Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Recommended Posts

The water flow into Ontario doesn’t change though. Its the sum of what goes over the falls, through the power turbines, and through that tunnel. You can change the ratio of where the water is moved, but the total flowing into Ontario is the same. They all outlet into Ontario.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/29/2019 at 6:34 PM, weave said:

The water flow into Ontario doesn’t change though. Its the sum of what goes over the falls, through the power turbines, and through that tunnel. You can change the ratio of where the water is moved, but the total flowing into Ontario is the same. They all outlet into Ontario.


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

I am not so sure about that. A bucket with three holes empties out faster than a bucket with 2 holes....The same goes here. The tunnel opening will probably increase the current speed in the upper river just a bit. There will not be any less water going over the falls or through the turbines. The tunnel is just an additional path for the water to take and there is no way to control the amount of water that enters the river on the Eerie side

Edited by rolmops

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, rolmops said:

I am not so sure about that. A bucket with three holes empties out faster than a bucket with 2 holes....The same goes here. The tunnel opening will probably increase the current speed in the river just a bit. There will not be any less water going over the falls or through the turbines. The tunnel is just an additional path for the water to take and there is no way to control the amount of water that enters the river on the Eerie side

 

If it were simply a hole that would make sense, but it's not.  There is still only one source for that water, the outlet of Lake Erie.  If you want to use an analogy, think of Niagara as a hose draining Erie.  The tunnel is an additional branch on that hose, not an additional hose.

 

The source for that tunnel water is the same source that feeds the Robert Moses Power Project.  The water for both is diverted from the same location.  If that water wasn't being diverted to the tunnel and to Robert Moses, it would be going over the falls.

 

It is a tunnel leading to turbines.  It is actually a higher resistance to flow than if the water stayed in the river channel. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, weave said:

 

If it were simply a hole that would make sense, but it's not.  There is still only one source for that water, the outlet of Lake Erie.  If you want to use an analogy, think of Niagara as a hose draining Erie.  The tunnel is an additional branch on that hose, not an additional hose.

 

The source for that tunnel water is the same source that feeds the Robert Moses Power Project.  The water for both is diverted from the same location.  If that water wasn't being diverted to the tunnel and to Robert Moses, it would be going over the falls.

 

It is a tunnel leading to turbines.  It is actually a higher resistance to flow than if the water stayed in the river channel. 

 

the outlet of Lake Eerie is neither controlled nor constant. If the level of the Niagara river goes down because of an additional outlet, more water will come in from Lake eerie to make up for the difference

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sad to see Sodus Point and Arney’s under water again.  Has a lawsuit started yet?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rolmops said:

 

the outlet of Lake Eerie is neither controlled nor constant. If the level of the Niagara river goes down because of an additional outlet, more water will come in from Lake eerie to make up for the difference

 

It's not an additional outlet though.  It's just a diversion around the Falls.  It is taken from just upstream of the Falls, moved across turbines, and put back in below the Falls.  Those turbines actually slow the water's movement.  If anything, it is a less efficient flow of water, because it has more distance to travel and it has to go through the turbines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Weave. The tunnel provides an alternate route for the water to get to Lake Ontario, but it doesn't change the amount of water that enters the River. I think that if the falls were the major resistance to flow, then yeah, diversion from above the falls would increase flux. But I don't think it is. I teach renal blood flow, and this seems to be an analogous system. If you kink a hose and make a hole above the kink, then you'll get more water flowing. If you make the hole below the kink, you won't. Where's the resistance in the Niagara? That's key to figuring this out. I suspect that it's above the falls, but what do I know? I'll ask my brother, who is a hydrologist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all do respect , it doesn't matter how much water is coming into the lake.

If the dam at Cornwall isn't letting that much out plus some , flooding won't change.

I don't know how much water Cornwall is flushing through now but a couple of weeks ago it was slowed down so as to not flood Montreal.

It should be running at max capacity as to not create problems or to create minor problems there.

It is a hard decision as to wear to draw the line as to who gets flooded.,

Hopefully the weather changes and we get a long hot spell and things begin to dry up.

Here in Ottawa , the city is organizing trying to pick up 1.5 million sand bags that were filled along a 50 mile stretch of the Ottawa river.

