Display:
I don't see such a huge problem with Libya using it's aquifier. I mean, what are they supposed to do with it? Just leave it down there? The relevant issue to discuss is how fast it should be consumed. 50 years, 100 years, 200 etc.

And when it runs out, the Libyans are planning nuclear desalination, with French support.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 07:47:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Aquifers are generally part of the ecology (unless they are sealed of in caves, which is unusual). So if you pump it all up, plantlife dies, then soil is washed away, then desert enters.

So leaving it in place might be a good idea.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 08:22:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Uh, it's under a desert already.  No plants.
by the stormy present (stormypresent aaaaaaat gmail etc) on Sat Jun 9th, 2007 at 08:29:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I have never been to Libya though I know it is sandy.

I further admit I am not sure exactly what aquifers we are talking about. To generalise the term (as I understand it) is used about two different sets of underground water, both that which is part of an ecology and that which is sealed of (like oil). Use of the former (above the level of regeneration) causes desertification (and according to maps not all of Libya is deserts) while the latter is a one time boost, preferably to be invested wisely.

A vote for PES is a vote for EPP! A vote for EPP is a vote for PES! Support the coalition, vote EPP-PES in 2009!

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Jun 10th, 2007 at 08:49:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series