American Wildfires

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I don't doubt that desalinization may be employed to lessen the need for water in certain areas in the US going into the future. But it is not a good solution environmentally. Here is some info from sciencing.com that addresses some of these environmental issues.
We will see. Thank you for the post to reply to.
"Desalination is not a fail-safe process and carries with it many environmental repercussions. The disadvantages of desalination are causing many people to think twice before starting desalination projects".
Of course, every action has a equal and opposite reaction kind of thing.
Waste Disposal
As with any process, desalination has by-products that must be taken care of. The process of desalination requires pre-treatment and cleaning chemicals, which are added to water before desalination to make the treatment more efficient and successful. These chemicals include chlorine, hydrochloric acid and hydrogen peroxide, and they can be used for only a limited amount of time. Once they've lost their ability to clean the water, these chemicals are dumped, which becomes a major environmental concern. These chemicals often find their way back into the ocean, where they poison plant and animal life.
This is not how I would start looking at it. I would look to use larger areas and more layers of filtration instead of using it on the side of the ocean and dumping everything back into it when done.

That is counter productive in cleaning up our environment and heal the mess we have made IMO. And we are not that desperate here (yet).


Brine Production
Brine is the side product of desalination. While the purified water goes on to be processed and put into human use, the water that is left over, which has a super saturation of salt, must be disposed of. Most desalination plants pump this brine back into the ocean, which presents another environmental drawback. Ocean species are not equipped to adjust to the immediate change in salinity caused by the release of brine into the area. The super-saturated salt water also decreases oxygen levels in the water, causing animals and plants to suffocate.
I saw you mentioned the lakes I mentioned down below, that would defiantly take care of this (outside of the desert lake areas I am bullshitting about)


Ocean Populations
The organisms most commonly affected by brine and chemical discharge from desalination plants are plankton and phytoplankton, which form the base of all marine life by forming the base of the food chain. Desalination plants therefore have the ability to negatively affect the population of animals in the ocean. These effects are further developed through the disadvantages caused by desalination "impingement" and "entrainment." While sucking ocean water in for desalination, the plants trap and kill animals, plants and eggs, many of which belong to endangered species. In addition, the desalination process uses or produces numerous chemicals including chlorine, carbon dioxide, hydrochloric acid and anti-scalents that can be harmful in high concentrations.
Again this would not be an issue with dumping dirty water into the ocean, I am 100% not suggesting we do that.

The sucking in life sucks, but I am sure that can be mitigated with some kind of filtration process (where we can also pull out large bits of plastic we dumped in the ocean) at the intake.

Health Concerns
Desalination is not a perfected technology, and desalinated water can be harmful to human health as well. By-products of the chemicals used in desalination can get through into the "pure" water and endanger the people who drink it. Desalinated water can also be acidic to both pipes and digestive systems.
This is not something that would really matter over millions of miles of piping and cleaning methods I would bet. I think this is looking at the way it is currently done where the water is being used at the ocean's edge and it needs to be filtered immediately.

Energy Use
In an age where energy is becoming increasingly precious, desalination plants have the disadvantage of requiring large amounts of power. Other water treatment technologies are more energy efficient.
Again not really what I am talking about necessarily, but I can see how getting electricity to these plants I am talking about that would be located in our desert areas.

High Costs to Build and Operate
It is very costly to build and operate desalination plants. Depending on their location, building a plant can cost from $300 million to $2.9 billion. Once operational, plants require huge amounts of energy. Energy costs account for one-third to one-half of the total cost of producing desalinated water. Because energy is such a large portion of the total cost, the cost is also greatly affected by changes in the price of energy. It is estimated that a one cent increase in the cost of a kilowatt-hour of energy raises the cost of of one acre-foot of desalinated water by $50.
Meh. Our Federal government spends about $100 billion every year on road construction/maintenance. Solving our water needs seems like investing in doing it right would be something that would be worth it.

