"Will we run out of fresh water in the 21st century?"

[JQPublic1]

Water from Icebergs

The planet’s greatest stores of freshwater lie far away from the arid, heavily populated regions that need it the most. Nearly 70% of all fresh water is locked in the polar ice caps. Just the new icebergs that form every year around Antarctica hold enough water to meet the needs of every person on Earth for several months. Longstanding proposals to tow icebergs to lower latitudes where their valuable water can be harvested have been met with both skepticism and interest. To date, no successful attempts have been made.

Water from Icebergs


Towing icebergs to tropical zones is unworkable, IMHO. There are myriad hazards and environmental calamities that might result. Perhaps, onsite “ice mining” would be more feasible at either Antarctica or in the Arctic Zone. Icebergs from the Arctic could be towed a short distance to staging areas ( Alaska) where a process to convert them into liquid H2O could be initiated. Oil tankers could be converted to water tankers for transport.


Since the ice of Antarctica is formed over a land mass, geothermal energy could one day be tapped to form a lake that would never freeze. Although it sounds like science fiction, an array of satellites fitted with lasers could not only help to melt ice, such technology could be the means for tapping into the land underneath Antarctica for geothermal applications.

Hey, does that idea cost very much? Seems to me the cost would be measured in trillions of dollars. Where we gonna get that money?

And it is back to the future again. Before freezers, ice was towed to ports where it would be blocked off for the use of the citizenry for food storage. That's what we need. Except people will be buying blocks of ice for their drinking water. It will be real cool.

Whatever the price, mining the polar caps for water may be better than the alternative of NOT doing so. Perhaps the UN woud be the best source of revenue to finance such a project since the whole world would greatly benefit from it Talk about JOB CREATION?
Since the USA is still the place where most new technologies originate, such an endeavor could only be exceptionally good for us.

Of course, the conversion of sea water to fresh water may be cheaper. A comparitive financial analysis of the two ideas would have to be worked out

 

[SwimExpert]

Whatever the price, mining the polar caps for water may be better than the alternative of NOT doing so. Perhaps the UN woud be the best source of revenue to finance such a project since the whole world would greatly benefit from it Talk about JOB CREATION?
Since the USA is still the place where most new technologies originate, such an endeavor could only be exceptionally good for us.

Of course, the conversion of sea water to fresh water may be cheaper. A comparitive financial analysis of the two ideas would have to be worked out

That wouldn't be quite so simple a solution. International treaty forbids the exploitation of Antarctica for commercial purposes. The continent has many other natural resources that could be mined, and many countries that would otherwise be rather interested in doing so. Trying to convince all these countries to make a new treaty that allows sourcing of one resource, while still forbidding mining of other resources would be difficult to say the least. Not to mention the potential for militarization, which some countries would undoubtedly be interested in doing.

 

[whitehall]

It's possible that the radical left might be giving up the global warming scam and switching to the availability of fresh water which will be their next crisis.

 

[gnarlylove]

B-B-But Alaskans are dumb hicks!

Alaska doesn't have anything the rest of the world needs! Ha!

This view couldnt be further from the truth. There are a lot of mining operations providing essential minerals to power the modern lifestyle. Heard of the Pepple mine project with the worlds largest copper reserves including gold pockets and a couple other precious minerals?

Ever heard of salmon fish? The last great salmon fishery is in Bristol Bay.

Around 10% of American oil is produced in Alaska. That's no drop in the bucket! Alaska has a lot to offer America...precisely why we acquired it.

 

[gnarlylove]

Global population growth projections of 2–3 billion people over the next 40 years...With expected increases in population, by 2030, food demand is predicted to increase by 50% (70% by 2050) (Bruinsma, 2009), while energy demand from hydropower and other renewable energy resources will rise by 60% (WWAP, 2009). These issues are interconnected – increasing agricultural output, for example, will substantially increase both water and energy consumption, leading to increased competition for water between water-using sectors.

