Do folks here understand the expense and energy use associated with desalination plants?

[CreekDog]

And do folks think that such plants should be built to supply water for agricultural irrigation in California and the Southwest?

If anyone does, do they have any idea how much that would cost?

If anyone does, do they have any idea how much energy such plants would require?

There hasn't been a great deal of need for desalination for domestic uses even during our severe droughts, because domestic uses are small in comparison to agricultural uses (and many agricultural uses demand less water than many current agricultural uses, we can still be a major agricultural area and use less water by growing more appropriately).

The idea that it's a good idea to just build dozens of desalination plants in California seems based on the assumption that:

1) California has no better option or source of water for domestic purposes than desalination
2) It seems unaware of how much water is used for agriculture and that replacing uncollected water (since rain/snow hasn't fallen) through desalination doesn't recognize where such water would be used.
3) Using desalinated water for agriculture would not only be prohibitively expensive based on treatment methods, it would also be energy intensive (as we're trying to reduce energy consumption that's fueling climate change). Beyond that, it would be energy intensive to transport water from the coasts to agricultural areas.

The knee jerk reaction of "we need to build desalination plants, right now, all over California" just doesn't seem to be based on knowledge of California's water situation or uses, California's geography, or the nature of the desalination process.

[el_bryanto]

1. That's well argued

We will need better and more efficient desalination plants in the future I suspect, and it might well be worthwhile developing the technology to do so, though. But you make a convincing argument that it isn't necessary to build a bunch right now.

Bryant

[bhikkhu]

121. Fusion reactors were supposed to supply the power

according to a UN study I read many years ago projecting the future of the world's water needs. It was ll good up into the 90's on natural supplies and aquifers, but then to supply the growing agricultural and basic needs of the population, we were supposed to be transitioning to fusion-powered desalinization. Of course, the miracles of clean and abundant fusion power never quite materialized, and there has been no other magical energy source to replace it with. Solar is doing well lately, but not nearly well enough to run big desalinization plants economically.

On the good side population projections have eased significantly from what was expected back in the 60's and 70's, but, on the bad side, climate change has thrown an unexpected monkey wrench into the works. My own region is in a long-term drought, and another winter with rain, but very low snowpacks.

[MADem]

128. Wave technology, perhaps, coupled with wind and solar? nt

[CreekDog]

145. i don't know why there's all this insistence on using and moving as much water as we do

honestly if we can conquer all the issues with that, is it really the best use of our abilities to just maintain a system where we use just as much water as we do and use just as much energy moving it around as we do?

we can save water by using less and not even feeling a big difference from using less, a lot of high quality water is literally wasted

if we can develop all these technologies, they should be used on human betterment, transportant, education and other challenges.

even in a drought, we have enough water to supply our cities, we have enough water in our systems to supply agriculture

we just have to be smarter about the excesses in our system and not use our best water for those excesses. eliminate the high intensity irrigated agriculture for something more appropriate to California.

use the good water for our urban domestic uses, but use lesser water for irrigation, and reuse it!

there, now we don't need to invent new technology for this.

[MADem]

151. But why not?

Why can't they do both? California isn't going to remain the seventh largest economy in the world without the agribusiness end of things, that's just the bottom line, here. And tourists (a substantial sector of the economy) don't like to be told to take short showers and "If it's yellow, let it mellow." They want to hop in their Jacuzzi tubs and luxuriate. Industries--even light industries--need water to operate.

Conservation is fine, but my understanding is that California is at the point where they have to worry about essential sufficiency. That kind of threat isn't conducive to growing--or even keeping--businesses in the state.

If the drought is as serious as some of the articles and charts I've seen here, conservation alone just isn't going to cut it. You need rain and lots of it, or another method --like desalinization-- of filling the gap.

Isn't gray water already a feature in conservation schemes in CA? Certainly, they can keep on with that, but it's not the be-all or end-all solution.

I think the desalinization option--using wind/wave/solar energy sources--should be explored, and if there's a way they can make it work in an effective and not-too-costly way, like Israel and other countries are doing, they should give it a go. If the power needed to run the thing is from sustainable sources, why not?

[JDPriestly]

161. Yes. We have drought-resistant gardens and use gray water in California.

We will have to desalinate water. We draw our water from sources that will not be as plentiful for us in the future. The ice pack may be OK this year, but the weather is warmer. I don't know what the summer will bring. This has been the warmest winter I remember. I'm waiting for the statistics on that. Today was another day in the 80s. We have had an incredible number of them.

We have useless low-water-usage toilets. The scourge of city life in California in my opinion. Fact is that you can only save so much water. And city life is tough without water.

It's great for people who live in areas that suffer from tornadoes or hurricanes to complain about California's need to desalinate water. A hurricane in New Jersey? No problem. Federal aid. Very few questions asked. After all, houses are obviously demolished.

'A serious drought in California -- say 7 inches of rain in a year -- don't use so much water. We don't use that much water. Water usage in California is way down.

December's rains enabled Californians to finally meet Gov. Jerry Brown's call for a 20-percent reduction in monthly water consumption, but more restrictions loom as the state adapts to long-term drought conditions.

California is by no means out of trouble, despite a survey released Tuesday that showed an unusually rainy month helped residents cut water use by 22 percent statewide from December 2013 levels."

http://www.kcra.com/drought/state-water-board-california-has-met-waterreduction-target/31070378

The drought is a natural disaster -- like a hurricane or a tornado. We should be treated like other states with regard to natural disasters.

[MADem]

176. I say fire up a plant or two and see how it goes--if it works, if it's affordable, if they

can find wind/solar/wave ways of powering the plant on the cheap, more power to California. And if it rains like hell, shut the plants down, divert the wind/solar/wave energy to the grid, and put the plants on standby until they're needed again.

They're doing this in Saudi Arabia, in Dubai, in Israel, and a host of other places--I don't think there's a need to approach it like the sky is falling.

[CreekDog]

163. if you're advocating desalination as a means to support agribusiness

that defies any logic economically, would raise taxes in California or if it didn't, would raise the cost of produce to a level where it could never be sold profitably.

so if you're advocating desalination to irrigate crops in California, you literally don't understand the topic well enough to know why that will not work and why it is not feasible.

AND you don't seem to understand that the only places that do this have nowhere near the water resources that California has, even when California has drought conditions.

you seem to forget just how much water is delivered even during these severe droughts. places that desalinate for agricultural and even domestic uses DO NOT have such substantial supplies and would not desalinate if they did.

please study this topic, it will help steer you away from bad solutions and towards better ones.

[MADem]

175. Depends on the cost of the system.

Seems to me they need to get the water to the reservoirs, and take it from there. The bottom line is that there's only so much water now, and there's not enough, so adding to the total eases the shortage. It's basic math. You cannot conserve what isn't there.