You've also mentioned creating "a series of lakes" that gradually decrease in salinity. Creating a salt lake would irreparably destroy the soil and contaminate the ground water in the vicinity around in salt lake you create. Have you heard of the Salton Sea?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salton_Sea
God just found this looking at the desert areas and the great salt lake in Utah:


Those green areas are in the middle of the desert.
Screen Shot 2021-06-20 at 10.30.44 AM.png



It is in the middle of this map:Screen Shot 2021-06-20 at 10.30.58 AM.png
I have not heard of the Salton Sea though something like that would seem like a natural spot to set up one desalination plant I would think.

Also completely independent of environmental impact, or financial viability, desalinization would not in any way address issues with wildfires in the west. Wildfires in the west are not happening because of a lack of water availability to municipal sources, they are happening because of lack of snowpack and rain which increase the moisture content of the flammable duff on the forest floor.
Yeah it is going to take a long time to fix the destruction of our forests over the last couple hundred years.

There is literally no way to pump water desalinized or not en masse onto the areas where the western wildfires are likely to happen. Remember that snowpack and rainfall are needed as a preventative for wildfires, they work by keeping the forest moist before fire season. We already have airplanes and helicopters that can dump water and flame retardant onto a fire that has already started, that's not what we are talking about, what is needed is increased moisture content in the forest to stop a forest fire before it starts after a fire starts it's too late.
It will be an industry the way that I am imagining this. I think what you are describing is incredibly wasteful and something like a drip line system that people can operate.

There is no practical way even if we had infinite amounts of desalinized water to water all the forests of the west, so that they were properly moist, ahead of fire season. There is no way to distribute the water to all of those areas on a regular enough basis to address fire danger, it has to happen in the form of snow and rain. Fires are happening due to a lack of precipitation.
I am willing to say without question that the water needs are not infinite, and would be extremely calculable.
The beauty of math and computer modeling is that would be needed to set up a good model to figured out from back to front.


1.How much water would we need an some time scale (per day/week/year) for everyones needs?

2. How much water could be added in the vulnerable natural growth areas to keep them properly hydrated.

I think that would be pretty easy to get a big all encompassing figure to start at. Then once we have that number how much volume of piping could be mapped out. At that point where/how to desalinate the water and costs of everything can be figured out.
 

Attachments

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
I look at it more as replacing what we took out over the last couple hundred years intelligently.

I don't think that just hoping it all gets back on track if humans suddenly stopped burning and dumping chemicals everywhere is really an option.

Unless you are in a death cult and think that the 'end of the world is neigh' kind of shit (not saying you are). Because who cares about human caused pollution and climate change if it is all going to end anyway.

We need to clean up our mess, and that is going to take a whole lot of water to feed the vegetation we chewed up.

And it makes sense to me to stop using local fresh water sources if we can avoid it in most areas so that we can stop polluting it with all of our cleaning products we flush out of our homes.


I liked golf and really do find the courses visually beautiful. But they are as wasteful as a lawn IMO. Plant trees on them all.
Who’s thinking it will ever be replaceable. That’s kind of the problem, we treated/treat it like an infinite source that can be replaced. How do you replace a glacier? How do you replace the loss of snow melt. No Death cult but realistic is all. Pulling salt water and dumping it on land is not, IMO, a replacement or a solution but more of bandaid and a shitty one at that. Kind of like how we’re running out of oil so let’s use NG was a solution 15 years ago. And I say plant pot on all of the golf courses...... no till of course ;). Speaking of pot, seems I’m using tremendous amounts of water to keep my girls happy :(. I’ve probably used 400-500 litres so far and still 3-4 months to go. I’m drawing from a huge lake but still :(.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Who’s thinking it will ever be replaceable.
Im not sure what part of what I said that you are talking about with this.

But we know how to clone plants, so I do think that with time and effort we can easily plant everything once again. And this time we can learn to live with it instead of having to dominate every aspect of our planet to feel safe.

That’s kind of the problem, we treated/treat it like an infinite source that can be replaced. How do you replace a glacier?
I am not saying we can replace a glacier.

One thing we know though is that our planet has had glacial events, super volcano explosions, on and on. And life finds a way.

We are just becoming aware as a species and people are able to learn far more about everywhere else far faster, and we have the ability to look at how we have changed things over time, and a historical context (through sciences like geology) to compare it to.

So I guess how do you replace a glacier, you wait for it to grow.

