English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

If it did, I believe the world's water problems could be solved and many wars could be averted.

2007-02-09 13:38:30 · 4 answers · asked by trer 3 in Environment

4 answers

It is a question of cost, and it requires a lot of energy. But a lot of Water is desalinated, mainly in places where sufficient fresh water is not avalible.

Currently desalinated water costs $700 to $1000 per acre foot. In California the cost of most other water from rivers etc costs about $250 to obtain and transport to where it is needed.

The cost of moving fresh water distances depending on the altitude of the destination, but with little pumping transport of large quantities of water nearly 1000 miles can be cheaper than desalination.

The cost of desalination is largely the cost of energy. It will only become really practical if someday energy becomes really cheap. That is not likely to happen soon... but someday.

As for now anyone fighting wars over something as basic as water is likely to be a country in chaos. Such places could not afford desalination regardless of how cheap it gets. Although water may have been "mentioned" as a factor in a few wars they usually were fought for mainly other reasons. I can't think of any wars in the last 100 years where water was a factor except in the case of Israel and the Arab nations. The various other reasons for those wars however are much greater than the water shortages, and even if there was plenty of water in the region, they probably would almost certainly be fighting anyway.

2007-02-09 14:11:10 · answer #1 · answered by Dr Fred 3 · 0 0

You would think it is not so costly because on a very poor island in the Caribbean, St. Croix they have a huge desalinisation plant and I can't figure out why if they have one why can't other poor countries or as far as that goes, why can't we in California have one and that would solve a lot of our water problems. Big money contracts is my bet.

2007-02-09 13:45:39 · answer #2 · answered by katie d 6 · 1 0

whilst adoption is back to being a social provider for looking residences for infants as a exchange of the $a million.4 Billion industry looking toddlers for paying shoppers it has grow to be it rather is a controversy of grant and insist and on the 2nd the call for is protecting the expenditures unrealistically intense. as long as persons are keen to pay the adoption companies will save taking their funds and making enormous greenbacks off the backs of babes. Do you actual choose any area of that pertaining to to families on government suggestions; infants are assured a definite customary of residing. that's what the (with a bit of luck non everlasting) government suggestions is for. families do no longer should lose their infants merely because of the fact they fall on no longer worry-free circumstances.

2016-11-03 00:56:35 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Depends on what country you are in and how badly they need freash water.

Saudi Arabia has massive plants in opertion already.

2007-02-09 13:47:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers