Global Fresh Water Demand Will Outstrip Supply By 40% by 2030, Say Experts (theguardian.com) 136
The world is facing an imminent water crisis, with demand expected to outstrip the supply of fresh water by 40% by the end of this decade, experts have said on the eve of a crucial UN water summit. From a report: Governments must urgently stop subsidising the extraction and overuse of water through misdirected agricultural subsidies, and industries from mining to manufacturing must be made to overhaul their wasteful practices, according to a landmark report on the economics of water. Nations must start to manage water as a global common good, because most countries are highly dependent on their neighbours for water supplies, and overuse, pollution and the climate crisis threaten water supplies globally, the report's authors say.
Johan Rockstrom, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water, and a lead author of the report, told the Guardian the world's neglect of water resources was leading to disaster. "The scientific evidence is that we have a water crisis. We are misusing water, polluting water, and changing the whole global hydrological cycle, through what we are doing to the climate. It's a triple crisis." Rockstrom's fellow Global Commission on the Economics of Water co-chair Mariana Mazzucato, a professor at University College London and also a lead author of the report, added: "We need a much more proactive, and ambitious, common good approach. We have to put justice and equity at the centre of this, it's not just a technological or finance problem."
Johan Rockstrom, the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and co-chair of the Global Commission on the Economics of Water, and a lead author of the report, told the Guardian the world's neglect of water resources was leading to disaster. "The scientific evidence is that we have a water crisis. We are misusing water, polluting water, and changing the whole global hydrological cycle, through what we are doing to the climate. It's a triple crisis." Rockstrom's fellow Global Commission on the Economics of Water co-chair Mariana Mazzucato, a professor at University College London and also a lead author of the report, added: "We need a much more proactive, and ambitious, common good approach. We have to put justice and equity at the centre of this, it's not just a technological or finance problem."
Quit flushing it (Score:2)
Probably should store it instead of flushing it out into the sea, then, huh?
This needs a game... (Score:2)
Wonder if our kids can/will make something like this? Where it's obvious what happens when one person does something. They could even set it up so one of the players is prodded (told to or rewarded) to hurt the shared resource without asking. Then everyone else needs to figure out it's happening and stop it.
Guess there could be random turns where "opportunities" appear. Like "You found a really shiny rock! Wonder if there are more under that forest or in the mountain?"
Re: (Score:3)
There are elements of this in Civ VI, which has global warming. Shoreline hexes have one of five elevations, three of which flood when warming is extended and sea level rises. But it's still basically a board game at heart, and water supplies are not modeled at all. Rivers have (psuedo?)random floods, and if you've built a dam then the floods only have positive effects and the negative ones are suppressed, but that's it.
I keep hoping someone will make a maximally scientifically based geopolitical simulator,
Well, one of the "limiters" kicking in (Score:2)
Pretty bad for everybody affected, but not a surprise at all. Will get worse though. Outstrip sustainability limits by growing too much and get hit with effects like this one.
French Frie Processing Super Water Intensive (Score:5, Informative)
I did work on a project ages ago (like 30 years) where we were looking to see if membrane separation could be used to clean and reuse water that went through the blanchers used as a main step in processing potatoes for the frozen french fry market. The place went through one million pounds of potatoes per day and 2 million gallons of water per day. The blanchers were the biggest use. It is actually more difficult than you would think because potato starch is a massive molecule and there is a lot of protein from the potatoes in the water as well. They clog the membranes quickly. You have to pretreat the hot waste water before you can remotely get it to work. It can be done but not sure how economically it is; that was for someone else to calculate, I just built and ran the pilot unit.
In case you're wondering, blanching is done so that anyone can cook them according to the instructions and they will always have the same crispy golden brown-ness when done. It is the starch that turns them brown and different potato batches have different starch content. They blanch then in a massive stainless steel tank that is around 7 metres wide by maybe 2 metres deep and 20 metres long. They are fed through on catepillar type of stainless steel feed chain that had a bed as wide as the tank, that (I'm not sure what it looked inside because the tank was covered) moved the cut fries from one end to the other. At the other end there were sprayers that coated them with a dextrose and antibacterial preservative (I think at the time sodium metabisulphite). They would take samples frequently from just before the sprayers, to a shake within the facility for colour testing. They would cook the fries to completeness (remember before the dextrose was applied), and then measure the colour of the properly cooked crispy fries. They would be pretty white as there was no excess starch by then.They had a chart that would tell them based on the tested colour, how much added dextrose they needed to add t get them to the proper brownness. They would do a similar test from after the sprayers to ensure the flow was good. Then they would par fry them so you didn't have to cook them too long when delivered to the restaurant or taken home. Then they would bag them and send them through a blast freezing process and into a freezer for distribution. FWIW, the parts of the potatoes that were too short to make into fries, would be diverted and ground up to make either MacDonald's type hashbrowns, potato puffs, or instant mash potatoes. I watched it all around me and so if anyone has any weird stories about what those things are made of, they are completely full of shit. They are made out of potatoes straight up. If I came in late from drinking the night before :) I did what the plant workers sometimes did, take the par fried hashbrowns and run a few through the parfrier a few times and have a hashbrown breakfast.