Unfortunately our species found fire before we figured out the sciences.


How do you replace the loss of snow melt.
Slow drip lines?

No Death cult but realistic is all. Pulling salt water and dumping it on land is not, IMO, a replacement or a solution but more of bandaid and a shitty one at that. Kind of like how we’re running out of oil so let’s use NG was a solution 15 years ago
So this almost got me to troll a little. But I guess this is as good as any to use.

1. Pulling salt water and dumping it on land.

Screen Shot 2021-06-20 at 1.06.42 PM.png

It really is already the case that water from the ocean is dumped onto land, I am just saying that we use current human ingenuity to bypass a few steps and direct the water we need to help fix the damage that we have caused and set our selves up to live as small of a foot print as we can as a species on our planet.


2. The gas analogy is not good because I am explicitly trying to get us to stop burning everything and helping our portion of this blue marble from drying out due to our species short sightedness of chopping down all of its plants.

And that is something that we can fix. And that we should fix now. Because we need to, and because it is possible.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Nope he is saying he’s ok with you naming a dildo after him and he is worried you’ll damage your poop hole, so perhaps an additional orifice would take the pressure off .........hope that helps lol.
I'm sure it's just a matter of a misunderstanding. I should use smaller words when talking to her.
And fresh water.

I was not thinking of this as a way to generate electricity as the goal, but for moving water into the interior of our nation that we used up and cut down all the vegetation that kept it from evaporating.

From what I have seen,

Desalination is possible. Moving the water from the ocean to anywhere we want is possible (we do it with oil). And outside of the pollution that we would also be drawing in from the ocean, there would be salt as pollution.

So some huge public works project like this vs mega fires and mega droughts, I really don't see why it couldn't work.



I was thinking along the lines of this kind of tech added to larger scale more natural methods like described in this video:


Maybe a series of lakes that the water flows to clean the water as it moves to where we need it in order to safely clean it, and then from there it gets pumped out to into the usable water grid from there.

And have some redundancy, have maybe 4 in the west (Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, Texas) that draw in from different parts of the ocean to clean and send back out from there.

And use it to grow back all of the vegetation that we clear cut last couple centuries.
A lot of what you are saying is in the Green New Deal that AOC drew up a few years ago. Like her, you are looking at the problem at a system-level. The GND recognizes that addressing climate change is much larger than switching to EV or converting to cleaner energy production. Everything changes. Socially, culturally, how and where we work, how we grow food, how we deliver basic necessities and how we treat each other. Most especially, conserving the environment, including the natural water cycle. That is practically free. We need to use it better. I'm not a fan of geo-engineering or trying to create an artificial water cycle. Research is fine. Small demonstration projects are fine. But I'm more on the side of conservation, intelligent use of resources and humanity finding intelligent ways to coexist with the natural world.

The Green New Deal as currently written is symbolic and not a detailed plan but a good starting point. Because pumping and cleaning seawater is artificial and under current tech would require much more new energy than it would save, I don't think what you propose is workable but goes in the right direction. I feel that we have much more to gain if we can find ways to better use resources without creating environmental disaster.
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
It's not quite the case as ocean evaporation leaves the salt behind, which is a good segue into the possibility of "free" methods of desalination, albeit at a much slower rate.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
It's not quite the case as ocean evaporation leaves the salt behind, which is a good segue into the possibility of "free" methods of desalination, albeit at a much slower rate.
I was more thinking about skipping a couple of the middle steps. I kind of liked the idea of a intake from the ocean because we also need to clean up the plastic that we have put in the ocean. And think that it might be a good idea to have some kind of dumping station so the people cleaning up the ocean's pollution can easily dispose of it there.

I think a slower rate makes much more sense, even if it took a couple years for water to flow through the system. We need to get off our species chemical dependencies as much as possible in everyday life.

Im not thinking we will ever get rid of pollution, but just we should start having a plan for it ahead of time.


