3 ms·
The cost of desalination (thermal & reverse osmosis) remains quite prohibitive for most nations due to its high capital and operating cost [1]. Unless the world
by Gpetrium 7y ago
The cost of desalination (thermal & reverse osmosis) remains quite prohibitive for most nations due to its high capital and operating cost [1]. Unless the world finds a scientific rationale for doing something of that magnitude (E.g. Pour water in the Sahara to slow down world temperature from rising) or a major resource discovery, it would seem counter-intuitive to desertify it on behalf of 2.5m people [2]. That is not even accounting the unintended consequence such as the Saharan desert feeding the Amazon [3], a place considered the lung of the earth. It would likely be more manageable to have that population become climate refugees.
[1] https://www.advisian.com/en-us/global-perspectives/the-cost-of-desalination https://www.advisian.com/en-us/global-perspectives/the-cost-...
[2] https://www.britannica.com/place/Sahara-desert-Africa/People https://www.britannica.com/place/Sahara-desert-Africa/People
[3] https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-how-much-saharan-dust-feeds-amazon-s-plants https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/nasa-satellite-reveals-...
- kian 7y agoThese "lungs of the Earth" consume almost the entirety of the oxygen they produce directly. The oxygen that they do produce, indirectly, that we are able to consume comes from 'run-off' from the forest floor producing plankton blooms, which produce oxygen and sequester carbon as they fall to the ocean floor. What this would instead do is stop redistributing resources from a water-starved but resource-rich Africa to a water-rich but relatively resource-starved South America. Whether that's a good thing or not seems more like something to leave them to figure out amongst themselves, but I imagine it will be hard for hundreds of millions of Africans to turn down if it was possible to cheaply bring water there.