Scientists Tap 'Secret' Fresh Water Under the Ocean, Raising Hopes For a Thirsty World (apnews.com) 49
A first-of-its-kind global research expedition has extracted freshwater samples from beneath the Atlantic Ocean floor off Cape Cod, documenting a massive aquifer stretching from New Jersey to Maine. The three-month Expedition 501, funded at $25 million by the National Science Foundation and European Consortium for Ocean Research Drilling, drilled up to 1,289 feet into the seabed at sites 20-30 miles offshore.
Samples registered salinity as low as 1 part per thousand -- meeting U.S. freshwater standards -- with some readings even lower. Scientists collected nearly 50,000 liters for laboratory analysis to determine whether the water originates from ancient glacial melt or current terrestrial groundwater systems. The UN projects global freshwater demand will exceed supply by 40% within five years.
Samples registered salinity as low as 1 part per thousand -- meeting U.S. freshwater standards -- with some readings even lower. Scientists collected nearly 50,000 liters for laboratory analysis to determine whether the water originates from ancient glacial melt or current terrestrial groundwater systems. The UN projects global freshwater demand will exceed supply by 40% within five years.
I guess that is one way... (Score:5, Funny)
That's one way to offset rising sea levels from global warming - drain the aquifer under the ocean to sink the floor...
Re: (Score:2)
That's one way to offset rising sea levels from global warming - drain the aquifer under the ocean to sink the floor...
Or... we could just use whatever these guys [wikipedia.org] use. :-)
Re: I guess that is one way... (Score:2)
You'd also need to sequester that water somewhere so it doesn't end up back in the ocean. Best bet is probably to recharge existing aquifers that have been deleted.
Re: I guess that is one way... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
5,000 homes powered instead (Score:2)
A Google gives $25 million being able to power 5000 homes with a solar panel farm for scale versus chartering an oil fueled ship, drilling rig, etc.
https://www.energea.com/unders... [energea.com].
saltwater intrusion (Score:5, Interesting)
We already have a problem with wells in Florida getting salty, because when you lower the pressure of the aquifer by pumping millions of gallons out of it, the surrounding saltwater from the ocean flows in. It seems like this would happen even faster with an aquifer under the ocean if you start pumping the water out. I can't see this being a source of freshwater for very long.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Since there are lots of desalination plants being built around the world, which consume electricity to produce freshwater this is not a well-thought-out notion.
Re:saltwater intrusion (Score:5, Funny)
That's been an issue here in Southern California for decades. They built plants that use reverse osmosis to purify sewer water, then pump it back into the aquifer to hold back the seawater. (The R/O water is cleaner than any natural ground water, but there's a certain stigma to the "toilet to tap" program, so they pump it back into the ground to pretend that's somehow filtering out the cooties.) This program is at least 30 years old at this point.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not at all sure that 'most communities' pump sewage into rivers, most have at least minimal treatment plants. But if you, AC, have some documentation, please, share.
Re: (Score:2)
just pump in CO2, helps keep the pressure up, would be a carbon sink and you get fizzy drink water for free, just add some cola and a bunch of sugar
And to (help) power these pump sites ... (Score:3)
Sounds like a good spot for offshore wind turbines -- oh, wait [whitehouse.gov] ...
Interesting (Score:2)
Interesting, hopefully this can be found in other areas. Where this was found, that area enough fresh water. The only issue is water treatment. Many places need to build more treatment plants. So, the expense of getting it for the NE US is not really worth it at this point.
Now, the southwest US, or other such areas, this water would be a big help. But I wonder if the water is in that area because the Atlantic is spreading, where in the SW with subduction, this could be hard find.
I know little about ge
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There's a whole river that's bigger than the Amazon which could be tapped into. Trouble is, it's under the Amazon.
Water dissolving and water removing (Score:1)
There is water at the bottom of the ocean.
Re: (Score:2)
Under the water, carry the water..
Re: (Score:2)
no shortages in world, just engineering problems (Score:1)
desalination of seawater has to be the simplest application of solar energy ever
no shortage of water on this world, nor is water ever "used up"
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
desalination of seawater has to be the simplest application of solar energy ever
I'm not sure where you are going with that but you must understand that the sun sets at the end of every day (it's kind of how we define a day) and that not everywhere has the same amount of sun.
no shortage of water on this world, nor is water ever "used up"
That was addressed in the fine article with the Rime of the ancient Mariner, "Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink."
