What technology can we use to make this happen?

My idea is to transport water vapor from the coast with tubes to the middle of the desert and lock it in huge barrels. At night, the coldness of the desert will condensate the vapor into liquid water which will be let out into lakes. We can already transport natural gas and oil through huge distances, so why not water vapor? The tubes will also keep it warm and in vapor form through the distances.

Attached: seas_of_the_sahara_by_ynot1989-da0k399.png (845x945, 434K)

Other urls found in this thread:

cleantechnica.com/2014/12/03/new-solar-cell-efficiency-record-set-46/
archive.org/details/The_Final_Testament_2018-07/180707_3768.MP3
youtube.com/watch?v=QwZ4s8Fsv94&list=PLhzqSO983AmHwWvGwccC46gs0SNObwnZX
youtube.com/watch?v=9C0_iApuIcU
youtube.com/watch?v=z1Rsefjd-h0
news.mit.edu/2015/new-look-floating-nuclear-power-0624
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Why do you want to do it?

Water vapor is a fucking awful way to transport water. For its volume, it hardly stores any water, and requires a lot of energy to get it into a drinkable state.

Eyeballing it, your Lake Chad seems to be around 500x1000 km, let's be generous and somehow give it ~100 m in depth. That gives it a volume of 50,000 cubic kilometer. Or 5x10^13 liter.

To say that this is beyond impossible is understating it. You could pour a billion liters an hour into it and it would still take you 5 years to fill it up.

Rephrasing your shit we can get
>Just vaporize aluminum and send the resulting gas down a tube to be recondensed into solid metal at the other end.
>Much better than transporting blocks of metal in trucks

Just use pumps.

Colonization

Stop desertification, prevent inevitable wars that will eventually slip into civilized places, make a prosperous place that the western world can trade with properly (sell them electronics and cars while they provide cheap labor, farming, and natural resources).
I think that map is a hypothetical suggestion of what that area looked before desertification. new pic is more what I am thinking of.
The only energy I suggest to spend is vaporizing the water at the coast, which can be done with maybe solar-thermal energy. After that the water vapor will slowly float up through the tubes as long as there is some amount of different gases in those tubes. Eventually they will reach the destination where no energy needs to be spent as the vapor will cool in the night and condensate. If you think the vapor won't make all the way that fast during daylight, you could make stations along the way to repeat the process.
Pumps will take too much energy m8.
Why waste white people into those harsh climates when you can use the local populace do your bidding just like we already do in every west-friendly third world country?

Attached: mega2.jpg (654x455, 111K)

I like you're idea but it's impracticable

Plenty of electricity could be harnessed using solar panels. From there desalination plants could be set up on the coast and the abundance of electricity could power, among other things, a clean water transport system.

Just by providing clean water you've already laid the foundation for a stable, self sufficient society. Of course it

The point of OP is that if you let the seawater evaporate by sunlight and transfer that, you get clean non-salty water. If you pour seawater on land, you'll get a desert worse than you have now. Although it could take a couple hundred years, so I recommend to invent a time machine first.

The energy you need to boil 1 gram of water from room temperature is around 330kJ. Then, assuming your pipes are all magically at 100°C so the vapor doesn't start condensing immediately, you have... a whole 1 gram of water in that entire pipe. And it won't move unless you force more vapor in there.
A theoretically perfect pump can accelerate that gram of water to something like 700 m/s.
You know there's a reason oil companies, waste management companies, water suppliers, and basically anyone that knows how to handle fluids don't boil them to send them from point A to point B, right?
If you want to help the world, shill for fusion or cheap and safe fission. Cheap energy means cheap desalination, pumps, farming, logistics, the whole deal.

Holy shit man don't split my country in a fucking half, please.

>SOLAR PANELS
>SOLLAAR FUCKING PANEELS!!!
>SOLAR PANELS SOLVE EVERYTHING
>FREE INFINITE ENERGY EVERYWHERE FOR FREE AND IN ANY SHAPE OR FORM
>COLD FUSION? NAH, JUST SLAP SOME SOLAR PANELS ON EVERYTHING
>DON'T MIND THEY HAVE >20% EFFICIENCY AT IDEAL CONDITIONS, TAKE A SHITLOAD OF ENERGY TO CREATE AND BREAK IN LESS TIME THEY GET BACK THEIR COSTS

cleantechnica.com/2014/12/03/new-solar-cell-efficiency-record-set-46/

50% efficiency is the future, and the African Union could afford this and use it if they wanted to. And obviously solar panels are not some infinite free energy source, but Africa is home to some of the sunniest places on Earth, so if someone were to use solar panels it would be most effective their. You do have a point about whether it would be cost effective, but I feel the necessity of providing clean water overrides whether or not it's cost effective.

How much is it going to cost to remove this stuff when it no longer functions? How will it be disposed of in a responsible manner? It won't last forever and people are asking how much it'll cost to remove wind turbines when they EOL.
Billions, is the best bet.

Solar thermal is resilient and will be more effective in a constantly sunny place like the sahara. Put these things on the coasts of Libya, desalinate sea water with it, and transport it inland.

Attached: csp-artic.jpg (800x534, 37K)

they'll steal the panels and try to sell theme for a voodoo cure for aids. Then they will beg for another. Then we will give it to them. Then it will keep happening. You know I'm right.

Nope. The best Africa probably could do is what the Chinese do and plant more plants and other things so the desertification can be stopped and partly reverted.

>Pumps will take too much energy m8.
You seriously think pumping water vapor (that is a lot of air with a bit of water, leading to worse ratio of water transported per volume / weight pumped) won't take even more energy?

Even more so if you have to work additionally to pressurize the system or tanks extra over what's required for transporting vapour, just so you can actually condensate that water.

> COLD FUSION?
Yea, doesn't even work in theory. Might as well wait for industrial scale magic-to-electricity conversion.

If we're getting fusion any time soon, it's probably very hot fusion.

OP, pro-tip: it's not the environment that is to blame there, it's the people.

More than half of Africa is not even barren or affected by desertification.

Algeria has a nominal GDP of $173bn with a population of 42 million. Algeria is mostly desert.

Congo has a nominal GDP of $40bn with a population of 78.7 million. Congo is one of the greenest countries in Africa, with rich mineral resources and water bodies. And yet, with almost double the population of Algeria, they produce less than 1/4 of their economic output.

How do you think this is possible. Think.

Attached: th.jpg (474x528, 28K)

Not with that attitude it won't. There were a few announcements for the past few years that seem to be promising regarding usable fusion

Attached: 1491695801862.png (3200x2400, 323K)

Usable "positive energy" fusion [at a scale smaller than a star] != cold fusion.

You know what he meant, at this point in time cold fusion has become a short handed synonym with fusion used for power production.

archive.org/details/The_Final_Testament_2018-07/180707_3768.MP3
youtube.com/watch?v=QwZ4s8Fsv94&list=PLhzqSO983AmHwWvGwccC46gs0SNObwnZX

Dude, just use magnets...
Get big magnets and make them spin.
Sure, the earth will shake since they vibrate at enormous speed. But it's the desert!

No, you are just confusing terminology in a way nobody familiar with the topic would.

Either way, we're probably not close to a positive energy fusion that can operate as a power plant, no.

I bet you go around random websites correcting people's grammar even if you get what they meant

God damn I hope you aren't serious. You want to heat up water and send it elsewhere? Water has a very high heat coefficient and even more if you decide to boil it. If you just rely on vapor rather than boiling, you are hardly sending any water since any significant water density will force the vapor to become liquid. "Just use solar panels" - I have no words

why do you want another 10 billion africans merkel?

Congo's arable land is around 1% of its total area. It could never develop any serious civilization before the 20th century. Algeria had semi-urban civilization since Carthage. Blacks might be dumb, but they can be taught to use condoms and do simple tasks.
Won't happen. North African birthrates are already declining. Further economic boost will mean even less children per female.
Well suggest a different way then. This thread is to discuss feasible technologies to stop desertification and maybe even terraform the Sahara.

Why vapour? If youre going to the effort of trying to pumo water vapour you may as well build a nuclear power station + desalination plant and just pump fresh water directly.

Its possible to create rain just by having dark colored ground that will create heat and produce thermals that will force air low to the ground to rise up into cold air which will condense the water vapor and create rain.

Build solar powered cloud seeders along the shore.

