http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/38954656/brush-fire-in-lahaina-prompts-evacuations

 

So apparently, in spite of the rain, wildfires are raging in Hawaii. There's plenty of water... it's just that most of it's not fit to drink.

 

It seems inefficient to have to choose between "using tap water that had to be processed on the taxpayers' dime to be fit to drink, on a fire that can be put out just as effectively with impure water," and "trucking impure water from the flood to the fire." Why can't there be two separate sets of infrastructure; one for water that's pure enough to drink, and another that's adequate for firefighting purposes and doesn't have to be processed?

$

Would the initial investment eventually pay for itself, by the fact that you neither need to transport sludgewater nor use up tapwater every time there's a forest fire, or would maintenance costs prevent said initial investment from ever paying for itself?

Don't they do water drops from a plane or helicopter filled from a lake or ocean?

Aerial firefighting - Wikipedia:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_firefighting

 

They do that as well, but that's only part of it. On the news I often see footage of firefighters on the ground as well. I'm thinking it's because there's inevitably parts of the fire you'll miss from that high above.

Salt water might kill vegetation and the quantity of municipal water used in the event of a fire seems to be manageable by existing infrastructure.

I'm more concerned that the pace of forest fire events is increasing due to Climate Change and feel this is what should be addressed more seriously.

 

On 26/08/2018 at 3:20 PM, ScienceNostalgia101 said:

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/38954656/brush-fire-in-lahaina-prompts-evacuations

 

So apparently, in spite of the rain, wildfires are raging in Hawaii. There's plenty of water... it's just that most of it's not fit to drink.

 

It seems inefficient to have to choose between "using tap water that had to be processed on the taxpayers' dime to be fit to drink, on a fire that can be put out just as effectively with impure water," and "trucking impure water from the flood to the fire." Why can't there be two separate sets of infrastructure; one for water that's pure enough to drink, and another that's adequate for firefighting purposes and doesn't have to be processed?

 

When I was a lad, I lived in a place where there were two separate water supplies.

One processed and fit to drink (potable)

The other was not used primarily for firefighting but was inspired by the fact that there were many acres of greenhouses used for market gardening, which needed irrigation.

 

So it can be economic.

To fight with serious fire of forest there is used completely different technique than water. Cut (or even burn in controlled manner) trees in direction of wind before fire arrives to area, and fire stops because of lack of fuel (wood). Fire can't pass through region in which there are just ashes.

 

33 minutes ago, Sensei said:

To fight with serious fire of forest there is used completely different technique than water. Cut (or even burn in controlled manner) trees in direction of wind before fire arrives to area, and fire stops because of lack of fuel (wood). Fire can't pass through region in which there are just ashes.

 

I think this year has shown that forest , heath and prarie fires are much more difficult to control than the theorists would have us believe.

Edited August 27, 20187 yr by studiot

Using non-potable water would be better for lawns and lower overal purification costs. Grey water can be reused for this aswell but I could definitely see a separate pjpeline working.

It can definitely be interesting to build two separate infrastructures, although I believe that the separation that people want to make is between dirty water (i.e. waste water from households) and rainwater. The rainwater may be used for irrigation, but also for flushing toilets. While forest fires are a real problem, you shouldn't underestimate the amount of water used for flushing toilets on a global scale.

 

If we're going to blue sky, we should add non-potable water as "ground-source" heat-pump loop.  Heat or cool your home using non-potable water as a heat source or sink.  It's actually the best way to go 100% electric heating in northern climates.  Also requires separate storm sewers BTW, otherwise we're processing the effluent in larger quantities because once mixed, it all needs to be processed.