California water crisis

[Michchamp]

I've read that the water restrictions don't apply to farms, which by some reports account for 80% of the water usage in CA.

there's also been criticism of the oil industry in CA, which uses a lot of water, although they claim they produce more water than they use, a claim which did not go challenged or even verified in the article.

sounds like this is going to get worse before it gets better!

 

[Monster]

Well, it's raining here today. Big storm has rolled through. It's rained off and on for the past two days, but today it's finally really coming down. Hard rain for about the last 6 hours. Great, only about three or four straight months of this would really help!

And yes, Farmers are exempt from the restrictions. People are pissed. They ask us to roll back our water usage when we're only a small percentage of usage but do nothing with the main problems. I'm all for farms (apparently Almonds are the worst offenders) but I think the least beneficial of them need to have severe restrictions. At least until the drought ends.

 

[zyxt9]

The other part of the equation is the degree of over-production/surplus. The government has a long history of paying farmers to NOT plant their crops, there is zero reason why such a policy cannot be applied during a severe drought to reduce the amount of water being used. Any crop that requires the field to be flooded should not be planted, but any crop that can grow via drip irrigation should be encouraged to be planted. The government should also encourage farmers in non-drought regions to plant the crops unable to be planted in CA to maintain a level of balance in the food supply. I would not say the government has the right to force farmers to plant specific crops, but via tax incentives and other means they can strongly encourage them, and that is a level of government control that makes sense, IMO.

 

[zyxt9]

I think every theory for folding space requires mass/energy on the order of stars.

Every currently known theory, yes.

Obviously we are at an early level of technological and scientific knowledge. Regardless of how advanced we think we currently are, the next decade alone is likely to bring about incredible discoveries, and by 2100 people will likely refer to our current status as something like "back in the infancy of computer technology"...and they will be correct.

Will we discover what Dark Energy and Dark Matter actually are? Will we figure out a way to harness energy from Matter/Anti-Matter collisions? Maybe we will discover to create a singularity that is small enough to be contained and controlled while harnessing its energy.

Maybe we will discover ways to travel via other dimensions.

Maybe the solution is so beyond our current understanding that we are incapable of even providing a crude description at this time.

To me the Dyson Shell is not plausible. It requires way too much energy and resources to build it, potentially requiring more energy to build and maintain (remember, it is going to deteriorate and need to be fixed...and that maintenance alone seems counter productive to me even if we are using nanobots...how much energy and resources would be required to do all that? The amount of energy to build all of that makes it an inefficient endeavor, IMO. But, in fairness, that viewpoint is based on today's understanding of tech, so I cannot say it is an impossibility.

 

[Michchamp]

Well as you know there would be a chance to make money at it if you can efficiently and inexpensively extract all the individual elements. My concern with company(ies) figuring that out is how long will it take for them to convert cubic miles of seawater into fresh water such that the sea life is impacted to an even greater degree than it already has been. For every potential solution, there are more problems to tackle. It's like taking meds for one problem only to have those meds result in complications with other organs, and so on, and so on...

Sometimes it is better to just let nature do its thing...

I'm surprised you haven't advocated a solution that involves killing people yet. Maybe you're really starting to mellow out?

Unless by letting nature "do its thing," you mean drought, famine, war, etc.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Every currently known theory, yes.

Obviously we are at an early level of technological and scientific knowledge. Regardless of how advanced we think we currently are, the next decade alone is likely to bring about incredible discoveries, and by 2100 people will likely refer to our current status as something like "back in the infancy of computer technology"...and they will be correct.

Will we discover what Dark Energy and Dark Matter actually are? Will we figure out a way to harness energy from Matter/Anti-Matter collisions? Maybe we will discover to create a singularity that is small enough to be contained and controlled while harnessing its energy.

Maybe we will discover ways to travel via other dimensions.

Maybe the solution is so beyond our current understanding that we are incapable of even providing a crude description at this time.

To me the Dyson Shell is not plausible. It requires way too much energy and resources to build it, potentially requiring more energy to build and maintain (remember, it is going to deteriorate and need to be fixed...and that maintenance alone seems counter productive to me even if we are using nanobots...how much energy and resources would be required to do all that? The amount of energy to build all of that makes it an inefficient endeavor, IMO. But, in fairness, that viewpoint is based on today's understanding of tech, so I cannot say it is an impossibility.

I see the two halves of your posts as conflicting. To say we'll think of new technology to enable interstellar travel, but we can't build Dyson Spheres because it takes too much energy is arbitrarily applying a way of thinking to one technology but not the other (which, I guess you recognize.) Making mass move a certain distance in a certain amount of time is an energy/mass problem just like building a Dyson Sphere. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed there's not going to be a way around this. Technology advancement can change a lot of the rules of the game, but only certain types of rules. You mention matter/anti-matter, but that's a big power solution. We'll still need enough of it to classify as a Type 2 civilization. Harnessing singularities would be too.

Here's a pretty decent pop science article. http://mkaku.org/home/articles/the-physics-of-interstellar-travel/
He says you need to be Type 3 for faster than light travel (if it's possible.)

 

[tigersofjustice]

Farmers are exempt? I thought something like 70% of all water usage in California agricultural?

What they need are environmentally friendly desalination plants.

 

[zyxt9]

I see the two halves of your posts as conflicting. To say we'll think of new technology to enable interstellar travel, but we can't build Dyson Spheres because it takes too much energy is arbitrarily applying a way of thinking to one technology but not the other (which, I guess you recognize.) Making mass move a certain distance in a certain amount of time is an energy/mass problem just like building a Dyson Sphere. Since energy cannot be created or destroyed there's not going to be a way around this. Technology advancement can change a lot of the rules of the game, but only certain types of rules. You mention matter/anti-matter, but that's a big power solution. We'll still need enough of it to classify as a Type 2 civilization. Harnessing singularities would be too.

Here's a pretty decent pop science article. http://mkaku.org/home/articles/the-physics-of-interstellar-travel/
He says you need to be Type 3 for faster than light travel (if it's possible.)

Not exactly. The way I see it, we could build a massive rail gun type structure from here to the moon that applies 1G sustained acceleration and reach extremely high velocity using far less materials than a Dyson Sphere. The system could have solar panels to acquire the necessary energy between launches. This woukd be a massive undertaking, but provide somewhat reasonable speeds to travel to nearest stars and at a small fraction of material needs and costs of a Dyson Sphere, not to mention energy requirements.

 

[biggunsbob]

We need to get going and start doing some of these things you guys are suggesting.. Get on the moon. Get on Mars. Start harvesting the asteroids. Start small then large scale projects will happen. So Frustrating we can't all work together. Damn shame I am going to miss all of this..

 

[zyxt9]

The problem is in cost/benefit. It costs way too much still to get into space, let alone building bases on the moon. Hell, as a planet we have a hard time just keeping the ISS going 24/7.

They need to develop high quality multi-functioning robots that can extract ore, smelt it, form it, and then use it to build new things. The 3D printers will eventually play a big part in that as well, allowing scientists to send up the necessary plans for what needs to be built, so if a part fails a new one is printed up.

Personally I think their is more to gain by building INTO the moon as opposed to on top of it. For starters, the materials that get excavated can be converted into tools or whatever to continue with the build out. The moon surface and layers will help to protect against solar radiation as well (though the necessary depth I have not calculated. Basically, turn it into a giant ant-like system of tunnels, but with better organization and structure. This also allows for a pressurized atmosphere to be created while not being as concerned about some space debris flying into some type of dome structure that results on all the atmosphere being expelled into space and killing all life that was not already in a protective suit/environment.

From an engineering perspective, it makes more sense. The sci-fi depiction of domed Lunar/Martian/etc bases I find to be extremely vulnerable and problematic, unless built on a planet that already has a viable atmosphere...thereby not requiring a large dome.

Still, the amount of drilling and building involved will need to be done by robotics which do not require food and oxygen. We currently only have technology able to send up rovers with small drills and augers. The exponential increases in tech make me hopeful to one day witness a lunar base built by robots, but it still feels like a good 50+ years out before the financials and tech are both available. Maybe if the Chinese or Russians show an interest in making it happen then the US will once again try to ramp up to that level, but it will be costly with little return on investment outside of improved technology.

 

[turok]

The image in the OP is the lighthouse on a breakwater on Lake Michigan in Frankfort, MI, where I spent my summer vacations from school as a child/teen. I also was a lifeguard @ the large beach there. The highest bluff that is visible was called the Sugar Bowl, and was quite steep to climb, even moreso than any @ the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, about 15 or so miles north of there.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Not exactly. The way I see it, we could build a massive rail gun type structure from here to the moon that applies 1G sustained acceleration and reach extremely high velocity using far less materials than a Dyson Sphere. The system could have solar panels to acquire the necessary energy between launches. This woukd be a massive undertaking, but provide somewhat reasonable speeds to travel to nearest stars and at a small fraction of material needs and costs of a Dyson Sphere, not to mention energy requirements.

Here to the moon at 1G is nothing. You need to spend years at 1G to get to the nearest star.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Here you go:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/rocket.html

The assumption here is you have a perfect matter-anti-matter rocket with perfect efficiency, meaning the fuel to energy assumed is E=mc^2 with no losses. You accelerate at 1G to the halfway point and then slow down at 1G 'til you get there. The nearest star would take you 3.6 years to get to and your ship has to be 97.4% fuel.

 

[TheVictors]

I'm sure all this fantasy Sci-Fi is helping folks in California on water rationing right now. Love the pic my buddy put on FB of his buckets attempting to catch rainwater and trap water from the gutters.

I should tell him to stop bothering because soon he will be living on Mars anyways..