Drought Question

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
J

JPS35

Senior member
Apr 9, 2006
890
83
91
In all seriousness, given California's mandate to reduce its water usage by 25%, as well as drought conditions around the world, why would we not just "mine" glaciers for their fresh water?

It seems to me that if they are melting already (whether you believe in man made global warming or not), sea levels are rising and threatening habitable land, the risk of ocean desalination, and whatever else you can think of, why not put the water to good use?

Could we not float icebergs to where they need to go, transport melted water like oil, build a "pipeline", or something else to use the resource?
 
Ns1

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
JPS35 said:
In all seriousness, given California's mandate to reduce its water usage by 25%, as well as drought conditions around the world, why would we not just "mine" glaciers for their fresh water?

It seems to me that if they are melting already (whether you believe in man made global warming or not), sea levels are rising and threatening habitable land, the risk of ocean desalination, and whatever else you can think of, why not put the water to good use?

Could we not float icebergs to where they need to go, transport melted water like oil, build a "pipeline", or something else to use the resource?
Click to expand...

sounds prohibitively expensive.
 
gorcorps

gorcorps

aka Brandon
Jul 18, 2004
30,741
456
126
You'd consume more than you get back

It'd be better to just eliminate 25% of California
 
DrPizza

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Many many years ago, I read about towing icebergs to areas that needed the water. I'm not sure how feasible it is, or how cost effective it is. Seems that you might be able to "carve" them into relatively reasonable shapes for pushing (use of explosives).
 
vi edit

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
Simply not using is *MUCH* more cost and resource effective than trying to come up with different ways to get more. Look at Phoenix and Las Vegas. How much water is wasted watering yards, golf courses, commercial landscaping, car washes, ect there? Something like half of all water used in Phoenix is used to water yards. That's ridiculous. YOU ARE IN THE FREAKING DESERT. Plant a cactus, buy some rocks. Enjoy. Southern Cali isn't that much different. Green grass isn't natural to the area and trying to keep it that way is an enormous burden on the water system.

It's not much different than gasoline. For most people simply driving less is much better for gas savings than a hybrid would ever be.
 
Red Squirrel

Red Squirrel

No Lifer
May 24, 2003
70,592
13,807
126
www.anyf.ca
Why not just get water from the nearest river and build a pipe line to fill up the water towrs? Most of the water from a river ends up in the sea at some point anyway. I guess it would be too expensive and water is not worth it, compared to oil.
 
Ns1

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
Red Squirrel said:
Why not just get water from the nearest river and build a pipe line to fill up the water towrs? Most of the water from a river ends up in the sea at some point anyway.
Click to expand...

uhh...

cali-aqueduct2.jpg


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Aqueduct

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_River_Aqueduct
 
feralkid

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,864
4,977
136
Red Squirrel said:
Why not just get water from the nearest river and build a pipe line to fill up the water towrs? Most of the water from a river ends up in the sea at some point anyway. I guess it would be too expensive and water is not worth it, compared to oil.
Click to expand...

You went outside and smoked during your geography lessons, didn't you?
 
vi edit

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
How many useable gallons of water are there in in a large iceberg any way? It just seems like there would be a lot of air and it would melt down to be something not nearly as useful as the energy and cost of lugging it to where you want it.
 
sportage

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
Republicans would build a pipe line to transport oil, but never agree to transport water.
Besides, admitting a water emergency is next to admitting global warming.
Both a big no no for the righties.
As one said, CA has no water problem. It's all a liberal Obama sourced hoax.
Just turn on the tap. Water still comes out. So whats the big deal?
 
Ns1

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
Red Squirrel said:
Wow so how is that not enough? If that's flowing at a constant rate that is a LOT of water. Way more water than an ice berg, which would take lot of resources to get and would be a fixed amount per trip and not a continuous stream.
Click to expand...

water-fig1-lrg.jpg



and in SoCal...

water-grey-fig2.jpg


also:

The United States Census Bureau estimates that the population of California was 38,802,500 on July 1, 2014
Click to expand...

which is evidently more than the entire country of Canada

Being a new world country, Canada has been predisposed to be a very open society with regards to immigration, which has been the most important factor in its historical population growth. Canadians make up about 0.5% of the world's total population. An estimate in 2014 had the population at 35,344,962.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
mmntech

mmntech

Lifer
Sep 20, 2007
17,501
12
0
vi edit said:
Simply not using is *MUCH* more cost and resource effective than trying to come up with different ways to get more. Look at Phoenix and Las Vegas. How much water is wasted watering yards, golf courses, commercial landscaping, car washes, ect there? Something like half of all water used in Phoenix is used to water yards. That's ridiculous. YOU ARE IN THE FREAKING DESERT. Plant a cactus, buy some rocks. Enjoy. Southern Cali isn't that much different. Green grass isn't natural to the area and trying to keep it that way is an enormous burden on the water system.