Re: (Score:2)
There are many of these plants all over North America.
Re: (Score:3)
How about that. Here I thought you'd end up with fried potatoes...
It is absolutely a (Score:5, Interesting)
There are places where people are living on a dollar a day. The rich world simply isn’t going to ship over several desalination plants and the nuclear plant required to run them. Fair? Yes. Equitable? Yes. Viable? Sorry, no. The rich countries are barely even willing to donate a few snickers bars.
If the activists are running the show and refuse to be realistic, it will lead to no action at all. This would actually suit the rich world fine. They’ll manage on their own.
Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Experts, huh? (Score:2)
Agricultural subsidies? (Score:5, Informative)
You mean like Saudi Arabia gets to pump [npr.org] unlimited amounts of water out of the ground in Arizona so it can grow alfalfa which is then shipped overseas to Saudi Arabia because, wait for it, Saudi Arabia drained its own aquifers growing alfalfa for its cows? Or did they mean the United Arab Emirates doing the same thing [cnn.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Or did they mean the United Arab Emirates doing the same thing?
UAE is building nuclear power plants so they don't have to drill for ground water or burn fossil fuels to get fresh water for irrigation and drinking. They can desalinate water from the sea. They have four reactors now, three of which are producing power and the other will be soon.
This will of course bring out the people that are opposed to nuclear power. What do you want? You want people to die of hunger and thirst? It appears that is the case, and some people are quite open about how we need to thin
Re: (Score:2)
What do you want? You want people to die of hunger and thirst? It appears that is the case, and some people are quite open about how we need to thin the human population
Some of them don't have a problem with this. There is at least one of the most vehement anti nuclear poser is more than happy to let people die of hunger as long as it means a nuclear free future.
Re: (Score:2)
These people will have to learn that there will not be a nuclear free future so long as nuclear power provides an advantage in economics and in the military. That military advantage I refer to is not in making bombs but in making submarines. This advantage also exists in surface ships also but hasn't got the same length of history behind it yet to make it difficult to go back like with submarines.
The advantages of nuclear power in naval vessels can be directly translated to life on land. We could have pe
High Volume Continuous Thermal Solar Desalination (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The whole idea that you need nuclear for desal is dumb AF for sure, because the places where you need the water you have the sun. You don't need large fields of solar mirrors to operate solar thermal heat pipes, either.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes. Salt. The bane of literally every turbine system since the concept of steam injection was created.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: High Volume Continuous Thermal Solar Desalinat (Score:2)
Like animals (Score:2)
Why would you drink water like animals?
There is plenty of water (Score:2)
No shortage of water in the sea (Score:2)
agriculture bad (Score:2)
Agriculture bad. Stop eating to save the planet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To claim world power is to claim world blame.
Yes, but this does not mean that someone else gets to be judge, jury, and executioner. If there is blame to be had, it ought to be established in international courts according to international law. If there is a case for remedies, then it has to be for specific purpose with measurable outcome and defined timelines.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there is blame to be had, it ought to be established in international courts according to international law.
Courts, mind you, which the US only acknowledges if it's in its favor.
I mean, see the news today. Biden is happy that an international court goes after putin while acknowledging the us does not acknowledge this court. It is the same court that wanted to go after walker bush but couldn't because the us wasn't having it.
The us is a two-faced piece of shit.
Re: So, let me guess.... (Score:2)
The only good thing about this is that hundreds of millions if not a billion or two people will die and in the carnage and chaos, the wealthy elite who inflicted this end upon our society will be raped, murdered and fed to animals⦠and after all that is left is a smolder
Re: (Score:3)
To claim world power is to claim world blame.
