Gigantic container to store ocean water; feasible or nonsensical?

[MDJH]

Or somewhere between the two?

 

One concern related to climate change is the notion that the melting ice caps would cause rising ocean levels to flood coastal communities. This is used as a reason to cut back on fossil fuel emissions, but there's also some uncertainty as to whether or not such cutting back would stop this problem. So why not address the global flooding issue more directly with a container of some sort?

 

More specifically, my idea was that a large quantity of whatever material was practical for this (if any) would be formed into a gigantic container, filled with ocean water, and then tied to a space shuttle (or maybe a series of space shuttles) and carried through the atmosphere into space and released. This way, the water would go up but WOULDN'T have to come back down.

 

I guess if it was a good idea someeone else would have thought of it. I guess the question now is what are the exact problems with that?

[Moontanman]

Or somewhere between the two?

 

One concern related to climate change is the notion that the melting ice caps would cause rising ocean levels to flood coastal communities. This is used as a reason to cut back on fossil fuel emissions, but there's also some uncertainty as to whether or not such cutting back would stop this problem. So why not address the global flooding issue more directly with a container of some sort?

 

More specifically, my idea was that a large quantity of whatever material was practical for this (if any) would be formed into a gigantic container, filled with ocean water, and then tied to a space shuttle (or maybe a series of space shuttles) and carried through the atmosphere into space and released. This way, the water would go up but WOULDN'T have to come back down.

 

I guess if it was a good idea someeone else would have thought of it. I guess the question now is what are the exact problems with that?

 

 

What would you use for energy to lift this water? I know of no energy source powerful enough to move such huge amounts of water off the planet, if we could do that would could probably just move the planet a tiny bit and solve the problem.

[Sisyphus]

The surface area of the world's oceans is 361,132,000 km^2, or 3,611,320,000,000,000,000 cm^2.

 

Seawater has a mass of about 1.025 g/cm^3.

 

The top 1 cm of the ocean therefore weighs about 3,701,600,000,000,000 kg.

 

The space shuttle is capable of lifting 24,400 kg to low earth orbit. (That's just to get it orbiting. It isn't even able to reach escape velocity.)

 

So, in order to launch enough seawater into orbit that you would lower worldwide sea levels by 1 centimeter, you would need about 150 billion space shuttles.

 

So, that's the problem.

[Sayonara]

So, in order to launch enough seawater into orbit that you would lower worldwide sea levels by 1 centimeter, you would need about 150 billion space shuttles.

 

So, that's the problem.

I guess I'll put the first $20 in then. Anyone else?

[MDJH]

The surface area of the world's oceans is 361,132,000 km^2, or 3,611,320,000,000,000,000 cm^2.

 

Seawater has a mass of about 1.025 g/cm^3.

 

The top 1 cm of the ocean therefore weighs about 3,701,600,000,000,000 kg.

 

The space shuttle is capable of lifting 24,400 kg to low earth orbit. (That's just to get it orbiting. It isn't even able to reach escape velocity.)

 

So, in order to launch enough seawater into orbit that you would lower worldwide sea levels by 1 centimeter, you would need about 150 billion space shuttles.

 

So, that's the problem.

... I see. Well, now I know.

 

In any case, are there any other feasible ways of removing water from the planet?

 

EDIT: Or of storing them in such a way as not to go back into the ocean? Such as sucking it out of the ocean and storing it in some closed container?

Edited July 29, 2010 by MDJH

[Mr Skeptic]

Horrible idea, due to the price (and energy costs) of spaceflight. On the other hand, the giant container idea isn't that bad. There's plenty of desert that could be converted into a shallow ocean if we really wanted to. Or, some desert areas are below sea level so you'd just have to dig a path for the water and it would fill on its own and you could even get hydroelectric energy from it. Of course, then you'd have to worry about poisoning the aquifers with brine.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I guess I'll put the first $20 in then. Anyone else?

 

I volunteer as treasurer. Send me the $20 and I'll let everyone know when we have enough for the first flight.

[Newbies_Kid]

No need to send out the water into space.. why not you just bring the water to Sahara desert and build up a water theme park in the middle of the desert?

[Illiad]

Instead of moving huge amounts of water, why not stop them from melting in the first place?

[MDJH]

Instead of moving huge amounts of water, why not stop them from melting in the first place?

Seeing as how the extent to which we could stop it is already in dispute, I would think it would be more practical to try to adapt to it instead.

[Illiad]

Still, I don't like that idea. Your idea seem desperate, and rough around the edges. And I don't see the practicability of moving huge amounts of water to make theme parks in the sahara. It's like Dubai building a ski resort! (with manufactured snow and I curse them for it... is energy that cheap?) The melting of the icebergs maybe irreversible, but not unstoppable. And we may have melted a lot of icebergs. But there is still alot of them left to save.

[CaptainPanic]

Still, I don't like that idea. Your idea seem desperate, and rough around the edges. And I don't see the practicability of moving huge amounts of water to make theme parks in the sahara. It's like Dubai building a ski resort! (with manufactured snow and I curse them for it... is energy that cheap?) The melting of the icebergs maybe irreversible, but not unstoppable. And we may have melted a lot of icebergs. But there is still alot of them left to save.

I totally agree with you. It's much easier to simply change our sources of energy, and to make sure that the ice doesn't melt than to adapt and avoid the waters to rise.

I don't wish to hijack the thread, but we've already accomplished to change the surface of nearly the entire land surface of the earth over the last 100 years. Is it really so hard to just change our energy sources? I think we're all overestimating the effort that is required.

 

A second option is to protect the land. I'm a Dutchman, and we manage to live under the sea level for centuries already.

 

No need to send out the water into space.. why not you just bring the water to Sahara desert and build up a water theme park in the middle of the desert?

The last option would be to move the water. If we move it, it would have to go to an underground storage, or at least a closed storage. Any bassin would have to be enormous to be able to significantly reduce the sea levels. It would have to be quite deep, and it needs a large surface area. In other words: it would alter the climate of Africa, Europe and Asia (and therefore of the world)... and it doesn't make much sense to change our climate in order to avoid climate change, does it?

I conclude that this is a very bad idea.

 

The comparison

If we're really considering such costly and drastic measures as to create a large artificial sea, or space shuttles, or any other way to reduce the sea level rise, then we sure as hell should first reconsider to simply change our energy sources.

 

Until now, the comparison in all the media is between fossil energy and sustainable energy, without any additional costs attached to the fossil energy. And fossil energy comes out cheapest, so we don't change our energy sources much.

 

If we now start to compate fossil energy plus the construction of artificial seas and/or other drastic measures, and compare that to sustainable energy... well... then sustainable energy may just start to look really cheap suddenly.

Edited August 25, 2010 by CaptainPanic

[surya]

Would creating a channel between sea and space automatically suck the water out of sea into space due to the pressure difference?

This pipe would have to withstand the heat produced by the friction (and the resulting convention currents within the pipe), so pvc pipes are out of question.

Would the pressure differential (atm pressure at sea level - 0) be able to siphon off the water into space once we have pumped out the air from inside the pipe?

[Mr Skeptic]

Would creating a channel between sea and space automatically suck the water out of sea into space due to the pressure difference?

This pipe would have to withstand the heat produced by the friction (and the resulting convention currents within the pipe), so pvc pipes are out of question.

Would the pressure differential (atm pressure at sea level - 0) be able to siphon off the water into space once we have pumped out the air from inside the pipe?

 

Nope, it would take an absurdly strong pump (not to mention pipe) to pump the water up that high. It would take many many atmospheres of pressure -- 1 atmosphere pressure for every 33 feet.

[Bignose]

Following up on Mr. Skeptic's answer there... It isn't just the pressure of the atmosphere keeping the water down, but the weight of the water itself. The pressure difference between the surface and space is not enough to raise water more than 33 feet.

[seouldavid]

Or somewhere between the two?

 

One concern related to climate change is the notion that the melting ice caps would cause rising ocean levels to flood coastal communities. This is used as a reason to cut back on fossil fuel emissions, but there's also some uncertainty as to whether or not such cutting back would stop this problem. So why not address the global flooding issue more directly with a container of some sort?

 

More specifically, my idea was that a large quantity of whatever material was practical for this (if any) would be formed into a gigantic container, filled with ocean water, and then tied to a space shuttle (or maybe a series of space shuttles) and carried through the atmosphere into space and released. This way, the water would go up but WOULDN'T have to come back down.

 

I guess if it was a good idea someeone else would have thought of it. I guess the question now is what are the exact problems with that?

 

How about this idea? Instead of developing a gigantic container carried by a space shuttle, first develop the Moon and build a reservoir there. Then move sea water to the reservoir using teleportation or space shuttles.

[Moontanman]

Lets fill up Death Valley, refill the Great Salt Lake, bring back Lake Bonneville would it make any difference and would we really want to remove water from the Earth even if we could?

[CaptainPanic]

Moving such an amount of water from earth to the moon, in addition to my previous post, has some other problems which we probably cannot overcome.

 

The added weight to the moon, and the reduced weight to the earth may actually influence the orbits of the earth and the moon (around each other). It'll affect the tides. It'll affect climate. And, even 1 centimeter of the water in the oceans, as sisyphus mentioned before, will only take 150 billion space shuttle missions.

 

I like brainstorm sessions such as this, I really do... but moving water from the earth to the moon, with the sole purpose of negating the rise of the sea level because of global warming is just stupid.

 

Lakes

So, that leaves us with creating large (very large) artificial lakes... or even better: re-filling old existing lakes. (But, do we want to add salt water? Water that contains all kinds of micro-organisms, and larger creatures, that may kill the local eco-system?)

 

We may need something seriously big - like Lake Chad and/or the Aral Sea. This may actually be realistic - the volume of those lakes is at least significant when compared to the size of the oceans.

 

And then there's the issue of pumping capacity. To get a significant amount of the ocean's water into a lake, we need a massive amount of pumps.

 

I maintain that it may actually easier to work on sustainable energy and avoid the problem in the first place. But feel free to brainstorm about teleporting water to whatever planet you all fancy in order to solve the very near-future and very real problem of global warming and sea level rise.

Edited August 31, 2010 by CaptainPanic