Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 100 posts

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#81

Post by pixl97 »

seszett wrote: post #71
LunaSea wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because they built houses in place they shouldn't have

Were they illegally built without a permit? Then they should be demolished. Were they built with a permit? Then either it wasn't obvious they shouldn't have been built (and then why would the homeowners be responsible for these kind of works?) or there was corruption (and then the relevant persons should be condemned). But privately built seawalls to protect the coast? That seems out of proportion, and unlikely to pr…

In theory, yes hundreds of billions (maybe trillions of dollars) in houses and building need purchased and destroyed in the US.

This will not happen. Houses/businesses near beaches tend to be of higher value and owned by the more politically connected. Any political talk of "We're not going to insure it and we'll let it fall in the ocean" means new people getting elected next election.

It's also worse than that in the US. We're permitting and allowing things that will fail, and have no means of funding those costs of buyout or replacement in the future. As long as people remain ignorant and keep voting themselves largess the cost of the problem will continue to grow.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#82

Post by pixl97 »

blagie wrote: post #74
detourdog wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with diverting water is that it goes somewhere else. The issue is that Salisbury is in the way of the ocean. Trying to build your way out of that is not going to work. They could establish an annual sand budget and treat it just like snow removal.

I'm not sure water needs to be diverted, per se. The problem isn't baseline water level but waves, and especially large waves, and sand washing away. It seems like the solutions would involve some combination of: * Breakwaters, to equalize the water levels and reduce the waves * A few meters inland, some kind of wall (firmer than sand) which doesn't wash away, so a bigger wave doesn't impact homes * Perhaps some kind…

You seemingly don't understand the costs and long term effects of what you're asking.

Just dumping sand on the beach is positively cheap compared to the hundreds of millions you're asking for. Also, building a wall near the ocean is possibly the worst idea you could ever do. Please research the interaction between air, water, and sand to learn this is how you make a massive hole that swallows everything. The same is true with breakwaters. Constant refurbishment is needed, and it changes sand flows that affect other people.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#83

Post by pixl97 »

2d8a875f-39a2-4 wrote: post #28

How many dolos would 500k buy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolos

This is not a solution. These things work great for protecting particular objects, but they don't protect beaches. In fact they do the opposite and destroy beaches.

So instead of a beachfront house, you now have no beach and a big 'rocky' ocean front that is dangerous for people to use and must 100% keep off of.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#84

Post by snapplebobapple »

acdha wrote: post #65
ryandvm wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real solution is to accept that anyone who bought in the last half century should have factored in the scientific evidence of climate change and not expect taxpayers to subsidize their failure to plan appropriately. It's mostly not even climate change. The reality is that without a great deal of very expensive intervention from humans, sand coastlines are constantly shifting and changing. Building long term str…

> It's mostly not even climate change Let me amend that: it’s not just climate change but climate change is like a catalyst for the existing problem. Higher sea level, greater storm intensity and frequency, and other ecological impacts (e.g. native vegetation might not control erosion as well due to changing conditions or invasive pests) all mean we get the harder versions of the problem and have deal with more crise…

Its more like this was inevitable regardless of climate change on the time period the average housing stock lasts, so building there and expecting this to stay as is was inevitably stupid regardless of climate change.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#85

Post by nonrandomstring »

arbuge wrote: post #11
nonrandomstring wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Property owners dumped 15,000 tons of sand in a Massachusetts town to fend off dangerous tides, but it was swept away in 72 hours The assistance they could benefit from most is not financial but a short educational course on basic construction science. Sand is not a great building material. It even mentions that in the bible (Matthew 7:24-27).

If you read the article, it was pretty much the only thing the government allowed them to do.

I did read the article and it was still a stupid thing to do. It was stupid with or without government approval and it was stupid whether or not I read the article. What was your point?

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#86

Post by pixl97 »

bitexploder wrote: post #13

The take away for me was that policy needs to change. Massachusetts prevents hard sea walls. Long term that seems like the only solution. Or people move away from living directly next to the ocean given that it is going to be a constant money sink for society so a small % of the population can enjoy a view and lifestyle unavailable to the people paying for it (presuming the state assists them in dumping more sand, or…

>Massachusetts prevents hard sea walls. Long term that seems like the only solution.

Depending on your definition of long term, the ocean always wins. Sea walls destroy the beach and environment. We have to decide what we're saving here, you can't save both.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#87

Post by Freedom2 »

pixl97 wrote: post #62
misja111 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Dutch would disagree

Two things.... 1. They spend something like 1.5% of their GDP so they can double the size of their country. This works ok for small countries, but not large ones (think more of city protection for larger places). 2. This will eventually get them sued in international court when one of their projects affects surrounding countries. The ocean is filled with butterfly effects.

1. This doesn't seem relevant to the flat, decisive statement that water always wins.

2. Unless the water is represented by international court, it still doesn't count as a win for water.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#88

Post by brk »

dncornholio wrote: post #50
john_cogs wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. You can’t push back the ocean.

Tell that to The Netherlands.

They have been "at war" with water for centuries now. Several floods have occurred, the last major flood was in the 1950's, IIRC. For the most part they have managed to keep the water out, but I wouldn't consider their battle fully settled yet.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#89

Post by stickybit »

snapplebobapple wrote: post #84
acdha wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's mostly not even climate change Let me amend that: it’s not just climate change but climate change is like a catalyst for the existing problem. Higher sea level, greater storm intensity and frequency, and other ecological impacts (e.g. native vegetation might not control erosion as well due to changing conditions or invasive pests) all mean we get the harder versions of the problem and have deal with more crise…

Its more like this was inevitable regardless of climate change on the time period the average housing stock lasts, so building there and expecting this to stay as is was inevitably stupid regardless of climate change.

The reality is that climate change is resulting in 100 year events becoming 10 year events. Yes, the barrier probably would have been washed away _eventually_ irrespective of our changing climate, but sea levels are rising (104mm since 1993) and the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is increasing. Everything that is now happening occurs in the context of our destabilizing climate. Given this, I'm not sure how supportable it is to declare that climate change is not, at the very least, a contributory factor in events like these.

Re: Swept away: $500k sand dune built to protect US homes disappears in days

#90

Post by pixl97 »

Freedom2 wrote: post #87
pixl97 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two things.... 1. They spend something like 1.5% of their GDP so they can double the size of their country. This works ok for small countries, but not large ones (think more of city protection for larger places). 2. This will eventually get them sued in international court when one of their projects affects surrounding countries. The ocean is filled with butterfly effects.

1. This doesn't seem relevant to the flat, decisive statement that water always wins. 2. Unless the water is represented by international court, it still doesn't count as a win for water.

Your logic is quite questionable.

1. If a bully shows up and tries to beat you up, so you hit him in the face. You won, right? But what if we comes back tomorrow and tries again. What if he never stops coming back every single day forever. You have not won. At best you are in a stalemate in which you have to keep up the fight pouring massive amounts of money and effort into your game otherwise catastrophic outcomes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953)

2. If in that fight you shift the burden of the fight on to your neighbor, you're just an asshole, not a winner. And you're still caught in the loop of point 1.

Post reply on HN