Britain Could Run Short of Water by 2050, Official Says (nytimes.com) 219
To the casual observer, Britain -- an island nation that's no stranger to rain -- could not get much wetter. From a report: But, as it turns out, that's a fallacy. And if preventive steps are not taken, in less than three decades, Britain might run out of water, the chief executive of the Environment Agency, a public body responsible for conservation in England, said on Tuesday. "On the present projections, many parts of our country will face significant water deficits by 2050, particularly in the southeast, where much of the U.K. population lives," the agency chief, James Bevan, said at a conference on water use.
In about 20 to 25 years, demand could close in on supply in what Mr. Bevan called "the jaws of death -- the point at which, unless we take action to change things, we will not have enough water to supply our needs." The reasons, he said, were climate change and population growth. And he called for a change of attitude toward water conservation to help tackle the problem. "We need water wastage to be as socially unacceptable as blowing smoke in the face of a baby or throwing your plastic bags into the sea," Mr. Bevan said. Many in Britain, citing the often rainy weather and expressing frustration with the infamously high levels of leakage from underground pipes, tend to belittle warnings about water shortages.
In about 20 to 25 years, demand could close in on supply in what Mr. Bevan called "the jaws of death -- the point at which, unless we take action to change things, we will not have enough water to supply our needs." The reasons, he said, were climate change and population growth. And he called for a change of attitude toward water conservation to help tackle the problem. "We need water wastage to be as socially unacceptable as blowing smoke in the face of a baby or throwing your plastic bags into the sea," Mr. Bevan said. Many in Britain, citing the often rainy weather and expressing frustration with the infamously high levels of leakage from underground pipes, tend to belittle warnings about water shortages.
so a couple decades to solve an engineering issue (Score:5, Insightful)
A perfect application for solar energy for a place surrounded by ocean... not seeing any real issue here that isn't readily solvable with known tech. And it's not like they have to transition to getting all their water that way, just some percent on the order of a tenth or so
Re:so a couple decades to solve an engineering iss (Score:4, Interesting)
Britain has old pipes. Most water loss is through those pipes leaking. Replace the pipes and the outcome will be water security and a few years of massive road blockages as they dig up every road.
Re: (Score:2)
and a few years of massive road blockages
So no change really then.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're quite right. The EU was indeed presented in a dishonest manner - since the 1950s - to get people to not realize they were headed into a corporatist superstate until it was too late. Except it wasn't, resulting in the disruptive process that you see unfolding.
Is This The Same Idiot... (Score:2, Interesting)
...who predicted the end of Snow in Britain?
Holy fuck. Enough with these stupid, alarmist and unsupported "predictions"
Re: (Score:2)
"not seeing any real issue here that isn't readily solvable with known tech"
Sure, they could desalinate ocean water with known tech. That has been possible for over a century. The bigger issue is can they do it and not have water cost much much more than it does today.
Re: (Score:3)
By 2050, the cost of desalinated water could be quite reasonable. However, we need to start soon, and incentivize appropriate technologies. Reverse Osmosis plants will always be high maintenance, and use electricity which is expensive and wasteful. Multi-Effect Distillation uses half the electricity of RO [wikipedia.org], plus some thermal energy, which can be supplied by heat rejected from power plants, that would otherwise go to waste.
The key is to combine the processes, which will decrease the cost of both electricity
Re: so a couple decades to solve an engineering is (Score:4, Informative)
Britain is surrounded by water, true, but it doesn't get sunshine...
Re: (Score:3)
"Britain is surrounded by water, true, but it doesn't get sunshine"
- From A Song of the Weather [youtube.com] by the British comedy songwriters and performers Flanders & Swann [wikipedia.org] - the weather of the title is British weather:
In July the sun is hot?
Is it shining? No it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of cities in England get over 1600 hours of sunlight a year... that's enough
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of cities in England get over 1600 hours of sunlight a year... that's enough
I lived in England for 20 years. You can't kid me. It's true that sometimes the clouds opened up and we got a few rays of sunshine, but that was mostly only at night.
Already solved (Score:2)
A perfect application for solar energy for a place surrounded by ocean...
