- Peak oil has generated headlines in recent years, but the real threat to our future is peak water. There are substitutes for oil, but not for water. We can produce food without oil, but not without water.
We drink on average four litres of water per day, in one form or another, but the food we eat each day requires 2,000 litres of water to produce, or 500 times as much. Getting enough water to drink is relatively easy, but finding enough to produce the ever-growing quantities of grain the world consumes is another matter.
Interesting that they don't mention Uzbekistan, the failure of Soviet agriculture and the Aral Sea: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/images/090805-aral-sea-vanishing-picture_big.gif That's all cotton for ya. FUN FACT: 80% of the world's almonds and 50% of the world's pistachios are grown in California. One almond takes 1.1 gallons of water to produce. BUT: Something raised by Scientific American a few years back was the "closed loop" nature of the world's water supply. The problem isn't that we're "using up" the water - after all, it runs to the sea, evaporates up, comes back down as rain, sunrise, sunset. The problem is we're moving the water. The places we have been growing are becoming more arid; the places we haven't been growing are suffering torrential downpours. Those melting ice caps and rising sea levels are a reality, and they're a problem of more water. The issue is that the water isn't where we need it. And yeah - the Ogalala is being depleted in places. But it's being overfilled in others: Which doesn't mean we aren't in for hard times. Those hard times just aren't related to a diminishing global supply of water.
After a few years of less, we have recently been getting more in Michigan. I have never seen Lake Superior at the level it reached this year, and that is after several years of being lower than normal. I also wonder why there isn't more talk of desalinization. Sunlight, salt-water, and tidal energy. There has to be a way to make that equation work.The problem is we're moving the water. The places we have been growing are becoming more arid; the places we haven't been growing are suffering torrential downpours.
My understanding is that desalinization is extremely energy-intensive, but apparently my understanding is flawed.
LOL. Where the hell is this in the discussion? Some time ago, b_b and I designed a solar-powered desalinization rig. I have all the parts in my garage. Maybe I'll throw it together soon and post about it.Supplying all domestic water by sea water desalination would increase US Domestic energy consumption by around 10%, about the amount of energy used by domestic refrigerators[15]
It's as pure as evaporated water gets (which should be eminently drinkable). The basic premise is a personal use system that poor people in areas near the ocean could use. The waves push water in, and the sun dries it out. Simple. It's basically concentric clear plastic channels with some modifications for letting water in and out.
This is quite saucy, too, for those far from the coast: http://www.gizmag.com/airdrop-wins-james-dyson-award/20471/
If I'm not mistaken, one of the drawbacks of desalination is the toxicity of the highly concentrated crap that's left over. The world can only consume so much sea salt. Although I've never heard a good explanation as to why they can't dump the shit back into the ocean. Localized pockets of ultra salinity perhaps???