Newbee with a brilliant idea needs your help!

OK, that's if the plant is on shore, what about a floating freshawater plant powered by the wind?
And what about using the salt? Large areas in the Med are used to produce salt by solar evaporation.

 

Mmm, I can imagine such a floating and moving desalination plant to be quite expensive and it doesn't really solve the pollution issue. You would simply have a dirty machine polluting the sea as it goes -- all life in the vicinity of it will die instantly (an overdose of salt kills very quickly). I think Greenpeace will be all over you immediately.

Moreover, how are you going to transport that off-shore water to shore? With a pipeline or... with a polymer bag?


My proposition is to keep both feet on the ground.

 

Can you please show us one?

Why would that be crazy? Water is a natural resource like any other. Why should coal, petroleum and other natural resources deserve commodity status and water not?

If for instance, the people from the Democratic Republic of Congo decide to sell a millionth of a percent of the water that flows out of their Congo River to dry Namibia, then what's wrong with that?

Nobody is really trivializing it, you're doing so yourself. Because bizarrely, you mix discussions about global water scarcity and technologies to relieve it, with fishing bobbers. How strange!

BulBob, Kurzweil's book is what it is, it's a book. Nothing more. Even if some think it's a new Bible, to most it's just a book. Don't get carried away with it. There are too many books predicting too many kinds of things, to be carried away with any of them.

Same to you.

 

You are beyond logic

Kitetug,
I have laid out buildings with all the equipment required for purification and it would take a lot more then pictures to explain the equipment involved. The first piece of equipment is a sludge press, and then there are settling tanks with dosing stations and finally a distiller for dissolved solids that can not be precipitated out through crystallization by additives. If you run it with solar power it meets the task you are enquiring about. Some byproducts are not friendly and need to be permanently contained if not returned to the sea from where they came.
Destroying the planet to get at its natural recourses and make a quick profit without concern for what you leave behind is a great idea if all you are concerned about is greed. This includes water redistribution. Look at what is now happening in California. They have diverted water for crops to a point where the natural remaining flow path is going dry. If we keep burning fossil fuels and warming the earth someday you can take water from somewhere and deliver it to the places that used to have good clean water for profit. Taking water from the mouth of river will steal the nutrients that maintain life in the sea. Just imagine if we captured all the fresh water before it reaches the ocean and used it for crops and other uses. What’s wrong with transporting water is it uses more fossil fuels thus perpetuating the problems.
I am not for anything that screws with the environment but you think it’s OK especially if there is profit in it. What ever the future holds if it is not perpetually sustainable it’s BAD NEWS.

The world is full of idiots and we may both be one of them but I have a better idea of what will be needed to keep it all going for unlimited generations. Your intensions are good but your understanding of the bigger picture is a focused on the immediate needs of others and making a profit with little insight into the long term future.

Kurzweil’s book is educational and if you think it just another book your right but it's one with lots of facts, though. He says that some day we will have the ability to improve our own ability to think and that would be great because we’ll need it to survive. The bible is a book that people believe in and we know it was written by drunken Greeks. Jesus had good intensions and was inclusive to all with his love. Hell and apocalypse are just the things that perpetuate the bible that the Greeks added.

If any or all of the above is offending – so be it.
I’m getting nothing out of this thread and will disconnect it.

The BulletBobber is a lot more important to me then corresponding with you any further.

 

This thread has been instructive in an unexpected way. When people engage in converstions that include contemptuous comments (even if they are just grouchy outbursts) about the opinions of those they are conversing with, the whole thing risks falling into disarray. BoatDesign.net functions well when people treat each other with respect, even if they disagree. Knowledge and learning are not well served by insults, anger and emotionalism.

 

Kitetug; you ask about environmentally friendly wastewater treatment plants. Here is a credible example; the Arcata (California) Marsh: http://www.humboldt.edu/~ere_dept/marsh/flow1.html

Dave

 

There has been some good information posted here, but Jonathan is right; acrimony does not add to the mix. BulBob, I hope you do not leave, but continue to needle Kitetug to get his facts in order. Kitetug, I hope you desist tweaking BulBob about his passion and remain on topic. It is a good one.

On the subject of defending one's position, poorly researched facts and "scare words" thrown out solely in support of one's point of view are not constructive. Kitetug, you make many good points, but you'd make better ones if you studied your opponents' point of view. Desalination plants' "salt sludge" isn't anything of the sort. According to this site: http://www.sccwrp.org/pubs/annrpt/92-93/ar-14.htm desalination plant effluent is typically twice as salty as pure seawater, no more, and very nearly falls within the normal range of saltiness throughout the world's oceans. Further, a study of some of the most delicate of life forms finds that such effluent is harmless, especially compared to legally "clean" wastewater effluent commonly disposed of at sea; "Sea urchins embryos proved to be among the most sensitive of marine species. The desalination waste brine was not toxic to amphipods, kelp spores, or sea urchin embryo at concentrations expected to occur in the field." (From the above site)

If your argument in favor of transporting water--and especially via kite power--is going to "hold water," it is going to need to offer cogent responses to considered opposition. It is an interesting concept, especially perhaps to me, but I can tell you from experience that raw opinion and bad science will not move the agenda.