Making more potable water is one approach. The other approach is to reduce the population by getting everyone to emigrate. Given the way Brexit is going, it's clear the latter method was chosen.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine how bad it would get if they started taking a shower more than once a week!
(inb4 the Australians)
Re: (Score:2)
A perfect application for solar energy for a place surrounded by ocean... not seeing any real issue here that isn't readily solvable with known tech. And it's not like they have to transition to getting all their water that way, just some percent on the order of a tenth or so
Water desalinization is an energy intensive process. You either have to be in a desert or somewhere power is almost free to make it economical. And if its not economical, with water (not necessarily for other things but for water) that means more environmental damage. Water is heavy and thus expensive to transport unless you have a nice downhill run and a pipeline/aquifer system. Also you need A LOT of water so to do anything of consequence you need huge scale. Of course with nuclear this is possible,
Re: (Score:2)
California is largely agricultural, mostly using irrigation. How much of that 90% went to watering crops?
Re: (Score:2)
In CA water usage was about 90% for industry and 10% residential. California is largely agricultural, mostly using irrigation. How much of that 90% went to watering crops?
It changes from year to year often based upon the amount of rain. For a drought year, the numbers I posted are accurate and Ag would be probably 2/3ish of the total water usage. For a wet year, Ag usage drops some but not as much as you would think. I think my point was more about industrial usage often being so high in comparison with residential usage. I wouldn't be surprised if the UK is surprisingly similar but just with industrial usages taking the place of Ag. But then again, you can google that
Re: (Score:2)
it is energy intensive but solar power level even in UK can do it. There is no problem just engineering issue
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"I'm pretty sure that you need to be a citizen of the UK to receive knighthood."
No. Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: if you are a citizen of a nation which as head of state has the Queen of the United Kingdom then if you have a knighthood you can use the title of "Sir" (men) or "Dame" (women): hence Sir Sean Connery and Sir Andrew Wiles. If you are not a citizen of such a nation then you can still be given a knighthood, but it is honorary and you cannot use the title of "Sir" or "Dame", but you can use post-nominal letters: fo
Re: (Score:2)
Emphasis mine.
People who never went to university can get honorary doctorates too... but it's not the same thing as a real one, and isn't treated the same either.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm. Sean Connery is (or at least was) a citizen of the UK.
You do realise Scotland is part of the UK?
Re: (Score:2)
No, you can be knighted as a foreigner. However you can not use the title "Sir", e.g. Bill Gates is a "Knight of the British Empire".
Re: (Score:2)
Such "knighting" of people who are not subjects of the Crown is strictly an honorary recognition.
You can get an honorary doctorate from a university in some circustances too... but it does not have all of the same implications as the real deal nor is it treated the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Every knight is just a "honorary recognition" ... there is no difference between an UK citizen becoming a knight or a non citizen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: so a couple decades to solve an engineering i (Score:2)
Although in fairness, this can run in to problems and be seen as interfering with other countries: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]étien
Re: so a couple decades to solve an engineering (Score:2)
OMIGOD, /. is so useless. Letâ(TM)s see if I can post a manually urlencoded version of that link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I know this site can be slow sometimes, but it's the first time I've seen a post from 1948.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
There's a far simpler approach to population control that disadvantages nobody: Reduce net immigration.
It says nothing nice about you that your immediate thought was instead killing and sterilising people.
Throwing Plastic Bags (Score:5, Funny)
"We need water wastage to be as socially unacceptable as blowing smoke in the face of a baby or throwing your plastic bags into the sea,"
At least I'm socially acceptable.
I only blow smoke in plastic bags and throw babies into the sea!
Re: (Score:2)
'round these parts it is very socially acceptable to blow smoke in a baby's face...
Right before we eat it, that is.
Re: (Score:2)
What wait? (Score:4, Funny)
Since when is it socially unacceptable to blow smoke in the face of a baby?
Do you even know what that baby said?
So, you're saying Scotland is fine, then (Score:3)
Seems to me both Scotland and Wales will be fine.
Maybe once the rest of the UK becomes Lesser Britain, you can invest you post-Brexit riches in water desalination plants, like they do in Santa Barbara?
Re: (Score:2)
Lesser Britain already exists. It's the département of Brittany in France.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, at least they have water and whiskey or scotch.
