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.

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


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:
how to mass produce water

From what?
 


from what ever is out there.
 


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
 


Good luck mass producing Iridium.
 


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.
 
  • #10


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.
 
  • #11


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.
 
  • #12


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.
 
  • #13


so, we develop the means to obtain the hydrogen and oxygen from independent sources.
 
  • #14


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.
 
  • #15


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.
 
  • #16


those problems have already been solved.
 
  • #17


Try telling a child in a third world country, who is dying from a waterbourne disease that the problems have been solved.
 
  • #18


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.
 
  • #19


...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.
 
  • #20


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.
 
  • #21


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.
 
  • #22


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.
 
  • #23


Drakkith said:
Of course. I just didn't feel like writing a half-page post.
Half page?
 
  • #24


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.
 
  • #25
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:
  • #26
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.
 
  • #27


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.
 
  • #28


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:
  • #29


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:
  • #30


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
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
876
Replies
4
Views
954
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K