Is there any research or studies into how to mass produce water to

[wildwohl]

Is there any research or studies into how to mass produce water to meet our growing needs and to mitigate draughts? I am not asking about conservation or recycling water. Also, do not want to hear about it costs to much, it takes to much energy, etc.

 

[Tea Jay]

Is there any research or studies into how to mass produce water to meet our growing needs and to mitigate draughts? I am not asking about conservation or recycling water. Also, do not want to hear about it costs to much, it takes to much energy, etc.

Yes, just combine 2 hydrogens with an oxygen, in mass quantities, and make all the water you need.

This process has been studied extensively, and proven to work reliably.

As you don't want to hear about required energy or costs, and no water recycling or conservation issues are involved, this is therefore the answer that makes the most sense.

 

[Borek]

how to mass produce water

From what?

 

[wildwohl]

from what ever is out there.

 

[Borek]

from what ever is out there.

Short answer: there is nothing that can be used to produce water by other means.

 

[Tea Jay]

Short answer: there is nothing that can be used to produce water by other means.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071031125457.htm

:)

 

[wildwohl]

now, that is what I am talking about. now we just have to ramp it up and we have drinking water and electricity

 

[Antiphon]

Good luck mass producing Iridium.

 

[Evo]

now, that is what I am talking about. now we just have to ramp it up and we have drinking water and electricity

The article is explaining the process for use in making fuel cells.

You cannot just make water in large amounts.

 

[russ_watters]

Oy, no. Such processes are not generators of either water or energy, as water is typically both the raw material and waste product and an energy INPUT is required to split it.

What no one mentioned is the most obvious: manufacturing drinking water from seawater. See, lack of water isn't the problem, it is lack of DRINKABLE water.

 

[wildwohl]

desalinization and reverse osmosis does work for ships at sea and other places, but you are using water that is already there, i am looking at making water. the Fuel cells are what provide electricity and water for the ISS and Apollo Programs.

 

[Jobrag]

The water on the ISS and Apollo programs was a byproduct of the fuel cells (the primary output of the cells being electricity),To obtain the oxygen and hydrogen that the cells run on you split water into its constituent parts, so using fuel cells to make water is not really a viable option.

 

[wildwohl]

so, we develop the means to obtain the hydrogen and oxygen from independent sources.

 

[russ_watters]

There is no independent source of hydrogen: it is too light to stay in the atmosphere. The only place to get it besides from water is by burning fossil fuels...which already creates water.

 

[Jobrag]

wildwohl
I think that you are addressing the wrong problem, there is plenty of water out there but, most of it can't be used for irrigation or human consumption because it's salt water or contaminated by other undesirable elements. Address that problem instead of looking for hydrogen mines or whatever.

 

[wildwohl]

those problems have already been solved.

 

[Jobrag]

Try telling a child in a third world country, who is dying from a waterbourne disease that the problems have been solved.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't see why there is a fixation on making water from raw hydrogen and oxygen. Developing desalination technology to the point where purifying sea water is cheap and effective is a much more desirable goal.

 

[russ_watters]

...as is cleaning dirty fresh water. From a scientific/engineering point of view, these problems have been solved. That water problems still exist in the world is a political/economic issue.

 

[Drakkith]

Try telling a child in a third world country, who is dying from a waterbourne disease that the problems have been solved.

The problem isn't a technical or engineering one, it is an economical one. Simply put, these things cost money.
The means to do mass desalination from seawater already exists. It simply takes a LOT of energy, meaning you have to burn a lot of fuel or have some other means of providing power.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The problem isn't a technical or engineering one, it is an economical one. Simply put, these things cost money.
The means to do mass desalination from seawater already exists. It simply takes a LOT of energy, meaning you have to burn a lot of fuel or have some other means of providing power.

There is a technological element related to the economics; to deploy these methods a poor nation either has to get richer or the technology has to get cheaper. Whilst the developed world can help with aid programs (both to give immediate resources and to build up infrastructure) we can also help by funding science that brings the cost of technology down.

 

[Drakkith]

There is a technological element related to the economics; to deploy these methods a poor nation either has to get richer or the technology has to get cheaper. Whilst the developed world can help with aid programs (both to give immediate resources and to build up infrastructure) we can also help by funding science that brings the cost of technology down.

