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

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
34 replies · 10K views
wildwohl
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
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.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org

Discussion



wildwohl said:
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.
 


wildwohl said:
from what ever is out there.

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


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


wildwohl said:
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.
 


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.
 


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.
 


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.
 


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


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.
 


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.
 


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


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.
 


...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.
 


Jobrag said:
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.
 


Drakkith said:
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.
 


Ryan_m_b said:
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 said:
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.
 
Ryan_m_b said:
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
 
Last edited:
russ_watters said:
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.
 


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.
 


Drakkith said:
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.
 
Last edited:


Studiot said:
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.
 
Last edited:


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