I just think you're too eager to say "It can't be done" and "It won't be done" and there are a lot of people who just do not agree with you. It can be done--they do it on every ship in every modern navy in the world. They do it all over the Middle East, and in Australia, and elsewhere. If they can lower the energy expenditure costs as they have been doing over the last few decades, they can lower the overall costs to the consumers--and as we've seen upthread, HITACHI has started to grab a handle on that. I'll bet they're not alone.

This is one of those stories where there are more than one side...this article covers the pluses, and the minuses:

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near


Telling me that I "don't understand" and "please study the topic" when I just don't agree with your perspective isn't going to change my mind. I do understand--California is short of water, and this is one way of getting more of it. You don't like that, but that's not making this project go away. We'll just have to see how this goes--if they follow the lead of Israel, and these projects come in at or below expected costs, this is going to become a common way of providing water to citizens in periods of shortage, even if it doesn't please you.

As for agribusiness, which plays a key role in putting California in that "Seventh Largest World Economy" category, if the people aren't using the water, there's more available for them--so I imagine they have an attitude about this effort that doesn't converge with yours.

[TexasProgresive]

2. Why Oh why CreekDog do you dog us with the facts?

Yes you are right, desalination is energy intensive, just as is hydrogen production but WE WANT WHAT WE WANT!!!

Sorry for the shouting.

Oh I forgot to add: "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."

[Sunlei]

3. passively.move sea water to the farmland, heat it with sun/mirrors/glass.The condinsation is fresh

[CreekDog]

5. you can't passively move seawater uphill

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 04:17 PM - Edit history (1)

for hundreds of miles...

[FSogol]

6. How friendly!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

7. Hydraulic ram pumps?

Not sure what he meant by 'passively', but that's generally how folks move water uphill without using external energy. Let wave action do the work.

[CreekDog]

9. How is that going to get water hundreds of miles inland and hundreds of feet above sea level?

not to mention over thousands of feet of mountains in between?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. Didn't know how far you were talking.

You didn't exactly specify where all these plants were to be built, or which parts of Cali would end up using the water.

[CreekDog]

13. If someone is suggesting desalination and doesn't know how far the water is expected

...to be transported, then that's not a real strong argument in favor of their desalination idea, is it?

But to your question, the agricultural regions of California, the ones most dependent on supplies reduced by the drought, the largest ones, are mostly far inland, like the Central Valley and the Imperial Valley. Take a look at a map, notice the distance from the coast and notice the mountains in between.

There's the problem.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. Actually it was different people.

I don't know who all these folks are who got you riled up, and I haven't suggested desalinization and am way out here in flyover country. Where I am, I'm more worried about everything molding in the ground in the years we get too much water.

I was just taking a stab at guessing what someone might mean by passively moving water uphill.

[CreekDog]

18. I know you weren't suggesting it, sorry, I didn't mean it towards you

I was making the point that they were making unfeasible suggestions for desalination largely because they really don't know what they are proposing.

They don't know:

How much water they'd need
How far they'd need to transport it
How much elevation they'd need to lift the water in the course of that transport
How the water would actually be used once they do all that
How much energy desalination would require

and the list goes on...

read any expert opinion here on desalination and you don't see wild eyed proposals without any basis in reality.

people who knowledgeable about the topic are generally not the ones suggesting massive desalination efforts.

but that's kind of like DU.

the folks most confident about a bad idea are generally the ones with the least knowledge about it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

20. Whoa.

[Sunlei]

81. siphons and lift pumps & some dug channels/reservoirs.Also a benefit to groundwater replenishment

The intakes would be far out to sea. Probably quite a bit of old pipelines all over those lands, some would still be suitable for sea water movement.

[JDDavis]

89. The Dutch have been doing this for centuries with windmills.

Not for "hundreds of miles" but using the wind and windmill devices to pump OUT water to the sea and reclaim literally thousands of square miles of ocean marsh as dry land. They still do it today.

The Netherlands today has twice as much dry land as the did in the 1600's, thanks mostly to windmills and other engineering devices, land reclaimed from the ocean.

[Hekate]

125. The Netherlands are a very small area compared with California, & they are wet. California is DRY

California is mountainous -- I don't think the Netherlands are. I mean BIG mountain ranges, the Sierras and others.

I really admire what the Dutch have done with their formerly soggy bit of the Earth. I wish New Orleans would take a page out of the book written by the Dutch -- New Orleans and their old agricultural-style levees are just another disaster waiting to happen.

But that is not California's geology.

Here it is in square miles: Netherlands 13,084 square miles vs. California 163,695 square miles

[JDPriestly]

166. I recall a windmill on my grandfather's farm. My mother does not remember it but says it was

probably used to transport water. I'm sure that is what it was used for.

We also have solar energy. And fusion will materialize sooner or later.

I've just seen technology develop at such an amazing rate that I have no doubt that we will be able to produce enough energy to desalinate and transport a meaningful amount of water to the vital agricultural areas of California.

What we don't pay for more water, we will pay for more expensive and less food especially in the winter.

My mother is 98. When she was a girl, she rode around in a horse and buggy. Today we have satellites and cell phones, etc. Technology moves more quickly than people realize.

[Anansi1171]

102. With solar power, why cant you?-nt

[CreekDog]

104. because you'd need pumps along the way

for hundreds of miles.

that's pretty much the opposite of passive.

even if you were able to do it with solar, it would be far from passive.

secondly, the idea of desalinating water at the California coast, then pumping it over mountains to grow alfalfa and cotton or other water intensive crops, while farmers pay pennies on the dollar (and likely less!) of the cost to produce it makes the idea even more ridiculous.

so tell me, how much more in taxes are you willing to pay to provide desalinated water to the Central Valley in this manner? because it will be expensive and energy intensive and you and i will pay, as we already do, for the federal projects that supply them with water in the current way, far more cheaply than your desalinating idea will.

[Anansi1171]

142. Actually my idea is to use Solar-powered pumps for hundreds of miles...

...but to bypass the mountains altogether. My proposal is to pump water from the Gulf of California in a bi-national project that will feed into the Imperial Valley and even into the Salton Sea.

Completely agree that desalination for the Central Valley is impractical.

[MADem]

129. Wind and solar energy could maybe do this bit...? nt

[JDPriestly]

164. Have you ever heard of the Roman aquaducts?

The Romans constructed numerous aqueducts in order to bring water from distant sources into their cities and towns, supplying public baths, latrines, fountains and private households. Waste water was removed by complex sewage systems and released into nearby bodies of water, keeping the towns clean and free from effluent. Aqueducts also provided water for mining operations, milling, farms and gardens.

