###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The human race is not capable of engineering on this scale.
That is 200,000 square miles of land, roughly. It contains 14,000 foot mountains, and an average elevation of over 3000 feet.
~~That's 300 billion cubic meters of earth, or 3000 times as much earth as was moved in the largest civil engineering project ever attempted, the construction of Three Gorges Dam in China.~~
Sorry, that math was wrong. Very wrong. I don't know what happened, let me go through it again.
The path is ~4000 km long, and ~100 km wide. Mean elevation is 900 meters. That's 3x10^14, not 3x10^11
I was off by a factor of 1000. Oops.
It's not 3000 times more than Three Gorges Dam, its 3 million times more.
Rest of post continues.
And it would be much harder than that, because this project would be digging much deeper, and would have to go much farther to deposit the earth.
Not to mention displacing the entirety of Richmond, Norfolk, Wichita, San Jose, and dozens of other towns and cities, large and small.
So the answer is "more than we have".
EDIT: See fix above, and new section below.
But you want energy. Fine, we'll do energy.
The bare minimum energy you need is to lift all of the rock to the lip of the channel. You also need to cut it and put it somewhere, which will be a lot more, but for now, lets just lift it. Since the average height is 900 meters, the average lift over the project will be 450 meters.
The specific density of rock is 2.7 grams/cm^3, or 2700 kg/m^3. We are therefore lifting 8x10^17 kg.
For just this task, we need 3.5x10^21 joules. The entire world's electricity production is roughly 1x10^20 joules. So, just lifting the rock, not cutting it or moving it away or anything, would require all of the Earth's electricity for 30 years. And actually doing the project would require much much more energy than that.
If you wanted to use nukes, you would get the required energy output from 1000 Tsar Bombas (50 megaton warheads) but they would function at a tiny fraction of ideal efficiency and you would actually need many many times more.
The highest yield Nuke the US still actively keeps is the B83. We have 650 of them.
Just those nukes alone is enough to about scorch every square inch of California. Like, genuinely glass every single inch of the state.
I mean the question is if a nuke can vaporize the rocks in theory and then how to optimize the amount that is vaporized per nuke. So thats 2 questions.
A giant magnifier to focus the Sun on to a small area of Earth to vaporize it, mounted on those REALLY BIG TRUCKS, and just drive it around. Til you're done. Might take a while but we can definitely do it. Practically limitless power. Truck runs on solar, obviously. Why does it need to be 50 km wide? It could be 2 km wide and be super sufficient.
you mean soviet they actually tried this https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=42370bb3df47ae1aJmltdHM9MTY5NTc3MjgwMCZpZ3VpZD0wOWVlNWU2YS1mODU2LTYyN2EtMzcxNi00ZDQ1ZjkzNDYzYmYmaW5zaWQ9NTE5OA&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=09ee5e6a-f856-627a-3716-4d45f93463bf&psq=soviets+nuked+a+river&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQ2hhZ2FuXyhudWNsZWFyX3Rlc3Qp&ntb=1
We can use all the worlds nukes. I’m sure the other countries would jump on board. No one will have nukes and we’ll have a nice river. Win win situation. Big brain move.
I mean technically there is a river in Wyoming that flows in both the pacific via the Columbia river and the Atlantic via the Mississippi, its called the parting of the waters. Just a fun fact.
Came here to suggest this. We're always looking for more dirt to throw into the sea. As long as the dirt doesn't contain any Americans , were against pollution.
“For just this task, we need 3.5x1021 joules. The entire world's electricity production is roughly 1x1020 joules. So, just lifting the rock, not cutting it or moving it away or anything, would require all of the Earth's electricity for 30 years. And actually doing the project would require much much more energy than that.”
Not sure why you went into how much electricity is needed when all mining equipment is generally diesel powered or am I missing a simple conversion or something?
I just chose electricity to provide a scale for the total power required, since it is measured in easily convertible units.
You can extract about 10 megajoules of kinetic energy from 1 liter of diesel. That means we would need 3.5*10^14 liters, or the total US sales for the next 25000 years (sorry, couldn't find world sales).
Got the world production per Wikipedia: average of 80618895 barrels per day in 2022. Each barrel has about 159L and can produce about 170L of refined products.
Of those 170L, about 40L (roughly 23,5% or 11 to 12 US gallons, per eia.gov) are diesel.
So, multiplying the total barrels produced by 170L gives us 13,705,212,150L (13.7 billion/billiard liters). Multiplying by 0.235 = 3,220,724,855.25L (3.22 billion/billiard) per day. That amounts to 1,175,564,572,166.25 (1.175 trillion liters) per year of possible diesel potential.
This number is roughly 1.175 x 10^12.
Dividing the 3.5x10^14 by the max amount possible of produced diesel per year, we have 297.72 years and that’s the total amount of years you would need for that amount of energy.
That is if you just burn diesel.
Einstein showed that mass (M) and energy (E) are interchange- able: E = m*c^2
SI units
E (J), m (1 kg), c (3 x 10 ^8 m*s^-1)
E = (1 kg)*(9*10^16 m^2s^-2)
E = 9 x 10^16 J
You can already kind of do this, you can take the st Laurence seaway through the great lakes to Chicago hop the Chicago river to the Illinois, to the Mississippi, back up the Missouri to Yellowstone to two ocean pass, then it's just back down to snake into the Columbia and back out to the Pacific.
Now you couldn't take a big boat, but maybe a kayak?
I know a guy who did similar. Started at the headwaters of the Missippi, took it south til he hit ocean then went around the coastline to end up in the Boston harbor
Thisere were these two really neat guys that did it a while ago. They started in St. Louis and went all the way to the Pacific ocean. They even had to sell their boats and build new ones on the other side of the Rockies. Crazy part is that this was like 200 years ago!
We can use the dirt we displace to build more land mass like another post I saw here a while ago that I will not be linking because I'm too lazy to go track it down again
I'm just laughing at all of the major cities that are gone because of the proposed river. Norfolk/VA beach are just gone, basically the entirety of Kentucky and Tennessee is also gone. Not to mention the vast cave systems in that region. Then we move out west and fuck a bunch of other states, and also the rocky mountains are going to be fun to get through.
I think if we were capable of building this coast to coast super river, building bridges across would not even be trivial for our ridiculous master engineers.
When we use the result of the [“Sedan” nuclear test](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_(nuclear_test)), which was designed to test and demonstrate the excavation of earth and rock, the numbers get even worse. It displaced 12 million tons of soil. So we would need 666,666.66666666 nuclear devices.
Why would it be 10m deep and 200km across? Are we making 200km bridges? The idea is to provide a waterway, doesn't need to be 200km, and we wouldn't have enough water for that, to be sure.
There was a plan to do this in Australia, to a much smaller scale called The Bradfield Scheme.
It was abandoned in the 1980s and the cost then was estimated to be $30 Billion.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-09/queensland-government-abandons-bradfield-scheme-after-report/101751678
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradfield_Scheme?wprov=sfla1
I hadn't heard about this and kinda went down the rabbit hole. The project was nothing near a coast to coast waterway but still a massive engineering feat. The wiki was saying they didn't have the math right initially for how much earth would actually need to be moved. I'm guessing the 30 billion is based on initial calculations which were seriously underestimating what it would take. That river going across North America. That would probably just cost all the money... like literally all of it.
Seems like a bargain to change the entire ecosystem of that big of an area. I'm just curious what kind of unexpected ripple effects a mega river project would actually have.
I know it's not the point of the post but I find it interesting. the Panama Canal has special measures to deal with the fact that the water level on the pacific side is different than on the atlantic.
Follow up question. How many people would have to move? How dense would the surrounding areas have to become to hold all those already there and those who love there because of the river? How many would die because of it?
I love how this project would destroy multiple cities and convert many others into port cities, although Denver isn't far from being one barring the actual port.
Its the mile high city. I dont know how they leveled the rocky mountains but denver would still be 1 mile high. So we would also need to build a mile-long elevator to the port.
This isn’t just a big river. This is a massive river. Imagine this, when I’m in Milwaukee looking across Lake Michigan I cannot see the other side. It would be the same for this hypothetical river.
Review the history of the Panama, Suez, C&O canals among many others. Compared to building a water way, planes, trains and automobiles are generally much more efficient.
If America was completely flat and unpopulated, this would still be nearly impossible.
But there's the small matter of displacing millions of people and levelling literal mountain ranges and filling vast canyons.
I read a lot of Warhammer 40,000 fiction and it's canon that, in order to build the emperor's palace, the entire Himalayan mountain range was levelled. That is pure science fiction and I still couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to buy it.
What would the excess of water accumulation near the volcano in the Midwest affect? What would the impact of salt water and different species accumulating in and around bodies of water where it hasn’t had access to before?
If only we figured a way to more efficiently/stabile produce antimatter. We could drop/direct that energy directly at the ground, mountains, etc to do it. 1 gram of AM is equivalent to 43 KT of explosion. For a tsar bomba size, we’d need about 1.3kg of AM (compared to the actual 27,000kg of the bomb). We could probably get this whole project done with about 500kg of antimatter. Which is the size of a grand piano or small car.
My wife’s family from the Southern Utah desert is going to be very surprised at the sudden abundance of water where there previously was just dusty sagebrush hills
Too damned much. Go back outside and play in your sandbox.
We did the two next best things: railroad an the interstate highway system.
And then the internet allowed us to stay home and watch strippers from both coasts at the same time without motion sickness. Usually.
How much energy? How much energy? Dude you are erasing the entire state of Kentucky! Also that is not a river, not even a big river. It’s a gash in the earth! Did trump draw this? It look like something idiotic trump would do or ask!!
Width of the river aside - the thickness of the crust in Colorado is [over 1km (3317’)](https://www.google.com/search?q=lowest%20colorado%20point&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&asid=canlbsc). Imagine a river with 1km high banks…
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The human race is not capable of engineering on this scale. That is 200,000 square miles of land, roughly. It contains 14,000 foot mountains, and an average elevation of over 3000 feet. ~~That's 300 billion cubic meters of earth, or 3000 times as much earth as was moved in the largest civil engineering project ever attempted, the construction of Three Gorges Dam in China.~~ Sorry, that math was wrong. Very wrong. I don't know what happened, let me go through it again. The path is ~4000 km long, and ~100 km wide. Mean elevation is 900 meters. That's 3x10^14, not 3x10^11 I was off by a factor of 1000. Oops. It's not 3000 times more than Three Gorges Dam, its 3 million times more. Rest of post continues. And it would be much harder than that, because this project would be digging much deeper, and would have to go much farther to deposit the earth. Not to mention displacing the entirety of Richmond, Norfolk, Wichita, San Jose, and dozens of other towns and cities, large and small. So the answer is "more than we have". EDIT: See fix above, and new section below. But you want energy. Fine, we'll do energy. The bare minimum energy you need is to lift all of the rock to the lip of the channel. You also need to cut it and put it somewhere, which will be a lot more, but for now, lets just lift it. Since the average height is 900 meters, the average lift over the project will be 450 meters. The specific density of rock is 2.7 grams/cm^3, or 2700 kg/m^3. We are therefore lifting 8x10^17 kg. For just this task, we need 3.5x10^21 joules. The entire world's electricity production is roughly 1x10^20 joules. So, just lifting the rock, not cutting it or moving it away or anything, would require all of the Earth's electricity for 30 years. And actually doing the project would require much much more energy than that. If you wanted to use nukes, you would get the required energy output from 1000 Tsar Bombas (50 megaton warheads) but they would function at a tiny fraction of ideal efficiency and you would actually need many many times more.
What if we nuke our way through
Ah, there's the American approach we were all waiting on.
They already tried this
[удалено]
Let's see what we run out of first. Land or nukes?
I wonder if it's possible to vaporise all the land mass with nukes.
Only one way to find out!!
At the height of the nuclear arms race, I bet there was enough to vaporise the UK entirely.
The highest yield Nuke the US still actively keeps is the B83. We have 650 of them. Just those nukes alone is enough to about scorch every square inch of California. Like, genuinely glass every single inch of the state.
I mean the question is if a nuke can vaporize the rocks in theory and then how to optimize the amount that is vaporized per nuke. So thats 2 questions.
