Bangkok is sinking, so it built a park that holds a million gallons of rainwater to help prevent flooding

[from the home of CC]

4 hours ago, grollies said:

1" of rain falling on 1 sqkm measures 25,000m3.

 

The land area of BKK is 1,569km2.

 

1" of rain in BKK will result in 39,225,000m3 of water.

 

(US) Gallons is 10,362,153,627 

 

Diverting 1,000,000 gallons of water?

 

It's not going to work.

I agree, a million gallons sounds impressive but it's only literally a drop in the bucket. (4500 cubes). In the west when there's a spill of some sort they'll convert it to liters to make it even more click bait. 

[IAMHERE]

That million gallons of water weighs enough to sink the park a bit every year. I guess the sinking of the park would allow it more room to hold water next year. I think more logic should go into this idea.

[KhunBENQ]

2 hours ago, HooHaa said:

Sounds like browser hijack to me.

I got one of the usual "sign up" popups when deactivating "certain tools".

So nothing exceptional I guess.

 

[CLW]

Underground retention channels could be easily built under every major road in Thailand. Should have been done together with the Subway and BTS projects when the traffic is obstructed anyways.

[grollies]

24 minutes ago, CLW said:

Underground retention channels could be easily built under every major road in Thailand. Should have been done together with the Subway and BTS projects when the traffic is obstructed anyways.

AKA stormwater drains

[gaff]

So we are safe now ? Thai are genius !!! Thank you dic... ooops, general !!!

 

 

[Stargeezr]

It would be nice if Bangkok would build dozens more areas like soccer fields as catch

basin areas for flood relief. The problem is the whole area is barely above sea level

and it takes a while for the flood waters to drain away.

[greenchair]

22 hours ago, canuckamuck said:

Does anyone else get stuck on a page asking you to fill out a survey before you can read this article? I would love to read the article, but I don't fill out surveys ever.

Also the survey is in Thai script.

Not me. 

[Thian]

21 hours ago, grollies said:

1" of rain falling on 1 sqkm measures 25,000m3.

 

The land area of BKK is 1,569km2.

 

1" of rain in BKK will result in 39,225,000m3 of water.

 

(US) Gallons is 10,362,153,627 

 

Diverting 1,000,000 gallons of water?

 

It's not going to work.

Those ponds are a buffer during heavy rainfall, they fill up with water so the drainsystem won't get overloaded...After the storm they can pump those ponds empty again.

[Kerryd]

15 hours ago, CLW said:

Underground retention channels could be easily built under every major road in Thailand. Should have been done together with the Subway and BTS projects when the traffic is obstructed anyways.

 

15 hours ago, grollies said:

AKA stormwater drains

The problem is the elevation. That is the primary reason that Bangkok floods so much, so often, is the water has nowhere to go as the city is already so low it is hard for the water to drain off naturally. 
Yes, some drainages get clogged with trash but again, if the city was higher up, even by just a few meters, the water would flow through the drainage system instead of basically just pooling in it until it builds sufficient mass to overcome where it is draining out to (which is the Gulf of Thailand eventually). That would also help by washing a lot of that trash downstream instead of it just accumulating in places and building up to the point it becomes a barrier to the water flow. Being at a higher elevation would also allow them to create sumps and install "grinders" in the system to chew up the trash so it can't plug the drainage system.

 

Remember how almost every year they stick rows of boats in the river to try and force the water to flow faster as a solution to the floods ? Even the Chao Praya has difficulties overcoming the mass of the Gulf as it doesn't flow fast enough. Think about a small tugboat (the river) pushing against a huge oil tanker (the gulf). If the tanker is just sitting there, the tug will eventually be able to push it a bit, but if the tanker wants to go the other way (or there is a bigger tug on the other side called the Pacific Ocean), that little tug (the Chao Praya) will have to push a lot harder to get the job done (any may still fail as the mass of the tanker may be too much for the tug to overcome).
 

The slow speed of the river is great for slow moving river traffic like long boats and barges, but not so great for drainage, especially at high tides. 

