Scientists Discover Freshwater Reserves Under Ocean Floor 100 Times Greater Than All Water Used in the 20th Century

  • metta

    Posts: 39155

    Dec 15, 2013 5:28 PM GMT
    Scientists Discover Freshwater Reserves Under Ocean Floor 100 Times Greater Than All Water Used in the 20th Century


    http://inhabitat.com/scientists-discover-freshwater-reserves-under-ocean-100-times-greater-than-what-humanity-has-used-since-1900/
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Dec 15, 2013 8:35 PM GMT
    That's interesting. However, if we start extracting it, ocean water may intrude into it causing it to become saline.

    Already some countries are using sea water desalination to meet their needs for fresh water. The need for that will greatly increase. Unless we use nuclear power for sea water desalination, the power required will cause a considerable increase in CO2 emissions and that must be prevented.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 28, 2013 6:24 PM GMT
    FRE0 saidThat's interesting. However, if we start extracting it, ocean water may intrude into it causing it to become saline.

    Already some countries are using sea water desalination to meet their needs for fresh water. The need for that will greatly increase. Unless we use nuclear power for sea water desalination, the power required will cause a considerable increase in CO2 emissions and that must be prevented.

    That would be extremely foolish. Just one bad day on a nuclear power plant and all that water will become radioactive.
  • metta

    Posts: 39155

    Dec 28, 2013 6:31 PM GMT
    There is a company that is trying to get approval to build a desalination plant in Huntington Beach, California (Orange County). I don't think that it is nuclear though. They could not get support for something like that. They have been working on this for the last 15 years and it looks like it will be at least a few more years before it gets a chance to see if it can be approved.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-desal-20131114,0,7690306.story

    California Coastal Commission Does Its Job; Poseidon Water Withdraws Application For HB Desalination Plant
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/garry-brown/california-coastal-commis_b_4345199.html

    http://hbfreshwater.com/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2013 6:55 PM GMT
    great now all the fools in NY, PA and TX can pay $5 a gallon for "under the sea" water when fracking destoys all thier groundwater hahahaha = people are idiots.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Dec 28, 2013 7:27 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    FRE0 saidThat's interesting. However, if we start extracting it, ocean water may intrude into it causing it to become saline.

    Already some countries are using sea water desalination to meet their needs for fresh water. The need for that will greatly increase. Unless we use nuclear power for sea water desalination, the power required will cause a considerable increase in CO2 emissions and that must be prevented.

    That would be extremely foolish. Just one bad day on a nuclear power plant and all that water will become radioactive.


    All WHAT water will become radioactive?

    Suppose that reverse osmosis is used to desalinate the water. In that case, the nuclear power plant could even be miles away from the desalination plant in which case a reactor problem would not result in radioactive desalinated water.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Dec 28, 2013 7:29 PM GMT
    metta8 saidThere is a company that is trying to get approval to build a desalination plant in Huntington Beach, California (Orange County). I don't think that it is nuclear though. They could not get support for something like that. They have been working on this for the last 15 years and it looks like it will be at least a few more years before it gets a chance to see if it can be approved.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-desal-20131114,0,7690306.story

    California Coastal Commission Does Its Job; Poseidon Water Withdraws Application For HB Desalination Plant
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/garry-brown/california-coastal-commis_b_4345199.html

    http://hbfreshwater.com/


    Desalination is very energy intensive and for that reason is generally the last resort to get fresh water. It is very expensive.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Dec 28, 2013 7:32 PM GMT
    somersault saidgreat now all the fools in NY, PA and TX can pay $5 a gallon for "under the sea" water when fracking destoys all thier groundwater hahahaha = people are idiots.


    I'm not 100% opposed to fracking, but it does make me uneasy. There could be excessive risk of contaminating aquifers. Also, the contents of the fracking fluids are kept secret. The fluids have to be disposed of and doing so could create additional problems. The assurances by the companies doing the fracking are insufficient for me.
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 28, 2013 7:34 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    HottJoe said
    FRE0 saidThat's interesting. However, if we start extracting it, ocean water may intrude into it causing it to become saline.