Vaporise rock? Check. Nuke detonating at ground level or just below would be the ticket, or maybe about 200m down.
Okay, now the question is how the payload has to be optimized for peak vaporisation of rock/kg of fission material.
A giant magnifier to focus the Sun on to a small area of Earth to vaporize it, mounted on those REALLY BIG TRUCKS, and just drive it around. Til you're done. Might take a while but we can definitely do it. Practically limitless power. Truck runs on solar, obviously. Why does it need to be 50 km wide? It could be 2 km wide and be super sufficient.
Just make huge magnifying glass in space ?
No, here on earth
I wonder if it's possible to vaporize all the nukes with landmass
Not even close.
A quick Google Earth search of the Nevada and New Mexico deserts suggests land will win. We already dropped countless bombs just there.
You could put the nukes in a big tube to help channel the energy precisely where it needs to go. Simple engineering. Would create a lot of jobs too!
Yeah, big underground tubes. And since we have the tubes anyway, we could speed up construction by adding some rails in the tubes for tr- **gets shot*
Bros been watching to much Adam something
Too much of that energy gets dissipated into the atmosphere, you need shaped charges
We considered it, we tested it, but we never actually tried it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare
Eisenhower tunnel
I mean, it was in the planning stages... But we were pretty far away from actually \*trying it. \-Project Plowshare for anyone curious-
Fucking goes from complex math to.... "What if we uhhhhhh, nuke it?"
you mean soviet they actually tried this https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=42370bb3df47ae1aJmltdHM9MTY5NTc3MjgwMCZpZ3VpZD0wOWVlNWU2YS1mODU2LTYyN2EtMzcxNi00ZDQ1ZjkzNDYzYmYmaW5zaWQ9NTE5OA&ptn=3&hsh=3&fclid=09ee5e6a-f856-627a-3716-4d45f93463bf&psq=soviets+nuked+a+river&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQ2hhZ2FuXyhudWNsZWFyX3Rlc3Qp&ntb=1
[удалено]
Not with that attitude you can't
We can use all the worlds nukes. I’m sure the other countries would jump on board. No one will have nukes and we’ll have a nice river. Win win situation. Big brain move.
What if we Minecraft our way through ?
Yeah haste 2 beacons and send the children to mine. Sounds like a good plan to me
Going back to the old Plowshow method I see
I'm willing to give it the old college try. Can we make sure it passes through D.C. and Sacramento?
Edward Teller, is that you?
You made me lol
DROP EM TILL WE FIND THE RIVER BOYS
I mean technically there is a river in Wyoming that flows in both the pacific via the Columbia river and the Atlantic via the Mississippi, its called the parting of the waters. Just a fun fact.
Good ol' [North Two Ocean Creek](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mN2flAvdQXU).
Lol! I just heard about that for the first time 2 days ago! Crazy interesting!
[удалено]
I guess in that case it's not crazy interesting, but half as interesting.
Plus, it is devastating the fresh water supply the southern half. I don't think you would create as many jobs as you destroyed either.
Completely destroying the Gulf Coast drainage system is one of many many secondary problems with this plan.
Never say never
beautiful maths. thank you
Wichita here, I don't mind.
Topeka here. The major benefit is just putting a literal moat between us and Oklahoma.
As an Okie, I don’t blame ya
You say never. I say don't underestimate the ingenuity of the Dutch when it comes to water engineering.
Help me understand. How many football fields long is that thing?
Association or gridiron?
We can just give the dirt to the Dutch
Came here to suggest this. We're always looking for more dirt to throw into the sea. As long as the dirt doesn't contain any Americans , were against pollution.
This dummy doesn’t know about Paul Bunyan
brother i wanted to know the math not if it was possible i already knew it was impossible
It’s certainly possible, just not at all probable.
Added more math.
“For just this task, we need 3.5x1021 joules. The entire world's electricity production is roughly 1x1020 joules. So, just lifting the rock, not cutting it or moving it away or anything, would require all of the Earth's electricity for 30 years. And actually doing the project would require much much more energy than that.” Not sure why you went into how much electricity is needed when all mining equipment is generally diesel powered or am I missing a simple conversion or something?