Installing additional drainage pipes/channels/etc underneath the roads wouldn't do much good if those drainages are basically at the same level as the Gulf (i.e. at 0 meters elevation). They would require massive amounts of pumps to force the water into the Gulf and what happens then ? All that water tries to come back with the wind, waves and tides. 

(Eventually it disperses into the greater mass of the worlds oceans but it takes a long time to overcome all that mass until it disperses.)

What they need to start doing is place a moratorium on future building in the city and start pushing new projects to the north of the city (or the West, whichever way leads to higher elevations). Eventually (over the next 100 years or so) the main part of the city could/should be 20+ kilometers from where it is now. As existing structures are abandoned, they should be torn down (thus reducing the mass on top of the aquifers) and the old canal system rebuilt. That would reduce the ground subsidence (the "sinking") and improve the drainage.
(Maybe all the scrap concrete and steel could be used to create dykes and tidal barriers.) 

Chances are, that is probably what will happen eventually, but not until the problems hit the "crisis" stage (i.e. where the seasonal "floods" become a year-round thing as the water is unable to drain anywhere at all).
 

[manchega]

nice one geniui ( plural of genius?) can you really imagine thailand building under roads,  these people struggle with basic in house plumbing, not aware of the u bend or how useful standard fittings are

 

buses, cars and people would be falling through holes as the generals claim nothing has happened

[CLW]

The problem is the elevation. That is the primary reason that Bangkok floods so much, so often, is the water has nowhere to go as the city is already so low it is hard for the water to drain off naturally. 
Yes, some drainages get clogged with trash but again, if the city was higher up, even by just a few meters, the water would flow through the drainage system instead of basically just pooling in it until it builds sufficient mass to overcome where it is draining out to (which is the Gulf of Thailand eventually). That would also help by washing a lot of that trash downstream instead of it just accumulating in places and building up to the point it becomes a barrier to the water flow. Being at a higher elevation would also allow them to create sumps and install "grinders" in the system to chew up the trash so it can't plug the drainage system.
 
Remember how almost every year they stick rows of boats in the river to try and force the water to flow faster as a solution to the floods ? Even the Chao Praya has difficulties overcoming the mass of the Gulf as it doesn't flow fast enough. Think about a small tugboat (the river) pushing against a huge oil tanker (the gulf). If the tanker is just sitting there, the tug will eventually be able to push it a bit, but if the tanker wants to go the other way (or there is a bigger tug on the other side called the Pacific Ocean), that little tug (the Chao Praya) will have to push a lot harder to get the job done (any may still fail as the mass of the tanker may be too much for the tug to overcome).
 
The slow speed of the river is great for slow moving river traffic like long boats and barges, but not so great for drainage, especially at high tides. 

Installing additional drainage pipes/channels/etc underneath the roads wouldn't do much good if those drainages are basically at the same level as the Gulf (i.e. at 0 meters elevation). They would require massive amounts of pumps to force the water into the Gulf and what happens then ? All that water tries to come back with the wind, waves and tides. 
(Eventually it disperses into the greater mass of the worlds oceans but it takes a long time to overcome all that mass until it disperses.)

What they need to start doing is place a moratorium on future building in the city and start pushing new projects to the north of the city (or the West, whichever way leads to higher elevations). Eventually (over the next 100 years or so) the main part of the city could/should be 20+ kilometers from where it is now. As existing structures are abandoned, they should be torn down (thus reducing the mass on top of the aquifers) and the old canal system rebuilt. That would reduce the ground subsidence (the "sinking") and improve the drainage.
(Maybe all the scrap concrete and steel could be used to create dykes and tidal barriers.) 

Chances are, that is probably what will happen eventually, but not until the problems hit the "crisis" stage (i.e. where the seasonal "floods" become a year-round thing as the water is unable to drain anywhere at all).
 

Got your point.
But London and the Netherlands have been successful in draining water and preventing floods.
Maybe they should hire some consultants AND listen to them.
The latter being the biggest problem as Thais are quite resistant towards foreign suggestions.