Good luck!

Dave

 

I am not even a religious man, but you are saying ridiculous things.

I hope you are more knowledgeable about the technologies you are discussing because on history and general culture you show a lot of ignorance, not to speak of contempt for other people beliefs.

 

I am for the bettermnt of all mankind - inclusive - if some has a problem with that - oh well.

 

Maybe we are a little "off topic" here.
Some Norwegian comanies are running such plants in the Med and the Atlantic. Yes, there is a flexible pipeline to shore, and typical capasity is 10 to 50 tonns (of water) per hour. I don't know what they do with the exrta salt.
Salt as pollution or a toxic must be a question of consentration. The Med is much "salter" than the Atlantic.

 

Kiteship, why don't you look back for a second, then you will see that BulBob came here to call everything ********, I didn't, and even after the insult, I remained polite. So please, take back your misrepresentation of these facts.

Mm, can't I be amazed that an environmental engineer has never heard of the very serious environmental problems surrounding desalination?

I didn't quote any scientific sources, because the point is too well known, I thought. But apparently it isn't, so from now on, I'll back up everything I say with sources:

Experts fear marine disaster in desalination
>June 27, 2005, so that's even with the latest technologies.

EDS Conference on Desalination and the Environment
May 22-26, 2005, Santa Margherita, Italy


A critical assessment of desalination operations in Sicily
182(2005)1-12 Full Text


Environmental Impacts of Water Desalination Along the Coastal Region of Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

I didn't come here to give a scientific exposé, and I'm not at all averse to having a more in-depth discussion about the concept, but when people come here to call everything ********, just like that, then I'm done with that person.

So permit me to respond to those only who have taken on the subject on a more constructive tone.


Now about the science behind my concept:

-from the start I've given references to kite-propulsion: Skysails' website has a basic and good overview of the concept and its problems

http://skysails.info/index.php?id=13

-I've referred to the paper about bulk water transport in polymer tankers, a paper which contains fairly detailed calculations and an exploration of the problems involved

http://www.waterbank.com/Newsletters/nws12.html

This paper also shows that bulk water transports can be cheaper than desalination, and that they are definitely more environmentally friendly, as desalination consumes vast amounts of energy, and pollute the marine environment in many different ways (brine discharge; pollution by rest matter, metals, biocides in the brine; intake pipes which destroy all marine life that gets sucked into them, etc...).

For the rest I've tried to respond to all suggestions and criticisms in a serious way, as you can see above.

Yours, KiteTug

 

If you have to chose, would you rahter trust Southern California Coastal Water Research Project Authority (SCCWRP) or The Sydney Morning Herald?

 

I would always listen to both, but be more suspicious of the facts presented by those who have a commercial stake in a technology. So in this case, I trust the scientists who are criticizing the technology, over government officials who have ties to industry and want to implement the technology with taxmoney.

Critical environmental scientists have a proven record of being right on many issues, while government officials with ties to industry have a proven record of being wrong on many issues.

 

I have no wish to fight with you Kitetug; I hope your concept turns out right. If I did not believe in what you say, I would not spend my time posting here. I offer that being righteous is not the same as being right. This is something I have learned; you may accept it or not. It is your coice.

I would answer your question with a question; is it more important to prove your point, or to disprove his?

your point is *not* well known, as you've discovered here. Thank you for listing your sources.

You may know that, in any debate class, a newspaper is not encouraged as a source. Newspapers are interested in selling newspapers, not in reporting news. I would also note that most (all?) your sources are to be found on a single website--one which has an avowed bias. Is this smart? I mean no disrespect, but rather offerr points to make your argument--or at least your knowledge--more complete and compelling.

you always have that ability, but if a person whom you do not like offers a reasonable argument, is it best to attack their character, or to attack their argument?

This is my field; I can tell you with certainty that no one has ever transpoted water or any other substantial cargo by kite. We hold the world record ffor largest vessel ever pulled--at 25 tons. All of our plans--and those of our competitors--are just that; plans. Not proven.

This is quite interesting and promising, but what it does not show is whether this industry--the transport of water--has any significant percentage of world transport business. It's great to look at future potential, but selling a new technology (kite power--even sail power) into a new and little-tested industry (water transport by sea) is at least 4 times as difficult as beginning either one alone. This is just my view--the exponential relationship--but I bet few would dispute me. Adding a third new "little tested" technology--liquid transport in bags without surrounding hull--ads yet another level of "newness" and another exponential level of unlikeliness. I would be, frankly, shocked to find an investor willing to underwrite such a venture.

At the same time, I would be very interested in becomming involved in such venture, and offer my services to any syndicate you might put together.

Cheers,

Dave

 

Is BoatDesign.net a debating (a competition to win an argument) forum or an exchange of ideas, knowledge and opinions? When participants seem to have an overarching interest in being "right", the discussion tends to degenerate into insults, needling, misrepresentations, and angry participants. Hey there is enough stress in the world. This forum has a greater potential than this. Let's make it work!

Aloha*,

Jonathan

*Aloha means welcome, fare well, friendship, tolerance, generosity, hospitality.