Will the F4 become F4 + W?

[kfort]

Hello all,



I've been thinking lately about the F4 (Food, Fuel, Forestry, Fertilizer) that Don and the folks at REIN talk about. I was wondering if anyone else thinks that at some point in the future Water will be added to that list? I personally think it could be already however we simply do not operate that way currently. Thought it may be interesting to see / discuss what others think on this topic. So, do you think water is going to be another major resource that drives markets at some point? If so, how many decades away is it? If not, why?

 

[Thomas Beyer]

I'd replace forestry with freedom. Forestry is a small part of the economy. Freedom is a key driver for many Asian or E-European immigrants. Water will be a key issue, but only if it can be exported in bulk, which today it cannot. It is excluded from NAFTA right now.




Egypt, for example, has a treaty with upstream nations that disallows them to take water out. It is a crucial crucial issues in areas with little rain, such as SW US. The US could, and might in fact, build a pipeline from N central or NE US where they had flooding recently & excess water flowing into Manitoba or Atlantic. One can also desalinate oceans, which is commonly done in Arabic states or Mexican resorts today.



I think water will always be an issue, but not yet too major as (expensive) solutions exist.



There is enough water to go around.



It is just that in some areas it costs a lot more to pipe in, or create from nearby oceans. As such, it is a factor of growth, like property taxes or cost of energy. Some areas have cheap energy and grow faster. As such, some areas will stop growing or slow down if water costs 20x more than elsewhere.



One of the biggest sinners is California, which uses insane amounts of water for their huge agricultural industries. As such, it'll affect their growth .. And at the moment it is negative, i.e. folks leave with falling house prices and socialist like state taxes.



Already today, in many US states, water rights are decoupled from land ownership, and can be bought and sold separately. Unlike Canada.




Will BC or E-Canada or Manitoba or Ontario start selling water to the US? Worthy a policy debate, with pro's and con's.

 

[kfort]

Interesting that you mention desalinization, I read an article on it about a year ago (my day job is an Outdoor Education teacher) that mentioned a company in the lower mainland that was developing a simple process for it. My understanding is that it required very little energy input, which is the major problem currently.

I honestly believe that is where the dollars should be flowing. Building massive transport systems has a lasting physical impact. So many of our highly populated regions are within a couple hundred miles of a coastline.

He who comes up with a scalable process to desalinate water for pennies a glass will be a very rich patent holder.

 

[Hutchym]

Hi guys,







I was asked the other day why anyone would be crazy enough to invest in arizona, nevada, or certain areas of texas based on their possible future water problems alone. Afterwards I started researching this question. As an educated investor one must think about these problems at face value as the "general public" allows the investment opportunities to go by on fear.




The only widespread argument of de-salinization is the significant amount of energy needed to operate these water stations. This energy is easily created via nuclear power at significant baseload generation levels. One US style PWR Nuclear reactor could power many extremely large scale plants. Pipelines could be built to all areas. Some say it could only possibly go to a couple regions. However, In Ontario specifically, everyone has electricity even though its economically not viable(Even in Red Lake!). In the US they have mass interstate highway systems in every corner of the country even though it could be argued it isn't necessary. I would argue the size of the project wouldn't be much of a deterrent, especially talking about a basic human need.




Putting these pipelines in wouldn't be like the Oil fiasco were experiencing right now. No one is going to argue about every American having the right to water. Also the environmental impacts will be negligible. The nice thing about water being in these pipelines is it flows very nicely with significantly less power needed compared with oil.




These plants would operate at constant load and all communities would be able to have water towers, or domestic water storage facilities of some kind for heavy demand times.




They Already have these types of facilities/ piping "interstates", in places such as israel, UAE, spain, japan, russia, and increasingly asian countries. In a place such as the US where it is supposed to be a right to have water and food, their should be no problem.




From cost standpoint, it is worthwhile to mention that all areas may pay very simular expenses for their water. An example is in Ontario where you will pay near the same amount electricity whether you live in Windsor, Ottawa, or tobermory (wheres tobormory? exactly!) The main reason is in todays society, electricity is considered a basic right. The price you pay should be the same no matter where you live.




With new technologies and less energy demanding ways of desalination areas will at least be able to mitigate pricing for these technologies.

 

[Thomas Beyer]

While I agree in principle, I betcha that nuclear powered desalination systems would go down real well in the US. Right up there with Keystone XL, Chernobyl, Fukishima, and 3 Mile Island. Germany, with over 20% of all electric power generated by nuclear power plants, just voted to shut them down by 2022, after the Fukushima meltdown (which would likely never happen in non-earthquake zones).



Water is an issue in many parts of the US or Canada, but with enough ingenuity and $s it can be solved easily.



Unlike electricity though, to my knowledge there is no US wide or provincial water authority to give each person a liter or cubic meter of water for the same price. That may have to happen, but will also have huge opposition, especially from areas with cheap water, say counties or cities in certain parts of Washington state or Colorado will argue: " I am not subsidizing those desert homes".



Water, like land prices, taxes, roads, energy prices or prices of labour will be a key competitive advantage or disadvantage of a home purchase or business location decision.

 

[bizaro86]

[quote user=Hutchym]Putting these pipelines in wouldn't be like the Oil fiasco were experiencing right now. No one is going to argue about every American having the right to water. Also the environmental impacts will be negligible. The nice thing about water being in these pipelines is it flows very nicely with significantly less power needed compared with oil.





It is much more difficult to install/construct/maintain high capacity water pipelines than high capacity oil pipelines. I've done both.



Water is (typically) less viscous than oil, so it does require less energy (pumps) but it is also more corrosive to steel than oil. (Leave a drop of water and a drop of oil on steel sheet and see which rusts first). That means you need to add chemical corrosion inhibiting agents (not a great choice for drinking water) or switch to much more expensive construction practices. (Stainless pipe, etc)



This could be done, but society would have to decide it was more important than things we spend money on now (health, education, gov't services, etc).



And I guarantee the green groups will say we should build renewable energy, and just run the desalinization plants when the sun is shining/wind blowing and store the water. Which is fine, but adds even more cost.



Regards,



Michael