Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Discover Huge Freshwater Reserves Beneath the Ocean

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the water-dissolving-and-water-removing dept.

Earth 273

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists have discovered huge freshwater reserves beneath the seabed on continental shelves off the coast of Australia, North America, China and South Africa. 'The volume of this water resource is a hundred times greater than the amount we've extracted from the Earth's sub-surface in the past century since 1900. Fresh water on our planet is increasingly under stress and strain so the discovery of significant new stores off the coast is very exciting. It means that more options can be considered to help reduce the impact of droughts and continental water shortages' says Dr Vincent Post of the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT) and the School of the Environment at Flinders University."

cancel ×

273 comments

Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (5, Funny)

mentil (1748130) | about 7 months ago | (#45637883)

Presumably this water will need to be accessed via drilling and pumping the water. Imagine the horrors if there were a water spill, contaminating all that ocean water with its freshness!

I want sex with a nubile girl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45637897)

Please, tell me how I can get a nubile girl to give me a blowjob and let me fuck her! Please, I need it bad!

Re:I want sex with a nubile girl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45637907)

Just fuck Google already.

Re:I want sex with a nubile girl (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638425)

Step 1: stop hanging out on /.
Step 2: you're on your own ... no one has ever made it that far.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (4, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#45637899)

You jest, but a change in salinity could have a big impact.

This will turn into just another way to rape the planet instead of trying to do things sustainably.

Remember: There's no place to go once it's trashed

(Which it will be, I have no doubt about that. So long as somebody, somewhere can make a buck doing so, they'll do it...)

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (5, Informative)

stjobe (78285) | about 7 months ago | (#45637923)

You jest, but a change in salinity could have a big impact.

Indeed it could, just read up a bit about thermohaline circulation [wikipedia.org] and you'll see why some people are worried not just about sea-level rise from melting polar ice.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (3, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 7 months ago | (#45638087)

Have you ever heard the phrase "all rivers run into the sea"?

There are lots of ecological problems to be concerned about, freshwater contamination of the oceans is not one of them. Environmentalist over-reaction to damn near every scientific advance put forth doesn't do them any favors. It just makes you look like reactionary nutjobs.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#45638167)

This may be many things, but it's not a "scientific advance".

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (2)

somersault (912633) | about 7 months ago | (#45638313)

Good point. Better change his statement to:

Environmentalist over-reaction to damn near everything doesn't do them any favors. It just makes you look like reactionary nutjobs.

As for saying that "there's nowhere to go" after draining these reserves.. well, it's possible to desalinate salt water by various means.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#45638343)

As for saying that "there's nowhere to go" after draining these reserves.. well, it's possible to desalinate salt water by various means.

Did I say that? I could have sworn I said "after trashing the planet".

The point is: Why don't they use the "various means" right now instead of using up all the natural resources first (with unknown consequences)?

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (4, Insightful)

rmpotter (177221) | about 7 months ago | (#45638369)

Exactly. Blind faith that "future" technology will save the day is not much better than any other kind of faith.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (0)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#45638585)

Actually, it is current technology and it is more expensive which is why cheaper solutions are prefered. It seems that if anyone has blind faith it would be the tree huggers who think using the most expensive ways won't have negetive effects on the majority of populations. Of couse that is a stretch because most tree huggers simply don't care if their positions keeps people in poverty or deal hardships to anyone. Some would be just as happy if it contributed to the deaths of people because they think the world is over populated and man should make changes to accomodate that excess population because their utopian enviroment is more important.

Its sad but true. We have floods killing people because dams used to controlling floods have been removed, we have wildfires killing people because timbering forests are out of the question, fire breaks had to be abandoned, and controlled burnings are restricted in order to preserve what they want to be the natural state.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (2, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#45638733)

Actually, it is current technology and it is more expensive which is why cheaper solutions are prefered.

Meanwhile ...10% of GDP on military seems perfectly OK.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638767)

For the most part, the rest of the world has outsourced their security to the United States. They don't necessarily pay with dollars, but they often do pay with favorable trade terms and other non-monetary incentives. Yes, there are a few exceptions, but most of the rest of the world seems to be okay with this, even if they won't admit it.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#45638781)

For the most part, the rest of the world has outsourced their security to the United States.

Citation?

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (1)

theshibboleth (968645) | about 7 months ago | (#45638495)

It is basically a scientific certainty that there are other habitable planets out there. Eventually this planet will be destroyed. That doesn't mean humans should be irresponsible, but there is something to be said for harnessing resources in a responsible way with clear goals so we can get off this rock. Then we'll ony have to worry about brane collisions destroying the fabric of the univerese. And there are always going to be unknown consequences; even not taking action will result in unknown consequences, it's just the nature of life.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#45638717)

It is basically a scientific certainty that there are other habitable planets out there.

The problem is getting to them. There's no reason to believe interstellar travel is possible.

there is something to be said for harnessing resources in a responsible way with clear goals

That's never happened to any resource discovered so far.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (5, Interesting)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | about 7 months ago | (#45638801)

Yeah, I worry about the same thing. Pumping up water from that depth has to be a bit of a challenge and use energy (though there are temperature gradients they could borrow to assist). Still, you also have the problem that after you remove a lot of fresh water -- that creates a new chamber that sea water could flood and contaminate.

And what happens when you cause a landslide or underwater quake if you displace a LOT OF water? We've had sink-holes and land drop from removal of groundwater -- if the chamber is 100 times larger and the pressure 1000 times more, well, how bad does it get before the problem shows up?

I'm not paranoid of the future, but our system currently is unable to change course if a profit is involved. We as a society in the USA can no longer expect that if something were to cause massive damage -- you for instance "fracking" natural gas MIGHT poison fresh water and cause small earthquakes (and well, it does in fact do that) -- but you wouldn't have the news really report it and you wouldn't have the FDA shut them down because someone would just secure a nice consulting job for when they left government service and Congress would get some campaign donations and do nothing and the media wouldn't report that because they'd get some advertising dollars featuring Deer sipping from ponds over a pump.

Did I mention a broken system that cannot correct errors? I'm waiting for someone to pay me to blog happy things about Deer sipping from ponds over a pump -- I've seen them myself and people who don't like Frakking / Deep See fresh water are Hippie Commie tree huggers who hurt our economy!

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (0)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#45638367)

Environmentalist over-reaction to damn near everything doesn't do them any favors. It just makes you look like reactionary nutjobs.

Fail.

My personal belief is that technology is the *only* thing that can save the planet. Trying to educate the people and/or get them to change their behavior is a complete waste of time.

Opposing nuclear power, etc., is a very destructive behavior in the long term, I want no part of that aspect of environmentalism. I want technology *and* I want conservation. There's easily enough money circulating for us to have both of those but most of it is wasted on wars, bailouts of GM, bailouts of banks, etc.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (1)

theshibboleth (968645) | about 7 months ago | (#45638561)

Money's one thing, physical resources are another. Since all the major economies of the world are using fiat currencies that are not guaranteed by a physical resource, the value of the currency is at best determined by the strength of the governments/militaries behind it. Whether there's enough of it to go around has more to do with how those in power choose to distribute it or allow it to remain distributed. As far as resources go (including money), you are right that wery often shortages are created artificially in what are on the larger scale petty squabbles to gain power for one's own government, corporation, or self.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (3, Insightful)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#45638917)

Imagine if all that money had been spent on energy research (solve the remaining engineering problems to build working thorium reactors, develop fusion, whatever it takes...energy is a solvable problem if you have trillions of dollars to spend and enough political willpower)

The USA would be world leader in cheap energy, and by extension industry, transportation, etc. (cheap energy opens all sort of doors, not just helping the environment). The USA could export power plants all over the world on its own terms. The US economy would be untouchable and if they were running the reactors they'd have the world by the balls, no military needed (see Asimov's "Foundation" for details).

How is that not a plan of action that meets all American goals?

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 7 months ago | (#45638765)

Is all related to volume. If those reserves and the spill are big enough, it could make a measurable change in ocean salinity.

Also, the water that come from rivers, came from rain, and in the end came from the ocean, water evaporated, salt remained and later the same water returned, in global scale things keeps being more or less the same. But what if you add enough "new" fresh water to the cycle?

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (-1, Flamebait)

jcr (53032) | about 7 months ago | (#45638451)

This will turn into just another way to rape the planet

Oh, for Christ's sake. Why don't you just go freeze in the dark, and quit bitching about people trying to improve the lives of their fellow man?

-jcr

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 7 months ago | (#45638867)

This will turn into just another way to utilize untapped resources instead of trying to do things like hunter-gatherers.

FTFY

Prophesy!! (4, Funny)

flyneye (84093) | about 7 months ago | (#45638279)

Was this not foretold by the Prophet David Byrne?