[Kerryd]

4 minutes ago, CLW said:

Got your point.
But London and the Netherlands have been successful in draining water and preventing floods.
Maybe they should hire some consultants AND listen to them.
The latter being the biggest problem as Thais are quite resistant towards foreign suggestions.

There is also the problem of people who can only think in the "short term", as in the next couple of months or years (or up to the next election). Politicians are especially prone to that as they can rarely think beyond the next election, at least not when they are in power.

I just had a look and (according to Google at least), Bangkok sits about 1.5 meters above sea level (on average) while London sits at a lofty 35 meters. That leaves a lot of space to create a better drainage system and, of course, different government, different way of doing things. Also keep in mind that London's annual (average) rainfall is about 600mm while Bangkok's is about 1,500mm.
(It just seems that the UK gets more rain because it wet and miserable there for 11 months of the year !) (Just kidding, I know it's only 10 1/2 months of the year.)  ?

 

I agree that Thais seem to be resistant to the suggestions of foreigners and, unfortunately, they seem to think more about what's in it for them than they do about what is simple the best solution. In some cases though they probably have been right in rejecting foreign suggestions (like when they refused IMF funding during the "Asian Flu" banking crisis as that funding came with a lot of strings that Thailand didn't want to get choked with).

The Netherlands is a great example of how it could be done. Almost 1/3rd of the country is below sea level and they are getting along just fine (or so it seems). Didn't happen overnight though. History shows that they were building dykes in that area 2,000 years ago (possibly even earlier, going back the Iron Age some 2,500-2,800 years ago). 
But they would be an excellent study in how to do things these days.
Other places, like New Orleans have also coped for years while living on a flood plain next to a large Gulf. Take away a Category 5 Hurricane (Katrina) and New Orleans would have been just fine.

But again, it is something that will take decades, generations, even centuries to accomplish (in Thailand) and very few people have the foresight to look that far into the future.

 

[grollies]

2 hours ago, Kerryd said:

There is also the problem of people who can only think in the "short term", as in the next couple of months or years (or up to the next election). Politicians are especially prone to that as they can rarely think beyond the next election, at least not when they are in power.

I just had a look and (according to Google at least), Bangkok sits about 1.5 meters above sea level (on average) while London sits at a lofty 35 meters. That leaves a lot of space to create a better drainage system and, of course, different government, different way of doing things. Also keep in mind that London's annual (average) rainfall is about 600mm while Bangkok's is about 1,500mm.
(It just seems that the UK gets more rain because it wet and miserable there for 11 months of the year !) (Just kidding, I know it's only 10 1/2 months of the year.)  ?

 

I agree that Thais seem to be resistant to the suggestions of foreigners and, unfortunately, they seem to think more about what's in it for them than they do about what is simple the best solution. In some cases though they probably have been right in rejecting foreign suggestions (like when they refused IMF funding during the "Asian Flu" banking crisis as that funding came with a lot of strings that Thailand didn't want to get choked with).

The Netherlands is a great example of how it could be done. Almost 1/3rd of the country is below sea level and they are getting along just fine (or so it seems). Didn't happen overnight though. History shows that they were building dykes in that area 2,000 years ago (possibly even earlier, going back the Iron Age some 2,500-2,800 years ago). 
But they would be an excellent study in how to do things these days.
Other places, like New Orleans have also coped for years while living on a flood plain next to a large Gulf. Take away a Category 5 Hurricane (Katrina) and New Orleans would have been just fine.

But again, it is something that will take decades, generations, even centuries to accomplish (in Thailand) and very few people have the foresight to look that far into the future.

 

Sometimes I think that if Thailand started using 2,500 year old technology they'd maybe get ahead of the game (sigh)....

[IgboChief]

On 8/2/2018 at 10:17 AM, geriatrickid said:

You live in Thailand. Please take the effort to learn to  read and write the local language. Immigrants should make an effort to learn the local language and not act as if they are still in the old country.  ?