    Already some countries are using sea water desalination to meet their needs for fresh water. The need for that will greatly increase. Unless we use nuclear power for sea water desalination, the power required will cause a considerable increase in CO2 emissions and that must be prevented.

    That would be extremely foolish. Just one bad day on a nuclear power plant and all that water will become radioactive.


    All WHAT water will become radioactive?

    Suppose that reverse osmosis is used to desalinate the water. In that case, the nuclear power plant could even be miles away from the desalination plant in which case a reactor problem would not result in radioactive desalinated water.

    Nuclear plants leak; Nuclear plants have meltdowns. One bad day at a nuclear plant overshadows all of the decades of benefits from all of the other nuclear plants combined.... And even if nothing ever went wrong and nuclear plants were completely foolproof, nuclear waste piles up by the ton and remains radioactive for 240,000 years!!! Nuclear energy is THE most foolish source of energy humans have ever come up with. As it is, we're doomed by the nuclear plants we've already built. They are all old and leaking, after operating for several decades. How the hell can we maintain them and keep them sealed for 240,000 years???
  • HottJoe

    Posts: 21366

    Dec 28, 2013 7:36 PM GMT
    FRE0 said
    somersault saidgreat now all the fools in NY, PA and TX can pay $5 a gallon for "under the sea" water when fracking destoys all thier groundwater hahahaha = people are idiots.


    I'm not 100% opposed to fracking, but it does make me uneasy. There could be excessive risk of contaminating aquifers. Also, the contents of the fracking fluids are kept secret. The fluids have to be disposed of and doing so could create additional problems. The assurances by the companies doing the fracking are insufficient for me.

    Fracking companies are not obliged to adhere to the clean water and clean air acts of the EPA. That alone should tell you that they are poisoning us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2013 9:59 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    FRE0 said
    somersault saidgreat now all the fools in NY, PA and TX can pay $5 a gallon for "under the sea" water when fracking destoys all thier groundwater hahahaha = people are idiots.


    I'm not 100% opposed to fracking, but it does make me uneasy. There could be excessive risk of contaminating aquifers. Also, the contents of the fracking fluids are kept secret. The fluids have to be disposed of and doing so could create additional problems. The assurances by the companies doing the fracking are insufficient for me.

    Fracking companies are not obliged to adhere to the clean water and clean air acts of the EPA. That alone should tell you that they are poisoning us.


    And yet it's thanks to them that the US has massively reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the last decade.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2013 10:30 PM GMT

    http://www.pembina.org/blog/754

    Look at the map in the article.


    " In a drastic move to contain an on-going and unstoppable bitumen blowout in Cold Lake, Alberta, the province’s department of environment has ordered Canadian Natural Resource Ltd. (CNRL) to drain two thirds of a 53-hectare lake. According to CNRL, some of the removed water will be stored in the remaining one third of the lake, with the rest piped to a nearby pit and wetland."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2013 10:30 PM GMT
    HottJoe said
    FRE0 said
    somersault saidgreat now all the fools in NY, PA and TX can pay $5 a gallon for "under the sea" water when fracking destoys all thier groundwater hahahaha = people are idiots.


    I'm not 100% opposed to fracking, but it does make me uneasy. There could be excessive risk of contaminating aquifers. Also, the contents of the fracking fluids are kept secret. The fluids have to be disposed of and doing so could create additional problems. The assurances by the companies doing the fracking are insufficient for me.

    Fracking companies are not obliged to adhere to the clean water and clean air acts of the EPA. That alone should tell you that they are poisoning us.


    Those damn motherfrackers!!!

    Well, 'hott'joe, I read all of your complaints so short of a thermonuclear war to eliminate about 99% of energy consumers, what exactly do you propose to do other than change your screen name to warmjoe?

    You don't like oil, you don't like gas, you don't like coal, you don't like nuclear, wind turbines kill birds, having 1/3 of the earth's surface covered with solar presents another type of pollution. I'm sure you don't like caveman campfires so there goes kumbaya. So what is your solution?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2013 10:31 PM GMT
    as well, "The order contradicts many of the public statements made by CNRL since the incident was made public: bitumen continues to seep from all four ground-fissures, none of the four leaking sites are contained, and the cause of the blowout remains unknown — as does information regarding how long the bitumen emulsion has actually been leaking."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2013 11:17 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    http://www.pembina.org/blog/754

    Look at the map in the article.


    " In a drastic move to contain an on-going and unstoppable bitumen blowout in Cold Lake, Alberta, the province’s department of environment has ordered Canadian Natural Resource Ltd. (CNRL) to drain two thirds of a 53-hectare lake. According to CNRL, some of the removed water will be stored in the remaining one third of the lake, with the rest piped to a nearby pit and wetland."


    Oh, is this because of fracking?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2013 11:28 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    http://www.pembina.org/blog/754

    Look at the map in the article.


    " In a drastic move to contain an on-going and unstoppable bitumen blowout in Cold Lake, Alberta, the province’s department of environment has ordered Canadian Natural Resource Ltd. (CNRL) to drain two thirds of a 53-hectare lake. According to CNRL, some of the removed water will be stored in the remaining one third of the lake, with the rest piped to a nearby pit and wetland."


    Oh, is this because of fracking?


    You're right, you said Sarah Palin was smarter than you, and you are correct. This is the first time we've agreed on anything.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 28, 2013 11:37 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    meninlove said
    http://www.pembina.org/blog/754

    Look at the map in the article.


    " In a drastic move to contain an on-going and unstoppable bitumen blowout in Cold Lake, Alberta, the province’s department of environment has ordered Canadian Natural Resource Ltd. (CNRL) to drain two thirds of a 53-hectare lake. According to CNRL, some of the removed water will be stored in the remaining one third of the lake, with the rest piped to a nearby pit and wetland."


    Oh, is this because of fracking?


    You're right, you said Sarah Palin was smarter than you, and you are correct. This is the first time we've agreed on anything.


    It is fortunate for us all, that at least you don't have the arrogance and lack the self awareness to believe you are much smarter than any of the above. Ironic, especially considering your track record. icon_wink.gif
  • Selfie77

    Posts: 188

    Dec 29, 2013 3:29 AM GMT
    freedomisntfree said
    HottJoe said
    FRE0 said
    somersault saidgreat now all the fools in NY, PA and TX can pay $5 a gallon for "under the sea" water when fracking destoys all thier groundwater hahahaha = people are idiots.


    I'm not 100% opposed to fracking, but it does make me uneasy. There could be excessive risk of contaminating aquifers. Also, the contents of the fracking fluids are kept secret. The fluids have to be disposed of and doing so could create additional problems. The assurances by the companies doing the fracking are insufficient for me.

    Fracking companies are not obliged to adhere to the clean water and clean air acts of the EPA. That alone should tell you that they are poisoning us.


    Those damn motherfrackers!!!

    Well, 'hott'joe, I read all of your complaints so short of a thermonuclear war to eliminate about 99% of energy consumers, what exactly do you propose to do other than change your screen name to warmjoe?

    You don't like oil, you don't like gas, you don't like coal, you don't like nuclear, wind turbines kill birds, having 1/3 of the earth's surface covered with solar presents another type of pollution. I'm sure you don't like caveman campfires so there goes kumbaya. So what is your solution?


    He has no liberal talking points to be able to answer your question. But make no mistake, he IS an expert in the field!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2013 3:37 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    FRE0 said
    somersault saidgreat now all the fools in NY, PA and TX can pay $5 a gallon for "under the sea" water when fracking destoys all thier groundwater hahahaha = people are idiots.


    I'm not 100% opposed to fracking, but it does make me uneasy. There could be excessive risk of contaminating aquifers. Also, the contents of the fracking fluids are kept secret. The fluids have to be disposed of and doing so could create additional problems. The assurances by the companies doing the fracking are insufficient for me.

    Fracking companies are not obliged to adhere to the clean water and clean air acts of the EPA. That alone should tell you that they are poisoning us.


    And yet it's thanks to them that the US has massively reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the last decade.



    Yes, we should all thank fracking for our pristine air supply. icon_rolleyes.gif Are you fucking high?
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Dec 29, 2013 3:50 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    FRE0 said
    HottJoe said
    FRE0 saidThat's interesting. However, if we start extracting it, ocean water may intrude into it causing it to become saline.

    Already some countries are using sea water desalination to meet their needs for fresh water. The need for that will greatly increase. Unless we use nuclear power for sea water desalination, the power required will cause a considerable increase in CO2 emissions and that must be prevented.

    That would be extremely foolish. Just one bad day on a nuclear power plant and all that water will become radioactive.


    All WHAT water will become radioactive?

    Suppose that reverse osmosis is used to desalinate the water. In that case, the nuclear power plant could even be miles away from the desalination plant in which case a reactor problem would not result in radioactive desalinated water.

    Nuclear plants leak; Nuclear plants have meltdowns. One bad day at a nuclear plant overshadows all of the decades of benefits from all of the other nuclear plants combined.... And even if nothing ever went wrong and nuclear plants were completely foolproof, nuclear waste piles up by the ton and remains radioactive for 240,000 years!!! Nuclear energy is THE most foolish source of energy humans have ever come up with. As it is, we're doomed by the nuclear plants we've already built. They are all old and leaking, after operating for several decades. How the hell can we maintain them and keep them sealed for 240,000 years???


    The basic problem is that we implemented the wrong nuclear technology. Our present nuclear technology is based on what was expedient to get material for military weapons. It is exceedingly inefficient. It uses less than 1% of its enriched uranium fuel for energy; the rest, i.e., 99%, is discarded as waste. That's only part of the problem. Natural uranium is only 0.7% U235 with the rest being U238. For commercial reactors, the natural uranium is enriched to from 3% to 5% U235 by discarding most of the U238.

    Another problem with our current pressurized water uranium reactor technology is that the reactor has to be in a pressure vessel pressurized to about 2500 psi. That means that the reactor has to be a very thick and expensive forging to withstand the pressure. And, in case the pressure vessel ruptures, it has to be in a containment structure able to withstand the pressure pulse. But, that is not all.

    When a reactor is shut down, fission stops immediately. However, because of the highly radioactive fission products in the reactor, it at first generates about 9% as much heat as if it were normally operating. To prevent a melt-down, there has to be provision to remove that heat until the highly radioactive materials decay. Our current reactors depend on an emergency cooling system for that. There are back-up emergency cooling pumps in case a pump fails. And, in case of grid power failure, there are emergency Diesel generators. If there are multiple failures, a melt-down can occur.

    The wisdom of designing nuclear power systems that depend on multiple layers of protection to prevent disaster is at least questionable, especially since it is possible to design nuclear reactor systems that are walk-away safe, i.e., that cannot melt down.

    The Fukushima disaster occurred because idiots located the emergency Diesel generators below the level which tsunamis had previously reached. The Chernobyl reactor was of a very dangerous design the main purpose of which was to produce weapons-grade plutonium; its secondary purpose was to produce power. Before the melt-down occurred, the safety systems were disabled for test purposes. The control rods were a bad design which caused them to jam making it impossible to shut the reactor down. And finally, there was no containment structure; the reactor was in what amounted to a warehouse building.

    The Three Mile Island disaster was a disaster only to the investors. I've read that the resulting radioactive contamination was so severe that nothing will grow in the area; that is a lie. You can find pictures of the area on the Internet; there is no problem with radioactive contamination there.

    A few decades ago, our government foolishly halted R & D on different reactor types, including the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) which had been successfully tested in prototype form and is incapable of melting down. It looks very promising, but there is also the integral fast reactor (IFR) which may be another way to go. Either system could use our present nuclear waste as fuel thereby reducing its volume to about 1% of what it is now. Moreover, the waste that is left would decay more quickly and need to be sequestered for only a few hundred years.

    The Chinese, with the cooperation of other countries and the U.S. scientists who did the work on the LFTR, are doing research work on the LFTR. It may be that because we foolishly halted research on it, we will end up buying the technology from China.

    Until I took a motorcycle trip a few years ago from Albuquerque to Savannah, Georgia, I was strongly in favor of renewable energy system. Then, I saw many wind farms with stationary turbines and wondered whether adequate consideration had been given to the fact that wind and solar power systems are intermittent. After doing countless hours of searching, I was unable to find any studies that indicated that renewables could provide power 24 hours per day 365 days per year and concluded that, to control CO2 emissions and global warming, nuclear power was the only option for most large prosperous countries. That is especially true since we must get about 90% of our power from non-CO2 emitting sources, including power for transportation, cooking, home heating, etc.

    Like it or not, nuclear power is essential. Thus, we must implement nuclear power systems which are less expensive, safer, and less wasteful.

    I have not limited my information to only one or a few sources. I have diligently studied energy systems both by buying books and by reading articles on the Internet. The media will not properly inform us. To be well enough informed to have a valid opinion, it is necessary to spend many hours reading material form various sources.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 29, 2013 3:54 AM GMT
    It doesn't require being an expert to develop a sense of right and wrong. It might indicate a pathology to not.

    That modern society requires energy is no reason to fail criticizing how energy is mined (are civil wars created & people killed for money), delivered (are rivers polluted)and utilized (can we reduce our carbon footprint).

    That we might not yet have better, applicable answers doesn't mean we don't stop questioning what little we know.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Dec 29, 2013 3:58 AM GMT
    HottJoe said
    FRE0 said
    somersault saidgreat now all the fools in NY, PA and TX can pay $5 a gallon for "under the sea" water when fracking destoys all thier groundwater hahahaha = people are idiots.


    I'm not 100% opposed to fracking, but it does make me uneasy. There could be excessive risk of contaminating aquifers. Also, the contents of the fracking fluids are kept secret. The fluids have to be disposed of and doing so could create additional problems. The assurances by the companies doing the fracking are insufficient for me.

    Fracking companies are not obliged to adhere to the clean water and clean air acts of the EPA. That alone should tell you that they are poisoning us.


    Whether they are actually poisoning us is unclear. We do not have adequate information to know. There is certainly good reason to be uneasy.

    Under the administration of George Bush II, a law was enacted to prevent the EPA from having anything to do with fracking. The Obama administration has not done much about that.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Dec 29, 2013 4:04 AM GMT
    riddler78 said
    HottJoe said
    FRE0 said
    somersault saidgreat now all the fools in NY, PA and TX can pay $5 a gallon for "under the sea" water when fracking destoys all thier groundwater hahahaha = people are idiots.


    I'm not 100% opposed to fracking, but it does make me uneasy. There could be excessive risk of contaminating aquifers. Also, the contents of the fracking fluids are kept secret. The fluids have to be disposed of and doing so could create additional problems. The assurances by the companies doing the fracking are insufficient for me.

    Fracking companies are not obliged to adhere to the clean water and clean air acts of the EPA. That alone should tell you that they are poisoning us.


    And yet it's thanks to them that the US has massively reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the last decade.


    It has not reduced CO2 emissions by nearly enough. Eventually, the entire world will need to get about 90% of its power from non-CO2 emitting sources, including power for transportation, cooking, heating, etc.

    Note also that CH4 (natural gas, i.e., methane) is about 20 times more effective for global warming than CO2 is. That means that even a small percentage of CH4 leakage from fracking will have a significant effect. Moreover, compared with coal, CH4 cuts CO2 emissions by only 50% which is not nearly enough. As a stop-gap measure, it will help slightly.

    By the year 2100, probably global power production will need to increase by about four times as poor countries have to increase their power production to lift their people out of poverty.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Dec 29, 2013 4:15 AM GMT
    meninlove said as well, "The order contradicts many of the public statements made by CNRL since the incident was made public: bitumen continues to seep from all four ground-fissures, none of the four leaking sites are contained, and the cause of the blowout remains unknown — as does information regarding how long the bitumen emulsion has actually been leaking."


    But in another place in the article, it is stated that the probable cause is underground steam injection. It looks as though there should be a follow-up article to clarify the matter. It would not be surprising to find that fracking presents similar hazards.
  • FRE0

    Posts: 4865

    Dec 29, 2013 5:10 AM GMT
    Here is a link to information on the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR):

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

    Once you understand it, you will be on your way to a master's degree.