Quote:
Originally Posted by samwichse
So at 139,700,000 square miles of ocean, to lower the ocean level by 1" you would need to convert only 317,500 cubic miles of water to hydrogen.
Definitely a practicable solution!
|
Imagine coastlines rimmed with conversion plants, running on solar constantly. When the sun came out they'd operate, when it was not out they'd shut down. Flash forward 300 years... they'd have an impact. Something has to be done with the polar water... it has to be frozen or disintegrated.
I'm not sure you guys grasp the gravity of the situation. There are a lot of people sitting in offices yakking the yak while making six figure incomes. Later generations... well they might not take place on account of today's lethargy.
It's not the rising oceans/increasing drought that threaten mankind. The reaction is the killer. The researchers aren't in sync, and are thinking past each other. The situation is worse than you've heard... by about 200%.
If you give that responsibility to today's OPEC nations, then that's an economic way out for them. You say that it would be better to create vast solar farms... but did you realize those farms are going to be competing with our living, agricultural and wildlife space? And further, how would you transfer the energy? Long distance transmission losses are quite severe.
And by the by, the growth of plug-in hybrids is likely to smash the power grid as it now stands. I did the math: running World of Warcraft requires 5 nuclear plants worth of power (1kw hr for top settings, 10 million players; in 10 years it'll require 2kw). Imagine how rough it will be for plants to provide 100kwh a car per week for Teslas and their clones. The output of many North American plants is no more than a gigawatt.