• reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You joke, but we actually do need desalination plants — starting yesterday. Water will be the new oil soon.

      • exohuman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, we definitely do. We are already seeing the result of not thinking ahead in the southwest. I’m not really joking about the plants. We need nuclear plants to provide the clean energy to desalinate on the levels we need to sustain agriculture and cities without contributing to global warming.

        • Edmond Dantesk@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          … or maybe switch to a less water intensive form of agriculture ?

          Edit : I mean, how sustaining a wasteful practice with a huge wasteful infrastructure is progress ?

            • Edmond Dantesk@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Maybe we should, but I’m not sure we can - because one (nuclear + desalination) acts as a disincentive to the other (actually chaning practice).

              Also, building a nuclear reactor takes a lot of time (do we have it ?), changing agricultural practices can start right now and scale progressively.

    • toothpicks@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      And then we can pour the nuclear waste back into the sea! Just kidding 😂 I’m not anti-nuclear

      • Kittenstix@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hopefully by then Nevada is a barren wasteland uninhabited by nimbys so we can get the Yucca Mountain project started.