Revised Gibraltar Dam Analysis - Deep Channel Considerations

Strait Geography

• Width at narrowest point: ~14.3 km
• Depth profile: Varies from 300m to >900m
• Cross-sectional profile: Not uniform, with a deep central channel
• Average depth: ~600m
• Deep channel width: ~5km at >700m depth

Engineering Implications

1. Previous Design Issues:
   • Original 350m depth assumption drastically underestimated challenges
   • Dam volume would be ~3x larger than estimated
   • Concrete strength at 900m depth becomes problematic
2. Hydrostatic Pressure:
   • At 900m depth: ~9 MPa (90 atmospheres)
   • Requires much stronger materials
   • Concrete performance questionable at these pressures
   • Risk of structural failure increases exponentially

Alternative Approaches

1. "Shallow Crossing" Strategy:
   • Identify location with maximum depth ~400m
   • Would require longer dam (~20km)
   • More feasible engineering-wise
   • Trade-off: Higher material costs vs. lower technical risk
2. "Deep Channel Bridge" Strategy:
   • Build primary dam structure in shallower areas
   • Span deep channel with suspended structure
   • Similar to deep-water oil platforms
   • More expensive but technically feasible
3. "Partial Depth" Strategy:
   • Build dam to ~500m depth
   • Allow deep water exchange below
   • Maintains deep water ecological processes
   • Reduces engineering challenges
   • Sacrifices some power generation potential

Revised Cost Estimates

For Shallow Crossing Strategy (Most Feasible): 1. Basic Structure: - Length: ~20km (vs. 14.5km) - Maximum depth: ~400m - Material volume: ~1.6 billion m³ - Concrete costs: ~$160 billion - Steel reinforcement: ~$25 billion

2. Total Project Cost:
   • Basic structure: $185 billion
   • Power systems: $50 billion
   • Water management: $45 billion
   • Grid connection: $33 billion
   • Management & engineering: $60 billion
   • Additional geological work: $27 billion
   • Total: ~$400 billion

For Deep Channel Bridge Strategy: - Estimated additional cost: $150-200 billion - Total could exceed $600 billion - Technical feasibility uncertain

Power Generation Impact

The deeper understanding suggests: 1. Need to reduce maximum flow rates 2. More complex flow patterns 3. Possible reduction in power output to ~35-40 GW 4. Annual generation: ~280-300 TWh

Feasibility Assessment

Technical Challenges: 1. Unprecedented depth for dam construction 2. Material strength limitations 3. Construction methodologies unproven 4. Seismic risks more significant 5. Foundation conditions uncertain

The "Shallow Crossing" strategy emerges as the most feasible approach, despite higher material costs. The deep channel options present potentially insurmountable engineering challenges with current technology.

Project Viability

Economic Analysis (Shallow Crossing): - Cost per kW: ~$10,000-11,400 - Annual revenue (at $0.10/kWh): ~$26 billion - Payback period: ~15-17 years - ROI: ~6.5% annual

The project remains theoretically viable but with: - Significantly higher costs - Greater technical risks - Longer payback period - More complex construction challenges

This revised analysis suggests the project would be more expensive and technically challenging than initially estimated, but potentially still feasible using the "Shallow Crossing" strategy. The deep channel makes a full-depth dam impractical with current technology.