Good luck to those along the shores of Lake Ontario.

Mitch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, BC FD said:

With all do respect , it doesn't matter how much water is coming into the lake.

If the dam at Cornwall isn't letting that much out plus some , flooding won't change.

I don't know how much water Cornwall is flushing through now but a couple of weeks ago it was slowed down so as to not flood Montreal.

It should be running at max capacity as to not create problems or to create minor problems there.

It is a hard decision as to wear to draw the line as to who gets flooded.,

Hopefully the weather changes and we get a long hot spell and things begin to dry up.

Here in Ottawa , the city is organizing trying to pick up 1.5 million sand bags that were filled along a 50 mile stretch of the Ottawa river.

Good luck to those along the shores of Lake Ontario.

Mitch.

It is only at 8500.  In 2017 they had it up to 10,200.  The local new said it was coming into lake Ontario at 10,990 a couple weeks ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That’s almost 2500 cubic meters per second . I believe that’s the measurement they use.

Easy to see why there is a problem!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BC FD said:

That’s almost 2500 cubic meters per second . I believe that’s the measurement they use.

Easy to see why there is a problem!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

 

Yes that is the measurement they use.  When the news showed the inflow at 10,990, the outflow was only 7,100!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost 4,000 cms.
I think I see the problem.
To bad the folks that matter don’t see it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes that is the measurement they use.  When the news showed the inflow at 10,990, the outflow was only 7,100!!!

Seems to me the judicial system should be more focused on these insane acts of not regulating the levels and causing harm to land owners and businesses then being camped out trying to catch people creating wakes...


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Rochester news never gives any information on water levels in the other great lakes. I just found out that the Tonawanda boat launch at the foot of Sheridan Dr. on the upper Niagara River has been closed due to high water level.

image.thumb.png.06414b2249f70d3c6bf0d65d6b459144.png

 

That dock is normally about 2.5 to 3 ft above the water level. I wonder about the other lakes above Lake Erie. Here is a link to an article from Cleveland showing pics of high water there.

 

https://expo.cleveland.com/news/g66l-2019/06/5e0aeeac722985/heres-what-lake-eries-record-high-water-looks-like-across-the-ohio-shore.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The falls flow is maxed up to politician determined number for tourist season. The rest of the water is used for power demand. The unused water is pumped into reservoirs to supply power for high demand periods. The Saint Lawrence Power project supplied power to the Massena aluminum plant that was closed and shipped to Canada. Any more power needed comes from Somerset coal burning plant. Last year it operated for three days. Oswego nuclear plants supply some power to the grid. The lights in New York City will burn bright every night at the cheapest cost.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

  During tourist season 50% of the water goes over the Falls during daylight hours. The rest is diverted equally to both sides of the border. During the nighttime about 75% of the water is diverted ,flowing into the turbines AND into a holding area where it is pumped up into the reservoirs  ,small lakes ,on both sides. When the demand is higher during the daylight hours the pumps  actually turn into turbines as water is released from the reservoirs ,into the holding area and then down through the turbines. Off season they allow less to go over and more to feed the power plants with the same amount eventually hitting Ontario . There is a control dam above the fall that maybe goes 1/3 to 1/2 of the way across the river . Not enough to stop it but more than enough to decrease the amount of water going over the Falls . This is how they back up the water at nighttime so it is forced into the tunnels and feeder river on the Canadian side [ not sure if they still use that as they completed some tunnels on that side a couple years ago.] The mouth of the Niagara has a somewhat natural underwater dam as the water depth decreases to about 20 ' from the 35 to 60 where Erie ends, this also slows down the influx of water into the Niagara. The funneling of the water into the narrow river just above and below the Peace Bridge also contributes to it slightly backing up into Erie .No matter how you cut it IMHO it's a man made/influenced disaster that should of never happened.

Edited by Bozeman Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2019 at 8:51 AM, Silver Fox said:

Are you serious with that crap? Climate change has been around forever. Call it global warming please. I know that's what you really mean. Did you know we've had a couple ice ages? Yup, the earth had to get warm first to have the second one. The atmoworks in "cycles". May e more people should learn about it rather than spread bull crap lies.