Aqueducts moved water through gravity alone, being constructed along a slight downward gradient within conduits of stone, brick or concrete. Most were buried beneath the ground, and followed its contours; obstructing peaks were circumvented or, less often, tunnelled through. Where valleys or lowlands intervened, the conduit was carried on bridgework, or its contents fed into high-pressure lead, ceramic or stone pipes and siphoned across. Most aqueduct systems included sedimentation tanks, sluices and distribution tanks to regulate the supply at need.

Rome's first aqueduct supplied a water fountain sited at the city's cattle market. By the third century AD, the city had eleven aqueducts, sustaining a population of over a million in a water-extravagant economy; most of the water supplied the city's many public baths. Cities and municipalities throughout the Roman Empire emulated this model, and funded aqueducts as objects of public interest and civic pride, "an expensive yet necessary luxury to which all could, and did, aspire.":[1])

Most Roman aqueducts proved reliable, and durable; some were maintained into the early modern era, and a few are still partly in use. Methods of aqueduct surveying and construction are noted by Vitruvius in his work De Architectura (1st century BC). The general Frontinus gives more detail in his official report on the problems, uses and abuses of Imperial Rome's public water supply. Notable examples of aqueduct architecture include the supporting piers of the Aqueduct of Segovia, and the aqueduct-fed cisterns of Constantinople.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_aqueduct

If the Romans could move water using the force of gravity, so can we. It's a matte rof figuring it out. We are way ahead of the Romans in terms of technology, so some of the limitations they faced should be less formidable and more easily overcome today.

History, dears. They said "it" could not be done, over and over. But where there is a will . . . . technology will find a way. If there is money to be made, it will happen.

[CreekDog]

167. Why did you write all that?

You're saying that the Romans built systems to move water downhill.

While you're saying we can build systems that will move water uphill.

You don't even realize the difference in terms of energy needs and engineering.

They are huge and to desalinate, then move that water uphill for great distances to irrigate water intensive crops (when we could be using less water intensive crops or irrigation) makes no sense, and will bankrupt us if we try to do it for agriculture, and will bankrupt state agriculture if we make them pay for it themselves.

You keep trying to sustain the same supply, while creating a massive desalination infrastructure, a massive energy infrastructure to run it, and you haven't even considered the energy and infrastructure you'll need to move that water from new sources to these agricultural areas.

It will take away the profit margin in agriculture, and if it doesn't it will mean our taxes go up and vastly, to pay for what they don't.

You aren't thinking this out. You're too busy advocating instead of studying.

You've already made your decision and it's stopped you from thinking your idea through completely. Worse, it's made you think you're done thinking.

[JDPriestly]

171. Another reason to desalinate water is the increasing quantity of water in the oceans -- salinated

water. Before the development of the steam engine and then the gasoline engine, anyone would have said we were crazy to think that one day we would have pipelines bring gas and oil to us so that we could fuel rocket ships, cars and even our homes.

It will happen, and it will be reasonable in price. The alternative which is the loss of a lot of food due to the loss of of agricultural land will eventually be even more expensive for us. Food will probably rise in price. On the other hand, some of our energy sources will become less expensive. The folly is to assume that our present reality will remain reality in the future. The one thing constant is change. This will change. There are many reasons to desalinate water even if it does seem to be prohibitively expensive now. The idea that we would build freeways and drive our cars on them would have seemed preposterously expensive to someone living in 1860. It's a matter of will, effort, investment and time. It will happen. We should work toward making it happen.

[Hekate]

124. California is an enormous state bisected by immensely tall mountain ranges.Geology will not allow...

...for very much of that scenario.

It's true we have farmland on parts of the coast, but the Central Valley is the salad bowl of the nation. It's hugely productive -- as long as it gets water. Desal won't help.

[JDDavis]

4. Israel Desalination Shows California Not to Fear Drought

Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- Six decades of providing water in a country that’s 60 percent desert have made Israel a technological leader in the field, a model that points the way for drought-stricken California.
Desalination of sea water, reuse of treated sewage for agriculture, software creating an early-warning system for leaks, computerized drip irrigation and careful accounting of every drop have become the norm in Israel, the world’s 40th biggest economy. Officials in California, which would be the 10th largest if it were a nation, are paying attention.

North of San Diego, Israel’s IDE Technologies Ltd. is helping to build what it says will be the largest seawater desalination plant in the Western Hemisphere. The facility, when finished in 2016, will be able to provide 50 million gallons of potable water a day. Three smaller plants already operate in California, and 15 more have been proposed.

“This is the one supply that San Diego County is investing in that is truly drought-proof,” said Peter MacLaggan, senior vice president of privately held Poseidon Resources Corp., which is developing the $922 million plant with IDE. “It does cost more, but it has some reliability benefits that are very important to the regional economy.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-02-13/israel-desalination-shows-california-not-to-fear-drought

[think]

85. Good article. TY /nt

[abelenkpe]

88. Nice article.

[Hekate]

126. Israel is even smaller than the Netherlands, but it still offers some hope for some coastal cities

Israel 8,367 square miles

California 163,695 square miles

The Netherlands 13,084 square miles

[MADem]

133. Is all of California in a drought situation, or just part of it?

And how much area actually needs to be "watered" by this method?

Isn't the population density of the Netherlands a bit tighter than wide open CA, as well?

[Hekate]

137. ALL of California is having the worst drought ever. 2013 was the driest in history.

82% of the state is in the "extreme drought" category. Here's some photos

http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/09/dramatic-photos-of-californias-historic-drought/100804/

We are up Shit Creek sitting on dry rocks. The snow pack in the Sierras is down 80% or more.

The toilet situation is as follows: If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down. I think most of us in the 'burbs aren't overly strict with that yet -- but people in mountain communities are.

Our shower is too small to hold one of us plus a bucket, but I know people who are using their shower water on their gardens. We do have a bucket by the kitchen sink, and a big bowl in the sink. The bowl catches the handwashing water, which then gets dumped in the bucket, which then goes on our little trees and outdoor potted plants. If I'm pre-rinsing pots and dishes, they get rinsed in that bowl, and then that water goes down the drain.

Things look fairly green now, because winter in California is the green season. We've had a couple of storms, and that freshens things up, makes the plants in the wild spring up; but in a couple of months, if not sooner, they will all go to seed and "Golden" California will take on its characteristic hue. The storms, btw, have barely put a dent in the drought.

The Governor asked us to lower our domestic water usage by 20% -- apparently we lowered it by 22%, yay us. But we are going to have to do a lot more; especially Agribusiness is going to have to do more.