Of course. I just didn't feel like writing a half-page post.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Of course. I just didn't feel like writing a half-page post.

Half page?

 

[Drakkith]

Half page?

To explain what you just said in addition to my original post and to clarify what I meant. That would take me about half a page.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a technological element related to the economics; to deploy these methods a poor nation either has to get richer or the technology has to get cheaper. Whilst the developed world can help with aid programs (both to give immediate resources and to build up infrastructure) we can also help by funding science that brings the cost of technology down.

I'm a little more cynical than that. A $6.50 donation will provide a Lifestraw for an African in need, which can provide him/her with enough clean water for a year. Roughly 5 million people die a year due to lack of clean water. So roughly $33 million a year could save all of them. Bill Gates could drop that out of his wallet and not even notice! Or we could use half of the funding we just cut from the UNESCO to do it. The existence of this particular problem is strictly a selfish political/economic choice the people of the world have decided to continue having.

http://celfeducation.org/lifestrawdonation.html

 

[Drakkith]

The existence of this particular problem is strictly a selfish political/economic choice the people of the world have decided to continue having.

http://celfeducation.org/lifestrawdonation.html

Yes, because taking care of the world is that easy. Don't fool yourself.

 

[Studiot]

UK water companies have a scheme whereby you round up your water bill payment to the next whole £. The water company collects all these small contributions together and provides direct support to wateraid projects, mostly in Africa.

Since I do believe their combined input is somewhat in excess of $33m I am suspicious of this figure.

I am also of the opinion that the main problem is that too greater proportion of aid fails to reach its intended target.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, because taking care of the world is that easy. Don't fool yourself.

I didn't say it was easy, I just said it was a choice -- and not a particularly expensive or scientifically challenging one.

 

[russ_watters]

I am also of the opinion that the main problem is that too greater proportion of aid fails to reach its intended target.

Yes...and that would be a political problem.

Since I do believe their combined input is somewhat in excess of $33m I am suspicious of this figure.

The flaw in my formulation is that you'd need to pre-identify which 5 million people are going to die (then also make sure that they only use their lifestraw for drinking water, as opposed to growing food). The number of people at risk due to poor quality drinking water would be much higher than 5 million, but even if it is a quarter of Africa's billion people, you're still only talking $1.6 billion. That's just starting to be real money to a guy like Bill Gates, but he could easily swing it if he wanted to, using a fraction of his annual investment income. The point was just for illustrative purposes in either case: the money isn't the problem. The problem is almost literally getting past the warlord who greets you at the airport. Again: political.

 

[Studiot]

I forgot to thank you for the excellent link, Russ - It really is a good idea - It's often the simple ones that work.

I have already forwarded it to a clinic in Kenya, I don't think know about it.

go well

 

[D H]

The number of people at risk due to poor quality drinking water would be much higher than 5 million, but even if it is a quarter of Africa's billion people, you're still only talking $1.6 billion.

Those LifeStraws have a limited lifetime, about a year from what I can see. That makes your $1.6 billion an annual expenditure, and now you are starting to talk about a lot of money.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Those LifeStraws have a limited lifetime, about a year from what I can see. That makes your $1.6 billion an annual expenditure, and now you are starting to talk about a lot of money.

Which is why the consideration for any aid program is to both treat the symptom and the disease. Spend money on the things that will immediately keep people alive and spend money on helping develop their country so that they can drag themselves out of poverty.

just think, that $1.6B could fund a lot of great work at the LHC and go to the JWST.

It could but it could also save millions of lives. There has to be a balance obviously but considering these large projects are already funded (and the latter is grossly over budget as I understand it) there's no reason to simply pile all money into it and not give a relatively negligible amount of money to aid.

 

[wildwohl]

and look at the multitude of billions of dollars in aid that the charities and U.N. get and the only ones that benefit from it are the charities and the U.N.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

and look at the multitude of billions of dollars in aid that the charities and U.N. get and the only ones that benefit from it are the charities and the U.N.

There are millions of people alive and prosperous today thanks to aid that would beg to differ.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

and look at the millions that are alive and prosperous without the aid.

I'm sorry but that isn't an argument, it's a huge fallacy. It's akin to saying "look at all the people who aren't receiving chemotherapy who are alive and prosperous" to a cancer patient in need of chemotherapy.

This thread stopped being about water production a while ago.