You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #128: Exactly, with climate change water availability may shift. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
seasat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-11-07 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
128. Exactly, with climate change water availability may shift.
Edited on Thu Oct-11-07 08:08 PM by seasat
States that are "awash" in water could find themselves in a drought too. I grew up in GA and Atlanta is undergoing such a severe drought that they've banned outdoor water use. It is a topic that needs to be discussed.

You have water shortages in some larger cities due to the higher population density. If you want a lower energy society one of the proposals in to increase population density so that there is a lower need for transportation. You have two environmental principles that are in conflict with each other, water usage and population density.

Here's also some numbers on why the premise of the article is ridiculous. There is no way that Richardson is suggesting an Alaskan pipeline from Nevada to the Great Lakes. The Alaskan pipeline pumps 42 million gallons of oil per day and was built at a cost of $8 billion in 1997. The Alaskan pipeline covers 800 miles. It is approximately 1700 miles from Las Vegas to Chicago. Based on 1990 numbers, Nevada Residences use 204 gallons of water per day. Using the volume of the Alaskan pipeline it would only cover just over 204,000 people in Nevada per day. Plus, being twice the distance and converting it to 2007 dollars, it would cost $48 billion dollars to build. That would be a cost of $234,000 per resident covered. Now I know that a water pipeline would be cheaper in construction than an oil pipeline but it would cost significantly more in right of way purchases than going across unpopulated Alaskan tundra. It is not economically feasible and Richardson is not proposing taking Great Lakes water.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC