It’s possible to tow an iceberg to drought

[Von Bismarck]

Way back in the 70’s Georges Mougin, then an engineering graduate, had a big idea. He suggested that icebergs floating around in the North Atlantic could be tethered and dragged south to places that were experiencing a severe drought, such as the Sahel of West Africa. Mougin received some backing funds from a Saudi prince but most “experts” at the time scoffed at his idea and the whole scheme was eventually shelved.

Cut to 2009 and French software firm Dassault Systemes, who thought maybe Mougin was on to something after all and contacted him to suggest modeling the whole idea on a computer. After applying 15 engineers to the problem, the team concluded that towing an iceberg from the waters around Newfoundland to the Canary Islands off the northwest coast of Africa, could be done, and would take under five months, though it would cost nearly ten million dollars

Simulation shows it’s possible to tow an iceberg to drought areas

[Socio]

You know, when we have to start considering dragging ice bergs 1000's of miles to get people water it becomes pretty evident we have a population problem not a drought problem.

[Doug1029]

Simulation shows it’s possible to tow an iceberg to drought areas

Great! Ship one to Oklahoma. We need the water.

Doug

[Von Bismarck]

Great! Ship one to Oklahoma. We need the water.

Doug

With an average on 89.1 for July i would believe so.

[voidla]

You know, when we have to start considering dragging ice bergs 1000's of miles to get people water it becomes pretty evident we have a population problem not a drought problem.

Totally agree with this.

[Jaygatz]

Yeah cause you know thats totally gonna help Global warming right..... *facepalms*

[Xpeople]

I wonder why they do not cut on up put it on a boat and ship it that way. It would be easier than drag a big iceberg there.

[Bildr]

You know, when we have to start considering dragging ice bergs 1000's of miles to get people water it becomes pretty evident we have a population problem not a drought problem.

I agree! I feel like the North American Greath lakes will be source of conflicts in the near future!

[Professor Buzzkill]

where are you guys living? You all think theres a population problem?

Theres plenty of free space if you want to get out of the cities!

Or do you just want other people to get out of your cities?

Experts suggest that the earth can support 14 billion people, twice what we have now

[required field]

Ten million bucks? I'd call that a bargain to resolve drought. 10mil doesn't buy much nowdays on an international scale.

[HoaxHunter]

I think this is a very bad idea. Why don't these places without water invest in a Water Supply System rather than speeding up the process of the melting ice caps and further speeding up the rising sea level problem.

[StarGateAtlantis]

wouldn't this cause 2012?

[RoadMaster04]

If the ice is floating it is fair game & the starving folks need the water, if you have never did without water you have know idea of how that feals.

[F3SS]

What if the drought ends mid-tow? 2 1/2 months wasted. I'm sure there isn't an abundance of places in close proximity that are going to be able to take a spare iceburg off your hands. You can't just let it go floating and wreaking possible havoc if there is still a lot of melting to do.

[The Silver Thong]

If the ice is floating it is fair game & the starving folks need the water, if you have never did without water you have know idea of how that feals.

One would have to wait till it floated into international waters or it could be an act of war.

[reggie2011]

i think its a great idea as long as it had no effects on climate change ,i noticed on the news site it was posted everyone talking about desalination i geuss they have no idea what it costs to make a desalination plant just to clarify to everyone what a desalination plant costs to build NOT run is about 3-6 billion US in currency otherwise we would have the things comming out our ears!! lol but its simply not a viable economic option and wont be for a long time

[SewerRat]

I wonder why they do not cut on up put it on a boat and ship it that way. It would be easier than drag a big iceberg there.

Average iceberg weight for the Grand Banks area is one to two hundred thousand tonnes, and is about the size of a cubic 15 storey building. Move toward Labrador and further north and they get bigger still, up to millions of tonnes.

I think we're gonna need a bigger boat ...

[SewerRat]

wouldn't this cause 2012?

I think you will find that next year is going to occur whether we tow icebergs around or not; the year after too ... and the year after that .. ad infinitum.

Edited August 11, 2011 by SewerRat

[randym23]

The funny thing is, this was already suggested in the movie "Brewster's Millions" as a investment scam. lol

[Bildr]

where are you guys living? You all think theres a population problem?

Theres plenty of free space if you want to get out of the cities!

Or do you just want other people to get out of your cities?

Experts suggest that the earth can support 14 billion people, twice what we have now

yeahm, if we put people in tight congested cities. I Would prefer to live in a small cities with forest, river and green landscape with few people, than to live in crowded cities where no were to truly have place. With 14 billions humans you won't see much forest anymore.

[Mike 215]

Only religious nuts believe that the earth can support 14 billion people. So they are against birth control and abortion. We now have 7 billion and are running out of food, air and drinking water. Africa has over one billion and millios are starving. Imagain when they reacy two or three billion and A BILLION ARE STARVING.

In the US the Tea Party baggers who now control many state houses are passing bills banning abortion. Another bunch of religious nuts who think that there is plenty of room left in America for another 100 million in spite of the fact we are also running out air and drinking water with over 311 million. And with the increasing prices for food, starvation will soon be coming to this country.

[Professor Buzzkill]

yeahm, if we put people in tight congested cities. I Would prefer to live in a small cities with forest, river and green landscape with few people, than to live in crowded cities where no were to truly have place. With 14 billions humans you won't see much forest anymore.

I live in a country the size of the UK with 4.5million others. I live in the largest city in said country. I have a 1/3 acre plot about 2 km's from the city centre. My neighbor has about 1/2 acre and 3 sheep. We back onto a large natural reseve. The fact is, once you pull your car off the street, its hard to imagine you live in a city with 1.6mil others.

I can drive out of the city for hundreds of km's through farm land and forests before seeing another city, and hundreds more until the next.

Where do you live? Can you not find hundreds of square km's of forest and farm land near you? Do you really think that we will have to extend our citys until the whole country is one big city?

[Professor Buzzkill]

Only religious nuts believe that the earth can support 14 billion people. So they are against birth control and abortion. We now have 7 billion and are running out of food, air and drinking water. Africa has over one billion and millios are starving. Imagain when they reacy two or three billion and A BILLION ARE STARVING.

In the US the Tea Party baggers who now control many state houses are passing bills banning abortion. Another bunch of religious nuts who think that there is plenty of room left in America for another 100 million in spite of the fact we are also running out air and drinking water with over 311 million. And with the increasing prices for food, starvation will soon be coming to this country.

Im not religious at all, but i bet you're one of those people who think there too much CO2 in the air (hence we have no air) and yet you want to save the trees (so they can release their stored CO2 back into the atmosphere). I say, plant more paper/timber trees, cut them down and use them as a CO2 sink. Greenies want you to save trees so they can moan about CO2.

[Bildr]

Im not religious at all, but i bet you're one of those people who think there too much CO2 in the air (hence we have no air) and yet you want to save the trees (so they can release their stored CO2 back into the atmosphere). I say, plant more paper/timber trees, cut them down and use them as a CO2 sink. Greenies want you to save trees so they can moan about CO2.

Eeeeh....Why is saving trees a bad thing? Plants ARE the reason we have O2 to breath!!!! THEY are the one who break the Carbon in the CO2 molecule and even dumb religious people knows that. so what the HECK are you talking about are you sarcastic or just plain idiot? you maybe not religious, but your ignorance is equivalent the the Medieval Ages ?

And by the way, more CO2 in the air mean LESS O2 to breath. Mainly because we release Carbon monozyde who take the O2 to form CO2. It's a pretty easy calculus.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Bildr

[Professor Buzzkill]

Eeeeh....Why is saving trees a bad thing? Plants ARE the reason we have O2 to breath!!!! THEY are the one who break the Carbon in the CO2 molecule and even dumb religious people knows that. so what the HECK are you talking about are you sarcastic or just plain idiot? you maybe not religious, but your ignorance is equivalent the the Medieval Ages ?

And by the way, more CO2 in the air mean LESS O2 to breath. Mainly because we release Carbon monozyde who take the O2 to form CO2. It's a pretty easy calculus.

Except that if you know anything about science, when a tree dies it releases all the collect CO2 by rotting, hence a tree only stores CO2 for a short time. If you cut down a tree and use it, plant another tree, you have effectively taken CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Were you being sarcastic or are you just a plain idiot?