"What is he jumping?" Dr. Assaf Rosenthal asks about the reaction of the president of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, Uriel Lin, who was previously the director general of the Ministry of Energy who canceled the original sea canal project
At a "good" time, after a long time, the conclusions of the feasibility study on behalf of the World Bank for the construction of the sea canal from the Gulf of Eilat to the Dead Sea were published (the World Bank writes the Gulf of Aqaba and not Eilat).
In response to the publication, the president of the Union of Chambers of Commerce, Uriel Lin, issued a press release in which he calls on the Israeli government to "adopt the conclusions of the World Bank", and continues that "the Bank's decision to propose a new route for the maritime canal - from the Dead Sea to the Red Sea is to be welcomed". is that so ? (Interesting because the reference is to the Gulf of Eilat, which the World Bank calls the Gulf of Aqaba and Oriel Linn refers to the Sea of Suf. A little knowledge of geography does no harm).
Let us remind you that Uriel Lin, who previously served as the Director General of the Ministry of Energy and Infrastructure, was among those responsible for the decision to stop the sea canal project planned between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea, this after about 100 million dollars worth of work had already been carried out - with money collected in a safe deposit box in the USA.
Now Lin writes that "such a canal, beyond its strategic importance, will be of enormous importance in the development of the regional economy, saving the Dead Sea, providing a boost and prosperity to the tourism enterprises around the Dead Sea and the ecology of the entire environment." According to him, "it will surely be one of Israel's masterpieces and it is hoped that the state authorities and the government of Israel will adopt it quickly, and even give a boost to its implementation."
So what changed from the time he was CEO? Why is a project that costs three times more important than a project that is stopped?
Uriel writes that there will be a "boost to the ecology of the entire environment" where does he get the nonsense from? I went through the World Bank publication and saw that the cost estimate is about 10 billion dollars, and that "half of the amount will be "contributed" by Jordan and Israel" this after the Jordanian government announced that it would not participate in the project.
Many tables, drawings and maps describe the positive economic feasibility. The publication says that "alternatives were examined", but there is no reference to the alternative of transporting water from the Mediterranean Sea. It is written that the environmental and social consequences have been examined and that the project "will pose a risk to dozens of archaeological and natural sites" and that "there is a risk of salting the water in the Arava Valley".
It is also written that "the discharge of salinity into the Dead Sea will cause algae to bloom and gypsum blocks to cover the water". In other words, there is a significant environmental risk and the composition of the Dead Sea water will change. Also (of course), there is no reference to the environmental damage that will occur as a result of the work camps and parking stations for the TSA that will be established along the (Jordanian) steppe for the purpose of establishing the project. And again, the correct alternative - the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea - was not tested.
I wonder if Uriel Lin saw the map that describes the transport that is all on the Jordanian side? That's why the question is asked "what is he jumping"? Why was the project to transport water from the Mediterranean stopped? Today there is a group of entrepreneurs who are trying to promote the project in the right direction. The cost of the Mediterranean project is one third of the cost of "Moval HaShalom" and its environmental consequences can be monitored. This project will also provide electricity for desalination, revitalizing the southern Jordan and injecting water into the dying sea.
We will also add that in the above survey there is a paragraph that reads "It would not be correct to test the feasibility of the project by a "pilot" since even a small "pilot" endangers the environment."
It's a shame to say too much since most of it has already been written. Therefore, we will only mention that the survey did not examine the Mediterranean alternative. The World Bank survey indicates the environmental risks without providing a solution. The convoy throughout is planned on the Jordanian side while the Jordanian government withdrew from its participation. The tendency towards peace (instead of the alternative) is political and certainly not environmental, so it is worthwhile for the "jumpers" to delve into logical, environmental and less expensive options and alternatives.
13 תגובות
It will be sad to see this great sea disappear from our lives
Lasaf Rosenthal
I also heard a position for you from Dr. Eli Raz, both of you express:
A] Opposition to the project for ecological reasons
B]. A preference for a canal alternative from the Mediterranean Sea
I asked
aa]. Are the ecological reasons such as:
Algae blooms, gypsum blocks, pollution along the canal excavation route, groundwater salinization,
Destruction of archaeological sites and natural sites along the canal route and more...
Well, don't all of these exist, and to the same extent, also in the proposed canal from the Mediterranean Sea?
bb]. And the funding?
The non-project was an Israeli national project in the XNUMXs, during the Begin government
and fell because of the funding problem. No funding source was found for the project. So the Mediterranean alternative
For all its advantages, if indeed there are any, it is unfortunately not realistic. great luck
is that the World Bank is ready to finance the Red Sea alternative. Therefore the question that stands is
Is the Red Sea alternative better than doing nothing? Or is nothing better than the Red Sea alternative?
In my opinion, and I am neither knowledgeable nor an expert in any aspect of the issue at hand, just interested, well
In my opinion, saving the Dead Sea is far more important than the damages, which in my opinion are few and are in doubt at all
Rabbi you mentioned in your article.
And in general, when I read your article I got the impression that you were waging a war against Uriel Lin. I don't know about
what? and why? I am sure that your reasons, which are justified, are with you. But didn't you confuse the creators?
Uriel Lynn, with all due respect. And there is respect. Is it so important even than the fate of the sea in the sea?
To Dr. Rosenthal
Even if everything you wrote is true, I understand that not everything that is true in the context in question is included in your article.
What is meant by ?
The project is: 1. Very expensive 2. Bilateral with the state of Jordan.
The World Bank would be correct to finance most of the project only in the Red Sea, as a bilateral project with the state of Jordan,
And this with the aim of promoting peace relations and joint economic projects.
