 |
| http://dwellingintheword.wordpress.com/2010/06/17/294-joshua-15/ |
Potential Solution #1
Desalination is the process of removing the salt from water making it drinkable (Merriam-Webster). This is done in desalination plants and is incredibly expensive (Edwards Aquifer Website). To build a single plant it would cost millions of dollars, but the upside would be that Africa would never run out of water because it would be taking it from the ocean. The next biggest drawback to this potential solution is that the water would have to be delivered. Getting the water to the people would be expensive, and delivery to people who live in the center of the continent or more remote locations would be even more expensive. So, in addition to having to pay the millions of dollars to put the plant up in the first place, money would also be needed to actually acquire the water making this method very impractical. Because of the impracticality, desalination should be used but not exclusively and not very much. Because this method is so expensive it should be used only as a last resort or only if all other water is unavailable.
Potential Solution #2
 |
| http://www.i4at.org/surv/raincat.htm |
As stated earlier in the global perspectives section, the Rainwater Catchment System is a possible method for this conflict. This system is based on rainwater and gravity flow pressure principles and has lots of positives with it. It is relatively inexpensive, which is a major upside to any potential solution. This solution can also be installed or expanded on a 'pay as you build' basis which means that, as the money is acquired, more can be built. The money is not needed as one lump sum. This system is also very reliable because the rain will come, filling the tank. Another upside is that it is easy to keep clean, and keeping the water pH would be very easy to test and maintain. Because it is such a flexible system, the container can be sized to fit the location or the amount of people that would be accessing the water from it. A very important aspect of this solution is that no power is needed. This is beneficial to many because in many places there is no electricity or the electricity is sparse. Fortunately, the rainwater catchment system requires no electricity. Finally, what makes this solution stand out is that, because it is fully above ground, maintenance would be very easy and cheaper to make.
How the systems works is the water is collected from a roof through a series of gutters. The gutters then funnel the water into a standpipe that can hold 150 gallons. Once the standpipe reaches 150 gallons the water will flow into a large water drum, around 900 gallons, where it is stored. If the water exceeds the 1,150 gallons (150 in the standpipe and 900 in the large drum) the overflow will run off into two 300 gallons barrels. And finally, if the 300 gallons overflows the water will just simply run into the local sewer. Having over 1,700 gallons of storage available may seem excessive to some but, because of the efficiency of the system, during heavy rainfalls over 1,500 gallons can be collected in just one hour. If only one inch of rain falls (given that the roof is 25 by 40 feet) an astounding 400 gallons of water can be collected.
Some downsides to this solution are that the large tanks can be very difficult to handle. With a system this large it takes up more space than a well would. For this system to be effective it requires a large roof and a tank that can hold around 900 gallons of water. This can be a minor problem because there will only be a limited number of rainwater catchment systems available. Sanitation is another thing that has to be put into consideration. In order for the system to be effective the gutters used would require constant maintenance and cleaning. Also, there is the risk that this system won’t meet the local building code requirements for it to be a primary water source.
 |
| http://www.wcu.edu/5000.asp |
Potential Solution #3
Reservoirs are similar to rainwater catchment systems in that the rain will fill them but are different structurally. Reservoirs can be as simple as a large, water-holding bowl in the ground or it can be made from a kit above ground. Reservoirs could be the least expensive water storage available but it would not be very safe to drink, which would defeat the purpose. Having a hand-dug reservoir would indeed do the job of collecting and holding water, however it would be just as unsanitary as the rivers and the puddles that provide water currently. Because it would have no protection, animals would be able to get into the water and bacteria and disease would soon make the water undrinkable. The reservoir from a kit is very simple to assemble and would keep the water free from contamination. These reservoirs are able to hold between 2,500 to 10,000 gallons depending on the size that has been purchased. These reservoirs would also have a lid that kept out animals, bacteria and disease, making the water much safer. To buy a reservoir that would hold 2,500 gallons it would cost over nine thousand dollars. The only way that a reservoir, hand dug or kit, would be effective is if it was filled with water. To fill the reservoirs, a well would be needed but once it has been filled in the rain will add to the total amount of water in the reservoir. That is the biggest downside because Africa does not get enough rain to fill a reservoir on its own and to fill it by using a well would defeat the purpose. However, a big upside that reservoirs bring to the table is the ability to give food as well as water by putting fish in the water.
 |
| http://thewaterproject.org/sponsor-a-well-in-africa.asp |
Potential Solution #4
The average cost to provide a well for an African community is $5,100. From this five thousand dollars a hand pump can be created that can last up to 15 years; constantly being refilled as rain recharges the groundwater. Assuming that the wells are placed strategically, one single pump up to 700 people would be able to access the water this may well include schools and even hospitals. To have one well per community, the countries of Africa would be in better shape but in order to really help cure the water crisis one well would have to be made for at least every 700 people. This would allow every person access to clean water and it could be much more affordable. Machine drills would be very helpful to use to create bigger capacity wells. They are able to reach maximum depth of 200 feet, whereas a hand dug well can only reach as maximum depth of 60 feet. Not only would the machine drill dig deeper but it would also dig much faster, completing a well in one to two days. If a machine drill were unavailable it would still be incredibly beneficial to have the hand dug well. The biggest downside to the machine drill is that it takes 4 weeks to train a crew to work the machiner. This is a small downside in comparison the potential downsides of hand dug wells, which include: contamination, collapses, and rocks. Whether the well is hand dug or machine dug the well will have to be regularly maintained. The worst and most unavoidable problem with all wells is the fact that during hot and dry weather the wells will dry up. Even with these problems, wells are the best choice to resolve the water crisis in Africa because they meet the peoples needs: they provide clean easy-to-access water that is cheap.
No comments:
Post a Comment