Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Hugin

(35,403 posts)
23. Moving water uphill is very expensive.
Sun Jan 12, 2025, 06:46 AM
Jan 12

Refresh rates are always a fraction of potential peak discharge rates. Everywhere.

That’s why there’s tanks up there.

This is true of any utility. Electric and gas also have short peak surges built into their systems.

It’s math and physics. I wouldn’t expect loudmouth Retrumplicans to understand.

If anyone is still reading this post, let me know.

Sure, the system could be designed for the peak refresh rate to match discharge. If the water is available, but it’s the middle of an 8 month global warming induced drought. That’s a different topic.

Building systems that way is extremely inefficient and expensive. (I suppose Eloon would know all about it. ) The additional equipment would sit there unused 99.999 to 100% of the time and would have to be maintained and tested pending a black swan scenario. Have I mentioned expensive?

All of that money for these contingency systems would have to come from bonds or taxes, because no investor in their right mind is going to lay down cash to support a system like that. There’s no ROI.

I am willing to bet a simple Internet search (You wouldn’t even need to use AI. ) would yield decades of Retrumplicans whining about paying taxes, which would ultimately be used for things even more critical than this. Such as child care, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Oh, wait! There’s an incoming administration which has dedicated itself to slashing taxes. So, no search is needed.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Sadly this is already ingrained in the story. Conservatives are blaming smelt fish too underpants Jan 11 #1
Anyone with a working brain can see through both arguments Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 11 #2
Yes but they had it drilled into their heads all day. underpants Jan 11 #4
So was eating cats I ead.. . that's what Cons Do. Cha Jan 12 #15
20% of hydrants were dry. That is a huge issue that shouldn't be signed off as political Melon Jan 11 #3
I think the point is the timing Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Jan 11 #5
And hannah Jan 11 #11
Mump Needs to Get Exponentially Loaded Cha Jan 12 #16
Can you show proof canetoad Jan 11 #6
I feel like you just bombed in to add your wisdom Melon Jan 12 #13
..... Skittles Jan 11 #7
If the fire was normal it would have been ok 20 % down nini Jan 12 #14
20% hydrants down is never ok. This is a huge failure Melon Jan 12 #18
I saw a fire chief say that the sprinklers installed on some of these homes burned up and the water was just flowing kimbutgar Jan 11 #8
the way i traided to explain it to someone..... Takket Jan 11 #9
The way Katy Tur was grilling Newsom, it's all his fault. Emile Jan 11 #10
TY .. That sounds expected. Did Gov Newsom handle it? Cha Jan 12 #17
He did, but boy oh boy did she ever kept at him. But the water pressure blah blah blah. Emile Jan 12 #20
I never liked her Meowmee Jan 12 #21
She is just another MSNBC Donald Trump apologist. Emile Jan 12 #24
I live in the very last house at the edge of town. Midnight Writer Jan 11 #12
What an excellent point! TY! arthritisR_US Jan 12 #19
Exactly and the higher elevation the less pressure too. Emile Jan 12 #22
Moving water uphill is very expensive. Hugin Jan 12 #23
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Yes, Some LA Fire Hydrant...»Reply #23