Water availability is expected to decrease in many regions. Yet future global agricultural water consumption alone is estimated to increase by ~19% by 2050, and will be even greater in the absence of any technological progress or policy intervention.

Water for irrigation and food production constitutes one of the greatest pressures on freshwater resources. Agriculture accounts for ~70% of global freshwater withdrawals (up to 90% in some fast-growing economies).

Economic growth and individual wealth are shifting diets from predominantly starch-based to meat and dairy, which require more water. Producing 1 kg of rice, for example, requires ~3,500 L of water, 1 kg of beef ~15,000 L, and a cup of coffee ~140 L (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2008). This dietary shift is the greatest to impact on water consumption over the past 30 years, and is likely to continue well into the middle of the twenty-first century (FAO, 2006).

Over 80% of used water worldwide is not collected or treated (Corcoran et al., 2010).

Then having to convert it from sea water which is strictly not potable would require a massive increase in capacity of conversion
All quotes from here

Are we crying wolf or are we trying to make you aware of a situation that you've never faced.

 

[kiwiman127]

Well there are the Great Lakes to think about.

Down the Drain: The Incredible Shrinking Great Lakes
Great Lakes, Fresh Water, Fisheries, Fishing, Lake Michigan - National Geographic

And from the far right side of things;
Obama Allows Great Lakes Water To Be Sold To China
Obama Allows Great Lakes Water To Be Sold To China - Tom O'Halloran

So this info change the argument?

 

[JQPublic1]

Whatever the price, mining the polar caps for water may be better than the alternative of NOT doing so. Perhaps the UN woud be the best source of revenue to finance such a project since the whole world would greatly benefit from it Talk about JOB CREATION?
Since the USA is still the place where most new technologies originate, such an endeavor could only be exceptionally good for us.

Of course, the conversion of sea water to fresh water may be cheaper. A comparitive financial analysis of the two ideas would have to be worked out

That wouldn't be quite so simple a solution. International treaty forbids the exploitation of Antarctica for commercial purposes. The continent has many other natural resources that could be mined, and many countries that would otherwise be rather interested in doing so. Trying to convince all these countries to make a new treaty that allows sourcing of one resource, while still forbidding mining of other resources would be difficult to say the least. Not to mention the potential for militarization, which some countries would undoubtedly be interested in doing.

That is precisely why I mentioned the United Nations as the source of revenue. COnsider that world body as the agent for addressing what may become a
global crisis. Make the ice mining of Antarctica an international project. Any treaty would be moot under those circumstances. But nothing is free! Any innovation or development of new technology would still be profitable to the country that meets the demand and takes the lead.

 

[JQPublic1]

Well there are the Great Lakes to think about.

Down the Drain: The Incredible Shrinking Great Lakes
Great Lakes, Fresh Water, Fisheries, Fishing, Lake Michigan - National Geographic

And from the far right side of things;
Obama Allows Great Lakes Water To Be Sold To China
Obama Allows Great Lakes Water To Be Sold To China - Tom O'Halloran

So this info change the argument?

No. I have found no evidence to verify the article.

 

[SwimExpert]

Not sure what he's getting at anyway. There's nothing remarkable about the fact that the Great Lakes are slowly depleting.

 

[FA_Q2]

We might if we keep FRACKING IT UP.

But as the WEST?

Yes they ARE running out of potable water.


The operative question is not WILL WE...?, its WHEN WILL WE...?

No, it really is not. The real question is what will the source of the future will be. There is almost the same amount of water on the planet today as there was 1000 years ago. The only difference is in the form that it takes.

 

[FA_Q2]

Water from Icebergs




Water from Icebergs


Towing icebergs to tropical zones is unworkable, IMHO. There are myriad hazards and environmental calamities that might result. Perhaps, onsite “ice mining” would be more feasible at either Antarctica or in the Arctic Zone. Icebergs from the Arctic could be towed a short distance to staging areas ( Alaska) where a process to convert them into liquid H2O could be initiated. Oil tankers could be converted to water tankers for transport.


Since the ice of Antarctica is formed over a land mass, geothermal energy could one day be tapped to form a lake that would never freeze. Although it sounds like science fiction, an array of satellites fitted with lasers could not only help to melt ice, such technology could be the means for tapping into the land underneath Antarctica for geothermal applications.

Hey, does that idea cost very much? Seems to me the cost would be measured in trillions of dollars. Where we gonna get that money?

And it is back to the future again. Before freezers, ice was towed to ports where it would be blocked off for the use of the citizenry for food storage. That's what we need. Except people will be buying blocks of ice for their drinking water. It will be real cool.

Whatever the price, mining the polar caps for water may be better than the alternative of NOT doing so. Perhaps the UN woud be the best source of revenue to finance such a project since the whole world would greatly benefit from it Talk about JOB CREATION?
Since the USA is still the place where most new technologies originate, such an endeavor could only be exceptionally good for us.

Of course, the conversion of sea water to fresh water may be cheaper. A comparitive financial analysis of the two ideas would have to be worked out

That is FAR more likely. What usually happens is that when the shit is about to hit the fan, we come up with a better way of doing things. People are amazingly intelligent when faced with a problem that must be solved and if there comes a time when the world begins to lose access to nice and easy water sources like glaciers then we will have to come up with a way to cheaply and efficiently get water somewhere else.

Transporting it that distance is a pretty damn big issue to solve not to mention that if the glaciers are all gone here it is likely that there is not going to be much left on the caps as well – there are 6 BILLION people that need water after all. No, I find it far more plausible that we figure out better ways of preparing Ocean water to be potable. There is also the small point that we, at least in the states, use FAR FAR FAR more potable water than necessary. You flush a LOT more water down your toilet and shower drain than you actually need to drink or cook.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

"California drought prompts first-ever 'zero water allocation'"
California drought prompts first-ever 'zero water allocation' - latimes.com

California Drought: Water Shortage Puts Communities on the Brink of Running Dry - weather.com Is California Drying Up?
"Even though Winter Storm Maximus may bring up to a foot of snow to drought depleted California, it likely won't be enough to help 17 rural communities California state officials say are just 60 to 100 days away from running completely dry."

Scientists say past California droughts have lasted 200+ years. But don't worry, climate change just needs more study...

 

[Papawx3]

I have a large rain barrel outside my back door. The rain runs off my roof, into the gutters where it's channeled into a filter and then into the rain barrel. When it gets full I drain some out into other storage barrels or jugs. If my water were to be shut off today, I have enough clean, fresh water in stock to last for a very long time.
Prior Planning Prevents Poor Performance.

 

[jon_berzerk]

"California drought prompts first-ever 'zero water allocation'"
California drought prompts first-ever 'zero water allocation' - latimes.com

California Drought: Water Shortage Puts Communities on the Brink of Running Dry - weather.com Is California Drying Up?
"Even though Winter Storm Maximus may bring up to a foot of snow to drought depleted California, it likely won't be enough to help 17 rural communities California state officials say are just 60 to 100 days away from running completely dry."

Scientists say past California droughts have lasted 200+ years. But don't worry, climate change just needs more study...

Scientists say past California droughts have lasted 200+ years.

that sounds like a lot longer ago then the supposed man made global warming

---------------

“The two most severe megadroughts make the Dust Bowl of the 1930s look tame: a 240-year-long drought that started in 850 and, 50 years after the conclusion of that one, another that stretched at least 180 years.”

California drought: Past dry periods have lasted more than 200 years, scientists say - San Jose Mercury News

 

[JQPublic1]

"California drought prompts first-ever 'zero water allocation'"
California drought prompts first-ever 'zero water allocation' - latimes.com

California Drought: Water Shortage Puts Communities on the Brink of Running Dry - weather.com Is California Drying Up?
"Even though Winter Storm Maximus may bring up to a foot of snow to drought depleted California, it likely won't be enough to help 17 rural communities California state officials say are just 60 to 100 days away from running completely dry."