Water dissolving and water removing
There is water at the bottom of the ocean
Remove the water, carry the water
Remove the water from the bottom of the ocean
Letting the days go by, let the water hold me down
Letting the days go by, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, after the money's gone
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground
Into the blue again, into silent water
Under the rocks and stones, there is water underground
Letting the days go by, into silent water
Once in a lifetime, water flowing underground

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (2)

mysidia (191772) | about 7 months ago | (#45638363)

Presumably this water will need to be accessed via drilling and pumping the water. Imagine the horrors if there were a water spill, contaminating all that ocean water with its freshness!

Imagine a spill of ocean water into the freshwater bed; causing the entire reserve to be ruined.

Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water (0)

argStyopa (232550) | about 7 months ago | (#45638595)

I'm 100% certain that in this circumstance, environmentalists WOULD be complaining angrily about 'destruction of saline environment' and 'harm to local species'.

I'm not kidding at all.

under the sea! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45637891)

The ocean is like a layer cake? Who'd have thunk it?

This is excellent water (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45637905)

This is excellent water ... for me to poop in.

Literally.

Re:This is excellent water (4, Insightful)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 7 months ago | (#45637929)

Latrines use seawater on various naval vessels. Using fresh water to catch poop, if an abundant supply of seawater is available, is just dumb.

Re:This is excellent water (1)

mrbluze (1034940) | about 7 months ago | (#45637955)

Latrines use seawater on various naval vessels. Using fresh water to catch poop, if an abundant supply of seawater is available, is just dumb.

You've never cleaned a naval vessel toilet before, I take it? (neither have I, I just thought I'd ask).

Re:This is excellent water (3)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 7 months ago | (#45638147)

I served (as an enlisted man) aboard the USS Nebraska [wikipedia.org] .

Re:This is excellent water (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638197)

I'm just about to join up. My recruiter said only officers and above have to clean toilets. Is that true?

Re:This is excellent water (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 7 months ago | (#45638379)

LOL!

Don't worry though, it's not the only lie the recruiter told you...

Re:This is excellent water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638333)

Really? Then you would know it's called a head not a latrine.

Re:This is excellent water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638351)

Maybe he used language everyone would understand instead of being a pretentious asshole.

Re:This is excellent water (1)

fisted (2295862) | about 7 months ago | (#45638563)

I don't speak English you insensitive clod!

Re:This is excellent water (2)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | about 7 months ago | (#45638463)

Why was this comment modded down? Almost all the developed countries feed exactly the same water to the kitchen faucets and the flush tanks for toilets. We are literally, not figuratively, pooping in excellent fresh potable water.

Installing gray water systems to catch the water from laundry machines and using them to flush toilets is not a bad idea. The day is not far off, the fresh water price goes up so high, people voluntarily install such systems to cut their water bills down.

The problem with all this... (4, Insightful)

beh (4759) | about 7 months ago | (#45637919)

Before we try and get and that additional freshwater - has anyone found another possible _deposit_ location for all the rubbish and toxic waste we're producing? ...even if we would get at that water, it would only be a stop-gap -- right now, most seem to think that there will always be some new source of whatever resource we need to keep our "unsustainable" pace going...

It's the same about what people say that the shale oil will give the US enough oil for 100 years -- it's _maybe_ 100 years _at the current pace of consumption. But if there is a 100 years worth of more energy - why even _try_ and save? Why not even indulge in even more energy-intensive enterprises?

The same goes for finding huge amounts of new fresh-water - we'll just find ways to consume it even faster, instead of trying to focus on limiting the damage we do to the planet, and treating any additional resources as 'emergency rations' that we won't touch unless there is no other way.

Re:The problem with all this... (-1, Troll)

Crashmarik (635988) | about 7 months ago | (#45637947)

Before we try and get and that additional freshwater - has anyone found another possible _deposit_ location for all the rubbish and toxic waste we're producing? ...even if we would get at that water, it would only be a stop-gap -- right now, most seem to think that there will always be some new source of whatever resource we need to keep our "unsustainable" pace going...

Your kidding right ?

Look around you, we have a near endless universe and we haven't even noticeably begun to exploit it. We can either man up to the challenges ahead use the resources at our disposal and move forward to a better future, or we can stick our heads in the sand a plant a kick me sign on our collective asses.

Re:The problem with all this... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45637979)

You are not allowed to leave the Earth, citizen. Now pay your taxes and don't question your government's financial interest in preventing you from leaving.