 


Silverfoxcharters.net
 

 

Thanks I don't belong much anymore but thought the same exact thing🤕🤕

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the Great Lakes are at or near record high water levels. I am wondering if the lake levels will even be able to get down to a reasonable level this summer and if they will get low enough before the winter to avoid a repeat next year. If you google individual lake names or Great Lakes and water level, there are many articles. This Washington Post article talks about all the Great Lakes levels but there isn't even a mention of the IJC. All the articles seem to be pointing to higher than normal snow melt off and high amounts of rainfall.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/06/06/great-lakes-are-overflowing-with-record-amounts-water/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e249bcc1f5f2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True fact. This may be the new norm. Global weather patterns are changing at an unprecedented rate (don't jump down my throat, Scotty, I'm not claiming credit for it lol), and if we get 100-year precipitation every other year...I hear the mountains are nice in summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jimski2 said:

The falls flow is maxed up to politician determined number for tourist season. The rest of the water is used for power demand. The unused water is pumped into reservoirs to supply power for high demand periods. The Saint Lawrence Power project supplied power to the Massena aluminum plant that was closed and shipped to Canada. Any more power needed comes from Somerset coal burning plant. Last year it operated for three days. Oswego nuclear plants supply some power to the grid. The lights in New York City will burn bright every night at the cheapest cost.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

 

None of this has any impact on the level on the water in either Lake Ontario or Lake Erie.   There is no control for water flow in the Niagara River, the power plant just moves the water through a different channel, it still ends up back in the river, and then in the lake, and any storage is insignificant in relation to the total flow of the Niagara River.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you serious with that crap? Climate change has been around forever. Call it global warming please. I know that's what you really mean. Did you know we've had a couple ice ages? Yup, the earth had to get warm first to have the second one. The atmoworks in "cycles". May e more people should learn about it rather than spread bull crap lies.


Silverfoxcharters.net

I'd call it human caused global temperature increase at an astonishing rate. We've pushed the needle what would equate to an entire geological epoch since the 1940s. What would normally take 10000+ years. You suppose this drastic change in weather patterns which is clearly noticeable in our lifetime is nonsense, then I'll suppose you have no idea how to separate truth from fiction.



Sent from my LYA-L0C using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How quick we forget :

 

Record-low water levels, rise in algal blooms among concerns linked to changing Great Lakes climate

by Tim Anderson ~ February 2013 ~ Stateline Midwest »
In December, water levels on lakes Michigan and Huron reached an all-time recorded low.
And concerns about this trend have never been higher — as reflected in much of the discussion at a January meeting in Chicago that explored the new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
For the first time in its 41-year history, the binational pact makes adapting to climate change a priority for action on both sides of the border. 
Though they have always fluctuated, the recent low readings in lakes Michigan and Huron have led many to conclude that “we have reached a tipping point,” noted John Nevin of the International Joint Commission (IJC), with warmer air and water temperatures leading to increased evaporation of Great Lakes waters.changingglclimate.gif
“The commission is very concerned about it,” Nevin said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the IJC as well as the Alliance for the Great Lakes and Consulate General of Canada in Chicago.
But can concerns about lower water levels and other climate-change impacts be translated into meaningful action? 
As many meeting speakers and participants noted, part of the challenge for Great Lakes policymakers is taking action in the face of many unknowns — how much the climate will change in the coming decades, for example, and how it will impact the ecosystem.
Current forecasts of lake levels, Nevin said, show that they will be lower than normal over the next 30 years, but remain within the six feet of fluctuating levels recorded during different periods of the 20th century. 
“Beyond 30 years,” he said, “ it is unknown.”

https://www.csgmidwest.org/policyresearch/0213glclimate.aspx

 

 

 

We blamed "climate change" for low water levels in 2013 and now we blame it for high water in 2017 and 2019.

Problem is our "knowledge" is limited but we like to think we have everything figured out.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ding ding ding!!


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMG_5497.JPGIMG_5499.JPG

It sucks to see this after the time and money these guys poured into this place in the past year. No state troopers yesterday. Man it’s a slow ride to the dock from 1000’ out and up the creek at that speed!


Sent from my iPhone using Lake Ontario United mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...