phil_20686, on 2011-December-18, 19:01, said:
But you are missing the reality, which is that most of the worlds population lives on the coast lines where the weather is more temerate and suitable for agriculture. Think of the interior of asia or australia. Even the US has a jolly great desert in the middle of its continental area, and the US has reasonable temperate weather for a landmass that size. Also. Much water is effectively from rain water from the interior via rivers. If you need less river water at the coast lines you can take more out higher up the rivers. Also, moving electricity is not that wasteful.
Quote
Much water is effectively from rain water from the interior via rivers. If you need less river water at the coast lines you can take more out higher up the rivers.
I don't think this is remotely feasible: Let me try the sales pitch!
So, here's the plan...
Out of the goodness of our heart, we're going to scrap all of the existing water compacts that have been around for the last hundred years or so.
We're going to let the upstream states draw a lot more water from the rivers.
To make up for the lost water, we're going to place a nuke plant in our backyard!
Oh, BTW, all the critters that have gotten used to living in said river...
Sucks to be them cause its going bye bye...
Here in the US, we haven't been able to construct a nuke plant in 35 years.
Even if the benefits are localized, its still impossible to get over the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) issues.
I can't begin to image this when the primary benefits are for a fairly remote geography.
Quote
Also, moving electricity is not that wasteful.
6.5% or so...