Skip to main content
Worldbuilding

Return to Answer

Reformed answer in terms of concrete, not steel skyscapers.
Source Link
Green
Green
  • 52.9k
  • 10
  • 132
  • 260

More money that we have since reclaiming Doggerland would require building a very long continuous wall of skyscrapersconcrete. It ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Let's say our ancestors wanted to stop land loss at 200 meters below 2015 water levels. I couldn't find figures for the perimeter of Doggerland so let's set a minimum bound for required perimeter as the coastline of the UK at 17,819.88 kms. The base of the Hoover dam is 200 meters thick. A 200 meter building is 60 stories and 221 meters tall.

Skyscrapers are incredibly expensive to build, on land, in a city, in an industrialized nation. Estimates of per square foot constructionConcrete by the square meter costs in New York city in 2005 were \$400 or \$430,000 \$104/m^2. Note that $400m^3 or \$104 billion/sqft includes costs for materials transit, workers and incidental consumables.km^3

Tripling or quadrupling these costs would be easy to justify because we are not only buildingSo, for a giant skyscrapersimplified concrete wall that stretches 17820 kilometers, but we are doing it in the hellish conditions ofis 200 meters at the North Sea, year round, with complex supply chainsbase and many new facilities to build floating 200 meter skycrapers.

So, just for the bottom "floor" alonemeters tall,

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$4300000 = \$15.3 \text{billion}$

at quadrupled costs we need:

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$17200000 = \$61.3 \text{billion}$$A = \frac{h_b b}{2} = \frac{200* 200}{2} = 0.02 \text{km}^2 * 17280 \text{km} = 345.6 \text{km}^3$ of concrete.

Assuming a uniform wall 60 stories high, then the costs balloon to \$3.678 trillion345. Compare this with the6 2015 United States Annual Federal budget at \$3.4$\text{km}^3$ * \$104B = 35 trillion dollars. Remember, this This is half the minimum cost for an arguably tiny shoreline compared to how large Doggerland wasworld's annual GDP. $345.6 \text{km}^3$ of concrete is 32 years worth of earth's concrete production (as of 2006).

This estimate doesn't include anything in regards to redundant walls, flood control walls, water pumping energy costs, pump costs, ecological damage, economic damage and so on and so on.

More money that we have since reclaiming Doggerland would require building a very long continuous wall of skyscrapers. It ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Let's say our ancestors wanted to stop land loss at 200 meters below 2015 water levels. I couldn't find figures for the perimeter of Doggerland so let's set a minimum bound for required perimeter as the coastline of the UK at 17,819.88 kms. The base of the Hoover dam is 200 meters thick. A 200 meter building is 60 stories.

Skyscrapers are incredibly expensive to build, on land, in a city, in an industrialized nation. Estimates of per square foot construction costs in New York city in 2005 were \$400 or \$430,000/m^2. Note that $400/sqft includes costs for materials transit, workers and incidental consumables.

Tripling or quadrupling these costs would be easy to justify because we are not only building a giant skyscraper, but we are doing it in the hellish conditions of the North Sea, year round, with complex supply chains and many new facilities to build floating 200 meter skycrapers.

So, just for the bottom "floor" alone,

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$4300000 = \$15.3 \text{billion}$

at quadrupled costs:

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$17200000 = \$61.3 \text{billion}$

Assuming a uniform wall 60 stories high, then the costs balloon to \$3.678 trillion. Compare this with the 2015 United States Annual Federal budget at \$3.4 trillion dollars. Remember, this is the minimum cost for an arguably tiny shoreline compared to how large Doggerland was.

This estimate doesn't include anything in regards to redundant walls, flood control walls, water pumping energy costs, pump costs, ecological damage, economic damage and so on and so on.

More money that we have since reclaiming Doggerland would require building a very long continuous wall of concrete. It ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Let's say our ancestors wanted to stop land loss at 200 meters below 2015 water levels. I couldn't find figures for the perimeter of Doggerland so let's set a minimum bound for required perimeter as the coastline of the UK at 17,819.88 kms. The base of the Hoover dam is 200 meters thick and 221 meters tall.

Concrete by the square meter costs \$104/m^3 or \$104 billion/km^3

So, for a simplified concrete wall that stretches 17820 kilometers, is 200 meters at the base and 200 meters tall, we need:

$A = \frac{h_b b}{2} = \frac{200* 200}{2} = 0.02 \text{km}^2 * 17280 \text{km} = 345.6 \text{km}^3$ of concrete.

345.6 $\text{km}^3$ * \$104B = 35 trillion dollars. This is half the world's annual GDP. $345.6 \text{km}^3$ of concrete is 32 years worth of earth's concrete production (as of 2006).

This estimate doesn't include anything in regards to redundant walls, flood control walls, water pumping energy costs, pump costs, ecological damage, economic damage and so on and so on.

deleted 24 characters in body
Source Link
Green
Green
  • 52.9k
  • 10
  • 132
  • 260

More money that we have since reclaiming Doggerland would require building a very long continuous wall of skyscrapers. It ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Let's say our ancestors wanted to stop land loss at 200 meters below 2015 water levels. I couldn't find figures for the perimeter of Doggerland so let's set a minimum bound for required perimeter as the coastline of the UK at 17,819.88 kms. The base of the Hoover dam is 200 meters thick. A 200 meter building is 60 stories.

Skyscrapers are incredibly expensive to build, on land, in a city, in an industrialized nation. Estimates of per square foot construction costs in New York city in 2005 were \$400 or \$430,000/m^2. Note that $400/sqft isincludes costs for costs in a highly industrialized nation with ready access tomaterials transit, workers and industryincidental consumables.