A lot of what you are saying is in the Green New Deal that AOC drew up a few years ago. Like her, you are looking at the problem at a system-level.
The GND had a nationwide desalination system for our water needs in it?
 

mooray

Well-Known Member
Yeah I'm sure there are ways to reduce the impact of what you're talking about. I'm also okay with screwing up a small area as long as there are hard limits. Take ski resorts for example, they screw up a small portion of the mountain for our entertainment and so they can make money, but there are hard limits on their site and they can't expand endlessly. Along those lines, something like another salton sea isn't the end of the world, plus if it's controlled, well....all sorts of people and industries need salt, so there ya go. My concerns have more to do with the part where more resources fuel more growth, then you're right back where you started needing another desalination plant. I'll sign up for just about whatever method you want, as long as growth is controlled and regions have hard limits in place.
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
I'm sure it's just a matter of a misunderstanding. I should use smaller words when talking to her.


A lot of what you are saying is in the Green New Deal that AOC drew up a few years ago. Like her, you are looking at the problem at a system-level. The GND recognizes that addressing climate change is much larger than switching to EV or converting to cleaner energy production. Everything changes. Socially, culturally, how and where we work, how we grow food, how we deliver basic necessities and how we treat each other. Most especially, conserving the environment, including the natural water cycle. That is practically free. We need to use it better. I'm not a fan of geo-engineering or trying to create an artificial water cycle. Research is fine. Small demonstration projects are fine. But I'm more on the side of conservation, intelligent use of resources and humanity finding intelligent ways to coexist with the natural world.

The Green New Deal as currently written is symbolic and not a detailed plan but a good starting point. Because pumping and cleaning seawater is artificial and under current tech would require much more new energy than it would save, I don't think what you propose is workable but goes in the right direction. I feel that we have much more to gain if we can find ways to better use resources without creating environmental disaster.
I would love to discuss any Deal with AOC over dinner and breakfast ....... We can dream lol.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
Because a nationwide desalination system goes the wrong direction when it comes to energy use.
Cool, I almost had to read it to see how they were thinking about how to do it.

Because a nationwide desalination system goes the wrong direction when it comes to energy use.
I don't buy the too much energy use thing.

There is plenty of available energy, we just really suck at using anything that is not extremely dirty and wasteful. Because when todays (outdated) infrastructure was being built we didn't know about all the ways we can use natural sources to do the work while alive, and that we don't need to chop it all down and burn it.

We are like that roman carriage story (in the happy thread), everything we are doing is because it is stuck using old rich white dictator's whims and not done the way that the scientist have ever tried to have it done. And when those dictators cut too many corners, they blame it on scientists, and kill them, and find the next best people come along and fix their own stupid mess.

Im a fan of skipping unnecessary middle steps.

Yeah I'm sure there are ways to reduce the impact of what you're talking about. I'm also okay with screwing up a small area as long as there are hard limits. Take ski resorts for example, they screw up a small portion of the mountain for our entertainment and so they can make money, but there are hard limits on their site and they can't expand endlessly. Along those lines, something like another salton sea isn't the end of the world, plus if it's controlled, well....all sorts of people and industries need salt, so there ya go. My concerns have more to do with the part where more resources fuel more growth, then you're right back where you started needing another desalination plant. I'll sign up for just about whatever method you want, as long as growth is controlled and regions have hard limits in place.
This is why I am so excited about 3d printing.




We can start doing so much more on a local level and cut down on a lot of waste.

Im really looking forward to what we do as a species on this planet.
 

Don't Bogart

Well-Known Member
I HAVE A GREAT PLAN!! AND IT DOESN'T USE HUMANS!!
I believe we will never think our way out of this. We're just not that smart.
Ex: Logging Co. is sold on the idea of replanting. This is in the 70's. Makes great effort to replant every acre it harvests. Applauded for finally listening to environmentalists. Fast forward 2000+. Is now being whacked around for not only planting the wrong trees but not paying attention to how they should have been planted. How is this being helpful from both sides?
We're just green mold on an orange. We'll just keep spreading 'till the orange is done.
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I HAVE A GREAT PLAN!! AND IT DOESN'T USE HUMANS!!
I believe we will never think our way out of this. We're just not that smart.
Ex: Logging Co. is sold on the idea of replanting. This is in the 70's. Makes great effort to replant every acre it harvests. Applauded for finally listening to environmentalists. Fast forward 2000+. Is now being whacked around for not only planting the wrong trees but not paying attention to how they should have been planted. How is this being helpful from both sides?
We're just green mold on an orange. We'll just keep spreading 'till the orange is done.
Leave it up to white men to not think about the problems that arise when you have one 'kind' of thing and don't introduce a natural variety.

