Aeronaut - 09 November 2009 02:28 PM

JimmyT - 09 November 2009 08:53 AM

Aeronaut - 12 October 2009 01:11 AM

I easily see the US’s environmental laws making us the last country to adopt the desalination plants. And that’s along the coasts.

What about the ecological effects of the brine concentrate that you have to dump back into the ocean?

Do I believe that this is a major concern? Emphatically no! But there is always some issue that can be used to block new technology.

Water extraction from the atmosphere? What about the decreased rainfall in the water-diminished-plume downwind? Shouldn’t the adopters of this technology have to pay the rest of the world some sort of “environmental sin tax” for the horrors of ecological disruption this causes?

It never ends folks.

No need to dump it back into the ocean, Jimmy. We use it on roads all year around- and that’s just part of the salt industry.

http://en.wiki.org/wiki/Calcium_chloride[/quote

Brine, or no brine. It depends on what method you use. I think reverse osmosis is the best current technology, and It makes brine. I really don’t think it is a significant problem.

Nature makes brine too. Its just not as localized as a big reverse osmosis plant would be. As one of my professors put it: “The solution to the problem of pollution is dilution”.

“Give me an equation with five variables and I’ll draw you an elephant” - Dr Skidmore professor of chemical engineering at The Ohio State University.

JimmyT - 10 November 2009 12:27 PM

Nature makes brine too. Its just not as localized as a big reverse osmosis plant would be. As one of my professors put it: “The solution to the problem of pollution is dilution”.

Dilution can only work in some cases. In this case I agree that any water distilled will probably go back into the ocean/sea.
In some cases dilution does not work, when the materials are bio-accumulative such as Mercury.

Breakable,

  No argument there.  It was only meant to apply to this case.  It was just too good of a quote to pass up.

JimmyT - 09 November 2009 08:53 AM

Aeronaut - 12 October 2009 01:11 AM

I easily see the US’s environmental laws making us the last country to adopt the desalination plants. And that’s along the coasts.

What about the ecological effects of the brine concentrate that you have to dump back into the ocean?

Do I believe that this is a major concern? Emphatically no! But there is always some issue that can be used to block new technology.

Water extraction from the atmosphere? What about the decreased rainfall in the water-diminished-plume downwind? Shouldn’t the adopters of this technology have to pay the rest of the world some sort of “environmental sin tax” for the horrors of ecological disruption this causes?

It never ends folks.

It’s the old tactic/error of making the perfect the enemy of the good; only ZERO ‘downstream’ impact is acceptable. It’s all laid out in Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.

“Cap-and-trade is dangerous precisely because it gives that lot, and other similar bodies, authority over the valuation of every productive activity on the planet, almost.”

Once we have a fusion-based economy that will no longer be remotely true.

dennisp - 20 May 2010 10:57 PM

“Cap-and-trade is dangerous precisely because it gives that lot, and other similar bodies, authority over the valuation of every productive activity on the planet, almost.”

Once we have a fusion-based economy that will no longer be remotely true.

Again with the fusion ex machina.  Which is fine, but won’t make the preceding any more or less “true”.  “Moot”, perhaps.  “Unresolved”. 

Cap and Trade isn’t any more dangerous than drilling for oil, I suspect. 

As to giving “that lot” authority over the valuation - not quite.  That’s what’s left up to markets to determine.  “That lot” sets the cap, and then all the trading (market-based valuation exercise) begins.  Knowing that only x amount of pollutant can be produced, trades occur to bring about the most beneficial (per the market) use. 

So people, in their amazing, flexible, market oriented way, find substitutions and carry on their merry ways. 

This is the kind of thing you need for water (so people don’t demand some kind of G*d given right to use up every drop of water, even though it’s more expensive to clean that water later - or to replace groundwater) and so forth. 

We only have x amount of water - so let’s work out the most lucrative use for it and find ways to conserve elsewhere.  Sounds reasonable.

Of course, this is said in the context of a world where the market is artificially propped up in so many ways with corporate welfare rampant, water rights completely insane and so forth. 

To even begin to try and get people to make an honest living or evaluate their true costs - well, that just sets everyone to howling.

“Again with the fusion ex machina.”...hmm, as if fusion were some unexpected savior coming out of nowhere? Isn’t this entire forum about the invention of fusion, and its consequences? On non-fusion related forums, I don’t bring in fusion as an argument.

Pretty much agree on the rest. If we were smart, we’d start taking carbon out of the atmosphere, with things like biochar and carbon-negative cement. Then instead of carbon credits being issued by the government, they could be issued by anyone who verifiably remediates carbon. If you emit, pay someone to clean up your mess, or do it yourself, like we all learned in kindergarten. The technologies are remarkably inexpensive.

We could have a carbon-neutral civilization and still drive around our SUVs, even without inventing fusion. Fusion is my main hope only because I think we’re too dumb to actually do it.

dennisp - 25 May 2010 08:52 PM

“Again with the fusion ex machina.”...hmm, as if fusion were some unexpected savior coming out of nowhere? Isn’t this entire forum about the invention of fusion, and its consequences? On non-fusion related forums, I don’t bring in fusion as an argument.

Pretty much agree on the rest. If we were smart, we’d start taking carbon out of the atmosphere, with things like biochar and carbon-negative cement. Then instead of carbon credits being issued by the government, they could be issued by anyone who verifiably remediates carbon. If you emit, pay someone to clean up your mess, or do it yourself, like we all learned in kindergarten. The technologies are remarkably inexpensive.

We could have a carbon-neutral civilization and still drive around our SUVs, even without inventing fusion. Fusion is my main hope only because I think we’re too dumb to actually do it.

Until we actually prove a minimum of energy breakeven (unity), we may or may not have a technically feasible solution. And as Rezwan pointed out, the status quo has no pressing reason to change, unless they can be shown that they can make more money by adopting fusion energy than they can by opposing or ignoring it.

There’s already an industry that revolves around brokering carbon credits, and I suspect that carbon reduction consultants are cleaning up cleaning up by charging to reduce carbon exposure, and again by selling the newly available credits.

Happy Monday! 

This thread is now officially capped, per our new GW Policy.