
The Rhine waterway risks becoming impassable because of climate change - adventured
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-18/europe-s-most-important-river-is-running-dry
======
jaabe
Last week, or maybe the week before it, I read an article called “the death of
snow” in a Danish newspaper called weekendavisen. It bluntly stated that we
might need to get used to the idea of being the only Scandinavian country
without snow, and how it would change our national identity.

This got me thinking about a story from my childhood. My grandparents told me
that my great grandfather used to work as a sleigh driver during winters at
the end of the nineteenth century. I hadn’t believed them of course, I mean,
how could one occupy such a job, where you would only be needed a couple of
times each year. I had forgotten the story until I read the article about our
dying snow. Now that I was reminded, however, I decided to find out if it was
true. It was, it turns out that we used to get so much snow each winter that
sleigh driver was a legitimate job title. At least until some time during the
past hundred years.

I’m sure we would have replaced sleigh drivers with modern snow machines by
now. Only the truth is that there has only been one or two winters in my life,
where we’ve even had enough snow for a sleigh ride to be possible.

I’m afraid the death of Danish snow, and, the drying out Europe’s most
important river, is only the beginning of our trouble.

~~~
cobookman
We were also in an ice age back then.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age)

~~~
ced
According to that article, the last little ice age dates to 1850, so that's a
bit too far back, no?

------
freshfey
I'm originally from Basel, where the Rhine river is flowing true and very
central to the city's history and appearance. We usually go swimming (it's
more letting yourself float) in the Rhine in summer by starting at one part of
the city and then getting out at the other.

This year it was quite unusual as the current was extremely slow, the water
was very warm and you could see that there is significantly less water flowing
through. We always talk about climate change but feeling it in ways like these
makes it very relatable and real.

~~~
ekianjo
> This year it was quite unusual as the current was extremely slow, the water
> was very warm and you could see that there is significantly less water
> flowing through. We always talk about climate change but feeling it in ways
> like these makes it very relatable and real.

One data point (i.e. a year) should not be taken as a sign of climate change.
There are always outliers from time to time. When drawing such observations it
is more relevant to track exactly the state of the river over extended periods
of time (20, 30 years at least) so that you have a real sense of what is
happening.

~~~
unknownkadath
C'mon guy, I'm sure parent poster is aware of how statistics work and the
difference between weather and climate. As the weirdening of environment
continues, everyone will have a personal story where the consequences of
climate change hit home. This is theirs.

~~~
ekianjo
> I'm sure parent poster is aware of how statistics work

I can't talk about whom I replied to, but you would be surprised how few
people actually get statistics and probabilities right.

~~~
freethemullet
If we knew how probabilities worked, we wouldn't be surprised.

------
danielh
The article starts out in the present tense, which might give a false
impression that this is happening right now. In Cologne, where I live, the
Rhine river actually just recovered from a minor flood as you can see on this
chart:

[https://www.elwis.de/DE/dynamisch/gewaesserkunde/wasserstaen...](https://www.elwis.de/DE/dynamisch/gewaesserkunde/wasserstaende/wasserstaendeUebersichtGrafik.html.php?pegelId=a6ee8177-107b-47dd-
bcfd-30960ccc6e9c)

(Everything above 4.5m is considered a flood)

One side effect of the low water that isn't mentioned in the article is that
it exposed multiple bombs and grenades from the second world war.

------
Jdam
I'm originally from the Rhine river area and I still spend time there. It's
certainly true that the water level was low this summer, but it was an
exceptionally long and hot summer. I found interesting that my grandma labeled
the it "a summer like the summers we were used to long time ago".

There's even a famous german song "Wann wird's mal wieder richtig Sommer?"
(When will we have a real summer again?).

Btw since it was basically constantly raining from Oct-Dec, the river
replenished really quickly.

~~~
freddie_mercury
> I found interesting that my grandma labeled the it "a summer like the
> summers we were used to long time ago".

Old people often make fact-free claims about how things used to be.

We don't need to rely on faulty human memories. There are actual records of
water levels, rainfall, and temperature for all of the 20th century.

It is simply not true that the past summer was something that occurred
frequently in the past.

~~~
Udik
> Old people often make fact-free claims about how things used to be.

It's fun, because if there is something that is really a cliché is people
complaining that the weather is not what it used to be. This has been going on
for far longer than there has been any talk of climate change. So every time I
hear someone saying that you can see climate change is happening because the
weather is not what it used to be, I take it with a double pinch of salt.

Alternatively, the existence of the cliche might suggest that (some) climate
change is always happening, just on a timescale that makes old people
complain, and everybody else just be incredulous.

------
ch0wn
I'm not sure if "ironic" is the right word here, but that as a direct effect
of climate change, coal power plants had to shut down and cars couldn't be
manufactured is certainly an interesting twist.

~~~
mirimir
Yes, feedback.

But also, shipping by barge uses lots less energy than shipping by rail, and
far less than shipping by truck. So overall, it's probably positive feedback.

------
Roritharr
I grew up in the town below the mentioned Lorelei Rock, St. Goarshausen.

When I was born in 1988 it was the year of was the biggest flood in multiple
decades. When I went to elementary school I remembered having to leave our
house on planks a few years because of the flooding. It happened just once
again in middle school. We moved to Frankfurt in 2003, since then my friends
that kept living in the area report that the floods left with me moving away
and are sometimes joking if we'd left some faucet running back then.

I guess it's just an example of climate change that I could find in my picture
albums without realizing. I wonder what else is lurking in those pictures.