Tripling or quadrupling these costs would be easy to justify because we are not only building a giant skyscraper, but we are doing it in the hellish conditions of the North Sea, year round, with complex supply chains and many new facilities to build floating 200 meter skycrapers.

So, just for the bottom "floor" alone,

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$4300000 = \$15.3 \text{billion}$

at quadrupled costs:

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$17200000 = \$61.3 \text{billion}$

Assuming a uniform wall 60 stories high, then the costs balloon to \$3.678 trillion. Compare this with the 2015 United States Annual Federal budget at \$3.4 trillion dollars. Remember, this is the minimum cost for an arguably tiny shoreline compared to how large Doggerland was.

This estimate doesn't include anything in regards to redundant walls, flood control walls, water pumping energy costs, pump costs, ecological damage, economic damage and so on and so on.

More money that we have since reclaiming Doggerland would require building a very long continuous wall of skyscrapers. It ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Let's say our ancestors wanted to stop land loss at 200 meters below 2015 water levels. I couldn't find figures for the perimeter of Doggerland so let's set a minimum bound for required perimeter as the coastline of the UK at 17,819.88 kms. The base of the Hoover dam is 200 meters thick. A 200 meter building is 60 stories.

Skyscrapers are incredibly expensive to build, on land, in a city, in an industrialized nation. Estimates of per square foot construction costs in New York city in 2005 were \$400 or \$430,000/m^2. Note that $400/sqft is for costs in a highly industrialized nation with ready access to transit, workers and industry.

Tripling or quadrupling these costs would be easy to justify because we are not only building a giant skyscraper, but we are doing it in the hellish conditions of the North Sea, year round, with complex supply chains and many new facilities to build floating 200 meter skycrapers.

So, just for the bottom "floor" alone,

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$4300000 = \$15.3 \text{billion}$

at quadrupled costs:

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$17200000 = \$61.3 \text{billion}$

Assuming a uniform wall 60 stories high, then the costs balloon to \$3.678 trillion. Compare this with the 2015 United States Annual Federal budget at \$3.4 trillion dollars. Remember, this is the minimum cost for an arguably tiny shoreline compared to how large Doggerland was.

This estimate doesn't include anything in regards to redundant walls, flood control walls, water pumping energy costs, pump costs, ecological damage, economic damage and so on and so on.

More money that we have since reclaiming Doggerland would require building a very long continuous wall of skyscrapers. It ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Let's say our ancestors wanted to stop land loss at 200 meters below 2015 water levels. I couldn't find figures for the perimeter of Doggerland so let's set a minimum bound for required perimeter as the coastline of the UK at 17,819.88 kms. The base of the Hoover dam is 200 meters thick. A 200 meter building is 60 stories.

Skyscrapers are incredibly expensive to build, on land, in a city, in an industrialized nation. Estimates of per square foot construction costs in New York city in 2005 were \$400 or \$430,000/m^2. Note that $400/sqft includes costs for materials transit, workers and incidental consumables.

Tripling or quadrupling these costs would be easy to justify because we are not only building a giant skyscraper, but we are doing it in the hellish conditions of the North Sea, year round, with complex supply chains and many new facilities to build floating 200 meter skycrapers.

So, just for the bottom "floor" alone,

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$4300000 = \$15.3 \text{billion}$

at quadrupled costs:

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$17200000 = \$61.3 \text{billion}$

Assuming a uniform wall 60 stories high, then the costs balloon to \$3.678 trillion. Compare this with the 2015 United States Annual Federal budget at \$3.4 trillion dollars. Remember, this is the minimum cost for an arguably tiny shoreline compared to how large Doggerland was.

This estimate doesn't include anything in regards to redundant walls, flood control walls, water pumping energy costs, pump costs, ecological damage, economic damage and so on and so on.

Source Link
Green
Green
  • 52.9k
  • 10
  • 132
  • 260

More money that we have since reclaiming Doggerland would require building a very long continuous wall of skyscrapers. It ain't gonna happen. Ever.

Let's say our ancestors wanted to stop land loss at 200 meters below 2015 water levels. I couldn't find figures for the perimeter of Doggerland so let's set a minimum bound for required perimeter as the coastline of the UK at 17,819.88 kms. The base of the Hoover dam is 200 meters thick. A 200 meter building is 60 stories.

Skyscrapers are incredibly expensive to build, on land, in a city, in an industrialized nation. Estimates of per square foot construction costs in New York city in 2005 were \$400 or \$430,000/m^2. Note that $400/sqft is for costs in a highly industrialized nation with ready access to transit, workers and industry.

Tripling or quadrupling these costs would be easy to justify because we are not only building a giant skyscraper, but we are doing it in the hellish conditions of the North Sea, year round, with complex supply chains and many new facilities to build floating 200 meter skycrapers.

So, just for the bottom "floor" alone,

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$4300000 = \$15.3 \text{billion}$

at quadrupled costs:

$0.2 \text{km} * 17820\text{km} * \$17200000 = \$61.3 \text{billion}$

Assuming a uniform wall 60 stories high, then the costs balloon to \$3.678 trillion. Compare this with the 2015 United States Annual Federal budget at \$3.4 trillion dollars. Remember, this is the minimum cost for an arguably tiny shoreline compared to how large Doggerland was.

This estimate doesn't include anything in regards to redundant walls, flood control walls, water pumping energy costs, pump costs, ecological damage, economic damage and so on and so on.