3 ms·

"Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago..." gee, there should be a reason for that, can't put my finger on it...hmm...

"Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago..." gee, there should be a reason for that, can't put my finger on it...hmm...could it be the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable supersonic aircraft in comparison to "other air travel options"? "We don't have many flying cars..." because of reasons that are completely out of the scope of this discussion. The airspace has a different set of rules and "vehicle operator" requirements in comparison to...the ground. Considering that many have trouble operating ground vehicles in a safe manner, i doubt that we're ever going to have manually controlled "flying cars" being a viable transportation option. And no, they wouldn't be as significant as the shift from ground travel to AIR, as we already have air travel options. I didn't say that there is "an obvious demand", in fact i said quite the opposite, that not many people are going to want to live in the desert. When you're talking about the costs, do you mean the costs of desalination, transportation or both?

eesmith 4y ago
I refer to "the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable" "interstate water distribution system for desalinated Pacific Ocean water", quoting direct parents. The cost of desalination, the costs to build and maintain the tunnel/aqueduct system, the cost pumping water from sea level to 1,000 feet (elevation for Phoenix - likely more as the traversed part of the San Joaquin Valley is below sea level.) To say nothing of the political and ecological costs - look at how well the Colorado River Compact has turned out, and the effect on the Colorado River Delta. Water flows uphill towards money, certainly, but that's going to need a lot of money. Speaking of the San Joaquin Valley, I would expect this water distribution system to irrigate California farmland first.
- caramelcustard 4y ago
  Alright, i'll admit that i were a bit quick to judge the development and the presumed decrease in costs of what are essentially large scale complex industrial plants while comparing them to airplanes (not large scale complex industrial plants). I've just realized that not only it's a bit far fetched, but the logistical/ecological impact is in a completely different ballpark, meaning that any sort of a comparison between two completely different industries is meaningless. However, i still can't understand what your point is. Are those projects unnecessary? Should the governments, researchers and companies involved stop working on these projects? Or are you trying to say that i was way too quick to be like "oh yeah, the costs are going to be low and we're all going to drink desalinated water", because if so, i've already admitted that the initial comparison was bad, albeit i still think that eventually (and eventually is the keyword) the costs are going to be low enough to resolve the water supply issues in countries such as Australia for example. If you have an issue with my suggestion that perhaps more well-off communities could encourage the developments in the water technology, then i'd like to say that i don't mean that farmers needs should be ignored in favour of some "weirdos living in a desert".
  - eesmith 4y ago
    I'm saying your comment to crooked-v didn't make sense. The economics don't work, and your argument that things get cheaper wasn't sound. > Are those projects unnecessary? joshuaheard's hypothetical interstate water transport project? Yes, unnecessary. There are other lower-cost solutions. It'll be cheaper to provide free Earthships / passive homes / etc. to everyone in the desert southwest and ban outdoor watering. It'll be cheaper to build a New Cleveland and relocate the entire population of AZ to Ohio. If you want to live in the desert, stop pretending you live in the English countryside. Every well sucking up irreplaceable water is a temporary facade against reality, and that facade is now crumbling. > to resolve the water supply issues in countries such as Australia for example That's to provide for coastal cities, not to provide water to Alice Springs. > perhaps more well-off communities could encourage the developments in the water technology Don't you understand? They did. The story mentions wells drilled down nine hundred feet to find water, and transporting water from different watersheds. That's all based on improved methods for drilling, pumping, and transporting. Before about 80 years ago, we didn't have pumps able to drain the Ogallala. Now parts of that aquifer are 300 feet lower. Improve the technology? Lower the level. Until it's bone dry. And then what? Sometimes the only way to win is to play a different game.
    - caramelcustard 4y ago
      I agree on that and i didn't take a whole lot of things into account. In fact, i'll add up another aspect: making a communuty dependent solely on a desalinated water transported either by pipe or vehicles of any kind from far away, while in theory resolves one problem, introduces several extra dependencies on the operators of the supply chain and potential risks associated with fuel prices, waste containment, prices of chemicals used, etc. "That's to provide for coastal cities..." which is closer to actual viable application, provided that those cities have a backbone to rely on in case the supply chain slows down for whatever reason. "...Improve the technology? Lower the level. Until it's bone dry. And then what?" Yeah, sounds pointless, i understand your point now.