~~~
consp
As far as I know, Germany did the same as the Netherlands after the 1993/5
flooding. They increased the leeway the water can have and increased emergency
pumps. That might be a better explanation than climate change. But they do not
rule each other out.

------
Reason077
"Critical to moving coal"? Perhaps moving less coal would be a good thing.

~~~
jeroenhd
With the shutdown of nuclear reactors, Germany is starting to rely more and
more on coal plants to provide a stable source of power that isn't dependent
on weather patterns (sun for solar panels, rainfall for hydro electric).

~~~
lucb1e
In Germany, someone invited me to lunch in a place that, upon walking in, had
one of those stickers "close $some_reactor" with a nuclear danger logo on it.
I almost told them I didn't want to eat there.

I'm not sure what to do about it. Should I summarize the reasons they are
stupid and put those flyers in their mailboxes, or would that only get their
backs up? Of course I'd not call it stupid in such a flyer but more in the
style of Without Hot Air: 'our energy demands are X because this and that;
solar is Y Watts per m² so we need Y/X/$size of them, which would be
equivalent to $some_state; of wind turbines we would need ... etc. Meanwhile,
$this is what is happening to our climate, which by $year will be $that. With
nuclear, we could reduce our output to $amount CO2 while producing X amount of
nuclear waste. The waste can be stored $there and this buys us a few hundred
years to figure things out for the long term. We _need_ nuclear as a stop-gap.
Don't support short-term popular voices that will kill us in the long term."

Does anyone have experience reasoning with anti-nuclears?

~~~
aurelwu
There are just way more economic solutions than new nuclear power stations
(and the old ones really start to have a lot of issues and have a lot of
downtime). Look at Wylfa Newydd, Hinkley Point C, Flamanville 3, Olkiluoto 3
and then you will see that without even starting to include the massive costs
of decomissioning and storage there are just way more economic solutions to
reduce co2 emissions. When it comes to demolition take a look at Greifswald
Nuclear Power Plant [0], which was decommissioned in 1990 and they are not
even close to being finished with demolition - after 30 Years, and apparently
there are 1000 Workers employed on or at the site.

[0][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greifswald_Nuclear_Power_Plant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greifswald_Nuclear_Power_Plant)

~~~
lucb1e
Is there a study or some other resource of someone who looked at all these
cases and calculated a cost, then compared them to these "other, more
economical solutions to reduce CO2"? And are those "show hn" style prototypes,
or is there anything that actually makes a difference that shows up on
national statistics (of a country of your choice)? You make it sound as if
there is no reason to go for nuclear at all, while that's not what I hear from
others.

Edit: by the way, I did not downvote you (one cannot downvote direct replies)
and don't know why you are. Maybe it's because you never mentioned what those
economical options are, so your post does not really add much to the subthread
without further information?

~~~
aurelwu
it's not the newest one (but prices for renewables have improved since and
Hinkley Point C got more expensive) but here is one study which partially
looks at it:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20160602073630/https://www.agora...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160602073630/https://www.agora-
energiewende.de/fileadmin/Projekte/2014/low-carbon-
technologies/Agora_Analysis_Decarbonisationtechnologies_web_final.pdf)

I'm from germany so most studies I know are in german so sorry for being a bit
sparse on english sources and I guess german is of no use to you, If I find
the time I'll try to find some more.

------
tomrijntjes
If more ice melts in the Alps, how does that lead to lower water levels in the
Rhine? One would expect the reverse effect.

~~~
config_yml
The ice doesnt replenish in the colder periods. Side streams go dry,
transporting less water to the main stream.

------
yters
It's interesting how dissent in these climate change threads is downvoted to
death. I wonder what sort of effect this has on the undecided?

~~~
calcifer
Let me rephrase your question, which should make the answer clear:

> It's interesting how dissent in these round earth threads is downvoted to
> death. I wonder what sort of effect this has on the undecided?

~~~
ggm
Reasoning about the role of downvote, I would expect that it reduces the
impact of this view on un-decided readers.

~~~
calcifer
My point is being "undecided" on climate change is no more reasonable than
being undecided on a round earth or a heliocentric solar system.

~~~
ggm
Agree.. I actually meant to reply to parent!

------
patrickg_zill
So there's been no diversion or modification of water upstream during the last
century?

A search for say, "Rhine river water diverted" returns interesting stuff to
read...

~~~
ggm
Actually no, didn't return much interesting stuff at all. The bottom of the
first page had a britannica article from the 1980s mentioning a long standing
canal diversion France did in the 20th century, which I sense had low to no
impact on the long-term climate sustained decline in water levels in the
river.

The top hit on "Rhine river water diverted" is a story about the impact of
decline being so strong, traffic is being diverted to road and rail.

------
ThomPete
Anytime an article about "climate change" use words like "could" "might"
"potentially" and this one "risks" we are in speculation, not demonstration
land.

If the science was demonstrated there would be no need to use these
qualifiers. As always read these things with a grain of salt.

Yes, there will be consequences from climate change but it's not something we
can't deal with and some of them are at least partially good such as added
vegetation.

~~~
EForEndeavour
> Anytime an article about "climate change" uses words like "could" "might"
> "potentially" and this one "risks" we are in speculation, not demonstration
> land.

Do you not read a lot of scientific journals? Also, the article uses none of
the qualifier words you listed except "risk" in an appropriate manner, in the
subtitle. The title is "Europe’s Most Important River Is Running Dry." Is that
_demonstrative_ enough for you?

~~~
ThomPete
The header is not important as that's used to draw you in and will be the most
sensationalist.

What you want to look for is in the actual article and there "risks" is used
which is the only important word you need to look for.