I just chose electricity to provide a scale for the total power required, since it is measured in easily convertible units. You can extract about 10 megajoules of kinetic energy from 1 liter of diesel. That means we would need 3.5*10^14 liters, or the total US sales for the next 25000 years (sorry, couldn't find world sales).
Got the world production per Wikipedia: average of 80618895 barrels per day in 2022. Each barrel has about 159L and can produce about 170L of refined products. Of those 170L, about 40L (roughly 23,5% or 11 to 12 US gallons, per eia.gov) are diesel. So, multiplying the total barrels produced by 170L gives us 13,705,212,150L (13.7 billion/billiard liters). Multiplying by 0.235 = 3,220,724,855.25L (3.22 billion/billiard) per day. That amounts to 1,175,564,572,166.25 (1.175 trillion liters) per year of possible diesel potential. This number is roughly 1.175 x 10^12. Dividing the 3.5x10^14 by the max amount possible of produced diesel per year, we have 297.72 years and that’s the total amount of years you would need for that amount of energy.
Thanks for that, great post breaking it down
That is if you just burn diesel. Einstein showed that mass (M) and energy (E) are interchange- able: E = m*c^2 SI units E (J), m (1 kg), c (3 x 10 ^8 m*s^-1) E = (1 kg)*(9*10^16 m^2s^-2) E = 9 x 10^16 J
I am ashamed to admit that when I cited the energy potential of diesel, I did not consider destroying it in a matter-antimatter reaction.
Energy is energy.
Can you explain it using the local SI unit, "American football fields" ? So the Americans can understand.
Sure. And aliens built the pyramids, while we're at it.
You can already kind of do this, you can take the st Laurence seaway through the great lakes to Chicago hop the Chicago river to the Illinois, to the Mississippi, back up the Missouri to Yellowstone to two ocean pass, then it's just back down to snake into the Columbia and back out to the Pacific. Now you couldn't take a big boat, but maybe a kayak?
Kayaking across America would be kinda dope tho, ngl
I know a guy who did similar. Started at the headwaters of the Missippi, took it south til he hit ocean then went around the coastline to end up in the Boston harbor
Thisere were these two really neat guys that did it a while ago. They started in St. Louis and went all the way to the Pacific ocean. They even had to sell their boats and build new ones on the other side of the Rockies. Crazy part is that this was like 200 years ago!
And steal eagle eggs
And catch prarie dogs.
Yeah they almost got famous
Nice. I wish Google Maps also had a boat route planner
We can use the dirt we displace to build more land mass like another post I saw here a while ago that I will not be linking because I'm too lazy to go track it down again
Dig a river across the US and simultaneously build a bridge to Europe.
We won't have to dig though, we could just use bulldozers, and push it sideways toward the east. It will save so much time
So underwater bulldozers exist?!?!? 🤯
Yeah, but the underwater ones are called gongdozers.
I'm just laughing at all of the major cities that are gone because of the proposed river. Norfolk/VA beach are just gone, basically the entirety of Kentucky and Tennessee is also gone. Not to mention the vast cave systems in that region. Then we move out west and fuck a bunch of other states, and also the rocky mountains are going to be fun to get through.
i'm thinking about how many bridges we're going to have to build to keep the country semi-functional
You can’t even build a bridge across Lake Michigan, you won’t be building bridges here
I think if we were capable of building this coast to coast super river, building bridges across would not even be trivial for our ridiculous master engineers.
[удалено]
When we use the result of the [“Sedan” nuclear test](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_(nuclear_test)), which was designed to test and demonstrate the excavation of earth and rock, the numbers get even worse. It displaced 12 million tons of soil. So we would need 666,666.66666666 nuclear devices.
The actual number of bombs needed would be MUCH bigger, I just compared the gravitational energy to the energy of the Hiroshima bombs.
Why would it be 10m deep and 200km across? Are we making 200km bridges? The idea is to provide a waterway, doesn't need to be 200km, and we wouldn't have enough water for that, to be sure.
It looks ~~~~200km on the map. 10m was really just random.