Re:The problem with all this... (4, Funny)

Froboz23 (690392) | about 7 months ago | (#45638153)

Nonsense. A new life awaits you in the off-world colonies! A chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

Re: The problem with all this... (5, Insightful)

tysonedwards (969693) | about 7 months ago | (#45638029)

While there is a whole universe out there waiting to be colonized, it would take tens of thousands of years at current technological levels to simply reach another other world beyond our solar system, let alone being able to return with the resources that we find should said resources even exist. As a reminder, we haven't sent a person beyond a Low Earth Orbit in decades.

Not a problem (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 7 months ago | (#45638071)

It would take trillions of years to colonize the known universe.

I'm not even very interested in the universe. Let's just take the damned moon, and Mars. Hell, the moon can become the new Australia. "Welcome to New Australia Penal Colony, Convict 4,107,239."

Re:Not a problem (2)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | about 7 months ago | (#45638239)

I totally know people that would kill their wives to go to an off world colony, prison or not.

Re:Not a problem (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 7 months ago | (#45638861)

Could take thousands of years to get to the next star system at the speed we manage to reach now, and we can face problems that could not be solved for very long trips in space for humans. Odds are pretty high that of the known universe, the only solar system that we will ever be is this one. If we not manage to preserve this planet, we won't be around for long, in no other alternative we would survive to technological failures.

Re:The problem with all this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638047)

Your kidding right ?

Look around you, we have a near endless universe and we haven't even noticeably begun to exploit it. We can either man up to the challenges ahead use the resources at our disposal and move forward to a better future, or we can stick our heads in the sand a plant a kick me sign on our collective asses.

Uh, you are aware that space travel requires huge amounts of energy and other resources? So you are saying it's ok to burn up all our fuel reserves since when they are gone we will just travel elsewhere.

A few billion people travelling a few dozen lightyears, after using up all natural resources.

I assume you are planning to use intergalactical gas stations to fill up your cruiser, but I doubt they'll accept greenbacks as payment.

Re:The problem with all this... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#45638639)

What rockets in use can be filled up at the local shell station?

I think we use a little different type of energy then rockets. And once in space-beyond our atmosphere, solar becomes much more productive.

Re: The problem with all this... (3, Interesting)

Soluzar (1957050) | about 7 months ago | (#45638057)

If you can figure out how to get to the rest of that universe, and survive there you're smarter than most people at NASA. The Earth is all we get, for now. Lets try to to not ruin it before we have alternatives.

Re: The problem with all this... (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#45638427)

There is some merit in suggesting space exploration should be ramped up a bit before we are out of terrestrial resources, but if humankind's track record is indeed the best predictor of the future, we will likely finally settle off-planet when it is profitable to exploit resources there.

Re:The problem with all this... (1)

ScentCone (795499) | about 7 months ago | (#45638813)

Your kidding right ?

I understand that they've been working on how to decide which people will get to colonize new worlds, and which people will be stuck here. They've boiled it down to determining cognitive horsepower by looking at whether or not people can grasp the difference between "your" and "you're" - so, that's a shame, huh? Oh well!

Re:The problem with all this... (4, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about 7 months ago | (#45638079)

Before we try and get and that additional freshwater - has anyone found another possible _deposit_ location for all the rubbish and toxic waste we're producing?

Well, there is the ground. That's where we put most of our rubbish and toxic waste. It works pretty well despite the complaints to the contrary.

But if there is a 100 years worth of more energy - why even _try_ and save? Why not even indulge in even more energy-intensive enterprises?

Because the cost is greater than the benefit. Sometimes it actually is worth conserving cheap energy.

The same goes for finding huge amounts of new fresh-water - we'll just find ways to consume it even faster, instead of trying to focus on limiting the damage we do to the planet, and treating any additional resources as 'emergency rations' that we won't touch unless there is no other way.

What's the point of this "focus"? The planet isn't that damaged. The resources in question aren't that depleted.

But what I find fundamentally frivolous about this whole story is that apparently they've discovered a year's worth of rainfall (which is also in the neighborhood of half a million cubic kilometers). Freshwater is not a resource we're running out of. It's merely poorly distributed compared to who wants to use it.

Re:The problem with all this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638353)

Plain stupid regarding the rubbish. You must live in an apartment in a large city as you have no concept of the vast areas being discussed. Why, you probably don't know what a tree looks like.

As for the cost versus the benefit, have you done any analysis? No. But you've got the Power of Certification that you call upon, you pointy haired B.

What's the point? Now it is clear that you have no clue that meat comes from animals, grains are grown on farms, and not everything is made in a plastic wrapper from a factory.

Re:The problem with all this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638869)

For anyone looking for an example of ad hominem fallacy, please look no further than:

you probably don't know what a tree looks like.

This whole post has no content aside from baseless attacking claims.

Re:The problem with all this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638605)

But if there is a 100 years worth of more energy - why even _try_ and save? Why not even indulge in even more energy-intensive enterprises?

Because the cost is greater than the benefit. Sometimes it actually is worth conserving cheap energy.

Are we talking about the same humans? Those who pick their gyms based on not having to walk more than 100 yards from the parking place? Humans who would save both time and money by just driving a bicycle to the gym and then heading right back?

Re:The problem with all this... (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 7 months ago | (#45638095)

The rubbish will largely degrade. The rubbish that won't degrade (plastics, etc.) will be a resource for future generations. In addition, have sharply reduced toxic waste production over the years (if we use the same definitions across time).

But your assumption that we need to live sustainably is wrong; humanity has never lived sustainably, and we shouldn't try.

Re:The problem with all this... (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 7 months ago | (#45638211)

But your assumption that we need to live sustainably is wrong; humanity has never lived sustainably, and we shouldn't try.

Why not? Because it might inconvenience you? Because it is our god given privilege to pollute the planet?

Seriously, does it hurt to be this myopic?

Re:The problem with all this... (1)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 7 months ago | (#45638485)

But your assumption that we need to live sustainably is wrong; humanity has never lived sustainably, and we shouldn't try.

Why not? Because it might inconvenience you? Because it is our god given privilege to pollute the planet?

Seriously, does it hurt to be this myopic?

"A lot of times when you have very short term goals with a high payoff, nasty things can happen. In particular, a lot of people will take the low road there. They'll become myopic. They'll crowd out the long term interests of the organization or even themselves." -Daniel H. Pink

Re:The problem with all this... (-1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 7 months ago | (#45638575)

There is no logic in ensuring adequate resources for future generations. If I'm not alive to benefit, it doesn't matter what happens after I die. If you are an atheist, or otherwise do not believe in an after-life of any kind, this is even more true.

Re:The problem with all this... (4, Insightful)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 7 months ago | (#45638695)

There is no logic in ensuring adequate resources for future generations. If I'm not alive to benefit, it doesn't matter what happens after I die. If you are an atheist, or otherwise do not believe in an after-life of any kind, this is even more true.

This is only true if your outlook is basically "me me me", i.e. pathologically narcissistic and/or egocentric. It may surprise you that there a quite a few people who don't share that selfish view, atheist or otherwise.

I don't have kids myself, but my sister does. I want these little guys to have a planet worth living on. And, for that matter, your kids too.

Re:The problem with all this... (1)

somersault (912633) | about 7 months ago | (#45638355)

humanity has never lived sustainably, and we shouldn't try.

What the fuck? Are you hoping for some magical technological saviour to all of our logistical problems, or do you just really enjoy the idea of overpopulation, and people killing each other for resources?

Re:The problem with all this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638395)

100% wrong. Humanity has always lived "sustainably", by it's very definition. In addition, what the fuck do you call every aspect of our survival? We are as a species and culturally inclined towards sustainability, you moron.

Re:The problem with all this... (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#45638875)

Wrong. Even hunter gatherers would pillage an area then move on. The american indian done this so well, their socity lived in housing that could easily be picked up and moved. Man has always fought for resources to plunder and rarely has been at peace unless the resorces where plentiful enough for all to share.

Sustainability has a different definition today then in past times. It used to be regarded in the context of effort, now it is soley within the confines of fixed resources.

Re:The problem with all this... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638125)

The problem is, and you can graph this yourself in excel, that the 'current rate' goes up by about 3% every year.

It's exponential.

I'm actually more concerned about coal than oil. People will scoff, but go to wikipedia, add up all the known reserves and then average the last few years increase in consumption.

Set a simple CellB1=CellA1+increase and drag it along.

Then set a simple subtraction of the current consumption from the stock and drag that across.

Then add years.

Last I checked it was around 2052.

I am more scared of coal depletion because without coal, there is no steel and without steel there is no 19th, 20th or 21st century technology.

