Hacker News Reader

Comment by obscura | Hacker News Reader

Added to the problem is the general lack of funding around the world for infrastructure, owing to the fact that politicians control the purse strings and infrastructure isn't "sexy" [1][2]. Building something new that can be named after someone is no doubt easier to fund than the maintenance of something that already exists.

"we always forget that maintenance in perpetuity is much much harder"

I imagine that part of the problem is that the heavy maintenance for large engineering projects begins years or decades after completion. Upon completion, it's hard to imagine these huge creations falling apart; add to this an element of "this won't be my problem (I won't be here in 50 years)" and you've got a recipe for short-term thinking - especially by those who don't have the expertise (read: the politicians and bureaucrats).

[1] https://www.marketplace.org/2015/05/19/americas-infrastructu... [2] John Oliver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpzvaqypav8

View on HN

Part of the issue with dams is that you don't have great safe-disconnect-and-fix options.

Nuclear, you can spin down a plant and balance generating capacity elsewhere.

Bridges, you can provide access via detours or ferries.

Almost every other mega-engineering project we have is network related: in that there exists alternate connectivity.

Dams are intrinsically linked to their topography and hydrology. Where can you source replacement water at that volume? Where can you put excess water? They essentially have to be hotfixed in-place, while in operation.

The same options that existed while they were under construction also exist...

Drain down, dig a bypass, temporary dams inside both sides of the bypass, do the offline / bypassed work, reverse the procedure. Maybe the second time we'll have the foresight to make the bypass more easily serviceable again.

Draining a huge lake is easier said than done though. Even if the bypasses are still up for it they almost certainly were not designed for that. In addition, every bridge and river bank downstream would need to be checked and possibly reinforced for a much higher flow rate.

Btw, the time scales are quite long even if it can be done. Filling Lake Mead took from late 1934 to may 1937 or about 2.5 years. Assuming the downstream infrastructure can take double the normal flows, you'd need 2.5 years to drain and another 2.5 years to refill after the maintenance is done. The opportunity costs are huge, it seems at least worthwhile to check if you can do the works underwater with robots or something like that.

And then there's the inconvenient issue that in many places we've built on previously non-buildable land downstream.

You also need somewhere to put all of the boats, docks, and other floating infrastructure while the water is gone.

Physical engineering, maintenance is an oversight, much like software engineering.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com