Im guessing satalite imaging and AI would be able to get a really nice planting layout based on satellite images of old growth forests.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Cool, I almost had to read it to see how they were thinking about how to do it.


I don't buy the too much energy use thing.

There is plenty of available energy, we just really suck at using anything that is not extremely dirty and wasteful. Because when todays (outdated) infrastructure was being built we didn't know about all the ways we can use natural sources to do the work while alive, and that we don't need to chop it all down and burn it.

We are like that roman carriage story (in the happy thread), everything we are doing is because it is stuck using old rich white dictator's whims and not done the way that the scientist have ever tried to have it done. And when those dictators cut too many corners, they blame it on scientists, and kill them, and find the next best people come along and fix their own stupid mess.

Im a fan of skipping unnecessary middle steps.


This is why I am so excited about 3d printing.




We can start doing so much more on a local level and cut down on a lot of waste.

Im really looking forward to what we do as a species on this planet.
I'm confused over what it is you propose. Water pumps are about 50% efficient. Desalinization is an energy hog. We can't just wave a wand and make that all go away. Inventions are needed before desalinization can provide clean water at parity with the cost of using ground water.

If you propose spending more on research, then yeah, lets do it.

If you propose we build a system expecting inventions to take place, then no. Let's get some more research done first, please.

If you propose we build a system using existing tech then its the wrong direction in terms of energy use, and conservation of the environment.

But the idea that we could pump sea water up hills and mountains, then use the stored energy to purify and pump/distribute all of that water is technically impossible using existing tech and probably will never be possible. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that we don't know how to do it.
 
Last edited:

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I HAVE A GREAT PLAN!! AND IT DOESN'T USE HUMANS!!
I believe we will never think our way out of this. We're just not that smart.
Ex: Logging Co. is sold on the idea of replanting. This is in the 70's. Makes great effort to replant every acre it harvests. Applauded for finally listening to environmentalists. Fast forward 2000+. Is now being whacked around for not only planting the wrong trees but not paying attention to how they should have been planted. How is this being helpful from both sides?
We're just green mold on an orange. We'll just keep spreading 'till the orange is done.
Not all great minds should be listened to.


At the peak of the Atomic Age, the United States Federal government initiated Project Plowshare, involving "peaceful nuclear explosions". The United States Atomic Energy Commission chairman at the time, Lewis Strauss, announced that the Plowshares project was intended to "highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests"

Proposed uses for nuclear explosives under Project Plowshare included widening the Panama Canal, constructing a new sea-level waterway through Nicaragua nicknamed the Pan-Atomic Canal, cutting paths through mountainous areas for highways, and connecting inland river systems. Other proposals involved blasting caverns for water, natural gas, and petroleum storage. Serious consideration was also given to using these explosives for various mining operations. One proposal suggested using nuclear blasts to connect underground aquifers in Arizona. Another plan involved surface blasting on the western slope of California's Sacramento Valley for a water transport project.[5]

One of the first serious cratering proposals that came close to being carried out was Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense.[10]

Project Carryall,[11] proposed in 1963 by the Atomic Energy Commission, the California Division of Highways (now Caltrans), and the Santa Fe Railway, would have used 22 nuclear explosions to excavate a massive roadcut through the Bristol Mountains in the Mojave Desert, to accommodate construction of Interstate 40 and a new rail line.[5]

A project proposed in a 1963 memorandum by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would have used 520 2-megaton nuclear explosions to excavate a canal through the Negev Desert in Israel at an estimated cost of $575 million ($5 billion in 2021), to serve as an alternative route to the Suez Canal.[12][13]

At the end of the program, a major objective was to develop nuclear explosives, and blast techniques, for stimulating the flow of natural gas in "tight" underground reservoir formations. In the 1960s, a proposal was suggested for a modified in situ shale oil extraction process which involved creation of a rubble chimney (a zone in the oil shale formation created by breaking the rock into fragments) using a nuclear explosive.[14] However, this approach was abandoned for a number of technical reasons.