It's not much different than gasoline. For most people simply driving less is much better for gas savings than a hybrid would ever be.
Click to expand...

Lawns are great if say you live in England or Ireland, where emerald green turf grows naturally. Not so much in the Mojave.

They require an obscene amount of water for what you get out of them. Even here in the Great Lakes, we don't get enough rain to keep them green all season long. I don't even bother to water mine anymore. If it goes brown, it goes brown. Don't think I haven't considered just ripping it up. A couple of my neighbours have. Turned their yards into large beds filled with native plants and shrubs. Low maintenance. Just weeding and light pruning. Looks good actually.
 
J

JPS35

Senior member
Apr 9, 2006
890
83
91
Clearly, some examples have been posted such as the tug boat and miles of aqueducts. Although it may be expensive to use tugs, oil tankers, etc., I would think that building pipelines, aquaducts, and canals would mitigate the one time cost of building them and maintenance. We do this now for public infrastructure at the federal, state, and local levels and it is incorporated into our taxes, levees, fees, and utility costs. What's the difference if we pay for a new hydroelectric dam, nuclear plant, refinery, wind farm, solar farm, interstates, freeways, roads, etc.? Of course some areas may pay more for it as it is more expensive to deliver, but again, we do that already.
 
Ns1

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
JPS35 said:
Clearly, some examples have been posted such as the tug boat and miles of aqueducts. Although it may be expensive to use tugs, oil tankers, etc., I would think that building pipelines, aquaducts, and canals would mitigate the one time cost of building them and maintenance. We do this now for public infrastructure at the federal, state, and local levels and it is incorporated into our taxes, levees, fees, and utility costs. What's the difference if we pay for a new hydroelectric dam, nuclear plant, refinery, wind farm, solar farm, interstates, freeways, roads, etc.? Of course some areas may pay more for it as it is more expensive to deliver, but again, we do that already.
Click to expand...

we've already built the aqueducts. there are no reasonable sources of water left for us to build them to.

the only thing left is desalination.
 
Ns1

Ns1

No Lifer
Jun 17, 2001
55,420
1,600
126
MrRamon said:
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ca...-pours-mega-millions-desalination-tech-n28066

California just needs to build these. Apparently they are very expensive to run. Didn't read the article and don't want to get into politics but should def but federally funded.
Click to expand...

about fucking time.

i wonder how they'll fare when a 7.0 hits tho

But that dash of independence comes at a cost. The water authority is locked into a 30-year deal with the plant's developer, Poseidon Water, to purchase desalted water for about $2,000 an acre foot in 2012 dollars. That's nearly twice as expensive as the current rate for imported water and will add $5 to $7 per month to ratepayers' bills, which is about a 10 percent hike.
Click to expand...

yeah I'd pay $5-$7 extra a month for access to clean water.
 
Last edited:
D

drebo

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,034
1
81
Desalination is way more useful than a $5bn train to nowhere.

I would be for a public infrastructure investment into desalination in California. I would vote yes on that measure.
 
IHateMyJob2004

IHateMyJob2004

Lifer
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
68
91
We need to reduce the world population. It's pretty simple really. We should start by killing the idiots first. I nominate the OP.
 
Capt Caveman

Capt Caveman

Lifer
Jan 30, 2005
34,543
651
126
Red Squirrel said:
Wow so how is that not enough? If that's flowing at a constant rate that is a LOT of water. Way more water than an ice berg, which would take lot of resources to get and would be a fixed amount per trip and not a continuous stream.
Click to expand...

Ignorant or stupid, I don't know which.
 
Stopsignhank

Stopsignhank

Platinum Member
Mar 1, 2014
2,751
2,251
136
So interesting. People don't seem to understand the concept of this all. Yes the California aqueduct brings water from the lakes in the north to the south. BUT the lakes in northern California are getting low. If they run out of water, there is not water to go into the aqueduct.

Desalinization is good too. But do you all realize that 4 years ago we were having floods? By the time the desalinization platens are built the rain hopefully will come back and they won't be needed. That is what happened in Santa Barbara and their desalinization plant.
 
IronWing

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,882
33,964
136
Ns1 said:
we've already built the aqueducts. there are no reasonable sources of water left for us to build them to.

the only thing left is desalination.
Click to expand...
The Yukon is looking better all the time. We just have to bide our time and be ready to pounce when the Canadian real estate bubble finally pops. Vancouverians will be lining up to dig the ditch for us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom