10 Jul 17
Originally posted by EladarAnd what source of energy do you propose using to move all that water?
We would be moving waters from West of the Continental divide to the Southwest. Compare the volume of wayer flowing into the oceans to the size of the desert. Eaters on the Eastern side of the Rockies could be used to irrigate fields and water livestick and supply water for people. This would also lessen our need to deplete aquifers.
Of course the same id ...[text shortened]... used in other countries around the world. Perhaps we could actually start to refill the Aral Sea
And will you pay for the construction costs and energy costs with your taxes?
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by EladarUnless you bury it very deep, it will decay all the same. Fossil fuels form in the deep oceans and in swamps. They do not form in most other places.
Take the plants and bury them before they decay or let animals eat them and bury the carcass before it decays.
Think outside the box. Every little bit helps.
No, delusional thinking usually does not help.
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe have plenty of deep abandoned mines where the stuff can be put.
Unless you bury it very deep, it will decay all the same. Fossil fuels form in the deep oceans and in swamps. They do not form in most other places.
[b]Think outside the box. Every little bit helps.
No, delusional thinking usually does not help.[/b]
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by humy
no, not specific enough; Apparently you cannot follow the conversation. I responded to;
Originally posted by Eladarto begin with? It was originally plant material.
How do you think the carbon made its way [b]underground
from the word "underground" above he was CLEARLY talking about fossil fuels and not the more generic "pla ...[text shortened]... rring to in his above comment in such a way as to include the carbon in currently LIVING plants?[/b]Looks like you got schooled.
Again.
It's really no use talking to you, it seems.
You're dishonest, willing to twist and contort other people's words or data in order to try to make your point instead of simply following the truth regardless of its final destination.
Best of luck.
11 Jul 17
4 edits
Originally posted by Eladarone day (and perhaps not too far into the future) we would surely have no shortage of cheap renewables but right now we don't have anything like the vast amounts of cheap renewables to use to shift all that water for what you are proposing which would be unlikely to result in any benefit and probably cause an environmental disaster of biblical proportions for the reasons I already explained.
Why not use cheap renewables?
11 Jul 17
7 edits
Originally posted by Eladarso you think if, with the vast cost required, all the river water and well water was used to water all the dry land of the Earth that people would of course all naturally rush to, and with an astonishing combination of extreme altruism and long-term foresight never seen before amongst humans, spend huge amounts of personal time labor and cost and collectively spend trillions of dollars in the process with no profit in return to grow vast amounts of plant material suitable for carbon burial and then harvest all of it and then transport it all and ram it deep into abandoned mines? Which planet have you been on?
We have plenty of deep abandoned mines where the stuff can be put.
12 Jul 17
Originally posted by Mammy BlueLet's see. How many BTUs does it take to melt a trillion tons of ice into useable water? So about 144 BTU to melt one pound of ice and that iceberg is about 2 quadrillion pounds so about 288 quadrillion BTU. So burning gasoline gives about 114,000 btu per gallon so if you burned gasoline to melt that iceberg it would take 17 billion gallons of gasoline. Sure. It could happen.....
Is this enough water for you?
http://www.newsweek.com/larsen-c-iceberg-ice-shelf-antarctica-635428
13 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseI recall a Middle East country, maybe Saudi Arabia, contemplated towing an iceberg up the Indian ocean to their country a few years back, and use it to water their deserts and palm groves etc.
Let's see. How many BTUs does it take to melt a trillion tons of ice into useable water? So about 144 BTU to melt one pound of ice and that iceberg is about 2 quadrillion pounds so about 288 quadrillion BTU. So burning gasoline gives about 114,000 btu per gallon so if you burned gasoline to melt that iceberg it would take 17 billion gallons of gasoline. Sure. It could happen.....
Wonder if it happened...
Originally posted by sonhouseExactly! How would anyone melt an iceberg without using gasoline?
Let's see. How many BTUs does it take to melt a trillion tons of ice into useable water? So about 144 BTU to melt one pound of ice and that iceberg is about 2 quadrillion pounds so about 288 quadrillion BTU. So burning gasoline gives about 114,000 btu per gallon so if you burned gasoline to melt that iceberg it would take 17 billion gallons of gasoline. Sure. It could happen.....
Good thing they have lots of oil in the Middle East. No other way to melt ice in the deserts of the region.
14 Jul 17
3 edits
Originally posted by EladarIf you transported an iceberg to the Middle East then the warmth of the climate would naturally melt that ice to liquid water without burning oil/gasoline to directly heat it to melt it.
Exactly! How would anyone melt an iceberg without using gasoline?
Good thing they have lots of oil in the Middle East. No other way to melt ice in the deserts of the region.