30 ms·

Ok, I'll bite. I'm the dumbing guy in the room, so I need some help understanding. Given that water is 71% of the earth's surface[1], it seems like this is mo

by joshuak 10y ago

Ok, I'll bite. I'm the dumbing guy in the room, so I need some help understanding. Given that water is 71% of the earth's surface[1], it seems like this is mostly a transportation problem. We don't need to create water, unless that would make transport easer. We don't need to filter water, unless that is easer to do then transporting it. In the case of drought, the problem seems to be the transport of water, and near zero cost irrigation provided normally by rain. Optimal water transportation seems to be the core problem to solve. With cost effective localized irrigation replacement for rain a subset related problem. (Perhaps if drought is more spacial than temporal, the irrigation solution could be temporary and mobil so as to move to areas of drought as needed). So what ways can we think of to transport water? Or if that's not the core problem, then what is the right problem to solve? [1]:https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html

anubisresources 10y ago
Transportation is extremely expensive, and in every case I've researched more expensive than local production or recycling. I'm one in a long line of people who have looked into the failed idea[1] of buying an old single hull oil tanker, gutting the insides, cleaning and refitting, and running it between Sitka and LA filled with water. Much cheaper to produce in LA. Current sale price in LA is very low - largely due to state subsidies and lack of an actual water market, but thats unlikely to change soon. If you can lower the energy cost of transport its still likely cheaper to produce locally, due to high energy cost of desalination and wastewater recycling. Large plastic bladders are another possibility for transportation. Just let the current take the bags down the coast and fix a GPS to the bag. Lots of issues with other boats destroying the bladders though, along with running aground, etc. Likely still cheaper to produce locally. Only economic way to transport water currently is in water dense crops like rice, tomatoes, corn, most fruits, etc. [1] http://www.treehugger.com/clean-water/us-company-set-to-ship-billions-of-gallons-of-water-from-alaska-to-india.html http://www.treehugger.com/clean-water/us-company-set-to-ship... Edit: To answer the question at the bottom of your post, the real problem is energy. If you lower the cost of energy production and storage, you've removed a huge chunk of water production costs. Focusing on water first is likely to lead nowhere.
- joshuak 10y ago
  Ok, too expensive seems like a reasonable argument, but how much too expensive, specifically? I mean if water is available but not clean how expensive can a purifier be before being at parody with cost of transporting the same amount of water? What is the "cheaper to produce locally" method, and in what way is it not the solution? Also, what about pipelines? Even if only useful in limited contexts (i.e. downhill, or open channels), or for very short distances. That's a really good idea to transport water using large bladders. Perhaps you could even control movement as needed with small engine craft and nets. You'd need no where near the infrastructure of commercial shipping, yet bladders could be put in shipping containers as well.
  - anubisresources 10y ago
    Mojomark has some figures re: cost. Current methods of local production are desalination and wastewater recycling, both of which are heavily state subsidized, and in the case of wastewater recycling state owned. Very difficult to get into actual production of water. Most desalination companies actually just manage the desalination plants. Pipelines have some potential, but in very limited cases. Could be useful in Caribbean though. Pipe water from Dominica to other Eastern Caribbean islands. I haven't run the numbers on that, but there might be some potential for an intrepid investor. Shallow water means its easy to lay and repair pipelines, every other island in the Caribbean being water deficient means demand. Might work.
  - mojomark 10y ago
    Ok, too expensive seems like a reasonable argument, but how much to expensive, specifically? See my other reply. In short, based on a CBA we did a few yrs back, fuel consumption alone using a diesel-powered handy size tanker to ship H20 from Alaska to Ca yields a shipping cost of ~$0.15/gal. Ca H20 costs <$0.002/gal. So, a factor of 75 more expensive.
    - joshuak 10y ago
      Ok, thanks. So that particular solution is not cost effective for the CA market, but what about a different market? Or perhaps a different mechanism of transportation?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
JoshTriplett 10y ago
> So what way you can think of to transport water? Or if that's not the core problem, then what is the right problem to solve? Water water everywhere, and not enough to drink. Note that the majority of municipal water systems include purification steps, not just transportation; waiting for nature to purify water for you doesn't suffice. I don't think transportation alone suffices; on average you'd have to go further and spend more to obtain already-pure water. That 71% includes a lot of seawater, river water, lake water, swamp water, and many other sources you wouldn't want to drink directly. That doesn't mean we have a shortage of water, and transportation infrastructure remains a critical shortfall in many areas, but the problem involves many facets, including transportation, purification, and sanitation.
kevlened 10y ago
The 71% statistic is from all water sources. The difficulty is easily accessible freshwater sources, so cheap desalination seems to be critical. "Freshwater makes up a very small fraction of all water on the planet. While nearly 70 percent of the world is covered by water, only 2.5 percent of it is fresh. The rest is saline and ocean-based. Even then, just 1 percent of our freshwater is easily accessible, with much of it trapped in glaciers and snowfields. In essence, only 0.007 percent of the planet's water is available to fuel and feed its 6.8 billion people." http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/ http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshw...
- dogma1138 10y ago
  It's not that simple, you can't give people water without a sewage and water waste management just look at what happened in Africa. We had charities digging wells and what it did is make it worse for many many people. They had running water and with it came toilets with no treatment. Fecal mater and water don't mix in nature it decomposes in drainage ditches it becomes a hotspot for bacteria and parasites. A lot of the feel good water projects in Africa didn't pan out that well for the local population, they often bring deseases and contaminate the local water supply, brake down and actually reduce the water security. If we want to give people access to readily available water we have to give them a full solution including what to do with the waste water and how to safely treat and recycle it.
  - jacalata 10y ago
    Interesting, I've seen criticism of well projects in Africa but more about having them run dry/break with no funds for maintenance. Do you have any sources I could read for disease/problems caused by working wells?
- joshuak 10y ago
  Ok, but isn't that still a transportation problem at the core? With the addition of a minimum quality requirement?
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
niftich 10y ago
About 2.5% of water on Earth is freshwater. More than 68% of that is frozen in icecaps and glaciers, and 30% is groundwater [1]. Easily accessible liquid freshwater (e.g. from lakes or rivers) is way less than a hundreth of a percent of all water on Earth, and even that's concentrated mostly around a few very large lakes: Lake Baikal alone is 20% of that, North America's Great Lakes are another 20%. Historically, humans settled near freshwater, and built civilizations. On every continent, metropolitan civilizations built aqueducts to carry clean water in from further away. Temporary water shortages (e.g. drought) were mostly weathered in-place, long-term shortages were often dealt with by migration, potentially including warfare. The core problem is that people should be living near easily accessible freshwater, and if they aren't, it's either due to a historical grievance, poor planning, or (natural or anthropogenic) climate change. [1] https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html

