Live data from Hacker News

Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

propublica.org

61–70 of 217 posts

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#61
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm reminded of this quote, attributed to the Cree Native Americans: "Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten."

Kurzweil would probably respond that nanobots and the singularity will fix everything.

I'm all for figuring out how to use the nanobots we have (aka biology).

Advantage: they self-replicate royalty free, something the nanobot company would never allow.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#62
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, and it's somewhat disturbing to see "environmentalists" tie themselves in rhetorical knots trying to argue for nuclear with a straight face.

Nuclear isn't perfect. It's simply better. Go see just how much toxic and radioactive waste coal mining produces. WAY WAY more than nuclear power.

And solar is rapidly out-competing and out-innovating both.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is called "not while I am alive" policy. When someone in office does something which won't impact anything when they are alive they can score points with special interests by helping get their project approved. Mostly though this is just another attack on Fracking.

I can't even count the times I've actually heard this argument from my right wing family members.

As in they actually advocate it? One of my misfeatures is that I tend to ask annoying questions of powerful people, and really pissed off the Mayor of Sunnyvale one year when they were advocating re-developing school property into commercial real estate. I think I said, "Are you saying it would be better for my children if there kids, my grandchildren, had no where to go to school but could hang out at a Target?"

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#64
post #51

For example, in eastern Wyoming, an analysis showed that it would cost half a million dollars to construct a water well into deep, but high-quality aquifer reserves. That, plus an untested assumption that all the deep layers below it could only contain poor-quality water, led regulators to allow a uranium mine to inject more than 200,000 gallons of toxic and radioactive waste every day into the underground reservoirs…

If you think it's an issue, go talk to the EPA, they approve all the of the deep injection wells used for waste containment. http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/ Edit: Actually, something doesn't make sense, the type of well described has been banned in the US[1] [1]Inject hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above USDWs. These wells are banned unless authorized under a federal or state ground water remediat…

All of the momentum in the US economy right now is rooted in the natural gas boom (fracking). Nobody is going to touch it.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#65
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear isn't perfect. It's simply better. Go see just how much toxic and radioactive waste coal mining produces. WAY WAY more than nuclear power.

And solar is rapidly out-competing and out-innovating both.

Maybe.

Photovoltaic solar produces lots of waste, more than nuclear. And it requires lots of land.

Solar thermal is much more efficient but it's expensive and no one seems to be doing it in scale. And it too requires lots of land.

And don't say we have lots of land, we do, but it's remote, so you need a lot of infrastructure to make use of it. We can do that (we did for hydrocarbons), but it's not a slam dunk.

Because of that, nuclear produces less waste and is better for the environment.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#66
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, and it's somewhat disturbing to see "environmentalists" tie themselves in rhetorical knots trying to argue for nuclear with a straight face.

Nuclear isn't perfect. It's simply better. Go see just how much toxic and radioactive waste coal mining produces. WAY WAY more than nuclear power.

Excuse me? Does one of those plants have to blow up in your neighbourhood until you can relate to the fact that some risks are not worth taking?

These things are dirty bombs, period.

Edit: To clarify, I am not arguing for coal. Just against nuclear power. I live next to a garbage->energy and gas turbine plant. It's not perfect, but I wouldn't want to live near a nuclear plant.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it curious that on HN of all places, there are some who seem appalled that technology could be used to offset much of what we've done, largely as a fault of technological advancement. That's not to say I'm against conservation. I think conservation is a necessity that few appreciate (having lived in a desert all my life, I have a certain appreciation for scarce resources), but comments like the one you replied…

>comments like the one you replied to are exactly the kind we don't need. GP here. :) I'm 100% in favor of using technology "to offset much of what we've done, largely as a fault of technological advancement." After all, rainwater collection is technology! But desalination isn't that kind of technology — it's the destructive kind. My question was genuine. What advantage does plastic greenhouse desalination have over…

> But desalination isn't that kind of technology — it's the destructive kind.

But is it really? You're effectively doing what occurs in nature. Clearing land and building a distribution infrastructure is destructive, but certainly no more than what is already going to happen regardless of whether or not desalinization is used. Pumping from salt water aquifers might qualify as well.

> My question was genuine.

It was, but your comment seemed dismissive of alternatives. I don't think that objectively adds anything to the conversation. I apologize if that wasn't your intent.

I can see a solar desalinization system in place in areas where much of the water you encounter underground is brine or otherwise non-potable, and it's particularly useful in areas where other methods of collection won't work. Yes, it has the potential drawback of kicking the can farther down the road in terms of potentially extracting water faster than it's replaced. But that said, in much of the west, the topography lends itself well to draining much of the run off into large basins and water ingress likely far outpaces whatever could be pumped out of the ground. Perhaps a hybrid (rainfall collection + solar desalinization) would be ideal.

I think you're focusing exclusively on the advertised "seawater greenhouse" and may not be aware of the benefits such a design would have in areas where there certainly is plentiful salt water, just not from a sea.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#68

For example, in eastern Wyoming, an analysis showed that it would cost half a million dollars to construct a water well into deep, but high-quality aquifer reserves. That, plus an untested assumption that all the deep layers below it could only contain poor-quality water, led regulators to allow a uranium mine to inject more than 200,000 gallons of toxic and radioactive waste every day into the underground reservoirs…

What in rural Wyoming would ever justify spending half a million dollars for a single water well? I do not think an example like the massive urban conglomeration of Mexico City (greater area: 21.2 million people) naturally analogizes to such areas.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#69
post #24

Has anyone tried desalination with geothermal sources?

Two challenges off the top: ⚫ Geothermal is available in limited areas. Few of those are proximate to salt water (though in Japan, Hawaii, and the Philippines this might be the case). I'm not aware that freshwater supplies are critically limited in any of those areas, however. ⚫ Geothermal itself tends to have substantial water requirements as a heat transfer / working fluid. Replenishing groundwater liberated throug…

I love that you went to the trouble of using a Unicode black circle character (⚫) rather than a bullet (•). That's some dedication to your circles.

Re: Message from Mexico: U.S. Is Polluting Water It May Someday Need to Drink

#70
If you have the capability to inject pollutants into the aquifer, don't you already have 80% of what you need to use it as a water source--namely, the big pipe connecting it to the surface? You just need to add pumps, right?

If someone needs a big hole to store poisons in, I'd sort of prefer that it not already be filled with nature's favorite nearly-universal solvent. The water got down there somehow, and geology makes you no guarantees that it will never move that water again.

Also, professional polluters sometimes cut corners on measures to ensure that their pollutants don't actually end up somewhere other than the planned and approved place.

Post reply on HN