No wonder they're leaving you after Brexit.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, Scotland and Wales will be OK, because basically nobody lives there [statista.com]. They've never had to accommodate the huge numbers of people that come with being capital of a world empire, largely outsourcing their housing problems to England.
I see.
You do know I was actually educated in a former colony, and am totally aware the reason why they're less populated is that England exported the population - whether rebels, religious dissidents, or those deemed criminals - to other places like the USA, Canada, NZ, and Australia.
But keep promoting your myths.
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks. The number of convicts transported etc. was relatively small and there's been more than enough time for numbers to catch up.
Wales has a small population because it's small and mostly vertical. Scotland has a small population because although it's large it's also mostly vertical and on top of that it's fucking freezing.
How to handle lack of water (Score:2)
Then why are the growing areas in Canada and the US these "places that are mostly vertical". Like the West?
Methinks you need to reread your history books, friendo.
Regardless, we were talking about a lack of water in the areas other than those with sizable hills. The basic solutions come down to: desalination, water conservation (e.g. not watering during hours when the evaporation is higher, using drip irrigation, and not growing water intensive crops you can't sustain), and less animal husbandry (mostly c
Re: (Score:2)
What utter bollocks nonsense. The Scottish and Welsh were transported in no greater degree than the English.
Scotland has low population because the weather is shit and Wales has low population because the language is shit.
Or maybe they both have a high proportion of steep hills that in historical times allowed greater defense against (e.g.) Viking, Roman and Norman invaders and so never got populated to the same degree in the first place.
I don't actually know.
You do know I was actually educated in a former colony
I didn't know that either, and still don't. You
Wrong Article Heading (Score:3, Informative)
The heading should be "South East Britain Will Run Short of Water Most Years".
Endless building, removal of local drainage, and the fact that it doesn't rain all that much down there is starting to tell. Round here in the North West we have more water than we can use - now if there was an Environmental Agency with the vision to implement a national water grid things might be better. Unfortunately the Agency is toothless and more concerned with leaving waterways to get clogged up and causing widespread flooding.
Phil.
That little blurb at the end of "The Big Short" (Score:2)
https://www.retire.ly/burry-go... [retire.ly]
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Also children won't know what snow is (Score:2)
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/b... [heraldsun.com.au]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The person quoted was not talking about you.
Stupid ACs can't read.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, you want UK news? LOL
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
No worries (Score:2)
Thankfully, Britain will be able to easily import more water from their continental friends. Oh, wait...
Desalination for all? (Score:2)
Britain has plenty of rain, but you can't get that much of it through British plumbing. Worldwide, the range of coastal cities that will eventually need to start using desalination may be a lot larger than we once thought.
Take fewer baths?! (Score:2)
If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down?!
I have all kinds of water saving ideas. There's more if you need them, just ask.
Re: (Score:2)
Build some dams (Score:2)
This is what happens... (Score:2)
...when the water utility companies are private, profit-making entities, enabled by ideologically- and financially-motivated politicians.
Investment in infrastructure - fixing leaks and properly managing reservoirs - does not enhance shareholder value or executive bonuses, and so doesn't happen.
It's not even possible to shame these companies into acting in the national interest, as their ultimate ownership is off-shore, so they don't care.
Even the governmental regulator operates in favour of the companies in
No, the fault lies with regulators (Score:2)
This doesn't have to do with private ownership. And "shame" isn't required.
These are regulated utilities. The government enforces compliance and price setting. Pricing is where the problem is. If prices weren't set artificially low, the increased price would spur conservation and allow for increased capital expenditure on the infrastructure.
This isn't a UK-only problem, it happens all over. The price is determined by water delivery only, without account for loss due to leaks or exhaustion of the source. Reg
Re: (Score:2)
Just looked at a map (Score:2)
The UK is surrounded by water, it would seem that reverse osmosis may be a possible solution but wasn't the UK just a few years ago suffering from massive flooding? Oh wait it just happened in parts of the UK [floodlist.com]
Not a bug, a feature (Score:2)
Meanwhile California's got 6 desalinization plants doing fuck all and nobody's building more, even thought the entire west coast is about to run out of water. It's gonna be fun in a few years when you can buy a mansion in San Francisco for $100k because you spend $1 million/year bringing water in.