China and Europe have Entered the Chat.
Russia for some reason got NO CARRIER.
See, all of the above fancy themselves World Powers. Whether they actually are or not isn't at argument here, that they consider themselves such is what is relevant. It's been a US / China / Russia / Europe / UK shitshow since the end of WWII, each claiming to be be a Superpower.
So.. using your logic.. it follows there's plenty of blame to pass around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: So, let me guess.... (Score:2)
Putting effort towards something other than blame, implies that the people pointing the fingers have either the work ethic or the intelligence to do so, which they do not have
Re: (Score:2)
Russia for some reason got NO CARRIER.
So did that wreck finally sink?
Russian navy, comprised mostly of submarines...
Re: (Score:2)
I meant it in the classic trope of losing one's carrier when the phone line gets hijacked by someone else in the house, but yours is even better.
It so happens they really have NO CARRIER, but that wreck is in refit right now, so unable to partake in any festivities.
Bad time to be in refit, in a war, with an unstable leader.
Re:So, let me guess.... (Score:5, Funny)
I know. I'm old enough to understand the joke of "what does an F-18 pilot and an internet addict have in common? They both break out in cold sweat when the display says NO CARRIER".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The US never claimed world power. If you look at history, the US has mostly tried to avoid getting involved in the world. Unfortunately, the US has the best land and a culture that values people and individual achievement and capitalism, and as a result built the biggest logistical and finance system on the planet, then funded a bunch of people trying to stop some bad guys, and ended up accidentally being the only world power left standing. The US kind of fell into it's empire by accid
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, let me guess.... (Score:4, Informative)
China object to is that they want to invade other nations and steal their resources while ignoring international law, while we say that we will not allow it.
Iran wants to force their form of law on the entire rest of the middle east, while destroying Israel and America. We will not allow that
Putin wants to re-build USSR by taking over nations by force. Sadly, we HAVE allowed them to do so in a salami fashion, but that stops now.
ISIS and AQ wants to force a modified sharia law on the world. Again, not allowing it.
So what you want to claim as blame is our standing up for ppl and their rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
No, it's just another case of "experts" missing yet another deadline on the predicted end of the world. And instead of going "hmm, maybe we're wrong in assuming that end is nigh" we get the usual "oh the end of the world is still coming, we just got a date wrong again. But it's ok, here's a new date!"
Warning about "drinking water running out in about ten years in much of the world if we don't do something really drastic now" is something I remember coming in 1990s. That's not because this was a first time i
Re: So, let me guess.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly better than reacting to every issue by jumping off the cliff.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really now? What's the current narrative about planet's population and necessary actions to "save the planet from the doomsday that is coming in 5/12/10/20/soon TM years"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Really now? What's the current narrative about planet's population and necessary actions to "save the planet from the doomsday that is coming in 5/12/10/20/soon TM years"?
Re: (Score:2)
Only for low end teenagers. Everyone else with functional memory is old enough to know exactly what I'm talking about.
Re: Citations needed . (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I? Or are you just in the doomsday cult and believe in the new date?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is what we call religious movements that claim that doomsday is upon us and claim to have the time for it. Have called for a long time in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why would I assume it's a tractor?
As for "warnings based on science", that's a really underhanded way to say "warnings based on DATA science".
Which has nothing to do with scientific process. Scientific process is about generating and hypothesis, testing said hypothesis against reality and either generating a valid theory if hypothesis is found to be correct in tests, or disproving the hypothesis in tests.
Data science does no such thing. It i
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that is why as 2020 approached, IPCC had a hell of an internal screaming match between people who were there for the third time modelling a decade ahead and once against seeing that their modeled output numbers are completely out of whack with observable reality.
Citation required for such extraordinary claims, please.
Re: (Score:2)
IPCC mail leaks were fan fiction, and so were their latest releases where much of catastrophism was rolled back.
I must be God in your eyes. Thank you for the amazing vote of confidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read recent releases from IPCC?
If yes, have you noticed a significant difference in tone, where catastrophic outcomes in a decade are far less pronounced and frequent in many of them, a very obvious contrast from a decade and especially two decades ago? Have you noticed that those that stick to catastrophism have now actually started to put the small print of "low likelihood of outcome" on the tin rather than on page 255 bottom in tiniest font?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you think that IPCC email releases and recent releases having tamped down on catastrophism massively are just insufficient evidence. Which means no evidence is sufficient for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Fun part: I learned these facts from a lecture by one of the head data scientists who do work for IPCC.
But he knows nothing. This is what I meant in my previous post by "no evidence religion not being correct is sufficient to a religious cultist convinced that his dogma is real". You're a religious person protecting his faith. You don't even know how data science works. You don't need to. You have faith in Science. Capital letter first. The faith.
Scientific process is irrelevant to that faith, as is data sc
Re: (Score:2)
Fun part: I learned these facts from a lecture by one of the head data scientists who do work for IPCC.
A lecture. Wow. I am still not seeing a citation here.
You don't even know how data science works.
You are totally off the mark, there.
You have faith in Science.
I have worked as a scientist. I know it has value.
You're a religious person protecting his faith.
No, I am really not. That's your personal strawman.
data science. They are after all small letter science, and have nothing to do with Science,
Again, a substance-free assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change widespread, rapid, and intensifying
That's at https://www.ipcc.ch/2021/08/09... [www.ipcc.ch] and doesn't sound like the IPCC is rowing back on anything, if that is what you are suggesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Observed increases in well-mixed greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities
In 2019, atmospheric CO2 concentrations were higher than at any time in at least 2m years (high confidence), and concentrations of CH4 and N2O were higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years (very high confidence).
Each of the last four decades has been successively warmer than any decade that preceded it since 1850.
It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.
etc...
Re: (Score:2)
God complex is a terrible thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, they'll show pictures of US and EU for PR reasons ... but the west can bear the pain and adjust.
Egypt and Ethiopia though are going to war thought if the west doesn't help build a ton of desalination plants in Egypt. It's in the EU's best interest, a huge flood of refugees is not in their interest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that Ethiopia has a massive new reservoir behind the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam and they don't want to wait 50 years to fill it.
The EU will have to be peacemakers, because Egypt is an overpopulated powderkeg. The best hope is huge PV and Hydrogen projects bringing them both wealth and cheap enough energy to make desalination a way out of their water problems, I don't have much hope though.
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, Israel is pushing Solar and RO, which means a LOT of money and energy.
The cheapest and best way is by building new nuclear power plants by coastal areas and simply using the cooling system to flash distill the water.
With this approach, they get cheap energy, combined with clean fresh water for free.
Re: (Score:2)
Regardless how fast a capable nuclear industry can theoretically build nuclear power plants, we don't have such an industry any more. China and Russia can do better, but that's a problematic solution.
I don't think PV+RO is a good idea, but multi effect vacuum desalination only needs low grade heat. Filling the Qattara depression with a solar collector solution can collect heat cheaply enough, don't need advanced collectors there for low grade heat, plastic collectors work just fine. How cheap can the vessel
Re:So, let me guess.... (Score:5, Insightful)
A world freshwater crisis is kind of an oxymoron. Freshwater is a fairly local thing. Water in the Great Lakes doesn't really help California. Lake Baikal water isn't going to provide irrigation for the Serengeti. Even international water problems like Ethiopia's Nile dam are confined only to a limited geographical area.
Re: (Score:2)
A world freshwater crisis is kind of an oxymoron.
It kind of is in that each region has its own problem. It mostly isn't, in that almost every region is having the same problem, and mostly for the same reasons: overuse and mismanagement of both water, and the lands the water comes from. And yeah, climate change, although frankly even without that we'd be having big problems.
Re: So, let me guess.... (Score:3)
You do realize that in most of the world, rivers go through multiple countries between their source and the ocean?
Consider for example Turkey, building dams on the Euphrates to generate more power. What do you think is going to be the impact for Iraq downstream?
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't have to be anything if they would work together on these projects. The key to this is to start the first dam down river. You let that reservoir fill up, then you begin construction of the next dam up river. The people stream can use the water stored in the first reservoir while water up river is diverted for the second reservoir. Rinse and repeat.
There is no magic to it, just better planning.
Re: So, let me guess.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the dam in Turkey is to produce power then the average flow down the river will be unchanged. The flow rate will vary with electricity demand, with perhaps some flow bypassing the generators because the reservoir is filling faster than the dam could manage otherwise. Either way Iraq will see that water, again assuming the water is only for electricity and not diverted for some other use where it evaporates away or finds some other path to the sea.
