- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: There is not a shortage of drinkable water in the world
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:47 am to Homesick Tiger
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:47 am to Homesick Tiger
Excellent question. When I lived on Guantanamo Naval Air Station, Cuba. the entire base was ran from a desal plant. I have often wondered why this isn't done on the East and West COAST, CONUS.
1
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:47 am to Homesick Tiger
True or false:
There is exactly the same amount of water on Earth today as there was 1 billion years ago.
(It's true)
The issue is not water. The issue is people moving where water is not available, and likely never has been.
To paraphrase the old Sam Kennison bit: Don't send them desalinization units, send them U-Hauls.
There is exactly the same amount of water on Earth today as there was 1 billion years ago.
(It's true)
The issue is not water. The issue is people moving where water is not available, and likely never has been.
To paraphrase the old Sam Kennison bit: Don't send them desalinization units, send them U-Hauls.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:51 am to el Gaucho
quote:
Why can't the no water people build their own water pipes?
Well that's the $64,000 question here. If they build them will the water show up? Appears not because of the cost to get water to them.
The purpose of my thread is how come some people overlook the cost factor when "switching over" to cleaner alternative energies to save the earth and its inhabitants with cleaner air but then when bringing up the subject of desalting sea water so more people can live on clean water, well, it's too expensive.
I don't understand that mindset.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:52 am to cajunangelle
quote:
I have often wondered why this isn't done on the East and West COAST, CONUS.
It's really expensive if you have any access to fresh water nearby. Process is improving but still really energy intensive vs moving and treating freshwater.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:54 am to Homesick Tiger
You're trying to steal sea water from the hardworking fish and give it to people that don't wanna work it sounds like
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:57 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
It's all right there in the oceans and the seas. So why do we not utilize it more? The salt can be removed.
Because desalinating water is extremely costly. You have to be really desperate or rich to do it. The biggest desalination plants are in Israel and Saudi Arabia. San Diego is making a big plant, but it was started during more desperate times.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 7:58 am to jamboybarry
quote:
And this plan would also slow the rise of the oceans?
No... the amount of water removed from desalination plants would be a tiny tiny tiny drop in the bucket needed to slow the ocean rise.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:06 am to Tyrusrex
quote:
Because desalinating water is extremely costly.
But so is converting from coal to other energy sources in the electrical field but about half the country is okay with those costs and like I've said, it's basically to save dirt and trees and people, the same exact thing that desalting water will do. With more water you grow more crops to feed hungry people.
If desalting water is too costly to actually be used to help feed people, I don't get the cost factor being dismissed just to have cleaner air.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:10 am to Obtuse1
It isn't just the cost to desalinate, you also have to get it to the people. That costs more $
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:10 am to Homesick Tiger
First, I answered the question with the assumption the potential "Water Wars" was the genesis of the question.
As to the broader issue (left as dire as you frame it) I have no idea how you are at a loss. Think of a small community of people living on a space ship with no external resources (which is a very scaled down version of the earth). If you poison that environment enough that it can not continue to support human life then at some point all the humans on board will die and if all the humans are on that space craft then humans cease to exist. This is a much more dire scenario than if you choose not to expend resources to save 5% of the humans on the space craft.
Now again I did not see this as the genesis of the OP, I thought it was based more around why there is a concern about the amount of fresh water available. Currently there is no shortage of potable water in the US, save the cyclical droughts but that ends up being more about watering lawns than people dying from lack of water. The earth wholly includes the US and affects the entire population of the world. Both are problems that need to be addressed but if both are indeed real issues then protecting the ability for the earth to sustain human life is the more important, and being the selfish person I am I want it to be able to sustain life as we know it in the US today.
quote:
I'm just trying to get a fix on why it is important to save the earth no matter the costs but it seems not very important to save actual lives by desalting water because of the expense. We have the technology and more than plenty of resources to make this happen.
As to the broader issue (left as dire as you frame it) I have no idea how you are at a loss. Think of a small community of people living on a space ship with no external resources (which is a very scaled down version of the earth). If you poison that environment enough that it can not continue to support human life then at some point all the humans on board will die and if all the humans are on that space craft then humans cease to exist. This is a much more dire scenario than if you choose not to expend resources to save 5% of the humans on the space craft.
Now again I did not see this as the genesis of the OP, I thought it was based more around why there is a concern about the amount of fresh water available. Currently there is no shortage of potable water in the US, save the cyclical droughts but that ends up being more about watering lawns than people dying from lack of water. The earth wholly includes the US and affects the entire population of the world. Both are problems that need to be addressed but if both are indeed real issues then protecting the ability for the earth to sustain human life is the more important, and being the selfish person I am I want it to be able to sustain life as we know it in the US today.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:24 am to Homesick Tiger
There are actually some cool multi-purpose facility designs to help with this.
We have built a data center before where we exported the heat from the database and used it as the heat source for a desalination plant built right next door. It was all essentially one facility, one owner.
Coal can be used similarly. There is a lot of waste heat from coal that can be used for desalination process heat.
We have built a data center before where we exported the heat from the database and used it as the heat source for a desalination plant built right next door. It was all essentially one facility, one owner.
Coal can be used similarly. There is a lot of waste heat from coal that can be used for desalination process heat.
This post was edited on 10/10/17 at 8:26 am
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:29 am to Homesick Tiger
$ and it creates a lot of waste
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:31 am to Duke
quote:
Any idea how much energy you need to remove said salt?
The sun can help...
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:35 am to Homesick Tiger
Shortage of water for human consumption isn’t as big of a problem as water needed for agriculture to feed people. Desalination is way too expensive to use for irrigation.
Posted on 10/10/17 at 8:43 am to LSU2a
quote:
Desalination is way too expensive to use for irrigation.
At this time. Do you feel the same way about changing our power sources from coal and NG? I mean practically everybody says it will be more expensive for the near future than what we already use at a cheaper rate. Just trying to figure out why one expensive solution is okay and the other isn't when actually the "isn't" one would be more beneficial to all of mankind.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News