Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Discover Huge Freshwater Reserves Beneath the Ocean

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."

43 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by mentil · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...)

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by stjobe · · Score: 5, Informative

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

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

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    3. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by somersault · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by mysidia · · Score: 2

      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.

    6. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by rmpotter · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      Is this sig nificant?
    7. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      No sig today...
    8. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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!

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    10. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      No sig today...
    11. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Maudib · · Score: 3, Informative

      The U.S. spends 4.7% of GDP on the military. I don't think its gone over 5% since the 60s.

    12. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by argStyopa · · Score: 2

      Thank you for COMPLETELY validating everything I've always thought about environmentalists. Much appreciate the laugh on a Monday morning.

      --
      -Styopa
    13. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      What country does that? Certainly not the USA. Our defense budget is about 5% of GDP.

      If you want to find something that adds up to 10% of GDP, you have to look at social programs...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    14. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Still, you also have the problem that after you remove a lot of fresh water

      Simple - just replace it with Carbon Dioxide! Well - provided that you could cap it under pressure in the end.

    15. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by Bengie · · Score: 2

      If they didn't, they would have made a military large enough to compete with ours. A single large military can bring stability. Not to say everything will be fair, but few would be willing to fight. If another military is causing stability, there is little reason to invest into your own. By lack of action, other nations have effectively outsourced to the USA.

    16. Re:Yo Dawg I Heard You Like Water by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      Legitimate question here: does that include military spending that's not generally considered to be part of the military budget, for example the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were funded separately?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  2. The problem with all this... by beh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re: The problem with all this... by tysonedwards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Thirty four characters live here.
    2. Re: The problem with all this... by Soluzar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:The problem with all this... by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:The problem with all this... by Froboz23 · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      Take off every Sig. For great justice.
    5. Re:The problem with all this... by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    6. Re:The problem with all this... by erikkemperman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
  3. Re:This is excellent water by philip.paradis · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  4. Draining this could lower inland dwells' level by advid.net · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level by FunkDup · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Draining this could lower inland dwells' level by advid.net · · Score: 2

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

  5. Pumping more efficient than desalination? by thatkid_2002 · · Score: 2

    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?

    1. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by FunkDup · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds -- Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by Lifyre · · Score: 2

      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 The numbers are about 5 years old so it may have changed.

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    3. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by djmurdoch · · Score: 2

      According to Wikipedia, 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".

    4. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since all of this water is along the continental shelf and is fresh water only because it used to be above sea level, deep water rigs are obviously not involved.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    5. Re:Pumping more efficient than desalination? by clovis · · Score: 3, Informative

      The water mentioned in the article is not fresh water - it is low salinity water and it still has to go through desalinization plant.
      However, it would, maybe, be cheaper to desalinize than ocean water.

  6. You know what to do... by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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!

  7. Re:This is excellent water by philip.paradis · · Score: 3

    I served (as an enlisted man) aboard the USS Nebraska.

    --
    Write failed: Broken pipe
  8. Re:This is excellent water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

  9. Re:Not a problem by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

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

  10. Whew! by Spit · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    POKE 36879,8
  11. Prophesy!! by flyneye · · Score: 4, Funny

    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

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  12. Scientists should stop discovering resources... by Emmi59 · · Score: 2

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

  13. Re:This is excellent water by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    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.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  14. Re:Stop stimulus for producing waste by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    We need to address waste stimulation, but government can't do that.

    People need to take personal responsibility for themselves and own this problem. My wife and I take a trash can to the dump once every 3 or 4 weeks. We have really worked hard to cut down our trash profile by reusing, recycling, composting, reducing, and conserving (for example we use empty dog food bags as trash bags).

    Government can't successfully make people do this. They can tax noncompliance to kingdom come but it won't accomplish anything except to give government more money to spend on pork and take more money from hard-working Americans.

    The solution to most of society's ills starts right at home, and requires desire and action at the individual level.

    The root problem is that government has trained people from a very young age to be people who proclaim "Someone needs to do something!" rather than "What can I do!?" when a problem comes up. Government in its own thirst for power and control has raised a society of helpless dependents, and it really has zero interest in solving problems, because the problems are the source of their power.