Maybe once we don't need as much oil we can repurpose the pipelines to pump water from the areas that have no shortage to the rest of the country so we can expand our usable territory?
Costs to flush out and decontaminate the pipes would not be insurmountable. That along with different liquids have different demands on pipes, pressure, chemical reactions (corrosion) and then the viscosity factors. Maybe that pipes suited for oil are not suitable for water carrying, or not as ideal.
When we get to the point where we won't need as much oil, it will be because of drastic population decline, and hence, we won't need as much water either. Exponential growth cannot continue forever.
Hah, weird. Is this sentence in the last paragraph their angle?:
> And every American can save more water at home in multiple ways, from taking shorter showers to not rinsing dishes under a running faucet before loading them into a dishwasher, a practice that wastes around 20 gallons of water for each load.
Almost all the water problems are due to agribusiness usage.
If you reduced all consumer usage of water to zero, it would barely make a dent.
California can solve its consumer water problems with a couple of desalinization plants. Farming in the Central Valley, however, would basically need to be shut down to stop draining the aquifers.
> Almost all the water problems are due to agribusiness usage.
That is largely true, but there is some low-hanging fruit:
1) Typically in each city, there's one or two houses with a broken water line that uses as much water as an entire subdivision. Finding and fixing those quickly is worthwhile.
2) Continuing to research and codify efficient toilets and showerheads is a win in the long run. Back in the day, electrical utilities used to offer exchanges on old hot water heaters, etc. for more efficient ones. Even today that's a great idea.
Totally agree. I'm sick of hearing about how consumers need to cut back while businesses can continue to consume and waste. Would consumers cutting down usage help? Sure. But it's impact is so tiny that it couldn't possibly help the underlying problem. At best it kicks the can down the road.
This is equivalent to the "we have to convert to electric cars because of climate change!" which will also barely make a dent in carbon emissions (unlike, say, converting the world to nuclear power plants).
> This is equivalent to the "we have to convert to electric cars because of climate change!" which will also barely make a dent in carbon emissions
Even if electric cars were carbon-equivalent, moving a million point sources of pollution (internal combustion engines) to a single point source of pollution (a power plant) is way better for us all.
Most of CA water goes to crops we export. During CA mega drought, we were sending alfafa to China in the shipping containers that would otherwise go empty. In this bizarro world, it was cheaper to ship to China than it was to truck it to dairy farms within CA. It was legit Bizarro World.
BUT. This appears to be different from before, where there was water, just in the wrong place, now the US appears to be coming close to using 100% of the available resource.
Further the ocean is a delicate and unique eco system of its own. It has its own habitat and balance and equilibrium.
Desalination doesn’t come without its costs and it’s not just about the money.
Sea steading, desalination etc are not really robust solutions. Control human population or control consumption. The planet isn’t expanding and resources are not infinite.
Of course brine is a problem. I never said it wasn't. All I'm hearing, though, are challenges that may require out of the box thinking.
Controlling human population and consumption simply isn't going to happen, so you might as well give up on that idea. At best, you will merely slow down the problem for a while.
I think controlling human population is the only solution. Depopulation will happen anyways. When it does, we would still need resources and if we burn it up ..and we are a super apex predator..faster than it can renew, we are basically shooting our selves in the foot.
It’s like sitting on the top most branch and sawing the trunk of the tree. Daft! Slow burn of resources and working with burning renewables only will ensure humanity and species survival. Otherwise the planet will survive. We won’t. Because when we hit carrying capacity, there is a dearth of resources..we will start killing each other. Oh! Oops! Already happening!
25 comments
[ 0.18 ms ] story [ 77.7 ms ] thread> And every American can save more water at home in multiple ways, from taking shorter showers to not rinsing dishes under a running faucet before loading them into a dishwasher, a practice that wastes around 20 gallons of water for each load.
If you reduced all consumer usage of water to zero, it would barely make a dent.
California can solve its consumer water problems with a couple of desalinization plants. Farming in the Central Valley, however, would basically need to be shut down to stop draining the aquifers.
That is largely true, but there is some low-hanging fruit:
1) Typically in each city, there's one or two houses with a broken water line that uses as much water as an entire subdivision. Finding and fixing those quickly is worthwhile.
2) Continuing to research and codify efficient toilets and showerheads is a win in the long run. Back in the day, electrical utilities used to offer exchanges on old hot water heaters, etc. for more efficient ones. Even today that's a great idea.
This is equivalent to the "we have to convert to electric cars because of climate change!" which will also barely make a dent in carbon emissions (unlike, say, converting the world to nuclear power plants).
That said, replacing long distance haul with electrified rail transport would be yet better.
Even if electric cars were carbon-equivalent, moving a million point sources of pollution (internal combustion engines) to a single point source of pollution (a power plant) is way better for us all.
From the article:
California has 11 desalination plants, and another 10 are being planned
A difference which almost goes back to the topic of the NG article.
BUT. This appears to be different from before, where there was water, just in the wrong place, now the US appears to be coming close to using 100% of the available resource.
Relatedly on a more entertaining note: Chinatown..1974 movie by Roman Polanski https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinatown_(1974_film)
And Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert
Would it be expensive as fuck? Yes. Would it require tons of work, and new technologies to be invented? Of course!
If we really wanted to do it, though, we could. I refuse to believe that this isn't true.
Further the ocean is a delicate and unique eco system of its own. It has its own habitat and balance and equilibrium.
Desalination doesn’t come without its costs and it’s not just about the money.
Sea steading, desalination etc are not really robust solutions. Control human population or control consumption. The planet isn’t expanding and resources are not infinite.
Controlling human population and consumption simply isn't going to happen, so you might as well give up on that idea. At best, you will merely slow down the problem for a while.
It’s like sitting on the top most branch and sawing the trunk of the tree. Daft! Slow burn of resources and working with burning renewables only will ensure humanity and species survival. Otherwise the planet will survive. We won’t. Because when we hit carrying capacity, there is a dearth of resources..we will start killing each other. Oh! Oops! Already happening!