It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

We should build water pipelines from melting glaciers to our depleting aquifers, rivers, ponds..

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
We should build water pipelines from melting glaciers to our depleting aquifers, rivers, ponds etc... it's much cheaper to pipe the melting fresh water glaciers to fill our reservoirs now than it will be to desalination water in the future when we have mostly depleted the fresh water supply. Not only that but we could run this water to areas experiencing droughts to help farmers or even turn dry barren areas into forests and farm lands. We won't be able to save this fresh water once the glaciers are gone into the salty seas.


By the end of this century, billions are likely to be gripped by water stress and the stuff of life could be an unseen driver of conflict.
A future of Thirst

edit on 15-5-2014 by Xeven because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven
and what if we made pipelines from the northeast to socal,so in the winter they just shovel the snow into it? Really,have you thought this out? Economically,enviromentally?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Thousands of miles of individual pipelines from multiple glacier locations to an even larger number of areas around the world...
Sure, that would be so much simpler and cost effective than localized desalinization.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Chamberf=6

I'm in arizona,so how many garden hoses to the nearest glacier?



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Xeven

The countries with serious water shortage in the future are mainly located about a few thousand miles away from the melting fresh waters.So it would be very expensive to build a pipeline and harder to secure and maintain it,not to mention the pumping equipments involved in such massive operation.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: shapur
granted,I was raised in Nebraska,right over the Ogallala aquafier.Why couldn't the pump water from the Missouri river back into the aquafier? Well,everyone downstream would complain about low water levels,and how do you refill the Aquafier as fast as its being pumped out? A great idea,on paper...only on paper.rather than do a wild idea like this,why not use the waste heat from a nuke plant to desalinate water??



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 01:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: blkcwbyhat
a reply to: Chamberf=6

I'm in arizona,so how many garden hoses to the nearest glacier?




How much money ya got?


BTW my first post was sarcastic (but I think you got that.)



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Even better, how about a few large technologically advanced desalinization plants throughout the world? There is so much water in the ocean. But now that would make too much sense.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I suggested something similar to a senator once, and got shut down, cause she could see the justification of spending billions of dollars on the idea. But the idea was to build catchmen systems in the southeastern part of the country, which would catch the water from the massive amount of rains that it gets, along with where the storm drains are, and then shipping the water west to the drought ridden areas, to give them relief from the lack of water.

Needless to say the senator thought it was a bad idea, and could not see the benefits from such, such as the ability to prevent flooding in some areas that cost billions or the boost to the economy or how it would spur the economy in ways that were not thought of or about.

Most politicians do not think about the issues until it is too late and then pass bad laws to try to fix such.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: shapur
a reply to: Xeven

The countries with serious water shortage in the future are mainly located about a few thousand miles away from the melting fresh waters.So it would be very expensive to build a pipeline and harder to secure and maintain it,not to mention the pumping equipments involved in such massive operation.


Whats the big deal?

Most countries have pipelines for oil that go this far or further. Oh, yeah they build pumping stations for that oil too. Why? Cus someone is making MONEY.

What.. you wanna pipe fresh water to people so they can Live?

Hell no, we can't let that happen!

See how silly your argument is?

Btw.. you did know.. that they have oil pipelines that stretch for Hundreds of Thousands of miles even across the oceans? I guess you didn't. Yeah, the Op's idea is very doable.
edit on 15-5-2014 by JohnPhoenix because: sp



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
I think it's doable - Bigtime and a Great idea.

I also think desalinization plants are a great idea.

Both will cost billions of dollars anyway so cost of each is not an issue.

I say we should do Both.

There, now you guys don't have to argue over which one is better.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:24 PM
link   
The only thing is that most of the glaciers melt right into the oceans, which contaminates it whith salt. It's a good idea and creative thinking and might be doable at some locations but I don't think it's going to solve anything.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Municipal water systems and pipelines already waste up to a 1/3rd or more of what the supply facilities pump into the network compared to what metered users ever record seeing on the other end. It's from that, they know the seepage rate or 'loss from bad plumbing' that is endemic around the world. Little leaks....billions of little leaks...in every major water supply system in the world.

No biggy..until the %'s reach double digits and beyond to account for millions, then billions then more in water lost and truely..GONE..when lost in drips and drabs into soil that won't concentrate or return it in any meaningful way.

I'd be militantly against more pipelines to anything for water until we stop totally wasting a 1/3rd or more of the precious resource we already handle.

Just my two carrots... OH..and water loss rates like that are easily located on Google. Paris, Houston and San Diego have some of the better reporting from both the good and bad sides of the water waste issue. MOST waste IS coming from the very structure built to supply it.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90
The only thing is that most of the glaciers melt right into the oceans, which contaminates it whith salt. It's a good idea and creative thinking and might be doable at some locations but I don't think it's going to solve anything.


Might mean our ancestors have water when it could end up they wont. Just flowing it into dry areas could create forest which might help curb some of the warming who knows. Either way preserving that fresh water is probably a good idea for the future. Robots could feed the pipes with melting ice from the glaciers.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnPhoenix
Not only is it doable but you don't have to worry over small leaks in the system like you do with crude oil. Heck a leak might even be a blessing for the area where the leak occurs.



posted on May, 15 2014 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
I suggested something similar to a senator once, and got shut down, cause she could see the justification of spending billions of dollars on the idea. But the idea was to build catchmen systems in the southeastern part of the country, which would catch the water from the massive amount of rains that it gets, along with where the storm drains are, and then shipping the water west to the drought ridden areas, to give them relief from the lack of water.

Needless to say the senator thought it was a bad idea, and could not see the benefits from such, such as the ability to prevent flooding in some areas that cost billions or the boost to the economy or how it would spur the economy in ways that were not thought of or about.

Most politicians do not think about the issues until it is too late and then pass bad laws to try to fix such.


Exactly. And they don't see it as a investment in future humans living on the earth. It wont make a lot of money today but consider this. One day water will be scarce and be worth a few dollars a gallon in areas of the world that lack it. Imagine if we build strategic reserves like we do for oil by replenishing the empting aquifers now. It's an investment in the future of our country.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: JohnPhoenix



that they have oil pipelines that stretch for Hundreds of Thousands of miles

??
The circumference of the Earth is 24,859.82 miles. To get a pipeline that is "hundredS of thousands of miles" would have to circle the Earth at least 8 times...



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
lol and of course in Saudi Arabia they are all reading this and slapping themselves in the head asking "Why didn't we think of that???? Now if only we could find a glacier"



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: bronco73
lol and of course in Saudi Arabia they are all reading this and slapping themselves in the head asking "Why didn't we think of that???? Now if only we could find a glacier"

...And circle the planet 8x or more with a pipeline....oh wait.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: JohnPhoenix
I think it's doable - Bigtime and a Great idea.

I also think desalinization plants are a great idea.

Both will cost billions of dollars anyway so cost of each is not an issue.

I say we should do Both.

There, now you guys don't have to argue over which one is better.


no need for pipelines or hoses.

what do you think made the grand canyon?



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join