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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the feasibility of mass-producing water to address growing needs and mitigate droughts. Participants explore various methods of water production, including chemical processes and desalination, while expressing differing views on the practicality and implications of these approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that combining hydrogen and oxygen in mass quantities is a straightforward method to produce water, asserting that this process has been studied extensively.
  • Others challenge the viability of producing water from raw hydrogen and oxygen, emphasizing that water is both a raw material and a waste product in such processes, requiring energy input.
  • A participant points out that the lack of drinkable water is a more pressing issue than the availability of water itself, advocating for advancements in desalination technology.
  • There is a discussion about the economic barriers to deploying existing desalination technologies, with some arguing that the technical challenges have been solved but remain hindered by costs.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the effectiveness of aid and funding in addressing water scarcity, suggesting that political and economic choices play a significant role in the persistence of water-related issues.
  • Concerns are raised about the practicality of mass-producing water through chemical means, with references to the limitations of current technologies and the need for independent sources of hydrogen and oxygen.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best approach to mass-producing water. There are competing views on the feasibility of chemical production versus desalination, as well as differing opinions on the role of economics and politics in addressing water scarcity.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of water production, including the energy requirements for chemical processes and the economic implications of desalination technologies. The discussion reflects a range of assumptions about the availability of resources and the effectiveness of existing solutions.

  • #31


russ_watters said:
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.
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #32


D H said:
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.
wildwohl said:
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.
 
  • #33


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.
 
  • #34


wildwohl said:
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.
 
  • #35


wildwohl said:
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.
 

Similar threads

What is the Tidal Bulge Theory and its Controversies?
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
High School Energy transfer water > air in a greenhouse
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
736
Sources for Physics Research Paper on Rotational Blade Motion on Helicopter
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
779
How do we have the amount of water we do on this planet?
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
Undergrad Expected visible vapor time of boiling water at STP without any heat?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
42% of Sea Level rise due to human water use?
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Undergrad Highschooler looking for math research/projects
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
How do we model water flow problems?
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Undergrad AI Predicting Physics Research Results
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Undergrad Observational Studies: What to Believe
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K