by joshuak 10y ago

anubisresources 10y ago

Transportation is extremely expensive, and in every case I've researched more expensive than local production or recycling. I'm one in a long line of people who have looked into the failed idea[1] of buying an old single hull oil tanker, gutting the insides, cleaning and refitting, and running it between Sitka and LA filled with water. Much cheaper to produce in LA. Current sale price in LA is very low - largely due to state subsidies and lack of an actual water market, but thats unlikely to change soon. If you can lower the energy cost of transport its still likely cheaper to produce locally, due to high energy cost of desalination and wastewater recycling. Large plastic bladders are another possibility for transportation. Just let the current take the bags down the coast and fix a GPS to the bag. Lots of issues with other boats destroying the bladders though, along with running aground, etc. Likely still cheaper to produce locally. Only economic way to transport water currently is in water dense crops like rice, tomatoes, corn, most fruits, etc. [1] http://www.treehugger.com/clean-water/us-company-set-to-ship-billions-of-gallons-of-water-from-alaska-to-india.html http://www.treehugger.com/clean-water/us-company-set-to-ship... Edit: To answer the question at the bottom of your post, the real problem is energy. If you lower the cost of energy production and storage, you've removed a huge chunk of water production costs. Focusing on water first is likely to lead nowhere.

joshuak 10y ago
Ok, too expensive seems like a reasonable argument, but how much too expensive, specifically? I mean if water is available but not clean how expensive can a purifier be before being at parody with cost of transporting the same amount of water? What is the "cheaper to produce locally" method, and in what way is it not the solution? Also, what about pipelines? Even if only useful in limited contexts (i.e. downhill, or open channels), or for very short distances. That's a really good idea to transport water using large bladders. Perhaps you could even control movement as needed with small engine craft and nets. You'd need no where near the infrastructure of commercial shipping, yet bladders could be put in shipping containers as well.
- anubisresources 10y ago
  Mojomark has some figures re: cost. Current methods of local production are desalination and wastewater recycling, both of which are heavily state subsidized, and in the case of wastewater recycling state owned. Very difficult to get into actual production of water. Most desalination companies actually just manage the desalination plants. Pipelines have some potential, but in very limited cases. Could be useful in Caribbean though. Pipe water from Dominica to other Eastern Caribbean islands. I haven't run the numbers on that, but there might be some potential for an intrepid investor. Shallow water means its easy to lay and repair pipelines, every other island in the Caribbean being water deficient means demand. Might work.
- mojomark 10y ago
  Ok, too expensive seems like a reasonable argument, but how much to expensive, specifically? See my other reply. In short, based on a CBA we did a few yrs back, fuel consumption alone using a diesel-powered handy size tanker to ship H20 from Alaska to Ca yields a shipping cost of ~$0.15/gal. Ca H20 costs <$0.002/gal. So, a factor of 75 more expensive.
  - joshuak 10y ago
    Ok, thanks. So that particular solution is not cost effective for the CA market, but what about a different market? Or perhaps a different mechanism of transportation?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

JoshTriplett 10y ago

> So what way you can think of to transport water? Or if that's not the core problem, then what is the right problem to solve? Water water everywhere, and not enough to drink. Note that the majority of municipal water systems include purification steps, not just transportation; waiting for nature to purify water for you doesn't suffice. I don't think transportation alone suffices; on average you'd have to go further and spend more to obtain already-pure water. That 71% includes a lot of seawater, river water, lake water, swamp water, and many other sources you wouldn't want to drink directly. That doesn't mean we have a shortage of water, and transportation infrastructure remains a critical shortfall in many areas, but the problem involves many facets, including transportation, purification, and sanitation.

kevlened 10y ago

The 71% statistic is from all water sources. The difficulty is easily accessible freshwater sources, so cheap desalination seems to be critical. "Freshwater makes up a very small fraction of all water on the planet. While nearly 70 percent of the world is covered by water, only 2.5 percent of it is fresh. The rest is saline and ocean-based. Even then, just 1 percent of our freshwater is easily accessible, with much of it trapped in glaciers and snowfields. In essence, only 0.007 percent of the planet's water is available to fuel and feed its 6.8 billion people." http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/ http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/freshw...

dogma1138 10y ago
It's not that simple, you can't give people water without a sewage and water waste management just look at what happened in Africa. We had charities digging wells and what it did is make it worse for many many people. They had running water and with it came toilets with no treatment. Fecal mater and water don't mix in nature it decomposes in drainage ditches it becomes a hotspot for bacteria and parasites. A lot of the feel good water projects in Africa didn't pan out that well for the local population, they often bring deseases and contaminate the local water supply, brake down and actually reduce the water security. If we want to give people access to readily available water we have to give them a full solution including what to do with the waste water and how to safely treat and recycle it.
- jacalata 10y ago
  Interesting, I've seen criticism of well projects in Africa but more about having them run dry/break with no funds for maintenance. Do you have any sources I could read for disease/problems caused by working wells?
joshuak 10y ago
Ok, but isn't that still a transportation problem at the core? With the addition of a minimum quality requirement?

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

niftich 10y ago

About 2.5% of water on Earth is freshwater. More than 68% of that is frozen in icecaps and glaciers, and 30% is groundwater [1]. Easily accessible liquid freshwater (e.g. from lakes or rivers) is way less than a hundreth of a percent of all water on Earth, and even that's concentrated mostly around a few very large lakes: Lake Baikal alone is 20% of that, North America's Great Lakes are another 20%. Historically, humans settled near freshwater, and built civilizations. On every continent, metropolitan civilizations built aqueducts to carry clean water in from further away. Temporary water shortages (e.g. drought) were mostly weathered in-place, long-term shortages were often dealt with by migration, potentially including warfare. The core problem is that people should be living near easily accessible freshwater, and if they aren't, it's either due to a historical grievance, poor planning, or (natural or anthropogenic) climate change. [1] https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html https://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html