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

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of mass-producing water to address growing needs and mitigate droughts, explicitly excluding conservation and recycling methods. Initial suggestions include combining hydrogen and oxygen to create water, a process that is technically sound but impractical for large-scale production due to energy requirements. The conversation shifts to the more viable option of desalination, highlighting that while technology exists to convert seawater into drinkable water, the challenge lies in the high energy costs and economic barriers, particularly in poorer nations. Participants emphasize that the water crisis is not merely a technical issue but also a political and economic one, with existing solutions hindered by funding and infrastructure challenges. The dialogue touches on the importance of addressing the root causes of water scarcity, such as contamination and accessibility, rather than focusing solely on water production. The conversation ultimately reflects a broader concern about resource allocation and the effectiveness of aid in solving global water issues.
  • #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

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
501
Replies
4
Views
509
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K