[MADem]

141. Here's hoping for some much-needed rain...! nt

[CreekDog]

147. but it's even easier than all that

people in San Francisco are not going crazy trying to limit their showers and other uses.

they've been using less than 50 gallons per day per person simply by subtle changes made by technology mostly and by not having extensive outdoor irrigation.

low flow showers, low flow toilets, they all have become code and they're saving us a ton of water, without even noticing.

that is the key.

and to somehow figure out how to irrigate less and to do so with non potable water.

[Hekate]

150. I don't think there's anybody left who doesn't have a low-flow shower and toilet already

And still the governor asked us all to limit household use, and the city has us watering outside only on a schedule. I guess we're all just trying to do our bit, CreekDog.

[MADem]

153. I lived in northern CA in the late eighties for a time and I had "all of the above."

The property management crew came around with little screw on screen things for the faucets; the crapper was already one of those lousy two-flush because one isn't enough for a generous loaf-pinch ones, and the shower was low flow as well.

I wasn't a big water pig anyway--living in the Middle East will have that effect on one.

[CreekDog]

146. desalination is not necessary for most of our urban areas

our existing supplies will not dry up, they will still exist

we use so much less water than we did per capita than during the mid-70s drought.

it's hugely expensive and counterproductive to try to maintain a supply to feed a system that consumes too much water --and it's more expensive to supply energy to move that much water

move what we need, produce what we need

don't move what we waste, figure out how not to waste it, save that energy for some other better purpose.

we aren't doing ourselves any favors by inventing technology that simply allows us to continue doing something stupid (aka, using potable water to irrigate alfalfa in the western Central Valley, whose fields then need to be flushed with more potable water because of the salts left behind after evaporation and irrigation.

if we use our talents and abilities to keep doing something that stupid (and there are plenty of places to grow alfalfa other than the San Joaquin Valley) then we aren't going to make things better. we're going to use our best talents to sustain stupidity.

and that's not smart.

[MADem]

155. Well, I'm not sure I agree with you.

I don't think conservation alone will solve the problem. Others here have pointed out that people ARE conserving--one gets to the point where one can't get blood out of a stone.

As I said elsewhere, you need rain, and lots of it, or some other method of getting some water to places that need it--including those drying up reservoirs.

[CreekDog]

162. I didn't say conservation alone

But I think the mistake you're making is that when you decide conservation alone isn't sufficient, that doesn't mean desalination is the right choice to address supply issues.

In fact, in most parts of California, desalination is far down the list of alternatives, and on balance creates more problems for less benefit than many other solutions.

And you think conservation can only go so far? If domestic, potable use could be done at the same rate as San Franciscans do, a ton of conservation is possible.

[MADem]

177. Well, it's not so far down the list that they aren't building a plant and have plans for more.

So I have to say I think you're the one who is in a bit of denial about the way the state is going with regard to this issue.



This isn't a chimera--it's happening:

[Gormy Cuss]

185. From article using the same graphic:"Almost every discussion... begins and ends with cost"

Almost every discussion about desalination begins and ends with cost.

Desalinated water typically costs about $2,000 an acre foot -- roughly the amount of water a family of five uses in a year. The cost is about double that of water obtained from building a new reservoir or recycling wastewater, according to a 2013 study from the state Department of Water Resources.

And its price tag is at least four times the cost of obtaining "new water" from conservation methods -- such as paying farmers to install drip irrigation, or providing rebates for homeowners to rip out lawns or buy water-efficient toilets.

"We look out and see a vast ocean. It seems obvious," said Heather Cooley, water director for the Pacific Institute, a nonprofit research organization in Oakland. "But it's cost prohibitive for most places in California."

Several of the proposed plants have already been shelved because water authorities estimate that they can meet water needs more cheaply by other means, so no, desalination on a large scale is not a foregone conclusion in this state. The Carlsbad plant is going to increase water costs to consumers and as the article states, if electricity costs rise it will make the water costs even higher. Not far from this new desalination plant lies the decommissioned San Onofre nuclear power plant, an earlier generation's "easy fix" that didn't work out as well as they thought.

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near?source=infinite

[MADem]

188. And from that same link, in response to the criticisms of someone not directing the process:

The high price is worth it to help San Diego and other regions rely less on water from the Colorado River and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, both of which are overdrawn and increasingly unreliable, said Bob Yamada, water resources manager for the San Diego County Water Authority.

"You can't conserve or recycle what you don't have," Yamada said.

..."In the next 10 years you are probably going to have three big plants built in Southern California and another plant or two in Northern California," Pankratz said. "The trend is toward more desal. They are the most reasonable insurance policy against a long, protracted drought."

It's going to happen, it's getting cheaper and cheaper every day to produce the energy needed to convert the seawater, and it's a hedge against drought.

We'll just have to see how it goes, because one place it's not going is away.

[Gormy Cuss]

189. It's going to happen in Carlsbad. Whether other plants are built in SoCal (or improbably, NorCal)

will depend on the success of the Carlsbad plant at delivering water more economically than other water sources. San Diego county and the Inland Empire have low annual rainfall even when there's no drought which is why they're open to trying this alternative even though it will drive water costs higher immediately.

What is really troublesome though is that the Carlsbad plant is privately owned. That's not a good direction, removing water sourcing from a public responsibility to a private commodity.

[MADem]

190. Since the Carlsbad one is a trial run, of sorts, if it is successful, I could see the

state getting more involved in production of future plants if they go that way--perhaps a public/private mix of funds, if they don't want to go "all the way" and use tax revenues to fund construction.

Over time, every article I've read says, the costs will start to come down and eventually achieve parity with the existing water supply.

If they use wind/solar to power the things, that will take a big bite out of the costs.

[yuiyoshida]

8. I don't know any of the facts but...

I do know we sit by a vast huge ocean here on the west coast. I know California has been in a severe drought for three years. It barely rains here all year except in the winter time. One would think it would be a priority for the state to build these plants along the coast so fresh water can be utilized.

I just don't know what they would do with all that salt,...it has to go some where..

[CreekDog]

11. because it takes energy to run these plants

because San Francisco residents use less water per capita than almost any city in the USA.

because San Francisco already has an ample source of domestic water without any additional need for desalination.

because San Francisco is able to expand it's water supply through sustainable development and use of its groundwater supplies.

What I don't understand is how folks can dismiss the downsides of desalination and then insist we use them, as if desalination were not only our best choice, but seemingly our ONLY choice.

Why do folks think this way?

I can explain it, others can explain it, and yet, many of us still get the response that we should do it anyway. As if no facts matter.

I just don't get it. Sorry.

[yuiyoshida]

14. As for energy we have it...

There is certainly an air flow at the beach, and wind machines would certainly work, plus adding Solar panels on peoples houses since it gets so hot, especially in Southern California, places like Blythe California has plenty of heat, that could be utilized. I have seen these solar farms used some where, and a place like 29 Palms near the desert, would be a great place to have these solar farms.

