmental impacts. That said, the power generated by wind along the Yemeni and Omani Southern Coasts, which is brisk and monsoonal, combined with solar power arrays along the Red Sea would probably more than compensate for any power created via a dam.

[@IanHobday]

Even ignoring every other problem, how much more carbon output by the 20,000+ ships yearly that would have to go around Africa instead of through Suez?

[@Haywood-Jablomi]

How many KZbin channels do you have Mr. Whistler? I feel like a see a new one recommended at least once a week lol

[@jamesleduke873]

All of them. He runs all the KZbin channels.

[@weatherman667]

It's like a supervillain thought this up.

[@reedhouser4004]

4:01 “For one thing, the Red Sea is a tectonically active airRrRrrrrRr”

[@josephpadula2283]

If you want a preview of the blowing salt, visit the Salton Sea in far south California ! Do a show on that …

[@kirkchapman80]

Filling the Dead Sea would be a better idea the first part is done

[@cleverusername9369]

The Ever Given tried that a few years ago when it blocked the Suez canal, and the few days while one ship was blocking transit were catastrophic. This is a deeply stupid idea.

[@jonathanbutson1385]

If the red sea evaporation is so high there will already be a large flow of seawater at normal salinity into the red sea at the sea surface, and a large flow of higher salinity seawater out of the red sea into the Indian ocean at the sea floor. (this also happens at the straits of Gibraltar at the entrance to the Meditterenean sea. This could have it's energy tapped by turbines sitting on the sea floor, with little ecological impact and no need for a dam. Alos it would only need the government on one side of the sea to agree on this . It would be interesting to see a paper on the potential power production. ???

[@ConstantinSirbu]

300 years? By then fusion energy will be old news

[@jdilksjr]

Nope, by then fusion will only be 30 years away.

[@AgneDei]

Not looking far, a channel to the Dead sea would make way more sense.

[@freeman2399]

By evaporating a massive ocean, they would cause the weather patterns in that area, and likely the world, to change.

[@grantmccoy6739]

Ehh, it's already evaporating at that rate. It would be a lack of evaporation that would matter more I think.

[@ronblack7870]

as more land gets exposed the evap rate does go down so does affect the local weather

[@Kahless_the_Unforgettable]

"50 Gigawatts, that's a lot" Yeah, we know. 1.21 Gigawatts is enough to travel through time! 50 Gigawatts.., great Scott!!!

[@Yah2x]

Wait did you say “after about 300 years”???

[@smalltime0]

Luckily we have examples of all those concrete structures that have lasted that long in similar conditions... Okay, none, somewhat tectonically active areas... also none? Any that have lasted over >150? Ah Roman concrete... which has to be slowly and painstakingly laid down and not poured (but cures in seawater!).

[@saschaschneider9157]

That project is just nuts.

[@15DEAN1995]

you could probably make 100s of nuclear power plants for a fraction of the cost of this dam and gain far more power. if ive learned one thing from the idea to dam the mediterranean its that the seas have a massive impact on the temperature of the planet, and messing with them too much is gonna end poorly.

[@djkang9222]

I swear this guy has like 10 channels

[@wargolemx102]

I guess this was how Warhammer 40k's Terra's oceans disappeared.

[@chrisloving6647]

Sounds like a good place for solar power storage. Pump out during day and let it back during the night.

[@DeadFishFactory]

Damn. People want to try literally everything but nuclear power.

[@theairstig9164]

Grid scale nuclear powered electricity exists. We know how much concrete it takes to build and water to operate.This doesn’t exist

[@therexbellator]

Crazy project that it's hard to believe it the proposal got as far as it did. That said, the science fiction geek in me can't help grin at the idea of such long-term megaprojects being made and the ecological transformation it would engender. I think there was a similar proposal in the 1930s/40s to dam off the Mediterranean which would have dried up the sea. However that project was just about creating more land for agriculture rather than generating electricity.

[@zachclark981]

Taking all of that weight off of a divergent plate boundary would cause a rebound of the sea floor. This would lead to increased volcanic activity throughout this valley.

[@xMagnason]

I'd rather 10 fukushima's then anything close to this destuctive.

[@hydronpowers9014]

"Hey, let's dammed the red sea" *One ecological disaster later* "Wtf dude, I didn't sign up to destroy the ecosystems"

[@-PORK-CHOP-]

Generating the power may be carbon neutral, but building the dam would create huge amount's of carbon that would most likely never be offset over 50 years of running it

[@larrybolhuis1049]

Not to mention all the extra carbon generated by not being able to ship through the Suez Canal. Every Single Day!

[@kentchamberlain5720]

I appreciate the critical editorial tone. This is a dangerous idea. However, if Egypt or any other desert country dug holes below sea level in the ground in the inland desert, dug channels to the sea and stuck a hydroelectric dam on each one, it could get free energy forever, with a little extra rainfall downwind to boot.