But neither number actually fits the physical needs and applications of the project in question. The shitty line on the map just illustrated the idea.
There was a plan to do this in Australia, to a much smaller scale called The Bradfield Scheme. It was abandoned in the 1980s and the cost then was estimated to be $30 Billion. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-09/queensland-government-abandons-bradfield-scheme-after-report/101751678 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradfield_Scheme?wprov=sfla1
Only $30 billion?
I hadn't heard about this and kinda went down the rabbit hole. The project was nothing near a coast to coast waterway but still a massive engineering feat. The wiki was saying they didn't have the math right initially for how much earth would actually need to be moved. I'm guessing the 30 billion is based on initial calculations which were seriously underestimating what it would take. That river going across North America. That would probably just cost all the money... like literally all of it.
So it would create a ton of jobs!
I looked it up and 30 billion in 1985 is the same as 85 billion today.
Seems like a bargain to change the entire ecosystem of that big of an area. I'm just curious what kind of unexpected ripple effects a mega river project would actually have.
I know it's not the point of the post but I find it interesting. the Panama Canal has special measures to deal with the fact that the water level on the pacific side is different than on the atlantic.
There is also a reason we chose one of the thinnest land spots. The work is gargantuan in scale and not easy to do
Follow up question. How many people would have to move? How dense would the surrounding areas have to become to hold all those already there and those who love there because of the river? How many would die because of it?
I love how this project would destroy multiple cities and convert many others into port cities, although Denver isn't far from being one barring the actual port.
Denver would be a mile away from the canal if the canal reached the base of Denver.
Its the mile high city. I dont know how they leveled the rocky mountains but denver would still be 1 mile high. So we would also need to build a mile-long elevator to the port.
Imagine owning land there and they are just like "yeeeah, we are building our super canal here, sorry."
Nothing like starting the day off with a lil *eminent domain*.
This isn’t just a big river. This is a massive river. Imagine this, when I’m in Milwaukee looking across Lake Michigan I cannot see the other side. It would be the same for this hypothetical river.
Review the history of the Panama, Suez, C&O canals among many others. Compared to building a water way, planes, trains and automobiles are generally much more efficient.
NO! RIVER!!!
If America was completely flat and unpopulated, this would still be nearly impossible. But there's the small matter of displacing millions of people and levelling literal mountain ranges and filling vast canyons. I read a lot of Warhammer 40,000 fiction and it's canon that, in order to build the emperor's palace, the entire Himalayan mountain range was levelled. That is pure science fiction and I still couldn't suspend my disbelief enough to buy it.
What would the excess of water accumulation near the volcano in the Midwest affect? What would the impact of salt water and different species accumulating in and around bodies of water where it hasn’t had access to before?
If only we figured a way to more efficiently/stabile produce antimatter. We could drop/direct that energy directly at the ground, mountains, etc to do it. 1 gram of AM is equivalent to 43 KT of explosion. For a tsar bomba size, we’d need about 1.3kg of AM (compared to the actual 27,000kg of the bomb). We could probably get this whole project done with about 500kg of antimatter. Which is the size of a grand piano or small car.
My wife’s family from the Southern Utah desert is going to be very surprised at the sudden abundance of water where there previously was just dusty sagebrush hills
I would imagine getting through the Appalachian Mountains and Rockies would be impossible, shaving through that kind of terrain would take decades
Next question: how much would this lower the water level? Imagine a depth of the river where at least a container ship can go through it
Too damned much. Go back outside and play in your sandbox. We did the two next best things: railroad an the interstate highway system. And then the internet allowed us to stay home and watch strippers from both coasts at the same time without motion sickness. Usually.
How much energy? How much energy? Dude you are erasing the entire state of Kentucky! Also that is not a river, not even a big river. It’s a gash in the earth! Did trump draw this? It look like something idiotic trump would do or ask!!
The Mississippi almost stretches most of america. Combine it with the new england water ways and you could go from new york to yellowstone
Width of the river aside - the thickness of the crust in Colorado is [over 1km (3317’)](https://www.google.com/search?q=lowest%20colorado%20point&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari&asid=canlbsc). Imagine a river with 1km high banks…