Also a wave device, placed not far from the beach, in the water, which would have a large propeller that would be turned by the ocean rolling in and rolling out. I have seen these discussed in Popular Science magazine.


All we are talking about is money.. to purchase and use the above items. Maybe if the US government cut military spending and devoted that money to Energy, the entire West coast could be a place for that. Plus, here is the other thing...

The US depends on California's rich areas for farming.. Fresh water to help with farming would be great, and money coming from the Federal Government could maybe fund these energy projects.

[CreekDog]

23. yuiyoshida, what do the experts say about this?

do they agree with you?

what does the science say about what you're recommending, is it scientifically supported?

[yuiyoshida]

25. Well as far as I know...

Wind machines work, SOLAR PANELS work, and so does that Ocean device works. SO , cut spending from the Industrial Military Complex, give that MONEY that's used to build Air Craft Carriers and Jet Fighters, to THOSE in the field of Energy. Once you have your energy you can have your Plants for making Clean water... once you pump that water to the valleys, you can have Fruits and Veggies that Feed the REST of nation...

California is a major Food Supplier to the rest of the country. Those Artichokes you eat come from our state. It all seems to fit together to me.

[CreekDog]

26. I asked what the experts think of the desalination plans you're recommending

what do they say about the idea you're supporting?

[yuiyoshida]

28. Creekdog This is my opinion...

I am not in California state government, but this is ALL stuff I have heard not only here on DU but on the Radio, (KGO San Francisco) on the TV and the internet.


Whats the alternative? Shipping SNOW from THE East Coast to the West coast so we can have fresh water? I think that would be more expensive than a Desalination plant.

[CreekDog]

30. I know it is, but how valid is it if you don't know what the experts say about desalination?

you no doubt think your opinion is a good one.

this is precisely why I posted the thread.

the people who know the most about desalination are not recommending it the way you and others are.

the people who are recommending it don't know much about the technology, it's drawbacks and limitations.

in other words, shouldn't you be learning about the topic before you decide that it's a good idea?

if you are recommending desalination without knowing what experts on the topic think of it, isn't that backwards as an approach?

why would you tell me, "let's do desalination, it's a good idea" without knowing more about the topic?

why wouldn't you say, "i should read what experts on the topic think before i discount their concerns" --why wouldn't you say that first?

[yuiyoshida]

33. You make it sound like its a Nuclear Power plant...

We know how dangerous those are.. look at Fukushima.

How damn dangerous could a desalination plant be?

[CreekDog]

34. Why are you insisting on your idea without knowing some basics about the desalination issue here?

You said you don't know what the experts think of this.

Well don't you think that matters?

Why not read what they say, read up on the issue and THEN post your ideas on it.

Is that too much to ask?

[yuiyoshida]

44. well you are so smart, why don't you lay it out...

YOU wanted energy..i told you how to get energy.
YOU wanted Money,...Again, I told you how to do that...
YOU want Space.. fine, we can find Space...
what more do you need??

[CreekDog]

49. I said the idea you supported required energy, money and space, but I DON'T support that idea

My OP says that I don't support it and all the reasons why!

Jeez.



WHY are you so confident about your idea when you don't even know if the people that know how to create these plants are confident in their use as you're recommending?

You're posting here that we should build these things.

You don't even know if people who know how they are built think the same. Isn't that wild?

Shouldn't you know what experts think before being so confident that your knowledge is more important than theirs?

[yuiyoshida]

60. Geeze... unbelievable...

just unbelievable. How many times do I have to repeat myself.

[CreekDog]

63. What I'm saying is because you lack the knowledge of the topic

No matter how many times you repeat your opinion, it's still flawed.

I'm just asking you to study it first. Is that unfair as a request? Study the issue so that it is not just an opinion, but an informed opinion.

Why can't you just study the topic of desalination and if your study gives you new insights, offer them at that time?

Do you see the problem in supporting an idea without knowledge beforehand?

The issue is your placing your OPINION higher than knowledge of the science, the expertise available on the issue.

Who should a reader here listen to? You or someone, say a scientist or water resources, or ecological expert on the topic?

Who should I, should others listen to on this topic? You, or some other expert like I mentioned?

Who should you listen to, at this point?

What knowledge should you attain to have your idea be as valuable as experts on the topic?

[yuiyoshida]

65. again let me state the obvious

I AM no SCIENTIST but one doesn't need to be a Scientist to SEE WHAT is going on here in California as far as the drought is concerned. Maybe you don't care about this state, but I do. I have lived in Arizona. I have lived in Southern California.. and I remember what the difference was.

Fact: For three years this state has been in severe drought. That's a fact. That is because of climate change. That's PROBABLY not going to change any time soon.

So when our entire agricultural products die on the vine.. its OUR FUCKING TOUGH LUCK, is that it??

[MarshallS]

122. Yes, you are obviously not a scientist, or an engineer, which is more germain to

no matter how much the the subject. So let me try.

Desalinization is expensive. One of the things that makes water so wonderful is that it is such a polar molecule that it "sticks" so well to other stuff. That makes separating water from anything "soluble" is expensive. BTW tap water in the US is tremendously under priced. If you go to, say Holland, and suggest that they water the garden with tap (aka "drinking&quot water, they would laugh at the waste of money. (As an aside, research facilities take municipal water and de-ionize it to pipe slightly cleaner water into individual labs. It ain't cheap. Standard reagent grade water comes in a bottle under a teflon seal, it's price would make you faint.)

Water is heavy. Not "heavy water" I mean the stuff weighs a lot. "A pint's a pound, the world round" isn't just a cute saying, it's (close enough) to being true. Pick a high value crop like, say almonds. Ten percent of CA H2O goes to almonds, which we produce and export for big bucks. Moving that much water from the hypothetical desalinization plants to the Central Valley growers would cost...hang on...A LOT OF FUCKING MONEY! No matter how much the Japanese love almonds, or the Germans depend on California for marzipan at X-mas, or how skimpy Hershey's skimps in their chocolate bars, two hundred dollars a pound almonds aren't going to cut it.

And that's a high value crop. Most of our acreage is in lower value vegetables/fruits/forage crops. Broccoli, lettuce, spinach, hay. Cattle, pigs, chickens gotta eat somethin'. When Foster Farms has to pay quintuple prices for chicken feed, even though a lot of it is chicken guts and feathers, guess what happens.

Add to that the two things that no one wants to talk about. We have been pumping our aquifers dry for decades. There are places in CA where the land has sunk by multiple meters because we have been taking water out of underground "natural storage" for about a hundred years. That aquifer "freebie" will never come back.

The second thing is that that "free" water doesn't have salt (NaCl) enough to kill crops, but it's not really that pure either. Aquifer irrigation water isn't "pure" whatever that means. Trace minerals contaminants, which aren't absorbed by plants, stay in the soil. As it is now, we need more hardy, tough crops to be planted in more and more acreage. As it is, for many parts of California, what's needed is about a millennium of clean rain to rinse the topsoil clean and replenish the aquifers if they can be refilled at all.

Or, remember above, when I spoke of DI (deionized) water? Desalinization isn't enough, DI water isn't really that clean, but if you're willing to pay for $40 romaine, go for it. But the idea that desalinization plants and pumping stations to transport sort-of-clean water to the central valley of CA and still produce a salable crop is nuts.

[Hekate]

130. Good post. Add to that info the appalling articles this week in the LA Times about fracking

Yes, California's aquifers have been fracked -- and flowback wells have 700 hundred times the amount benzene in them that is even remotely safe to drink.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-fracking-20150211-story.html#page=1

[CreekDog]

152. great post

and what is even more troubling is that they use good water to flush the salts and other impurities from those soils

and send it down the drain called the San Joaquin River, among others.

so even if we manage to keep supplying water to water the fields, they'll still require this flushing and that flushing will still end up trashing downstream rivers, which instead should be supporting drinking water, wildlife and even salmon, which are severely compromised now.

thanks again for your post, it was excellent and informative.

thanks for joining, especially if you joined to weigh in on this topic.

[Hekate]

192. Welcome to DU

[CreekDog]

149. which KGO host is saying to desalinate for agriculture?

i would like to start a dialogue with them if i can.

they have a lot of influence.

[greiner3]

71. "Those Artichokes you eat..."

Good thing I don't like Artichokes

[yuiyoshida]

72. omg, i love them...

especially steamed and you can use butter or Mayonnaise. But you know we have Avocados here as well..and Fresh Avocados make guacamole which is also great as a dip for Artichokes! Artichoke hearts are yummy too, (except I don't like the pickled ones.).

[zappaman]

111. Yes!

I like to mix mayo with some siracha sauce.
Perfect dip!

[hunter]

106. Those artichokes are irrigated with reclaimed sewage water.

http://www.mrwpca.org/about_facilities_water_recycling.php

Reclaiming sewage is an idea I fully support.

[yuiyoshida]

112. Which is why its a good idea

to rinse off your artichokes, ...and Mushrooms too when you buy them from the store.

[The2ndWheel]

22. Because that's what we do

What I don't understand is how folks can dismiss the downsides of desalination and then insist we use them, as if desalination were not only our best choice, but seemingly our ONLY choice.

Humans try to get around every limit. The downside of any action is just another limit to transgress. That doesn't mean that the downsides don't continually exist, and are just waiting there for when we can't keep everything together.

We're like a corporation. Privatizing profits and socializing costs. Writing the rules which govern us.

We don't like limits, so of course we're going to increase our reach into the ocean environments. We will try to give ourselves the ability to do it. It doesn't matter how much it costs. It doesn't matter how much energy it takes. It doesn't matter what that means for ocean environments.

[yuiyoshida]

29. I think building a desalination Plant

would be far better than building another nuclear facility...

[CreekDog]

36. if you build all the desalination plants that you propose

the need for nuclear power plants would be greater than without the desalination plants.

study the issue. don't jump to conclusions, study it, then conclude.

[yuiyoshida]

39. SO you want Nuclear power in California...

Yes, Fukushima was not enough for everyone, lets have another melt down in California.

[CreekDog]

43. No, I don't want nuclear power in California, go to Advanced Search and you'll see my opposition

You admit you haven't based your support of desalination on knowing anything about the issue itself.

You just want it.

Study it first, please? Is that too much to ask?

Why offer an opinion without learning the topic first? Why offer an opinion without learning what those who know the most about it, think about it first?

What is the value of your opinion on desalination compared to the value of an expert on the topic?

It's not as valuable. The value is based on the reliability of the idea and the soundness of it. If you don't know what experts know, if you don't know the science and other issues involved, the chances that your idea is not sound and unreliable are higher than that of an expert.

I'm giving you a hard time, but it's not just you.

If you don't know the topic well, study the topic before arguing it. Don't argue first and study later, gain expertise first and argue from knowledge later.

[yuiyoshida]

50. Hello, I DON'T KNOW HOW

A NUCLEAR PLANT works either, I AM NOT a nuclear Scientist, but I CAN SEE the results. I WAS all over that story when that Tsunami Hit JAPAN... I still see how four years later people still are having a hard time going back to the homes they had to evacuate because it was too "hot" to live there.. I have seen the hardship of people living in MAKE shift Shacks and shelters so crowded, and how people have even died, because they were uprooted to their homes.. how many will never be able to GO back. How all that radioactivity has affected the food of that area, and the fishing industry of that area.

You make these desalination plants sound like, god knows, if you push the wrong switch, the entire Ocean will BLOW UP IN MASSIVE FLAMES.

Okay THEY might be expensive, but if CALIFORNIA turns into a freaking Desert, that's okay with some people. California is an important agricultural state that feeds not only us, here in this state but the rest of the nation.

So people just wanta say, "FUCK THAT...LET California dry up and turn into a desert....after all there are a bunch of fruits and nuts that live there.."

NO, I love this state..I have lived her most of my life, and we have to act. We need all of those things I stated... we need the funds, we need those solar panels, we need those solar farms, we need those wind devices and we need those Ocean powered devices that make more energy for the state.

We also need fresh water. Its not going to come from the sky...its not coming from Boston in the form of snow...

so you wanta say, fuck it.. we don't want those plants.. where the fuck are we gonna get fresh water??

[CreekDog]

55. Please, I'm begging you to study the desalination issue in California before making a decision

you're in panic mode thinking the state will dry up like a fallen leaf if we don't build these plants.

[yuiyoshida]

62. HELLO>???

do I HAVE TO PAINT IT FOR YOU?


HOW ABOUT some nice photos...

[CreekDog]

64. you seem to think our only choice is desalination

that's why I'm begging you to study the topic of desalination in California.

but you're refusing.

i don't know what else to say.

[yuiyoshida]

68. FINE!

Give us an ALTERNATIVE.... wait...your going to say move to Washington State, or Oregon right?

[CreekDog]

92. here are the alternatives:

1) groundwater: supplement supply of freshwater with groundwater but use groundwater sustainably --don't overdraw

2) more water recycling and graywater use for domestic and urban irrigation

3) reduce agricultural consumption by prioritizing water supply to less irrigation intensive uses --less water intensive crops

4) desalination only where the use would be local and there are not existing surface and/or sustainable groundwater supplies

desalination isn't a big solution in my book, i'm very skeptical that it is realistic or wise in most places, especially not in the Bay Area and definitely not to be used to supply Central Valley agriculture.