Attached: GEOMAR-201111-05.jpg (600x427, 42K)

go to bed elon.

do you have any idea how many gallons 1 inch of water is in a lake?

in the middle of the African continent there will be a sea, why do you care? just wait. do you know how do they bring gas to your country? that's how you do

Isn't fission already safe and cheap? With all the new gens of reactors and current model of regulations and safely parameters I'm sure it's way easier to manage now than decades ago. IIRC nuclear plants are actually less toxic to build and run than producing solar panels to meet the same output.

I dont understand why you think that creating lakes in northern africa will change the climate there. The Nile river has been irrigating Egypt for thousands of years and creates crop land by overflowing every year. But the area surrounding the Nile is pure desert.

this will just create more niggers. it's the last thing we need.

But now they flood to Europe and create more niglets there.

this thing would make it even easier for them to flood europe, you're just moving them closer.

With a 50m sea level rise Australia will have an inland sea again.

Attached: w1200_h678_fmax.jpg (1184x678, 96K)

The Sahara is essential for the Amazone rainforest. Basically, if you turn the Sahara in a forrest, the Amazone will turn into a desert.

Another idea is to make another canal in Egypt from the Mediterranean to the Qattara depression. It will be a straight connection so no need to worry about salt.
See: This is the stuff I wanted to see ITT.

Attached: 1280px-All_proposed_routes.png (1280x885, 511K)

This is more reasonable, and it's gonna generate A LOT of electricity.

Actually, if we managed to dig the Suez Canal, why can't we do something similar with water from the Atlantic (since it's less salty than the Mediterranean) and channel it into some nearby lowlands? Just imagine how much free hydroelectric power we'll get!

I wonder how that will affect the climate there, would it make inner-Australia habitable?

>Congo's arable land is around 1% of its total area

Idk, FAO seems to disagree with your analysis. If their population is 78.7 million and they have 80 million hectares of arable land, it means they have more than 1 hectare per individual. Actually a lot more, considering that you'd be only counting adults.

>With 80 million hectares of arable land, DR Congo's agricultural potential is enormous. But only ten percent of it is being used, and the total is declining. The surface cultivated for a staple crop like cassava has declined from 2.4 million hectares in 1991 to 1.9 million in 2001. An estimated 75 percent of the Congolese population is underfed.

So they have more than enough arable land, but only 10% is being used. Agriculture is the most basic occupation, you don't even need sophisticated technology to be able to grow some crops. And they have plenty of water to have irrigation there. It's just they're too dumb and lazy to even grow some crops.

Yeah, it's not even the North of Africa which is poor, they have the oldest urbanised places there and their economies are fine compared to the rest of the "green" non-desert Africa. The poorest African countries are not even affected by desertification. It's just low IQ.

In continuation to:
Actually come to think of it, this can solve a lot of problems, other than the cheap and plentiful hydroelectricity (which is basically unlimited - we can't drain the ocean), we'll get a lot of industry around the new sea, and it has a sort of a feedback loop, since the ground will sink more (to a certain extent), plus, this new sea will generate a lot of rainfall around it.
It can be done using a fleet of SMRs to power the equipment and through the use of small nukes the excavation can be done faster - there isn't a serious risk of radioactivity since if you choose the right nukes, you won't be adding much radioactive elements to the already plentiful uranium in the water, plus there's the added benifit of easily cutting down on the world's supply of nuclear weapons.

No

>The tubes will also keep it warm and in vapor form through the distances.

it won't

It's cheaper to nuke it, OP.

Attached: Screen-Shot-2018-06-04-at-9.51.50-AM-1440x1799.jpg (1440x1579, 365K)

>After that the water vapor will slowly float up through the tubes as long as there is some amount of different gases in those tubes.

it won't, you still need pumps to push the vapor through the tubes.

sure vapor is less prone to friction loss but the energy you'll save will be outbalanced by the energy needed to vaporise the water in the first place.

