<br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 4/10/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Keith Henson</b> <<a href="mailto:hkhenson@rogers.com" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">hkhenson@rogers.com
</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I suspect that if it were less expensive to make fresh water out of sea water for crops than it is to export the oil, grow the crops in other locations with low cost water, and ship them back, people would be doing it now.
</blockquote><div><br>I think you are arguing that systems make sense. There are large numbers of systems in place that do not make sense (from an efficiency or cost viewpoint) that are in place due to the fact nobody has looked at them from the perspective of "what would be the *best* solution?" The trouble with "best" solutions is that they often have high up-front investment costs. So they don't get implemented until the society (esp. far sighted individuals with a society) get rich enough. What would be really interesting is to see how/where the oil wealth in
S.A. is distributed and whether it is distributed to people who are willing to innovate and take risks [1].<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
It takes a *lot* of water to grow food, and it is really expensive in terms of energy to make fresh water out of salt. I am well aware that advancing technology could change this picture.</blockquote><div><br>It doesn't have to take a lot of *fresh* water. The cyanobacteria and algae in the oceans are perfectly happy producing reduced carbon (hydrocarbons) and proteins in salt water. You are dealing with a historic artifact that the food system is oriented around cheap fresh water production methods.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Think about it this way, when the oil runs out how are they going to power the desalination plants?
</blockquote><div><br>That was the point of the URL. S.A. is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of solar energy wealth per individual. Now that could change over the next few decades if they subsidize population growth at the expense of infrastructure investment.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><a href="http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dchap1.html" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dchap1.html
</a><br><br>Which indicates that desalination plants produce water for around $1/cubic<br>meter.</blockquote><div><br>The question I would ask is whether this cost includes the recent improvements in desalination plant technology. I think the Science Channel had a recent news blurb about a breakthrough that was going to make them 2-3x more energy efficient (through better recovery of otherwise wasted energy) and that was being looked at by
L.A. and/or San Diego to solve their water problems.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Given that it takes about 1000 tons of water to grow a ton of wheat, that would run up the cost of wheat for the water alone to $1000 a
ton.</blockquote><div><br>But it the water is used for transpiration to drag the nutrients from the roots up into the leaves. You don't have this problem if you grow you food in solar ponds or relatively sealed greenhouses that you can condense the water from at night. Its a "change the traditional thinking" or "infrastructure investment" problem.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Wheat runs about a $100 a ton, and shipping to the mid east might run<br>around $50 a ton. It would still cost them better than 5 times the current
<br>cost. <a href="http://www.ndwheat.com/buyers/default.asp?ID=287" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">
http://www.ndwheat.com/buyers/default.asp?ID=287</a><br></blockquote><div> <br>So don't use wheat. Use cyanobacteria engineered to produce a lot of starch that end up tasting like wheat.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Interesting way to look at food imports as water imports, and a certain area of the world would be in deep trouble if food imports were shut off. <a href="http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_02/uk/dossier/txt32.htm">http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_02/uk/dossier/txt32.htm
</a></blockquote><a href="http://www.unesco.org/courier/1999_02/uk/dossier/txt32.htm" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)"></a><div><br>
As we have learned the hard way with oil imports. All countries should
try to structure their economies so they are sustainable without
essential foreign sources. Otherwise one can be subjected to
extortion, coercion, etc. and have higher than really necessary taxes in order to support large military budgets required to prevent people from attempting to subject you to such situations.<br><br>Robert<br><br>1. It would be interesting to ask the question of why
S.A. isn't building ships to tow icebergs from the North Atlantic (or Antartctic) back to S.A. <br></div><br></div><br>