Why doesn't Israel create hydroelectric power by running a pipeline/canal from the Med sea to the dead sea?

Question

The dead sea is approx 1500 feet below sea level and only about 100 miles away from the Mediteranean sea. The dead sea is big enough (10 X 40 mi) to accept a nearly incalcuable amount of water- the water presure created by the ocean and the drop would be huge! and could even siphon over mountains if necessary. Start the intake about 100ft below the ocean level and continue until the descent begins to the turbines.There are few inhabitants in the dead sea area and enviromental effects minimal. Why wouldn't it work?

Answer 1

Besides the previous two good answers, once the Dead Sea filled, the pipeline would become useless.  It would also damage the ecology around the Dead Sea, and such a large inland salt sea would make lots of nearby farmland useless.  Well, you're right, there doesn't seem to be any nearby farmland.  The mountains are too high to siphon, and tunneling through the solid rock would cost much much more than you would gain from the power generated by filling it once.

Answer 2

Besides the previous answer, most of the energy would be dissipated just in moving the water the 100 miles, even if you use the full 1500 foot head.  By your figures, the average grade would be only 0.28 percent, which amounts to an angle only 0.16 degrees off level.  Contractors deliberately put a bigger slope than that on tennis courts to let the rainwater drain off.

[Added] In other words, forget the hydroelectricity.  The desalinization idea might work if the cost of operating the desalinization plant can be made low enough to compete successfully with water from existing sources.  Somehow, I doubt that it can.

Answer 3

From Wikipedia:

"One of the plans which were suggested as a means to stop the recession of the Dead Sea is to channel water from the Mediterranean or the Red Sea, either through tunnels or canals (the Dead Sea Canal). Although a Mediterranean structure would be shorter, Israel is now committed to building a Red Sea canal in deference to Jordan's needs. The plan is to pump water 120 m (394 ft) up the Arava/Arabah from Aqaba or Eilat, tunnel under the highest point of the Arava/Arabah valley, and then canalize the river of seawater as it falls 520 m (1,706 ft) to the Dead Sea. The downhill flow would be harnessed hydroelectrically, and the arriving seawater would run into a desalination plant to be constructed in Jordan. The salt water remaining after desalination would be deposited into the Dead Sea.

On May 9, 2005, Jordan, Israel, and the Palestinian Authority signed an agreement to begin feasibility studies on the project, to be officially known as the "Two Seas Canal". The scheme calls for the pumping of 870 million cubic metres of sea water from the Red Sea per year and generation of 550 Megawatts of electricity. The World Bank is supportive of the project. However, several environmental groups have raised concerns about possible negative impacts of the project on the natural environment of the Dead Sea and Arava."

It seems to me that diverting the Jordan River would be more efficient than a desalination plant.

Answer 4

As usual, money:

"Proposals for canals that would channel water from the Mediterranean Sea or the Red Sea have been debated since the 1980s, tickling the imagination before invariably being shelved by reality and economics."

http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/artic...