Even cheaper, close the borders cut financial support and wait for them to die out. Then repopulate the area and create a paradise

>artificial trees
what

Attached: ss (2018-07-15 at 17.26.12).png (152x123, 35K)

>Even cheaper, close the borders cut financial support and wait for them to die out. Then repopulate the area and create a paradise
let them get peak population.
then bury them for thousands of years kilometers bellow the earth
fabricate a story that a meteor hit them
????
profit

Reverse image search to find source and read the article

1) The amount of water on the planet is finite. You can't make this project happen without somewhere else suffering for it.
2) I should have known someone wanting to save Africa would be stupid enough to think water is easier to move as a gas using solar power.
3) Even if you manage to find a way to move the water you still have to prevent it from reverting to its natural state - in other words fighting evaporation. On one of the hottest, dryest parts of the planet.
4) Who maintains the equipment that desalinates the water? Who protects the equipment from Africans?
From an environmental standpoint I would only support this knowing that Africans are stupid as shit and incapable of maintaining agriculture on this new fertile region. It would be almost 100% wildlife. Even then you'll probably do more damage to the planet making it than you'll recoup. But if you're hellbent just take a page out of Australia's book.
>Giant fucking nuclear reactors
>Giant desalination plants
>Both placed on the coast of a white part of Africa so they'll be maintained
>Massive underground pipeline made from pure concrete. Place it 6 feet underground for a constant temperature and to prevent it from getting damaged by Africans.
>Hope and pray the water makes the trip

just dig channels and let gravity do its job, some places in africa are lower than sea level

a 50m sea level rise would completely wreck everything

>Isn't fission already safe and cheap
It's very safe these days, far safer than any other energy production method, but it's rather expensive because both production and management of facilities is very labor intensive and it's a process that requires a lot of oversight and thus generates a lot of overhead.

It's still hands down pretty much the best way we have to produce energy by rite of safety, security, price point, and output baring maybe geothermal and hydro, but geothermal is somewhat limited by locale and hydro is very environmentally destructive in a way that a lot of people don't like. Despite all of this you're still not going to convince normal fags that the world should go nuclear because "muh nuklear proliferation" and "muh chernobyl/fukishima/three mile island"

Before we think of technology, we must first eliminate the factors which would damage, strip, and destroy that technology to sell its scraps - Niggers.
China is already working on it with their involvement in Africa. The whitey has failed at genociding the niggers, so it's up to Chinks to finish the job.

nuclear power is not safe only because there is no where to store the spent nuclear fuel.

the Sahara has unlimited solar power potential so I dont understand why people are discussing nuclear power. Sea water can be boiled inside glass containers by pointing adjustable mirrors at it

Attached: s.jpg (349x277, 45K)

>Pour cubic kilometers of water into a big sandbox
>drains away in a matter of minutes because of poor adsorbtion

youtube.com/watch?v=9C0_iApuIcU

>there is no where to store the spent nuclear fuel
lol we are literally talking about large swaths of land that would be suitable for a spent fuel storage facility.
Ignoring that massive fucking desert, There are a couple of perfectly fine unused facilities in America, the only reason we don't use them is because morons are scared of science.

Aren't sandstorms and shifting dunes a problem there or can that be avoided altogether?

yes it is a problem but that woulds be part of maintenance to move sand

youtube.com/watch?v=z1Rsefjd-h0

As far as I'm aware solar facilities like that have even more overhead per watt generated. In any case spent nuclear fuel is safer than ever, not only are new techniques to recycle and reuse that fuel available and being pioneered but we know more about how to store it safely than ever.

The main concern about the storage of it is if society completley collapses and we forget about what nuclear stuff is altogether and forget about why the storage sites might be dangerous if not up-kept, and that's not really a problem we should worry about because if society completley collapses then we have much bigger issues.

Nukes and black plague.

This. Solar is a meme. The future lies in offshore mass produced nuclear power plants.

news.mit.edu/2015/new-look-floating-nuclear-power-0624

Attached: Offshoring-Nuclear-Plants_01.jpg (340x570, 119K)

Attached: 0d77eadf82c99df0b5272b7c5256c3b010a48f42ab5003ca98b8b85b352e1bcc.jpg (604x604, 37K)

Solar can always be a complementary power source. Literally no reason to not invest in it so it could be cheap enough to produce so more people could make rooftops with it.

DON'T DO ANYTHING FOR NIGGERS.
THERE WERE WHITE PEOPLE THERE, THEY WERE TRYING TO HELP, BUT THOSE RACISTS DECIDED THAT WHITES ARE NOT NECESSARY, AND THEY'VE RUINED EVERYTHING.
JUST LET THEM ALL DIE FROM AIDS ALREADY. OR FROM RADIATION SYNDROME (IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN).

JEWS WILL MAKE YOU FEEL SORRY FOR THEM, BUT DON'T LET THEM CONFUSE YOU. NIGGERS SHOULD FEEL SORRY FOR WHITES, THEY KILLED.