1624224033046.png

One of the Chariot schemes involved chaining five thermonuclear devices to create an artificial harbor.
 

Budley Doright

Well-Known Member
Not all great minds should be listened to.


At the peak of the Atomic Age, the United States Federal government initiated Project Plowshare, involving "peaceful nuclear explosions". The United States Atomic Energy Commission chairman at the time, Lewis Strauss, announced that the Plowshares project was intended to "highlight the peaceful applications of nuclear explosive devices and thereby create a climate of world opinion that is more favorable to weapons development and tests"

Proposed uses for nuclear explosives under Project Plowshare included widening the Panama Canal, constructing a new sea-level waterway through Nicaragua nicknamed the Pan-Atomic Canal, cutting paths through mountainous areas for highways, and connecting inland river systems. Other proposals involved blasting caverns for water, natural gas, and petroleum storage. Serious consideration was also given to using these explosives for various mining operations. One proposal suggested using nuclear blasts to connect underground aquifers in Arizona. Another plan involved surface blasting on the western slope of California's Sacramento Valley for a water transport project.[5]

One of the first serious cratering proposals that came close to being carried out was Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense.[10]

Project Carryall,[11] proposed in 1963 by the Atomic Energy Commission, the California Division of Highways (now Caltrans), and the Santa Fe Railway, would have used 22 nuclear explosions to excavate a massive roadcut through the Bristol Mountains in the Mojave Desert, to accommodate construction of Interstate 40 and a new rail line.[5]

A project proposed in a 1963 memorandum by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory would have used 520 2-megaton nuclear explosions to excavate a canal through the Negev Desert in Israel at an estimated cost of $575 million ($5 billion in 2021), to serve as an alternative route to the Suez Canal.[12][13]

At the end of the program, a major objective was to develop nuclear explosives, and blast techniques, for stimulating the flow of natural gas in "tight" underground reservoir formations. In the 1960s, a proposal was suggested for a modified in situ shale oil extraction process which involved creation of a rubble chimney (a zone in the oil shale formation created by breaking the rock into fragments) using a nuclear explosive.[14] However, this approach was abandoned for a number of technical reasons.



View attachment 4927462

One of the Chariot schemes involved chaining five thermonuclear devices to create an artificial harbor.
Oh and less we forget.........Wasn’t there talk of blowing up a hurricane? Oh wait, not a great mind, sorry!
 

hanimmal

Well-Known Member
I'm confused over what it is you propose. Water pumps are about 50% efficient. Desalinization is an energy hog. We can't just wave a wand and make that all go away. Inventions are needed before desalinization can provide clean water at parity with the cost of using ground water.

If you propose spending more on research, then yeah, lets do it.

If you propose we build a system expecting inventions to take place, then no. Let's get some more research done first, please.

If you propose we build a system using existing tech then its the wrong direction in terms of energy use, and conservation of the environment.
I guess you missed that I figured it would need to be figured out first.

By purpose earlier I said I was just yelling into the void and you all yelled back, how was I to know where it went?

It was interesting how we can do things better and think that with the problems that we are facing talking about solutions might actually be interesting to at least find out what we don't know and what is known.

How can we do it with oil?

But the idea that we could pump sea water up hills and mountains, then use the stored energy to purify and pump/distribute all of that water is technically impossible using existing tech and probably will never be possible. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that we don't know how to do it.
I have no clue what you are talking about here other than someone else might have mentioned it in this thread. I wasn't considering that. Just long distance pumping of water.
 

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
I guess you missed that I figured it would need to be figured out first.

By purpose earlier I said I was just yelling into the void and you all yelled back, how was I to know where it went?

It was interesting how we can do things better and think that with the problems that we are facing talking about solutions might actually be interesting to at least find out what we don't know and what is known.

How can we do it with oil?



I have no clue what you are talking about here other than someone else might have mentioned it in this thread. I wasn't considering that. Just long distance pumping of water.
I don't understand what it is you are getting at. My bad.
 

xtsho

Well-Known Member
Meanwhile...

Fires, bone dry conditions, and no rain in sight.




 
>
Top