Sure, they'll fix it, 20 years after. You can't just spin up desal
Really? (Score:3)
"...The reasons, he said, were climate change and population growth...."
Really? Climate change means there's less water now?
Because JUST LAST YEAR I saw everyone complaining that Climate Change had caused TOO MUCH water and heavy rainfall/flooding generally, consistently, and broadly across the UK.
"...new Met Office report, based on figures stretching back 100 years to 1910- shows that rainfall has actually gone up by 8 percent. ...The annual State of the UK Climate Report also revealed UK summers have been notably wetter over the last decade from 2008 to 2017, with 20 per cent more rainfall compared to 1961-1990...."
https://www.express.co.uk/news... [express.co.uk]
Oh, also, since they're focusing on the South and East of England, also last year: ...also predicted heavier and more frequent rain across southern England.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne... [telegraph.co.uk]
So which is it? Climate change means the UK is running out of water, OR climate change means the UK is flooding with water. You really can't assert both.
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change means the UK is running out of water, OR climate change means the UK is flooding with water. You really can't assert both.
Obviously you can have both.
Flood: a lot of water in a very short time - look in a dictionary, perhaps you find a better definition.
Lack of water/drought: you have no water when you need it.
Wow, that was simple again, idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, notice that it's an 8% increase over what, decades?
That's not "gully gusher floods"....that's about as perfect a sustained, gentle increase to increase aquifers as one could ask for.
I think you're trying to be smart? Or funny?
Neither's working.
Crops engineered to need 25 percent less water (Score:2)
Scientists have revealed that a simple genetic tweak to overexpress a single protein in crops could result in the plants needing up to 25 percent less water to produce a regular yield. It's hoped the breakthrough research will lead to a new generation of water-efficient agriculture that helps communities grow more food in areas struggling with drought and climate change.
Ok, it's not like this problem has not been researched before. Would help
Correction (Score:3)
No one on earth is running out of water. They are running out of cheap water.
That's a self solving problem. Water costs go up, waste goes down.
Re:First things first. Fix the damn leaks! (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, there's plenty of water... As you point out- the island is surrounded by water... it's just an expensive supply of water to make drinkable. Britain won't run out of water... they just might run out of cheap drinking water.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and, no place in Britain is more than 70 miles from the coast line- so if desalination was used as a last resort for fresh water at least it wouldn't have far to travel. Britain is also fairly small geographically, so water from the North where it is abundant could be piped to the South which gets less rain but has higher population density.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, and, no place in Britain is more than 70 miles from the coast line- so if desalination was used as a last resort for fresh water at least it wouldn't have far to travel...
From the summary: "Domestic and industrial consumption is a relatively small part of the picture, he explained, with the water needed for agriculture perhaps being of greater concern."
It's reasonably plausible to desalinate a small amount of water for drinking, or even the slightly larger amount for washing, cooking, and bathing. But domestic water is trivial compared to the large amounts of water used in agriculture.
Re: (Score:2)
Exatly. Desalinization for the purposes of agriculture would be enormously expensive, not to mention you then have to figure out what to do with the salt that is produced by such a process.
Re:First things first. Fix the damn leaks! (Score:5, Funny)
... not to mention you then have to figure out what to do with the salt that is produced by such a process.
Logically, they will put it on their chips.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoah! Hold up there Boudreaux, the British pallet can't handle those kind's of spices!
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. You can literally fit a ton of it on a standard 48" x 40" one.
Re: (Score:3)
You could easily build passive solar desal and use the salt to sell as "Cornish Sea Salt" to the gourmet food market.
Re: (Score:2)
Mix a little bit of rust in (there'll be plenty in the abandoned factories soon enough) and sell it to hipsters at a tenner for a little jar.
Re: (Score:2)
"Fat bottomed pipes they make the aggie world go round"
Re: MightyMartian knows jack about desalination (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rei.
Re: (Score:2)
70 miles is quite a distance to transport huge quantities of water.