eesmith 4y ago

I refer to "the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable" "interstate water distribution system for desalinated Pacific Ocean water", quoting direct parents. The cost of desalination, the costs to build and maintain the tunnel/aqueduct system, the cost pumping water from sea level to 1,000 feet (elevation for Phoenix - likely more as the traversed part of the San Joaquin Valley is below sea level.) To say nothing of the political and ecological costs - look at how well the Colorado River Compact has turned out, and the effect on the Colorado River Delta. Water flows uphill towards money, certainly, but that's going to need a lot of money. Speaking of the San Joaquin Valley, I would expect this water distribution system to irrigate California farmland first.

caramelcustard 4y ago
Alright, i'll admit that i were a bit quick to judge the development and the presumed decrease in costs of what are essentially large scale complex industrial plants while comparing them to airplanes (not large scale complex industrial plants). I've just realized that not only it's a bit far fetched, but the logistical/ecological impact is in a completely different ballpark, meaning that any sort of a comparison between two completely different industries is meaningless. However, i still can't understand what your point is. Are those projects unnecessary? Should the governments, researchers and companies involved stop working on these projects? Or are you trying to say that i was way too quick to be like "oh yeah, the costs are going to be low and we're all going to drink desalinated water", because if so, i've already admitted that the initial comparison was bad, albeit i still think that eventually (and eventually is the keyword) the costs are going to be low enough to resolve the water supply issues in countries such as Australia for example. If you have an issue with my suggestion that perhaps more well-off communities could encourage the developments in the water technology, then i'd like to say that i don't mean that farmers needs should be ignored in favour of some "weirdos living in a desert".
- eesmith 4y ago
  I'm saying your comment to crooked-v didn't make sense. The economics don't work, and your argument that things get cheaper wasn't sound. > Are those projects unnecessary? joshuaheard's hypothetical interstate water transport project? Yes, unnecessary. There are other lower-cost solutions. It'll be cheaper to provide free Earthships / passive homes / etc. to everyone in the desert southwest and ban outdoor watering. It'll be cheaper to build a New Cleveland and relocate the entire population of AZ to Ohio. If you want to live in the desert, stop pretending you live in the English countryside. Every well sucking up irreplaceable water is a temporary facade against reality, and that facade is now crumbling. > to resolve the water supply issues in countries such as Australia for example That's to provide for coastal cities, not to provide water to Alice Springs. > perhaps more well-off communities could encourage the developments in the water technology Don't you understand? They did. The story mentions wells drilled down nine hundred feet to find water, and transporting water from different watersheds. That's all based on improved methods for drilling, pumping, and transporting. Before about 80 years ago, we didn't have pumps able to drain the Ogallala. Now parts of that aquifer are 300 feet lower. Improve the technology? Lower the level. Until it's bone dry. And then what? Sometimes the only way to win is to play a different game.
  - caramelcustard 4y ago
    I agree on that and i didn't take a whole lot of things into account. In fact, i'll add up another aspect: making a communuty dependent solely on a desalinated water transported either by pipe or vehicles of any kind from far away, while in theory resolves one problem, introduces several extra dependencies on the operators of the supply chain and potential risks associated with fuel prices, waste containment, prices of chemicals used, etc. "That's to provide for coastal cities..." which is closer to actual viable application, provided that those cities have a backbone to rely on in case the supply chain slows down for whatever reason. "...Improve the technology? Lower the level. Until it's bone dry. And then what?" Yeah, sounds pointless, i understand your point now.