Turkey could threaten to deny water flowing into Iraq with the dam, I guess, but that means denying themselves the electricity and the threat will eventually prove fruitless since the dam can only hold back the river for some limited time. If this flow through the dam proves problematic for being too much or too little at times then Iraq can build a dam of their own to manage the flow.
We see a problem with water flows on the shared border between the USA and Mexico. I recall claims that the Rio Grande no longer reaches the coast. The river delta is now just a beach from so much water taken from the river for irrigation and drinking. Mexico may have a problem with the current situation, and maybe there's not much they can do about it. If this is a global issue of a fresh water shortage then Mexico will have to deal with this as much as anyone, and that includes people in the USA along the Rio Grande. If the river doesn't reach the sea in Mexico then it doesn't in the USA either.
Re:So, let me guess.... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly right. The problem with freshwater availability is a two-fold problem.
First, there is a local water problem. Some places have too much (e.g., flooding) and some have too little (e.g., drought). Local dams and canals help with time and location shifting to some extent, but long-distance water transport is logistically challenging.
Second, there is an allocation problem. If subsistence for humans were the issue and all available freshwater were allocation to humans first, then many places would have no freshwater problem. For example, in California, human households only use 5% of all freshwater, and half of that is used for outdoor lawn irrigation. So, human households only use 2.5% of all freshwater in California. The two issues in California are (1) environmental releases into rivers to prevent encroachment of salty ocean water and to preserve wildlife like salmon and (2) for farming. Both are sensitive political issues. Farming is particularly sensitive. Tree nuts and alfalfa consume a third of all water for farming, but the majority of tree nuts are exported outside of the US (i.e., used solely to generate profits), and alfalfa is used for things such as exporting to Saudi Arabia to support their cattle because Saudi Arabia decided they couldn't spare their freshwater for such things. So, much of such types of farming are clearly not necessary for feeding US citizens but profits still represent livelihoods, so this issue generates a huge amount of political heat.
Re:So, let me guess.... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, they're talking about making it illegal for SA to buy up land in NM and grow alfalfa on it with free water. Talk about duh. There is growing interest in similar limitations in other states as well [hcn.org].
Re:So, let me guess.... (Score:5, Interesting)
So, let me guess...this is another case of the UN saying "US doing xyz is bad...must stop harming rest of world."
Right?
Wrong. What the US does with water has relatively little direct effect on other nations, because there's an ocean downwind of us. There is some effect on Mexico, and even a bit on Canada, but the prevailing weather patterns mostly come here from there.
What the whole world is doing with water is harming the whole world, and what the US is doing with water is harming the US. For example, the Colorado river no longer reaches the ocean, when it used to have a natural average discharge rate of about 22,500 cubic feet per second. If all the states in the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) took all the water they want, there would already be none left for the lower basin states (Arizona, California, and Nevada.) And what's more, it is absolutely critical to the economy and the food supply of the USA that most of that water reach California, because about 40% of the food we eat in this country is produced here. The almonds can and should go without making much difference in the volume of food available, and it's not even profitable for the state, so there are cutbacks which could be made safely. But reservoirs associated with the Colorado are also empty, and there's no likelihood that they will be refilled, so the situation is dire and getting worse.
Global deforestation is a major problem for water availability. Watersheds depend on trees for both rainfall and rain absorption. This is literally a problem almost everywhere. It's been said that Europe would be mostly desert now due to deforestation if not for the plague. Our water use is excessive, our water supply has been reduced through human activity (after increasing in the 14th century as we entered a little ice age) and we're doing very little to address the situation.
This specific problem is a root of the problem for many nations, which do affect their neighbors' rainfall by altering their surface hydrology, and vice versa. As TFA states, "Most countries depend for about half of their water supply on the evaporation of water from neighbouring countries". If the water isn't retained in the land, and instead runs straight into the ocean, then this doesn't happen. In the process, it tends to carry away a lot of soil, which silts the waterways the water flows through. This causes bacterial outbreaks for water consumers, especially in poorer nations where facilities are scant.
TL;DR: This is a real problem for us, caused by us, right now. It's already affecting availability of food (for example most of the avocado trees were removed from California, because they were mostly at the southern end of the state where water problems are most serious) and therefore the prices as well. It's not necessary to invoke international effects to have something to care about, although they do exist.
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to dismiss this as the usual Chicken Little stuff that comes out of the UN, but then you said this:
(for example most of the avocado trees were removed from California, because they were mostly at the southern end of the state where water problems are most serious)
Nooooo, not the guacamole! Okay, now I'm convinced it's a crisis. Nobody fucks with my Taco Tuesday.
Re: (Score:2)
If all the states in the Upper Basin (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming) took all the water they want, there would already be none left for the lower basin states (Arizona, California, and Nevada.) And what's more, it is absolutely critical to the economy and the food supply of the USA that most of that water reach California, because about 40% of the food we eat in this country is produced here.
It is amazing how much BS ppl believe or post.
First off, the Colorado River compact was done so that we built multiple reservoirs/dams with generators. The compact says that CA was entitled to the most with 29.5%. Colorado was second most with some 24%. Then the rest come along. The problem is that Utah and Colorado, which provide the water have not taken but a SMALL AMOUNT of what they are entitled to. Wyoming and NM are small providers/takers and have done their part. AZ and NV have also taken what they
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you stupid illiterate fuck, I said the food we eat in the country, not the food produced in the country.
Please fuck off immediately and permanently
Not US, Middle East (Score:2)
So, let me guess...this is another case of the UN saying "US doing xyz is bad...must stop harming rest of world." Right?
Hardly. If you look at the map the US is not doing great but it seems to come in at using 25-50% of its natural supply which is the same as Germany, Poland, Spain and Italy. The problem areas are north Africa and the Middle East. Although I expect that for a large country like the US some areas - like the South West - are a lot worse off than other regions but that's your internal affair to sort out and overall you are not doing too badly.
So don't worry, now you get the opportunity to join the rest of t
Re: So, let me guess.... (Score:2)
Re: So, let me guess.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fly over Arizona. Are they paying market vale for the water for the crops? Is there any way that all but the wealthy have a private pool?
This sounds elitist but in the US we are. Poor people drive a crappy Kia, if they have a car.
Re: (Score:2)
--
We will soon have the option to harvest our farts, so we can post & comment on stats about them.
Re: (Score:3)
"not expensive if you build a lot of them" OMG... Do you think you get a volume discount or something? This isn't CostCo.
Ignoring your laughably absurd "regulation" nonsense for a moment, building even a single nuclear plant is *a lot* more expensive than just using less water.
It's not a waste if you are getting virtually unlimited water from the ocean for almost free.
Idiotic "reasoning" like that is how we got ourselves into this mess in the first place. So, so, stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Using less water is not free. If people are going to flush their toilets with "grey water" to save on water usage then that means installing new plumbing. We could do like naval ships do and use seawater for firefighting and toilet flushing, but that also requires new plumbing. We might want to do both, water saving measures and desalination, because doing only one might not get the most benefit for the least cost.
I recall seeing some kind of documentary on the water problems in Chicago. An issue was th
Re: (Score:2)
Deep Tunnel
Offshore Cribs
Re: (Score:2)
We could try, say, not having green lawns and golf courses in the middle of the desert. That saves both water and money.
The solution to using too much is to use less. Especially when there is so much phenomenal waste.
The idea that you just need to build a few nuclear powered desalination plants and you won't have to change anything about your lifestyle is as laughable as the idea that such a project is inexpensive.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that you just need to build a few nuclear powered desalination plants and you won't have to change anything about your lifestyle is as laughable as the idea that such a project is inexpensive.
It is laughable that we would not have to change anything about our lifestyle, that is why I didn't suggest that. Did you even read what I wrote?
Re: (Score:2)
Using less water is not free. If people are going to flush their toilets with "grey water" to save on water usage then that means installing new plumbing.
It largely means installing toilet-top sinks which can be teed off of existing water lines very cheaply as you would a bidet, and without installing any new supply lines.
The problem I see is that building a nuclear power plant takes so long that no politician bothers with them.
Politicians don't build nuclear plants.
I wonder if floating nuclear power plants will change things.
Sure, we'd have more nuclear accidents.
a floating nuclear power plant doesn't take 10 years to put in place.
[citation needed]
Floating nuclear power plants solves a number of regulatory issues too.
Floating nuclear power plants create a number of regulatory issues too.
Re: Nuclear + Desalination (Score:2)
Re: The Guardian SUCKs at all predictions. (Score:3)
Uh. They're just printing the words from UN experts here.
But of course, it's easier to shout "crap media" than to face actual facts.
Re: (Score:2)
experts. Have you ever noticed that in a court trial the prosecution's experts say X, and the defense's experts say notX?
Re: (Score:2)
Even a broken clock tells the right time twice a day.