The Wars of the Future will be fought over WATER!!!!-2/2

[sssssjjjj1]

IF YOU HAVE THE QUEEN, ROTHSCHILDS, ROCKEFELLERS, CFR TYPES YOU WILL HAVE WARS....THEY LOVE IT...WE SHOULD GO GET THEM.......MAKE THEM FIGHT EACH OTHER TO THE DEATH. TELEVISE IT. TAKE THE TELEVISION NETWORK FROM THE CROOKS THAT OWN IT. THEY ARE DESTROYING YOU WITH IT. ABSOLUTELY DESTROYING YOU. 911 WAS A MEDIA MOSSAD JOB. WATCH ON YOUTUBE. MOSSAD CAUGHT IN VAN ON 9-11 "FILLED WITH EXPLOSIVES" GW BRIDGE. watch this unless you're scared to know who did 911. don't be a coward. they are.

[mnvinn]

Las Vegas exists when we could be have filtered ocean water there

[5c077andstuff]

the funny thing is that water is very easy to clean. anyone who lives in rural areas of the U.S. has a septic tank which waste water goes into a tank underground where bacteria breaks down the waste and the ground cleans the water. this could possibly be done at a larger scale. it is silly that large cities dump their waste water into the ocean removing it completely from the system.

[Everclearsan]

why are ppl worrying about global warming when this crisis determines the very survival of future generations?!

[GtheMVP]

@Everclearsan distraction be design

[ReverseStateOfMind]

well we've polluted the air quite a bit...will this just generate polluted water ?

[IndependentPhillyPA]

Heres the solution it's called smith and wesson this government is risking there klives for a fews greeed

[jairoluis2000]

There are a lot of thing that need to be done:

make laws harder globaly, better control to industries and people. a lot of education on how to preserve water. promote the recycling of used water. etc.

we need to get out of our minds that theres a lot of water cause nothing is more far from reality.

sorry for mistakes, english is not my native idiom.

regards

[jairoluis2000]

This is a BIG isue, only 3% of the water in the planet can be consume by humans.

water desalinization is very expensive to industries, and goverments are not interested.

[chalices]

Protect, conserve, AND cleanup dirty water.

constructed wetlands work, onsite wastewater treatment systems work, which should be promoted as well as a trust fund. Flow: For Love of Water - excellent 90 minute film.

[joshuaki3]

It needs to be understood that clean, fresh water can be a completely renewable resource. Through desalination of ocean water, and extensive waste water treatment we can have clean water forever. The only catch is that these facilities require tremendous amounts of energy. If the energy comes from CO2 emitting sources, climate change is exacerbated, which feeds back and requires even more desalination facilities. However, with an infinitely abundant source of CO2 free energy, problem solved.

[joshuaki3]

The only inexhaustible energy source is nuclear fusion. I am a nuclear engineering graduate student at UC, Berkeley doing thesis work at the DIII D tokamak in San Diego on this perfect energy source. Unlike solar, wind, bio, cogen, geo, and existing nuclear, nuclear fusion fuel is infinite, produces no long-lived radioactive waste, and doesn't perturb hundreds of square miles of ecosystems like solar and wind. The only limit to fusion is adequate funding for experimental research.

[joshuaki3]

Please, write your Senators and Congressman. Fusion NOW!

[hitssquad]

"The only inexhaustible energy source is nuclear fusion."

What about fission?

google. com/search?hl=en&q=fission+fue­l+%22trillion+years%22

[joshuaki3]

Easily accessible fission fuel in the earths crust is limited to around 500 to 1000 years (estimates vary, but it is in this ball park), if breeder reactor technologies were deployed. I'm a fan of fission, and I think much more needs to be done with it right now, but it's not infinite. Fusion fuel is abundant everywhere in our universe. Fissile/fertile material beyond our planet is limited to rocks/planets rather then gases. In our oceans alone, we have billions of years worth of deuterium.

[joshuaki3]

Deuterium is a primary fusion fuel.

[hitssquad]

@joshuaki3 "Easily accessible fission fuel in the earths crust is limited to around 500 to 1000 years"

Not according to this:

nuclearinfo. net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistr­ibution

It shows ~40 trillion tons of uranium. Adding thorium to that brings the total to ~200 trillion tons of fission fuel. Current annual fuel consumption, at 34% thermal efficiency, is 60,000 tons of uranium. Breeder reactors drop that to 1/60th, or 1,000 tons/year.

[joshuaki3]

"Current annual fuel consumption ... is 60,000 tons of uranium."

This ignore that nuclear power is dramatically under utilized. According to IEA presently nuclear power is only 17% of electricity used. The developing world uses less then 10% of the energy per capita as the developed world. If we did the right thing and switched to all nuke, then when China, India and Africa reach US standards of living we'll need 15 X more U. If we power transport by electric double that to 30 X.

[hitssquad]

@joshuaki3 "nuclear power is dramatically under utilized. [...] If we power transport by electric double that to 30 X."

What are we left with, if we divide our 500-billion-year supply of fuel by your figure of 30x increase in consumption rate?

google. com/search?q=500+billion+%2F+3­0

The answer is: 17 billion years of fission fuel. Is that not enough for the next 100 years?

[joshuaki3]

Also, I need to emphasize EASILY ACCESSIBLE. Only sources in concentrations greater than 50 to 100 ppm are of any real use. And many sources are undesirable for environmental reasons as uranium is extracted from ore by pulverizing rock. There's tons of trace amounts of Uranium in the Himalayas, but were not about to strip mine Everest to get it.

[hitssquad]

@joshuaki3 "There's tons of trace amounts of Uranium in the Himalayas, but were not about to strip mine Everest to get it."

If we are so selective that we only mine 1% of the uranium and thorium in the crust, then our 17-billion-year fission-fuel supply drops to 170 million years.

Is that not enough for the next 100 years?

[hitssquad]

@joshuaki3 "Only sources in concentrations greater than 50 to 100 ppm are of any real use."

Please explain how you derived those figures.

nuclearinfo. net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistr­ibution

"The Rossing mine in Nambia mines Uranium at an Ore concentration of 300 ppm at an energy cost 500 times less than the energy it delivers with current thermal-spectrum reactors. If the energy cost increases in inverse proportion to the Ore concentration [...] 10 - 20 ppm [=] energy gain of 16 - 32."

[hitssquad]

@joshuaki3 (cont.)

200 trillion tons of fuel, consumed at a rate of 1,000 tons per year, would last 200 billion years. Doubling the thermal efficiency to 68% would allow it to last 400 billion years. Raising the thermal efficiency another half of a time to 85% would allow the fuel to last 500 billion years -- or half a trillion years -- neglecting the limiting factor of the half-life of thorium-232, 14.1 billion years.

[ps3man75]

u should advertise this vid some how...put it up as a video response to a famouse vid

[Blacksentinel]

ok but tap water has flouride in it.

[IWantDemocracyNow]

Ok, I'm TERRIFIED!!!! why are more people not watching and responding to this????

[jrthom444]

Because, the general public only recognizes a problem when it directly affects them. So until things get bad most people will ignore it.