[still_one]

79. Everything should be explored, including desalinization

[yuiyoshida]

82. This!

[CreekDog]

93. I don't have any problem with exploring or studying the ideas

I have an issue with those who have, without knowledge or study, concluded that desalination, on a mass scale, is the solution no matter what.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

12. Pretzels!

I don't know why it is, but after a day or so in either a plastic or paper bag, my pretzel salt on soft pretzels seems to just melt away.

[CreekDog]

16. well, ours gets stuck in our soils in the Central Valley

what happens is all that irrigation water used in Central Valley farmland, evaporates and leaves salts behind.

they accumulate, and as they accumulate, their concentration reduces the viability of the soils.

so they use yet more precious water to *flush* the salts from those soils.

are you sure you want to devote billions and billions of dollars, greatly expand energy use to desalinate and transport desalinated water, to do what I just described?

do you have any idea what kind of tax increase you will need to pay to do this?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

17. Am I sure? No, because I haven't suggested

we build them yet at all.

Were you only expecting people who have been clamouring for desal plants to respond to your OP?

[CreekDog]

19. I was answering rhetorically

You weren't the person that inspired my response, neither was Y.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

21. okie doke. nt

[thelordofhell]

24. Salt is in huge demand

De-Icing alone uses a large amount of salt.............

[yuiyoshida]

31. I am sure California would be happy

To send salt back east for their winter highway use.

There is so much that could be done.. it only takes money, and Again, if its for Energy use, the US should cut funds from the Military Industrial Complex and give it to California to be more energy efficient. Wind devices, Solar panels, Solar farms, and Ocean devices that collect energy from the tides and waves of the Pacific Ocean.

[MADem]

135. Maybe some genius will come up with an engine that runs on salt!

That would kill two birds with one stone--power the movement of the water, and get rid of the excess leftovers!!!

I remember reading about an engine that supposedly ran on salt water a while back, not sure if that was ever truly viable or is being worked on, though....

[CreekDog]

32. not in San Francisco or Los Angeles

but you know what's in short supply in both places?

energy and space for desalination plants.

and you know what's also in supply in both places, already? drinking water.

so what do we do with the desalinated water? pour it on lawns?

what do we do with the water in our reservoirs that we don't use because we're now using desalinated water?

and where do you suppose we get the energy?

[yuiyoshida]

35. Space?

Hello!!!!!! We are BUILDING GODAMN FOOTBALL stadiums here... and BRAND New BALLPARKS...are those IMPORTANT to California? GOTTA love that new stadium for the 49ers... sheesh!! We can find space for those plants and I already said HOW WE CAN get energy.

[CreekDog]

37. we don't have any stadiums on the ocean

and we aren't planning to build any there.

[yuiyoshida]

40. HOW ABOUT on the BAY....

Where THE Raiders play is close to the bay, where the giants play is on the bay, where the 49ers play is by the bay..ITS not the ocean, but that is salt water we are talking about.

[CreekDog]

45. you're recommending we drink water from the San Francisco Bay?

what is the science behind such an idea?

[yuiyoshida]

54. I AM saying the bay is salt water too

and so those stadiums are built there. What is the bay different from the Ocean? You turn salt water into fresh water, and YOU can either use it for agriculture or water your lawn with.

[CreekDog]

75. but how do you know it's a good idea?

what are the downsides to your idea?

[yuiyoshida]

80. YOU KEEP SAYING that...

SO far you have suggested no Alternative..I don't know if you live in California, so maybe you don't care if this state turns into a desert. Maybe you do care when its FUCKING WINTER and SNOW UP to your EYEBALLS, that THIS state provides your supermarket FRESH VEGGIES GROWN right here in this state, but fine....

I ONCE SAW a sign WHILE DRIVING to UTAH...its said "DON'T CALIFORNICATE UTAH" ... YEAH that was a lovely sentiment from a State that benefits from our fresh fruits and Vegetables.

I HAVE heard the snide remarks from people across this Nation about our state and they are welcome to their opinions, but WITHOUT California you would all be eating canned food during the winter time instead of Fresh fruits and Veggies.

California also has the best wines in this nation as well. Places like Santa Barbara and the Napa Vally provide some of the best wines in the world. BUT YEAH, go ahead and allow those fields to dry up.. and the next time you go to the store to buy some wine, the price will be super high and it will be big money out of your pocket.

[CreekDog]

94. I am in San Francisco right now and I was born here

get your facts straight and don't tell me I'm in some other state.

[Gormy Cuss]

100. Better water usage by agriculture would go a long way towards addressing water shortages.

Agriculture is far and away the biggest consumer of potable water in this state. All the consumer and office park conservation efforts are important but the net effect is small.

And while it doesn't seem possible, much of the country could still enjoy fresh fruits and vegetables for much of the year without California imports. They'd be more expensive and there would be less variety but there would be only a couple of months without 'fresh' fruits and vegetables because many store well for months and modern commercial greenhouses allow even tomatoes to be grown in the dead of winter in places like Maine.

While CreekDog has been snarky about it, his core comments about desalination are spot on. Desalination is expensive and largely unnecessary in the northern part of CA. There may be an argument for it in the southern part of the state (most of SoCal away from the coast naturally IS desert after all.) Like you, I don't know a lot about it in terms of costs vs. alternatives.


p.s. AFAIK CreekDog lives in the SF Bay area too.

[yuiyoshida]

109. People who live in the SF BAY AREA

can see the drought, they just have to walk outside, even here in the city and see dead brown grass everywhere. Golden gate park even has some bad patches.. WE need more rain here.. all over the state. And Snow up north would be nice, so it melts and fills the streams and comes south.

[Gormy Cuss]

179. Seeing dead grass isn't a reliable indicator of drought.

Last edited Sat Feb 14, 2015, 08:30 PM - Edit history (1)

That may simply be a sign of water conservation. Our natural landscapes this winter have in fact greened up earlier and are more lush than they ever got last winter; weeds and spring flowers are also earlier than usual. That's because of the December rain. So to an idle observer, it would look like the drought is over. We know differently, of course. With the most recent rains we're on track for an average year of rain and that isn't enough to counteract the effects of the multi-year drought.

In terms of potable water for this area though our rain means little -- it's the snow in the Sierra that feeds our reservoirs.

[Jamastiene]

27. Desalinization is expensive as all fuck.

And an eyesore too. Anyone who even played Sim City knows that. It's no different in real life, except that it is even more of an eyesore and hella more expensive.

