Thoughts on Water

Earth is a closed system. Nothing escapes into space that is not launched at escape velocity. Therefore, the water we have is the water we had and the water we will have. Other than the very small amounts of water that get "lost" through chemical reactions converting those molecules of H20 into something else, all of the water that we "use" stays with us.

Unlike oil where once we use it up, it is no longer in the same form, water more or less stays the same and thermodynamics gives us a clue to this as there is no energy to be had from water and therefore no conversion of matter into energy no matter what we do with water.

We "have" more or less the same amount of water we had a million years ago and we will have the same a million years from now unless we cart it out into space.

The issue is what form water comes in and this issue is all a "parts-per-billion" issue meaning that in some cases water is mixed up with salt (in fact 97% of all water on Earth comes in that form) and in other cases it is mixed with poop and we call it sewage. 

What we need is water without those other things mixed in and this problem is not a huge one from the standpoint of science and technology. Desalinization is not advanced science and tertiary wastewater treatment produces potable water of which, comparatively speaking, we need very little (we use more for showering, washing cars or watering lawns in volume terms). 

So what does this mean - first, all the alarmist "running out of water" or "World War 3 will start over water" notions are fundamentally misguided - we have plenty of water if we have enough capital to convert it to a form that we like to use.

Second, even though one might think that the fact this is not an insurmountable problem makes water less interesting than other clean-tech areas where bigger technological breakthroughs are possible (and necessary) this is not the case. Addressable problems (addressable markets) one can "work" are in fact the best investment opportunities because something is sure to get done as opposed to waiting for a breakthrough which may or may not ever come.

Comments

Ken Barker said…
Hi Miljenko,

I am intrigued by your blog and am looking forward to reading your view points! Your point on water is very interesting, but is it not similar to food, in that it is a case of distribution? While others starve the rest of the world throws away food - is that not the same case with water? Wars are fought, (physically or economically), partly due to wanting what the other party has that you do not. The opportunity then would be in the redistribution of resources, or the investment in water/food creation.

Good luck and I look forward to reading more!
Best,
Ken.
November 11, 2012 7:30 AM
Miljenko said…
I agree Ken that with food the issue is not overall availability and not even of the food already produced. Farmers in the US are getting paid NOT to grow anything as they are so productive that if all the available land were used, the prices of crops would collapse. As with water it is not just distribution, it is also the availability of capital as in many places in Africa a whole lot of food could be grown if there was enough capital to invest in equipment, fertilizer and other inputs. Absent that, the bandaid solution is applied of shipping in food supplies.
November 11, 2012 9:25 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Sex Addiction" - give me a break ...

I am getting a little bit tired of the whole "sex addiction" racket out there. Sex is not an addiction any more than skating backwards is. It may feel good to have air blowing up your behind (or to have sex) but that does not an addiction make. And if you feel you are addicted, just stop skating backwards! The problem is that calling it an "addiction" trivializes addictions which are real and substantive. The operative word being "substantive" meaning there is a substance involved (although this may not be the correct usage of the term substantive). With real addictions be it alcohol, drugs, nicotine or prescription drugs, there is always a substance at work which makes us feel a certain way ("good" or at least "better" than without it). From that emerges an addiction to that "feel good effect" and in that sense, yes, food can be an addiction also but sex cannot. Of course sex feels good, it is supposed to and without it feeli
Read more

Do we really "deserve to be happy"?

Happiness is not an evolutionary prerequisite. Nothing in the process of evolution selects for happiness (or lack thereof). Evolution cares about survival of the species and no advantages are conferred upon happy as opposed to less so individuals. The "happiness industry" which convinces people that they "deserve to be happy" and in fact makes them miserable because they are not as happy as they "deserve to be", is a recent phenomenon. When cave men brought home the antelope and everybody ate it around the fire, there was no cave man equivalent of Dr. Phil walking around trying to asses the degree of happiness of the group. In the Middle Ages, happiness was defined as not having the plague. It is only in recent times that the "entitlement of happiness" came about and as more of the basic needs were no longer an acute issue, mankind went searching for the next thing that will make them miserable. Total bliss or complete happiness is not a default
Read more

Things we can do by ourselves, and things that we can't

Making a list (and not checking it twice) of things one can do by oneself and those which one can only do with somebody else. Please feel to contribute. Things one can do by oneself - read, run, swim, meditate, eat, hike, chop wood, ski, drink, dance, sleep, play chess, cook, sing, practice any number of sports, feel guilt (as opposed to shame). Things that can be done only with participation of at least one other person - hug, kiss, have a conversation, get or give a massage, shake hands, play any number of sports, entertain somebody else with one's dance, singingor writing, feel shame (as opposed to guilt).
Read more