Scientists say past California droughts have lasted 200+ years. But don't worry, climate change just needs more study...

Its time to buy stock in chewing gum futures. Gum chewinbg helps dry mouth!

 

[kiwiman127]

Not sure what he's getting at anyway. There's nothing remarkable about the fact that the Great Lakes are slowly depleting.

But we shouldn't concern ourselves with running out of water so sayth most (not all) folks on the right. So a short time ago quite a few right wing blogs were screaming about China taking water from the Great Lakes because the Earth was running out of water.
I find it fun irony, which is entertaining and so consistent with partisan politics.

 

[westwall]

"California drought prompts first-ever 'zero water allocation'"
California drought prompts first-ever 'zero water allocation' - latimes.com

California Drought: Water Shortage Puts Communities on the Brink of Running Dry - weather.com Is California Drying Up?
"Even though Winter Storm Maximus may bring up to a foot of snow to drought depleted California, it likely won't be enough to help 17 rural communities California state officials say are just 60 to 100 days away from running completely dry."

Scientists say past California droughts have lasted 200+ years. But don't worry, climate change just needs more study...

"More study" what a joke. To date there has been more than 100 BILLION dollars spent on "climate change" studies. What has that gotten us? Nothing more than a "if you give us 76 trillion dollars we can possibly lower the global temperature by ONE degree in 100 years.....maybe."

That's it. That's what your 100 BILLION dollars has gotten you. To give you an idea of just how much money that is, for a mere 32 BILLION dollars we got the Manhattan Project and all of its ancillaries. I can't think of a better example of the worthlessness of climate studies (as they are run by the current crop of criminals) than that.

 

[Abraham3]

You oppose research intended to save humanity, but brag about the research that created our likely bane. Hmmm...

And, to keep you honest: " The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (about $26 billion in 2014[1] dollars). Over 90% of the cost was for building factories and producing the fissionable materials, with less than 10% for development and production of the weapons"

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

Where did you ever get the idea the Manhattan Project was some paragon of research efficiency?

 

[editec]

We might if we keep FRACKING IT UP.

But as the WEST?

Yes they ARE running out of potable water.


The operative question is not WILL WE...?, its WHEN WILL WE...?

No, it really is not. The real question is what will the source of the future will be. There is almost the same amount of water on the planet today as there was 1000 years ago. The only difference is in the form that it takes.

Nobody said the amout of water changed... hence the word potable (meaning from a well, AKA safe to drink)


Here kid, try drinking this water directly out of this polluted well.

Delicious isn't it?




Drinking water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

We might if we keep FRACKING IT UP.

But as the WEST?

Yes they ARE running out of potable water.


The operative question is not WILL WE...?, its WHEN WILL WE...?

No, it really is not. The real question is what will the source of the future will be. There is almost the same amount of water on the planet today as there was 1000 years ago. The only difference is in the form that it takes.

Nobody said the amout of water changed... hence the word potable (meaning from a well, AKA safe to drink)


Here kid, try drinking this water directly out of this polluted well.

Delicious isn't it?




Drinking water - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the problem with trying to debate the people on this board. They immediatly try to change the parameters of the debate. When the subject is potable water, they immediatly point out that the same amount of water exists now as ever has, without referancing how safe it is to drink.

What we are increasingly seeing is that water that used to come as a series of rain storms, now comes in very large downpours that create floods. Floods where the water is not even safe to wade in, let alone drink. And in between, we have drought.

However, it is not just drinking water that is in short supply. Water for crops is also at risk. In the past 5 years we have seen drought and floods, following each other heel and toe in much of the US, and other nations in the northern hemisphere. Both situations are detrimental to agriculture, and with 7 billion people on this planet, that is serious. We either start making plans and preperations for these events, or find ourselves up the proverbial creek.