It is clear to everyone that this is the reason and this is the possible means of carrying out the project.
They looked for funding for the Mediterranean alternative, for many years and did not find it.
The Mediterranean alternative does not exist for the reason that no funding source has been found for it
The real question is:
What is better ? The project in the Red Sea version or not to go for this project at all?
Are you ready to answer the question?
Answer to bb
Your idea fails because with the combined tools method the maximum height of the water column
Inside the pipe can reach only 10 m !!
The self-weight of the water column creates at a height of about 10 m a pressure of about 1 atmosphere,
which balances with the external atmospheric pressure acting on the surface of the sea.
Practically what will happen if the water column is higher than 10 m is that because of the (under) pressure
Inside the pipe, the water inside the pipe will boil even though it will be at a low temperature of about 10-20
degrees. As a result of the boiling, a gas bubble will form inside the tube. This bubble will flow inside
the pipe to the highest place.
The idea of conducting the water using the combined vessels method is only possible inside extremely thin pipes
A few hundredths of a millimeter in diameter. Within such pipes there are adhesive forces of the water
With the sides, which allow the water to flow to higher heights, but then the clogging problem arises
of the pipes.
In biology, these forces, which work inside the sap tubes of the plants, are called adhesion and cohesion.
The World Bank does not care about the damage to the Dead Sea by mixing two types of water. He is only interested in profit. The Technion in the Faculty of Environmental Engineering found the solution, but for political reasons they are not implementing it. The faculty even registered patents on the matter.
The mixing of the Dead Sea with sea water is an irreversible ecological crime. So it is desirable that those in charge of environmental quality treat the issue more seriously and not play ego games. Please read the works of Prof. Dan Zaslavsky and you will understand that there is going to be an irreversible ecological crime here.
To be precise in the lower route then:
From the bay to the Yokneam area (the Kishon river crosses road 722 where the height is about 25 meters) a canal at a height of minus 2 meters, 20 km long (max. depth of the canal at the end is about 27 meters)
From the end of the canal near Yokneam (elevation 0) to Afula (altitude about 60 meters) a 20 km long pipeline, and from Afula (which is the watershed between the Middle East and Jordan) to Beit Alfa (altitude minus 80 meters) the pipeline continues in another 15 km
From Bat Alfa free or exploited flow to Jordan.
The total length of the pipeline is 35 km, it rises 60 meters and descends from the height peak 140 meters
It is likely that we are in a period of transition. Such a dramatic change in the level of the Dead Sea is probably irreversible and the sea empties to make room for another body of water - this time fresh water that will come from the direction of the Mount of Olives. As written in Zechariah XNUMX and Ezekiel XNUMX
"And it came to pass on that day, living water came forth from Jerusalem, half to the former sea, and half to the latter sea: in summer and in winter, it shall be. XNUMX And Jehovah became king, over all the earth; On that day, Jehovah will be one - and his name will be one."
"...because these waters came there and healed and lived everything that came to the river's name. And there were and there were fish (fishermen) standing on it from the eye of a goat to the eye of a calf (probably the eye of a sheep) from the flat to the Harims (spreading fishing nets) there would be a variety of their fish like the fish of the great sea very much."
Best regards
I just asked:
Why is it technically not possible to build a sealed metal pipe (let's say 2 meters in diameter) from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River and according to the law of combined vessels the water will be able to rise the height differences in the general way down?
An example route: from Haifa Bay, altitude 0 through the Jezreel Valley up to a maximum altitude of 100 meters to the Jordan River (Beit Shean area) altitude minus 200 meters...
A fix can be enough for 50 years if they don't export it irresponsibly so that the tycoons can make a quick run over our natural resources.
Since the largest gas reserves in the world were discovered on our shores in the first decade of the 21st century, an economic miracle happened to us and our energy costs are going to be very low in the future. The first and most important reason above for the sea canal idea is the utilization of the height differences to produce cheap energy. Now that the gas has been discovered there is no longer a need for this project. point.
It's a shame that the World Bank didn't realize this because during their 5 years of research, they could have already learned that Israel discovered a very cheap, clean source of energy that would last at least 50 years.
L: I am
Clean energy? No ! Because in order to create a hydro-electric station, the water must be pushed
to a height of more than two hundred meters (to cross the watershed between the Gulf of Eilat and the Dead Sea),
I would like to see the vacationer or the tourist who will come to "enjoy" the sight of plaster of paris
and red algae... and will also be ready to dip in the strange concoction,
To: YouTube
First of all, there is a difference in the composition of the water between the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Eilat,
But whoever bothers and reads the project proposal in the right way will see that the intention is to flow
water (some of which has been treated) through the southern Jordan, this will be the composition of the water that will reach the Dead Sea
Similar to what flowed in the Jordan (until it dried up),
And once again it is worth paying attention to the costs which are two-thirds cheaper than the "Moval HaShalom",
And again for everyone who responds later:
We must separate the need and the desire to save the Dead Sea,
and ideas for providing clean electricity and drinking water to consumers,
And of course there is a separation between a logical and an environmental project (relatively speaking)
and high cost hallucinations that are based on promoting political ideas.
If the alternatives are between a completely dry Dead Sea and a Dead Sea with algae and gypsum (but lively and kicking tourism and clean energy on the way), I think the preferred alternative is clear, no?
Dr. Asaf Rosenthal.
Thanks for the article. I wanted to know if you go up from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea, won't you cause the same problem of plaster formation and algae blooms?
if not how? What is the big difference between Red Sea water and Mediterranean water?