[@MyPisceanNature]

50 Gigawatts is more than 41 trips through time in a DeLorean!

[@whosaidthat5236]

Finally a great comment lol 👍🏻

[@scottzema3103]

How about an analysis of the disappearing Dead Sea problem and any possible plans to recharge it by pipeline from the Red Sea at Aqaba. I am particularly interested in knowing how much seawater it would take to bring the lake to sea level and how this might help in some small way to retard sea level rise from global warming. The Dead Sea Project. Great site!

[@hernerweisenberg7052]

A 60 mile long dam, completely carbon neutral xD

[@hpk31]

All of the sudden building 40 nuclear reactors seems like a piece of cake.

[@Woodscraps-lr5vz]

We did it guys, we're carbon neutral! *Earth is now a desert*

[@chriskola3822]

The cost to shipping and the absolute death of an entire sea would both completely eclipse the benefits from these dams.

[@basichistory]

Simon, concrete doesn't last 300 years. The best we can get out of it is 150 years before it starts to fall apart. This idea can never be achieved.

[@kaseyboles30]

Usually. Roman concrete is much older. And they just figured out how it lasts so long.

[@nesca647]

Regular concrete can't. But roman concrete still stands doesn't it ? We can make an improved version of it. (Idea of the dam is shit though)

[@TheBooban]

I thought he misspoke when he said 300 years.

[@TheBooban]

4:37 doesn’t seem it would be concrete. Though I can’t figure out what it would be.

[@ABaumstumpf]

How do people come up with such bullshit? Concrete will basically last FOREVER. The thing that will break down is simple reinforced concrete - cause after some time the steel will start corroding and that is what destroys the structure. And no, ancient concrete is rather poor quality in comparison. Most of it has crumbles millenia ago. The only things that are left standing are those very few exceptions that just happen to have the right mixture and perfect conditions to last long - mostly areas with rather mild weather, no other outside forces that could damage it, and nearly completely static loads. If you used those same mixtures and tried making a sidewalk in northern europe out of that they would fail within a couple of years.

[@benstrbich8813]

Simon or whoever chooses mega projects to explain more in-depth. Next to where I grew up there’s a massive pump storage plant that pumps water up from Lake Michigan into an artificial lake which spins massive turbines to generate large scale electricity. It was built in the 1960s and I think it would make a great megaprojects.

[@larrybolhuis1049]

The Ludington facility is awesome, no doubt. It had it's distractors too, if you recall it shredded fish from Lake Michigan early on and they needed to add barriers to prevent fish from entering the turbines. We could use many more of those to store energy from wind and solar. Problem is where do you put them? The number of sites that fit the bill for such things isn't very high, as you need a lot of available water and two places to put it with a significant altitude delta between them. These places tend to be near large bodies of water which are often the most expensive property.

[@glasshalffull2930]

With the canal closed, has anybody considered what the Somali Pirates will do for employment???

[@mennol3885]

Fishing, like they did before. Oh wait....

[@bravo2zero796]

So it would be better to build 50 nuclear plants. Cheers Simon 👍

[@vossejongk]

just cover a small part of the sahara in solar panels and you can power the entire world.

[@terrellbradshaw3504]

Looks like an ideal way to harvest minerals from seawater

[@jonbbbb]

Seems like it would be easier to do it at the Strait of Gibraltar which is only 13km across at the narrowest point.

[@samuelwoolwineiv7886]

Its also 900 meters deep

[@chaddog313]

There was a mega projects video about that I think. It was about draining the Mediterranean and building a new utopia in it.

[@Mgl1206]

@@chaddog313 there is, and nobody wants it

[@bobjackson4720]

In UK they have been talking about putting a dam across the Solway Firth for at least the last 60 years. That project would be so easy compared with this.

[@chendaforest]

Yeah and they should look at it again I think.

[@danielpierce6108]

I'm no biologist but... that probably will kill all the fish

[@rapid13]

I feel like this was supposed to be released on the first of this month.

[@ncleasure94]

RIP global trade

[@mynameisrick3241]

I nearly left your video mid way though because you did not paint the obvious negatives quickly enough. I decided to stop and read the comments and seeing that literally everyone thought the exact same thing as me in terms of potential negatives. Would have been nice to have a line like "there serious downsides that we will get too" upfront

[@Kriss_L]

Just the concept of this dam is one of the stupidest things I have heard of.

[@namename9998]

Flooding the sahara sounds almost as bad. What does simon have against africa lol

[@brotherrabbit5525]

Bosshard is the best last name I've ever heard.

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

This is an incredibly dumb idea on so many levels.