Attached: 783_v9_ba.jpg (1080x1440, 337K)

nothing, that's not how the orography is anymore

Hydro comes from water moving, almost always downhill. Only in a limited way can you get hydro power from tidal movements (psst not enough to do much with).

Or are you some nigger who thinks water will perpetually drain downhill from the Mediterranean to the Indian ocean?

What happens when tsunami hits?

>Not thorium

...

>muh nukleer waste
>what are gen 4 breeder SMRs?
You're a faggot.

If you get the water to the lowlands (through carefully dug channels, and gravity), that would become less pf an issue, as the evaporation in the area will generate a lot of rainfall - hence stabilizing the land and it will start to revert desertification in some parts of it.

Look at an elevation map of northern Africa, there are two big areas in Egypt and Tunisia that are below sea level.

>Well suggest a different way then. This thread is to discuss feasible technologies to stop desertification and maybe even terraform the Sahara.
A pump.
A really really big pump.

Water is quite literally one of the damnedest things to heat in nature for the short scale it exists as a liquid.

Why don't we harness the power of the earth's rotation and tie some turbines directly to the earth to make infinite energy?

While you're at it, do the rest of the world, senpai.

Attached: 1526464871722.png (503x730, 275K)

Do you want 25-hour day?
Tidal stations already uses this source of energy.

Attached: 1244978255360.jpg (337x344, 26K)

>doesn't even work in theory
Sauce.

Creating such a drastic change in the ecosystem can lead to the extinction of countless species which could cause a domino effect and disrupt the biodiversity. Leave the desert be OP, focus on trying to prevent the desert from expanding

I'm actually Moroccan and we as a people should stop desertification. At this moment Europeans don't give a shit yet, but let me explain why you should.

1. Throughout the last 20 years the Saharah has been expanding to Spain. Spain is the "vegetablehub" of Europe and because of its agriculture the lands there turn into sand too.

2. When Africa turns more and more into a desert the amount of refugees will increase.

Attached: shaka_zulu.jpg (744x1024, 290K)

>20% EFFICIENCY AT IDEAL CONDITIONS
So what? It's not like it costs you anything to keep the Sun running.

Why not just dig some very deep holes, dump some water into them and have the heat of the planet turn it into vapour?

70% of the earth is covered by water, putting a lake in the middle of a desert is going to make no difference in the climate of that area, think of all the deserts that are next to the sea

all the wind and weather patterns of the earth are caused by hot air rising near the equator and being replaced by cold air rushing down from the north which creates a circulation effect. This circulation pattern would be exactly equal/simetrical around the world if the world had a unified type of surface like it was all sea or all grass. Its the differing surface types that creates all the irregular weather patterns we have. Currently we are suffering global warming due to desertification and human development replacing grass/forest land. If we were to reclaim all the deserts in the world it would reduce the amount of violent weather patterns as there would not be as much wind and air movement over the earth. We would also have another ice age as all the equatorial parts of the earth would be green again like in the age of dinosaurs and so all northern latitudes would remain frigid as there would be no warm air moving north.

>The amount of water on the planet is finite. You can't make this project happen without somewhere else suffering for it.
You mean it would make the global water level go down?
Isn't this good, since it would compensate for global warming making it rise?

>putting a lake in the middle of a desert is going to make no difference in the climate of that area, think of all the deserts that are next to the sea
But it would make terraformation of said deserts much easier, no?

desalinizing seawater is a very inefficient way to fight desertification when you can transform the land and allow natural rain to do the work for you

>when you can transform the land and allow natural rain to do the work for you
Interesting.
Please elaborate.
In which way would the land be transformed in order to promote rainfall in a desert region?

Two words for you. Coloumb forces.

see and

So just putting this paste in the soil over large portion of Africa's desert areas would significantly increase rainfall?
Where would the water come from?
Would it travel all the way from sea/ocean to deep inside Africa's mainland because of the now present trees?

why try building something in a continent where they cant even seem to keep the old colonial roads in working order.

>Would it travel all the way from sea/ocean to deep inside Africa's mainland because of the now present trees?
yes, thats how weather works, hot weather over oceans evaporates water, this hot humid air moves northward and when this warm humid air meets cold air the dew point forces the air to produce rain