Environment & Energy

hatrack

(59,583 posts)

38. It's the blazing gratuitousness of it all . . .

Reply to XemaSab (Reply #35)

Wed Aug 28, 2013, 12:53 AM

Aug 2013

Sometimes I just don't get it, but thanks, guys!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

42 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Water Woes: Vast US Aquifer Is Being Tapped Out [View all] NickB79 Aug 2013 OP

Desalinate the ocean and pipe it wherever we need it. mbperrin Aug 2013 #1

Desaliniztion takes a lot of energy. hunter Aug 2013 #2

Even setting aside desalinization, moving water is incredibly energy-intensive hatrack Aug 2013 #5

So moving petroleum products is cheap, but somehow water is too expensive. mbperrin Aug 2013 #13

No, it's a question of scale hatrack Aug 2013 #21

Not really ever worked in the industry, have you? mbperrin Aug 2013 #25

Good, you can leave any time - knock yourself out. hatrack Aug 2013 #32

good block CreekDog Aug 2013 #34

+1 XemaSab Aug 2013 #35

It's the blazing gratuitousness of it all . . . hatrack Aug 2013 #38

he wasn't just arguing some science with you, he was dismissing the severity of the issue CreekDog Aug 2013 #39

I don't think so kristopher Aug 2013 #40

First, I'm anti-nuclear, Second, your arguments have problems, but at least you're trying, he wasn't CreekDog Aug 2013 #42

Not strange when you consider it relative to the value of the product. GliderGuider Aug 2013 #31

Why would wind and solar be very expensive? mbperrin Aug 2013 #12

As hunter pointed out, it's VERY energy intensive NickB79 Aug 2013 #3

Yet the OP doesn't say the whole country needs it. mbperrin Aug 2013 #14

One MASSIVE aquifer that irrigates millions of acres of land NickB79 Aug 2013 #18

Not really. Have you ever been through and seen the Tri-Matics run? mbperrin Aug 2013 #23

Let me repeat: 6,800,000,000,000 gallons of water ANNUALLY NickB79 Aug 2013 #28

Nope, can't "scale up." hunter Aug 2013 #20

So no amount of research will help. mbperrin Aug 2013 #24

Mother Nature bats last. hunter Aug 2013 #29

Wow. oldhippie Aug 2013 #4

Well, I did, so you can believe your own eyes, or you can just go with your mbperrin Aug 2013 #15

if we put the money into it, it could be done efficiently. mopinko Aug 2013 #6

What is your basis for that syatement? oldhippie Aug 2013 #7

there was a story on here just the other day about mopinko Aug 2013 #9

Yes, Tampa is already using this - wave action leaves the salt in the ocean and mbperrin Aug 2013 #16

In a gentle world we could make this work. hunter Aug 2013 #30

So your argument is that less research will help. mbperrin Aug 2013 #17

Nope. Made no such argument. oldhippie Aug 2013 #22

Sure you did. But since you won't own it, I won't be seeing you anymore. mbperrin Aug 2013 #26

You are gone - we don't need the snark, the hostility and the legions of strawmen hatrack Aug 2013 #33

I did the math in post #18 NickB79 Aug 2013 #19

Money is just pixels on a page. That's never an issue. mbperrin Aug 2013 #27

if what you propose is as difficult as others say, then why not do something easier but possible CreekDog Aug 2013 #36

transport it through existing rivers and streams? treat them like canals and conveyances? CreekDog Aug 2013 #41

is this what it took to extract it? mopinko Aug 2013 #37

I read this study about ground water extraction and sea level rise OnlinePoker Aug 2013 #8

thanks for answering a question that always comes up mopinko Aug 2013 #10

Study forecasts future water levels of crucial agricultural aquifer OKIsItJustMe Aug 2013 #11