We can take water from the sea but it is not fit to drink. At least not without removing the salt and other unhealthy bits. Once we use this freshwater it is contaminated again, making it
The greens are the problem (Score:1)
Desalination for residential use has been competitively priced for some time. In San Diego CA the greens try to stop new desalination plants because they say that the waste brine pollutes the ocean. As it is, the permitting takes longer than the construction.
One proposed workaround is to build a desalination plant in Mexico at the head of the Gulf of California and pump the fresh water into the USA.
20 -30 miles offshore... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:20 -30 miles offshore... (Score:4, Informative)
20–30 miles offshore and 1200 feet below the seabed. OK physics students, calculate how much energy it takes to pump a significant amount of that water up to dry land where it’s needed.
Sure thing. Here’s the back-of-the-envelope version, as augmented by my dog-eared copy of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics from my high school AP physics class back during the Carter administration. :) The math actually puts it in the same ballpark as desal; the tradeoff is offshore economics, not physics.
Lift energy for 1 cubic meter of H2O for 1 m is .0027 kWh with perfect efficiency; scale by head and divide by pump efficiency, and then factor in pipe friction for a 50 km haul and we get roughly 2.3 kWh per cubic meter. This is an upper bound; it assumes we are pulling against the weight of the seawater column above the sediment containing the aquifer. The article was light on specific location details, so I'm assuming standard bathymetry 50 km off-shore of Cape Cod, which means the sea floor was anywhere from 100m to 200m, making the total head about 600m. A better case is with a submersible pump; the net static lift you pay is basically the vertical distance from the pump intake to your onshore discharge point (plus friction), minus any artesian pressure head in the aquifer.
So what about current desal processes? Modern seawater reverse osmosis plants [mdpi.com] is around 3.5 to 5 kWh. And what about nukes? Process energy is the same. Whether you power RO with a fossil grid, renewables, or a reactor, the membranes still need ~3–5 kWh/m. Nuclear doesn’t magically reduce the thermodynamics of pushing water through membranes or boiling it off in MSF plants. Cogeneration helps economics, not physics. Nuclear plants often run with excess low-grade heat, so you can couple distillation/desal units to the turbine exhaust. That can make sense for thermal desalination (MSF/MED), but it’s more about plant utilization than energy breakthroughs.
In a bucket then, the math says it is absolutely doable from the basic physics; and it could be economically viable, if we can make the off-shore infrastructure trade-offs work. Your skepticism is...misplaced.
Cue Futurama (Score:3)
Or we could just desalinate (Score:5, Insightful)
Build nuclear plants and desalinate.
Re: (Score:2)
Build nuclear plants and desalinate.
Don't use that "n-word", that will get people to mod you down and kill your karma.
I agree but I'm not using that word. I'd leave it implied than state it outright. Those that know will know, those opposed will be reluctant to burn a moderation point to vote down someone that didn't put into explicit words that they are opposed to.
Re: (Score:2)
The Luddites fear atomic energy and everything else they don't understand.
There may be good reason to fear technology you do understand but that's a separate issue.
They also hate the idea of cleaning up the nuclear waste our grandparents left us, which really is our moral imperative.
Re: (Score:1)
Trump , is that you?
In a world with unpredictable climate and rising sea levels that is leading to global socio-econimic collapse building reactors that
may find themselves un-attended and un-maintained - this is a recipe for disaster.
If you cannot see this, i guess your bank balance must be on par with Donald Trump.
Re:Or we could just desalinate (Score:4, Interesting)
Build nuclear plants and desalinate.
Let’s run the numbers. Nuclear doesn’t change the thermodynamics of desal, it just changes what you pay per kWh.
SWRO membranes need ~3–5 kWh/m for seawater. That’s baked in by osmotic pressure; no reactor makes that disappear. Pretreatment/post-treatment adds ~0.5–1 kWh/m. Call it 4–6 kWh/m^3 all-in. A large modern reactor (EPR, AP1000) delivers ~1 GW electric at a levelized cost of ~$60–100/MWh. That’s 6–10 cents per kWh. At 5 kWh/m^3, one cubic meter of desalinated water needs ~30–50 cents just for electricity. Add CAPEX for membranes, pumps, pretreatment, brine handling, and distribution, we're closer to $1–2 per m^3
Now, let's look at offshore aquifer pumping. I did some back-of-the-envelop noodling elsewhere in this thread, you can check it out if you want to see my thought process, but I came up with: Lift + friction + light treatment: ~2.7–3.5 kWh/m^3. At the same nuclear electricity price, that’s ~16–35 cents/m^3 in energy costs.
Even with offshore pipe CAPEX, we're not obviously worse than nuclear + RO. Yes, you can hang thermal desal (MSF/MED) on the side of a reactor to use low-grade steam, but those processes guzzle 10–15 kWh/m equivalent. They’re economical only if the heat is truly “free.” Otherwise, RO still beats them.
So, in a bucket -- saying just build nukes and desalinate is like saying just burn rocket fuel to drive to the grocery store. You can, but the physics still hands you a 4–6 kWh/m^3 bill. Nuclear helps with carbon, which is truly nice, but it doesn’t erase the water-energy math. Offshore aquifers are in the same league energetically and potentially cheaper if you solve the off-shore infrastructure issues, which admittedly are non-trivial, but not impossible.
Re: (Score:1)
Letâ(TM)s run the numbers. Nuclear doesnâ(TM)t change the thermodynamics of desal, it just changes what you pay per kWh.
I see a problem right there. You are assuming electric powered systems when someone smart would find a way to use the steam directly where possible to save on costs. Presumably a large portion of the energy consumed is with water pumps so running the pumps off steam than electricity would do plenty to lower operating costs.
I'd like to see the math done by someone that isn't going to handicap nuclear power with such basic errors in setting up assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
If you had serious objections to my "assumptions" you would have called them out instead of handwaving them away with a kiddy-grade ad hom. Just to be clear: Different energy carrier, same physics. RO’s specific energy is ~3–5 kWh per m^3 because you must push 55–80 bar against seawater’s osmotic pressure—that’s true whether a steam turbine turns the pump or a high-efficiency motor does. Direct steam drive only dodges a few percent in generator/motor losses; it doesn
Re: (Score:1)
If you had serious objections to my "assumptions" you would have called them out instead of handwaving them away with a kiddy-grade ad hom.
I didn't mean any ad hominem. I meant to express frustration at the difficulty in getting an honest evaluation of nuclear powered desalination, one that looks at real world numbers. There's examples of nuclear powered desalination in the world, some fairly recently constructed to give a good idea on what to expect from something new.
Absolutely no way that supply and demand (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a problem for the water, just for the people.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely no way that supply and demand for freshwater can be mismatched. One of those numbers will ALWAYS adjust to match.
That is an epic misunderstanding of basic ecology when it comes to our species. Malthus is spinning in his grave right now. That’s not how it works for humans. Yes, nature enforces carrying capacity for animal populations. But *humans* build Hoover Dam, the Central Arizona Project, and whole desal plants so that “demand” doesn’t crash back to “supply.” Arizona has supported millions of people for decades with imported Colorado River water, far beyond local rainfall. Sau
WIll it be enough? (Score:2)
The current trajectory we are on leads to a situation where there will not be enough clean potable water for all life on the planet by 2030.
Perhaps this ecocidal project might buy us some more time - but the chances are it wont be completed before this happens.
There is a way we could avoid this without the ecocidal construction projects.
Most of our clean water is used to water animal feed crops that are fed to the animals we eat and for the animals themselves.
Fact : It takes approximately 660 gallons of wat
2030? (Score:1)
2030 seems like a random number pulled out of an ass. Why 2030? That's like 4.25 years away. Why not 2031? 2036?
It's a stupid argument.
If your point is "this won't last forever" read up. We can drill. We can pump. We can desalinate. But that's just water.
None of that addresses carbon dioxide or the rest of the orange-face crud facing our planet.
We may not be alive in 10 years but the polution we ignore today will outlive us tomorrow.
Enough with the random dates. Start focusing on keeping our plane
Re: (Score:2)
nope it is not. Thats from the IPCC report which states that by 2030 there will no longer be enough clean water for everyone on the planet.
Im sure you have already digested it and refuted everything it says.
3600 feet and 90 elbows below the sea level (Score:1)
What next? (Score:1)