ARmy Rumour SErvice

**HectortheInspector** · 21-10-2009, 11:24

Originally Posted by re-stilly

Originally Posted by Jungelism

Originally Posted by re-stilly

Originally Posted by Jungelism

Originally Posted by re-stilly

Surely this is where places like Scotland/Norway/Finland could actually cash in by laying a water pipe to these places and actually have a viable export.

Thousands upon thousands of miles of pipes requiring hundreds of pumping stations at £X million each, running across tens of sovereign nations all requiring trade deals etc to even begin negotiating over the use of their soil...

Flawless plan :D

Alternatively run them under the Sea to Gib, pumping station there to Malta??
from there they could be split to supply the countries required. Only need Malta's support, give them discounted or free no of Litres per annum would probably be OK

I'm not quite sure you've realised how broke UK PLC is. We don't have the money to put pipe anywhere, especially not around continental Europe. As for other nations, the capital investment required would be astronomical. Definitely unfeasible.

Edited to add: have you forgotten the hosepipe bans of the '90s and early Noughties? We don't have a huge amount of water to give away ourselves.

OK I accept defeat. but surely there must be water rich areas such as the Himalayas where water can be piped or extracted.

Quote from the UN Water Org website http://www.unwater.org/statistics_res.html

The total volume of water on Earth is about 1.4 billion km3. The volume of freshwater resources is around 35 million km3, or about 2.5 percent of the total volume.
Source: United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

Of these freshwater resources, about 24 million km3 or 70 percent is in the form of ice and permanent snow cover in mountainous regions, the Antarctic and Arctic regions.

So:
97.5% salt water
2.5% fresh
of which
1.75% is ice and snow
Leaving
0.75% for us!
(and most of that is locked up underground!)

**re-stilly** · 21-10-2009, 11:25

Originally Posted by Jungelism

Originally Posted by re-stilly

Thinking about it they already do this with gas and oil so why not water, surely can't be no more expensive than that. So I take back the defeat comment

Its not a battle, just a discussion! There's far more money involved with oil and gas, the people who really need water (massive generalisation) are in extremely poor "Global South" nations who simply can't afford the costs of putting in a multi-billion dollar pipeline. Everyone wants oil, and will pay through the nose to get it.

Ahhh, but that balance will shift when the fossil fuels run out, so to have the infrastructure already in place to take advantage would surely be the right thing to do. Plus if water becomes scarce it will be worth more than gas and oil because lets face it we could survive without fossil fuels but without water you are very much up a dried up creak without a paddle.

**Jungelism** · 21-10-2009, 11:28

Originally Posted by Mr_Deputy

Desalination powered by modern (more effective) solar power could be the solution.

There was a very good BBC Hardtalk with a scientist whose name escapes me who argues that the only future energy source will be nuclear, as solar/wind etc are simply not sufficient for powering world economies. But who knows what the brainboxes will produce next...I like the Swedes burning "excess" rabbits for energy. The 70 stone man could fuel Nottingham for a month.

Edited to Add:

"so to have the infrastructure already in place to take advantage would surely be the right thing to do"

Yeah, but that involves the use of LOGIC in POLITICS. Not much of that kicking about :D

**CountryGal** · 21-10-2009, 11:28

Originally Posted by Mr_Deputy

Desalination powered by modern (more effective) solar power could be the solution.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

"The Perth desalination plant is powered partially by renewable energy from the Emu Downs Wind Farm[20]. The Sydney plant will be powered entirely from renewable sources[21], thereby eliminating harmful greenhouse gas emissions to the environment, a common argument used against seawater desalination due to the energy requirements of the technology."

Wonder how expensive this is, though if they also made the wind turbines nationally they would be able to benefit there too

**re-stilly** · 21-10-2009, 11:32

Originally Posted by CountryGal

Originally Posted by Mr_Deputy

Desalination powered by modern (more effective) solar power could be the solution.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

"The Perth desalination plant is powered partially by renewable energy from the Emu Downs Wind Farm[20]. The Sydney plant will be powered entirely from renewable sources[21], thereby eliminating harmful greenhouse gas emissions to the environment, a common argument used against seawater desalination due to the energy requirements of the technology."

Wonder how expensive this is, though if they also made the wind turbines nationally they would be able to benefit there too

THe cost according to this report puts it at about $1 million a week (not sure if that is USD or AUD though)

**smartascarrots** · 21-10-2009, 11:32

Originally Posted by Jungelism

Edited to add: have you forgotten the hosepipe bans of the '90s and early Noughties? We don't have a huge amount of water to give away ourselves.

Oh, but we do. The private water companies piss millions of litres away every year and still manage to turn a whopping profit.

If that money was spent on fixing the leaks then we'd have a swimming pool in every garden. Whether we liked it or not. :D

**tropper66** · 21-10-2009, 11:32

Wales will become the new Kuwait

**Jungelism** · 21-10-2009, 11:39

Originally Posted by tropper66

Wales will become the new Kuwait

Aye, but its a little farther a stretch for (insert water desperate nation here) to claim that Wales is the 'olive branch that should be returned to the tree'. Wales doesn't even have olives.

Plus the 'mother of all battles' occurs annually during the Six Nations season.

**rampant** · 21-10-2009, 11:45

Originally Posted by CountryGal

Originally Posted by Mr_Deputy

Desalination powered by modern (more effective) solar power could be the solution.

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

"The Perth desalination plant is powered partially by renewable energy from the Emu Downs Wind Farm[20]. The Sydney plant will be powered entirely from renewable sources[21], thereby eliminating harmful greenhouse gas emissions to the environment, a common argument used against seawater desalination due to the energy requirements of the technology."

Wonder how expensive this is, though if they also made the wind turbines nationally they would be able to benefit there too

Concentrated Solar Power is the big discussion in this area, providing lecky and clean water.

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

There are other low tech solutions such as the Seawater Greenhouse, designed by a Brit Company, which has had a modicum of success.

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

http://www.seawatergreenhouse.com/ (they've updated their website since I last looked.)

Solar Desal. can either be carried out in small or large scale. the plant in Aus is a good example of the large scale. But it may be more worth while to establish many smaller decentralised desal plants as it cuts down on the amount of pumping and pipe laying that is required (also means less will be lost through leakages).

http://www.solar-desalination.com/

To be effective in the long term, desalination projects will have to do a number of things:

1. Ensure there is sufficient water produced to support the populace c.100+ litres per person per day (factoring requirements for agriculture). Indeed there should be an excess of one thrid minimum.
2. Ensure a viable system of water conservation, including greywater reuse and more effective irrigation techniques (eg drip irrigation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drip_irrigation ) is in place
3. Ensure that surplus excess is utilised to recharge traditional water sources such as underground aquifers, which would benifit the ecology by restoring traditional water levels and provide a safety net in case things go wrong.
4. Insure that dispersal of concentrated brine is spread across the largest area of ocean possible in order for it to difuse evenly in the ocean.

**HectortheInspector** · 21-10-2009, 11:47

Originally Posted by smartascarrots

Originally Posted by Jungelism

Edited to add: have you forgotten the hosepipe bans of the '90s and early Noughties? We don't have a huge amount of water to give away ourselves.

Oh, but we do. The private water companies piss millions of litres away every year and still manage to turn a whopping profit.

If that money was spent on fixing the leaks then we'd have a swimming pool in every garden. Whether we liked it or not. :D

Sad but true.
Defra figures at http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/sta...wsupplyuse.htm

suggest that over 20% of all water is lost between source and tap. The companies operate at something called the 'Economic Level of Leakage', basically the point where the cost of digging up the road is outweighed by the savings in lost water. Good for the shareholders, I suppose.