My Thai is abysmally poor but I think I understand the basic concept. My daughter speaks Thai as her mother tongue, probably better than German or English. She has a sophisticated understanding of all three languages including advanced topics like expressing emotions, sarcasm and irony. She tells me, its a primitive language not suitable for a real communication. She actually hates it especially the Sanskrit related parts.
I genuinely wonder, if Thailand would not be in a better shape today when education was taught in a more compatible and modern language, look to Indonesia and Malaysia for example. I definitely know that any great article in Wikipedia has a length of several pages in English or German or French -- but rarely more than 2-3 phrases in Thai. In global context, Thai does not matter. I dare to predict that in 100 years from now nobody will even speak Thai and it will share the faith of many other languages before, dying out. To be fair, I'd expect that same for German and French.

 

Long story short: waste of time. Cheers.
 

[melvinmelvin]

On 8/3/2018 at 5:31 AM, CLW said:

Got your point.
But London and the Netherlands have been successful in draining water and preventing floods.
Maybe they should hire some consultants AND listen to them.
The latter being the biggest problem as Thais are quite resistant towards foreign suggestions.

 

Right you are. But it is not only elevation and the proximity to the sea that represents problems.

 

Thailand has some challenges that you don't have in London nor the Netherlands ie upstream dams, big dams.

 

Why these dams? What are they used for?

 

A host of usages;

 

water retention to avoid nearby flooding

water retention to avoid downstream flooding

reservoir for drinking water

recreational purposes

fish farming

irrigation for rice

irrigation for vegetables

irrigation for fruits

reservoir for communal water

some hydropower

and to top it off I would guess more ......

 

note, these purposes do not have compatible needs for water in volume and time

 

how to manage a huge dam to best serve a host of incompatible wishes?

ain't no simple task - that's probably why they screw up on this one - in practice, this is not possible

 

what is the main challenge you face when you manage a huge dam?

that is to predict next year's consumption and next year's weather

will it rain a lot next year? yes? OK can drain the dam

will it not rain a lot next year? OK must be careful and not tap down the dam

 

having huge dams with water used for different purposes is not good for peace of mind

 

 

 

 

 

[jimster]

45 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

Right you are. But it is not only elevation and the proximity to the sea that represents problems.

 

Thailand has some challenges that you don't have in London nor the Netherlands ie upstream dams, big dams.

  

Why these dams? What are they used for?

 

A host of usages;

 

water retention to avoid nearby flooding

water retention to avoid downstream flooding

reservoir for drinking water

recreational purposes 

fish farming

irrigation for rice

irrigation for vegetables

irrigation for fruits

reservoir for communal water

some hydropower

and to top it off I would guess more ......

 

note, these purposes do not have compatible needs for water in volume and time

 

how to manage a huge dam to best serve a host of incompatible wishes?

ain't no simple task - that's probably why they screw up on this one - in practice, this is not possible

 

what is the main challenge you face when you manage a huge dam?

that is to predict next year's consumption and next year's weather

will it rain a lot next year? yes? OK can drain the dam

will it not rain a lot next year? OK must be careful and not tap down the dam

 

having huge dams with water used for different purposes is not good for peace of mind

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thailand's climate is quite different to the Netherlands/UK. In these two countries, it rains all the time, all year round but generally it's light rain all day long, that kind of thing. In Bangkok it hardly rains at all for 6 months of the year and the for other 6 months it's a couple of hours a day at most, with some days seeing no rain at all. However, when it does rain it can rain very heavily. The same is true of other parts of Thailand - hence the need for these dams as otherwise there's no water for the dry season, which can be without a drop of rain for months, in some places.

 

There are big challenges for Bangkok, but nothing is impossible. Following what the UK/Netherlands do for flood mitigation would be a step in the right direction. I should note however that flooding is not a problem in Bangkok every year - yes, localized flooding will occur after every significant rain event. But with the exception of anomalies like the 2011 floods you don't experience days or week long floods. Those occur upcountry next to rivers, for example along the Mekong and Moei rivers where continuous rainfall occurs. Those areas (like Mae Sot, Mukdahan, Nong Khai etc.) have an urgent need to mitigate the enormous flooding problem they encounter nearly every rainy season, because every year it's always the same story - the Mekong has broken it's banks and Mukdahan is underwater.