Re: (Score:2)
the Romans were doing it over a thousand years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, people did a lot of cool stuff in ancient times. That doesn't mean that it would be easy or cheap to replicate those things. Also keep in mind that the Roman aqueducts only provided water to about a million people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First things first. Fix the damn leaks! (Score:4, Funny)
apparently one of the few groups of foreigners ever to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and, no place in Britain is more than 70 miles from the coast line-
You seem to have problems reading a map?
Britain is also fairly small geographically,
You definitely have problems reading a map.
South tip, e.g. Brighton, to north tip, e.g. Inverness, is 650 miles.
Re: (Score:2)
Brighton is hundreds of miles form the coast.
It's quite close to another one, though.
Re:First things first. Fix the damn leaks! (Score:4, Insightful)
it's just an expensive supply of water to make drinkable
Not really. Tons of the stuff literally falls out of the sky in drinkable condition. That's actually sort of the problem. The UK gets so much rain that it's never really been worthwhile to invest in the infrastructure to capture and store more than a tiny fraction of it. All this article is really saying is that as the population grows, that tiny fraction will need to increase. Which is hardly a startling revelation.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Problem is about 20% of leaks aren't worth fixing. Water is too cheap.
Say you have a small leak costing 5 or 10 quid a month. £120/year lost, or you can spend a thousands locating it, arranging to close the road, closing the road, digging up the road, fixing the pipe, filling in the hole and resurfacing the road.
So it gets left alone until it gets big enough to be worth fixing.
So we can either pay more for water and require some of that to be spend fixing such leaks, or we can nationalize the wa
Re: (Score:2)
Thing is, if you don't fix the small leak, it slowly undermines the road and you end up doing most of that anyway.
And if water is leaking out of the pipe, who knows what is getting in; it's not a particularly sanitary situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Small leaks don't damage the road, in fact big ones often are not noticeable from the surface. Contamination isn't an issue because water pressure prevents anything getting in.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't that depend on whether it was freshwater or saltwater quid? That would make a big difference.
Re: (Score:3)
I just have a hard time picturing 66 million people scratching their heads about "how to get water", while it's pouring on their heads from above almost daily, and completely surrounding them.
Re: (Score:2)
Next someone will invent a cistern and a system for collecting rain water into it and really blow their minds....
Sadly we need to say "CLEAN water" (Score:5, Informative)
People don't seem to realize how little clean water there is.
Re:Even Worse (Score:5, Informative)
...said no scientist.
Asshole anonymous cowards keep posting these purported "predictions" which are in fact made up completely.
First rule of /.: if an anonymous coward posts something, more than likely it's bullshit.
Here's How the Game is Played (Score:2, Insightful)
Idiot activist says something idiotic...like polar ice caps could completely disappear by 2004.
The AGW activist community repeats again and again.
It makes its way into official reports
News papers publish breathless articles.
People chain themselves to shit in protest.
Scientists say nothing
When the idiot prediction fails, activists mutter, "..said no scientist."
Re: (Score:2)
What we need is for having more than 2 kids to be as socially unacceptable as thievery.
This article is about Britain. In Britain, the total fertility rate was 1.76 children per woman (per 2017 data [ons.gov.uk]). Since replacement rate is 2.1, this means that the intrinsic population growth is negative.
...As is, having more than 2 kids is actually celebrated by most people. "Wow, you have 5 kids! Good on you! Must be a lot of effort!"
I can't think of anybody in my social circle who would say that. Where do you live?
Re: (Score:2)
In Britain, the total fertility rate was 1.76 children per woman
Look deeper and that changes significantly according to demographic. But you're not allowed to explore and discuss that.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as long as your really stupid and don't understand thermodynamics.
Re: (Score:2)
What has thermodynamics to do with your parents post?
Perhaps you want to fresh up your knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: Perdsonal self-sufficiency (Score:2)
Water from air is redicolously inefficient and dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
And what has that to do with thermodynamics?
BTW: you are wrong anyway ...
Re: Perdsonal self-sufficiency (Score:2)
It takes great amounts of energy to condense water and there is very little water even in humid air. And you still have to purify it. It will always by more costly and less efficient than the alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll get more fucking water sticking a bucket in the garden than relying on solar power here.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm. UK population is 66 million.
I'd fucking love to get it back down to under 60 million. It'd solve many issues, primarily infrastructure related due to overpopulation.