Re:The problem with all this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638471)

I am more scared of coal depletion because without coal, there is no steel and without steel there is no 19th, 20th or 21st century technology.

I have two words for you: Transparent Aluminum. We don't need to worry about anything. All we need to do is patiently wait for Scotty to stumble into our lives.

Stop stimulus for producing waste (1)

h00manist (800926) | about 7 months ago | (#45638133)

has anyone found another possible _deposit_ location for all the rubbish and toxic waste we're producing?.

A huge amount of products and processes are just waste.

Economics, politics, etc try to stimulate, encourage, reward the production of more. More of whatever. Generally, more waste. In my view, we need to address this waste-stimulation.

As it is, generating waste is directly linked to generating product, profit, jobs, and taxes. That link needs to stop.

Re:Stop stimulus for producing waste (1)

nightsky30 (3348843) | about 7 months ago | (#45638339)

Agreed. Whatever is produced at the expense of our resources, and then is not used or under used is a huge waste when you add up every human being that does so. Our disposable society needs to change. I love technology, but I try to make use of something until it is no longer repairable or usable.

I have a desktop I built back in 2004 which I still use for development. It runs Linux just fine. I've replaced a dead PSU, a dead HDD, and had to reapply thermal paste to the CPU/Heatsink. It's still running.

My other box, I built back in 2009. It's a Core2Duo I still use as my main system. Does it play all the latest games, no. But it plays all the games I care for, plays Bluray, etc. I don't NEED a new box, and all the marketing we drown in everyday that says otherwise is not going to change my mind.

I'm not going to be one of those people who drool over the latest gadget, and immediately throw away last years model like it's nothing. We should value what we have.

Re:The problem with all this... (1)

memnock (466995) | about 7 months ago | (#45638155)

Right now, we pump - oh sorry "inject"- our wastewater from fracking underground [agu.org] . That water contains heavy metals and radioactive components. (Nothing like just making the problem 'go away'.)

Now that these large potential sources are revealed, what's the implications for their purity with that waste being underground also? There is no way to be sure that the wastewater won't find a channel or crack that will let it flow into those reserves.

Re:The problem with all this... (3, Insightful)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 7 months ago | (#45638205)

Where did the "radioactive components" (fucking bananas are radioactive so just saying that scary word doesn't work on people with an education) come from? Underground, perhaps? But putting them back is a problem? Yawn. I bet you'd have signed the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide.

Is James Mason, Pat Boone involved with this disco (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45637961)

very? Rasmusson? A Swdeed? Buxom brawd?

cradle of civilization being re-located again (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45637993)

the missing monkey hymens are still missing & many are still calling this 'weather'...... never a better time to free the innocent stem cells

Draining this could lower inland dwells' level (4, Insightful)

advid.net (595837) | about 7 months ago | (#45638031)

I'm afraid that pumping this water will lead to the same phenomenon in Libya :

As they pump the fossil water of deep aquifers in the desert, the dwells all around get dry or have now a much lower water level.

See the GMMR project: huge pipe to provide fresh water to the coastal cities, pumped from deep fossil aquifers of the desert that may not get resplenish any time soon. This is maybe not as simple as communicating vessels, but the people think the dwells dry out are link to this project.

Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level (2)

FunkDup (995643) | about 7 months ago | (#45638069)

the dwells all around get dry

Not that I read TFA or anything, but since thuse aquifers are under the ocean, I'm pretty sure they've got nothing to do with the water table in Lybia.

Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638393)

You ignorant fool! It's a complex system beyond your comprehension, of course they're interrelated.

Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level (2)

advid.net (595837) | about 7 months ago | (#45638739)

According to TFA, some offshore aquifers can be reached by drilling in mainland.

Fast forward to about 1:20 (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 7 months ago | (#45638143)

Almost a minute and a half of nonsense before the first frame of the "explosion".

It's hard to judge the scale, but all that's there, is a ruptured pipeline, shooting water maybe 75 feet into the air. Need more context - how and why is it characterized as an "explosion"?

Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638275)

What's "dwells" preciousss?..

Pumping more efficient than desalination? (2)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | about 7 months ago | (#45638059)

At the moment Australia is looking at desalination to support the growing population and as a backup for when floods and droughts cause problems with our existing dams. Desalination tends to take up a lot of energy so you have to wonder if pumping this fresh water is a better solution. We already run some large pipelines so what's a few more?

Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? (4, Interesting)

FunkDup (995643) | about 7 months ago | (#45638171)

Firstly, most of those desalination plants are already built, and second, I really doubt that getting to this water is simply a matter of "a few more pipes". Deep water oil rigs can cost Billions, plus you have to buy the rest of the infrastructure. The Sydney desalination plant "only" cost $1.08 Billion.

Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? (2)

Lifyre (960576) | about 7 months ago | (#45638381)

Fun fact! It's actually cheaper to produce oil off shore (lifting cost of $10/barrel vs $12.75/barrel) at least in the USA. It is much harder to find the oil though (2.5x the cost of onshore oil). Since the water reservoirs are already found and we can use the same tech as oil drilling there is a real potential there for comparatively cheap water.

Source: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=367&t=6 [eia.gov] The numbers are about 5 years old so it may have changed.

Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? (2)

djmurdoch (306849) | about 7 months ago | (#45638433)

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , desalination costs about $1 to $5 per m^3, or about $0.11 to $0.55 per barrel. So $10/barrel doesn't seem "comparatively cheap".

where to put all that water (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638065)

controlling the flow of (r)evolution one fairytail story at a time while shaking our fists at creation (momkind, our centerpeace) & all of our spiritual & physical allys at once?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

fake heritage addiction is so insidious...

fresh under ocean ice water .01 btc +dep. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638175)

hard to resist.. probably stays cold forever

Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638091)

Now that we know those freshwater reserves exist polluting them will be our topmost priority.

You know what to do... (3, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about 7 months ago | (#45638109)

1) Find a new natural resource, a crown jewel of mother nature
2) Start immediately raping this resource and pumping it dry
3) ???
4) Profit!

Re:You know what to do... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638511)

3) Pass the costs on to the consumer

Whew! (4, Insightful)

Spit (23158) | about 7 months ago | (#45638261)

For a minute there I thought we'd have to stop washing our shit away with drinking water.

Scientists should stop discovering resources... (2)

Emmi59 (971727) | about 7 months ago | (#45638297)

Scientists should stop discovering resources. Every newly discovered resource reduces the pressure to apply more reason to the usage of existing/known resources...

Re:Scientists should stop discovering resources... (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 7 months ago | (#45638345)

They must satisfy their thirst for knowledge. You would think this one would help.

Oh gee, where are the alarmists? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638341)

Where are all of the green nuts to complain about rising coastal waters with this addition of this MASSIVE amount of water that will be added to our oceans?

Re: Oh gee, where are the alarmists? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638407)

All above your comment.

great artical (-1, Offtopic)

stefano92 (3458021) | about 7 months ago | (#45638401)

The majority of owners also invest in more in order to expand the range of crafting possibilities, although basic shape and http://www.okego.co.uk/ [okego.co.uk] are supplied with both machines. The retail price for put-on toner http://www.bpomanagers.com/ [bpomanagers.com] is any where from $49.99 for standard fonts up to $99.99, along with the price tag for some dropping approximately. As well as these, other equipment, for instance design application, reducing methods, and the new Jukebox, allowing people to weight and utilize six printer cartridges at some point, all can soon add up to a large first expense.

Re:great artical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638683)

Nice spam, bro. If we knew what you are talking about.

Osmotic energy (1)

Kevin Newman (2721831) | about 7 months ago | (#45638419)

I think there was a recent article on Slashdot about osmotic energy... the interface between the fresh water and the salty water could be used to generate the electricity to do the pumping. http://mahb.stanford.edu/whats-happening/osmotic-energy/ [stanford.edu]

They think it's fresh water (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#45638423)

But what they haven't yet realized is that it contains the viruses that originally led to the extinction of dinosaurs.

Re:They think it's fresh water (1)

sumdumass (711423) | about 7 months ago | (#45638967)

Lol.. that is a bit humorous but likely true to some degree. Even if it isn't something that killed off the dinos, there could be life in it that has evolved completely in isolation to the rest of the world and that could create issues on a similar scale if it isn't purified safely.

But hey, at least we have a weapon in reserve should the dinos become a problem again.

Low salinity water (0)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 7 months ago | (#45638455)

Scientists have discovered huge freshwater reserves beneath the seabed on continental shelves off the coast of Australia, North America...

Low salinity water: good. But near North America they better check for radioactivity as well... nobody knows how deep are the Fukushima [1,3] cores..

they do realize (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 7 months ago | (#45638459)

That since 1900 is greater than a century right?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...