Edited August 4, 2018 by jimster

[3NUMBAS]

more concrete and condos will only speed up the sinking so its all smoke and mirrors so far

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, jimster said:

 

Thailand's climate is quite different to the Netherlands/UK. In these two countries, it rains all the time, all year round but generally it's light rain all day long, that kind of thing. In Bangkok it hardly rains at all for 6 months of the year and the for other 6 months it's a couple of hours a day at most, with some days seeing no rain at all. However, when it does rain it can rain very heavily. The same is true of other parts of Thailand - hence the need for these dams as otherwise there's no water for the dry season, which can be without a drop of rain for months, in some places.

 

There are big challenges for Bangkok, but nothing is impossible. Following what the UK/Netherlands do for flood mitigation would be a step in the right direction. I should note however that flooding is not a problem in Bangkok every year - yes, localized flooding will occur after every significant rain event. But with the exception of anomalies like the 2011 floods you don't experience days or week long floods. Those occur upcountry next to rivers, for example along the Mekong and Moei rivers where continuous rainfall occurs. Those areas (like Mae Sot, Mukdahan, Nong Khai etc.) have an urgent need to mitigate the enormous flooding problem they encounter nearly every rainy season, because every year it's always the same story - the Mekong has broken it's banks and Mukdahan is underwater.

 

My point was:

dam management is tricky by itself when your water has to cater for 10 different incompatible needs it gets very tricky.

Its all about predicting next years weather and next years consumption of water.

(I've actually worked with dam management hydropower stuff, 1 large dam, 1 small dam, and my company's share in a large dam)

Had 2 concerns a) make a profit on the water b) ensure a certain flow (m*3/second) there and there in downstream rivers for the benfit of the fish.

Tricky? Yes! Very challenging to work with.

 

The problem in LoS is that each dam caters for too many demands.

 

 

 

[rickudon]

On 8/2/2018 at 10:56 AM, jimster said:

Much of this global warming fearmongering has never been proven to take place. Sea levels are still the same now compared to when Al Gore warned us 20 years ago that by now many coastal communities would be flooded.

 

The actual problem lies more with groundwater rising thanks to the weight of all the infrastructure (buildings, roads, bridges, expressways) pushing down on the soft loamy ground.

 

Bangkok, despite being close to the sea is in a more sheltered position than many other coastal cities around the world anyway, the southern Thai and Malay coasts in the east and the eastern Thai, Cambodian and southern Vietnamese coasts shelter it and further afield you have Indonesia and Borneo - Bangkok isn't exposed to the open ocean like say Phuket, all Australian coastal cities, California and eastern Japanese cities for example, just to name a few.

So Many misconceptions here. Of course Al Gore sensationalising what was going to happen doesn't help, global warming is not something you can measure one year ro the next, but works on timescales of decades and centuries.

 

1. Sea leveL. After having been relatively stable for around 3,000 years, Global sea level started to rise during the 19th century. During the 20th century it rose on average about 1.6 mm a year, and so far this century on average over 3 mm a year. This has been documented for over a century.

 

2. The problem is not with Groundwater rising (in fact, part of the problem is due to groundwater levels falling, which has accelerated compaction of sediments. And of course, all the heavy buildings have caused the sediments to compress - also the sheer weight of everything also causes settlement, just like an overloaded ship. Generally believed to subside at about 20 mm a year. That would put about half Bangkok below sea level in 50 years.

 

3. Bangkok may be 'sheltered from the open sea' but that will not help with an onshore wind and a storm surge. Just needs those conditions to coincide with a high tide, and the water has nowhere to go but inland, and Bangkok will flood already. They already have red alerts just about every year whenever the Chaophraya is in flood and a spring tide happens. A storm surge on top ........  There are little if any significant sea defences south of Bangkok, only along the river.

 

The Netherlands plans about 50 years ahead ever since the floods of 1953. Maybe Bangkok needs a few thousand fatalities to wake up to the danger.

[jimster]

20 hours ago, rickudon said:

So Many misconceptions here. Of course Al Gore sensationalising what was going to happen doesn't help, global warming is not something you can measure one year ro the next, but works on timescales of decades and centuries. 

 

1. Sea leveL. After having been relatively stable for around 3,000 years, Global sea level started to rise during the 19th century. During the 20th century it rose on average about 1.6 mm a year, and so far this century on average over 3 mm a year. This has been documented for over a century. 

 

2. The problem is not with Groundwater rising (in fact, part of the problem is due to groundwater levels falling, which has accelerated compaction of sediments. And of course, all the heavy buildings have caused the sediments to compress - also the sheer weight of everything also causes settlement, just like an overloaded ship. Generally believed to subside at about 20 mm a year. That would put about half Bangkok below sea level in 50 years.

 

3. Bangkok may be 'sheltered from the open sea' but that will not help with an onshore wind and a storm surge. Just needs those conditions to coincide with a high tide, and the water has nowhere to go but inland, and Bangkok will flood already. They already have red alerts just about every year whenever the Chaophraya is in flood and a spring tide happens. A storm surge on top ........  There are little if any significant sea defences south of Bangkok, only along the river.

 

The Netherlands plans about 50 years ahead ever since the floods of 1953. Maybe Bangkok needs a few thousand fatalities to wake up to the danger. 

 

1. Documented by whom? Who has been measuring these sea level rises since the 19th century? Global warming scaremongering is simply a scheme to set up a global taxation system. Many scientists disagree with the concept of "global warming", which btw is now called "climate change" because "global warming" can't explain all those record low temperatures experienced in Europe and the USA in recent winter seasons. Even in Thailand and the rest of SE Asia, there have been some record low temperatures experienced, from the icy winter of 1999 where min. temperatures plummeted down to 1 and 2 degrees Celcius in Chiang Rai and Chiang Mai, respectively and 9.9 degrees in Bangkok, then in March 2011 with temperatures plummeting well below 20 degrees in Bangkok on 2 occasions, then the cool 2013-2014 winter season and even the low temperatures experienced during December 2016. Not to mention until the 1970s and 80s, all the mainstream media was talking about "global cooling", it was only starting in the 90s that first the "greenhouse effect", then "global warming" and finally "climate change" came onto the scene. If no one was talking about this before about the 90s, nobody was measuring these sea level rises that you speak of since the 19th century.

 

2. Maybe, but don't you think that if you compress the sediment, groundwater will rise due to the pressure of the weight of the buildings and other structures on the soil? Another factor is the pumping up of groundwater which causes the ground to become lower.

 

3. With the political will and right engineering, Bangkok can be sheltered from the worst issues resulting from sediment compaction, seasonal flooding and storm surges. Luckily, Bangkok is sheltered from cyclones, hurricanes and tsunamis and has a lengthy dry season. If the city were subject to year round rain, it would obviously be in a more precarious situation.

[fakename]

So these ponds will be mud holes in the dry season, and filled with dirty stinking flood water in the wet season. Sounds like a nice place to hang out!

[manchega]

while I doubt the competence of any engineers here to do anything correctly apart from wiring houses up correctly ( ha ha ha haha)  

 

attempting to store water is a good plan

[jimster]

Rickudon, I got news for you = satellites didn't exist in the 19th century. Not sure about the accuracy of claims about sea levels in Amsterdam in the 17th century. Besides, only in 1992 was a decision made at the Rio Earth conference to come up with "global warming", before that it simply didn't exist. It's politically motivated, pure and simple. I've spoken about weather variation in a number of places around the world. I don't have time to compile a list of every single place in the world - my examples are good enough to question the narrative of the faith based cult that is "climate change". I need figures, documents, evidence, testimony, scientists speaking on record. Oh wait...I already have all that. On my computer. And all of it paints a dubious picture about the evidence of "climate change" particularly with regards to man-made "global warming". 

[metisdead]

A post containing foreign languages has been removed:

 

English is the only acceptable language anywhere on ThaiVisa including Classifieds, except within the Thai language forum, where of course using Thai is allowed.
 

Posts in which the replies were made within the quoted posts have been removed:

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.
 

Forum Netiquette:

 

2. Please do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes or wording. Such posts will be deleted and the user warned.