[CreekDog]

38. thanks

i don't know why making this argument is such an uphill battle here, but oy, it is.

[JVS]

46. Because people don't like the options available

California is either going to have to decide whether the water is used on agriculture or for people.

[CreekDog]

51. People don't know the options available

you're being too charitable in thinking they've weighed them all.

every DU proponent of mass desalination in California is usually the least knowledgable person about the topic in that thread.

my issue is almost less about the details of this topic than my concern that people don't see the problem in forming opinions without study and discounting the knowledge of those who are expert and have studied the issue.

it's an American cultural phenomenon, sadly.

[Jamastiene]

47. It always will be, because DU's collective IQ is in the toilet now.

It is not even a smidgen of the shadow of what it used to be here.

[CreekDog]

95. and some of the collective IQ here has been displaced by the bricks put in the toilet

[Hekate]

132. What I said to Jamastienne

Oy yoy yoy

[Hekate]

131. LOL

I can't even add to that

[yuiyoshida]

41. So you are USING sim City as a measuring stick?

[Jamastiene]

48. A sense of humor wouldn't hurt you.

You obviously don't get humor. You should try it sometime instead of being so hateful, but you won't. I know.

[yuiyoshida]

57. oh right, like you know me.

And i have a sense of humor thank you.

[BeanMusical]

115. No need to know you.

In post 41 you clearly demonstrated that you don't have a sense of humor. The joke went 20,000 feet over your head.

[yuiyoshida]

117. well thank you JUDGE bean...

Enjoy your day

[BeanMusical]

119. You're welcome.

[MADem]

136. Hateful? Really? She's not being "hateful" at all.

She's reacting to a great deal of agita directed at her over this topic, but she's not being hateful. That's just not a fair characterization at all.

[GP6971]

103. Eyesore is too kind of a description

I saw the one in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia in the late 70s......not only was it ugly, but it took up a lot of acreage.

[Jamastiene]

187. Exactly.

It takes resources, space, power, loads of money, and you end up spending way too much for way too little benefit. I would hate to see California get cluttered up with crap before I get to see it one day. One day, I do want to see California. So, even though I am not from there, I'd like to keep it as beautiful and clean as possible. I have friends and family that live there too. So, for them too, I think about that, what they will have to deal with and go through.

[Adam051188]

42. the plants do require large amounts of energy.

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 06:00 PM - Edit history (1)

the fact that we do not have facilities all over the united states constructing, distributing, and installing solar panels either for free or at a great discount should tell you something about our government's priorities with atmospheric CO2 approaching 400ppm and our military and state department fighting and funding wars over oil reserves.

The american federal government is an implement fully owned and controlled by major industry which does not profit from renewable energy.

i don't think California's topography is prohibitive to transporting water in pipelines from the coast to the interior.

The plan to construct and operate desalination facilities to supplement agricultural region's water needs would be less expensive than the F-35, which seems like a piece of garbage.

[Hekate]

134. California's topography includes the highest portions o/t Sierra Nevada & Cascade mountain ranges

Sure the Federal budget could find money from making wars, but I think the Congress thinks California is on its own, tax-wise. California, btw, is a "donor state" to Uncle Sam -- that is, we send lots more to Washington than we get back. Lucky us.

[jwirr]

52. The population is going to go down if they have to pay for this out of their taxes. And it will not

just be one of these plants but maybe many.

[Throd]

53. Technology never improves to become more efficient and cost effective. Nope, not ever.

In 1903 some guys made a plane out of canvas and twigs that flew a very short distance.

66 years later a different guy was walking around on the moon.

[CreekDog]

58. so we should build desalination plants on a mass scale right now?

so that we can move ocean water to agricultural areas?

build them right now, yes or no?

[Throd]

61. Right now right now? No.

But maybe we should take some of that 100 billion that will be blown on the idiotic "bullet train" and put it towards desalinization research.

[CreekDog]

70. where would you use desalinated water in California?

and for agricultural or domestic uses?

are you so sure that if you had $100 billion to spend on water issues in California that spending it on desalination or research is the best use for that money?

or could it be spent more wisely on other water issues as well?

[Throd]

73. I make no claims to be a water policy expert.

Along with desalinization research, additional storage needs to be built as well. I live 1/4 mile from Folsom Lake and it will be really sad to watch the water level dwindle as the year goes by.

[CreekDog]

83. why not just use less water?

agriculture could gradually switch to less water intensive cultivation, even just a limited effort would accomplish that.

the Imperial Valley has been dealing with reduced water deliveries, are they panicking? Nope. Why? Are they building desalination plants to grow lettuce? Why not?

if you don't know why not, then why are you so confident in your ideas?

[Throd]

90. Everyone is using less water anyway and will conserve more in the future.

But a water austerity program will only go so far. More storage needs to be built and desalinization should be researched.

Just because desalinization isn't perfect today doesn't mean it won't be feasible in the future. Maybe in a few years some geek will come up with a new idea that makes clean water plentiful for everyone.

[CreekDog]

96. actually it only needs to go so far

most of the surface supply goes to agriculture, even small changes can obviate the need for more storage there.

[AgingAmerican]

76. Yes, but

Don't build them for agricultural use. Build them for drinking water along the coast where most of the population lives.

[CreekDog]

86. At least your idea has some logic to it, BUT, the urban areas tend to have their own supplies

...already.

and conservation seems to expand our supply more than anything else.

San Franciscans use less than 50 gallons of water per day now.

and rather than desalination, they're working on a plan that recharges local groundwater (not a current significant source of drinking water) and the plan is that groundwater will be used to provide some supply as long as some threshold is met in terms of the groundwater level itself.

while one could envision desalination as part of the urban supply, even there it's not the #1 choice.

[AgingAmerican]

138. Actually they don't

LA pipes it in from the Colorado river, which might run dry if things keep going the way they are climate wise.

[CreekDog]

154. LA doesn't get drinking water from the Colorado River

they do import water but they don't get it from there.

maybe you were thinking Orange County and San Diego.

[AgingAmerican]

181. Yes they do

I lived in LA. I know these things.

It's called Colorado River Aqueduct and it supplies the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District which serves these cities:

City of Anaheim
City of Beverly Hills
City of Burbank
City of Compton
City of Fullerton
City of Glendale
City of Long Beach
City of Los Angeles
City of Pasadena
City of San Fernando
City of San Marino
City of Santa Ana
City of Santa Monica
City of Torrance
Calleguas Municipal Water District
Central Basin Municipal Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Foothill Municipal Water District
Inland Empire Utilities Agency (IEUA)
Las Virgenes Municipal Water District
Municipal Water District of Orange County
San Diego County Water Authority
Three Valleys Municipal Water District
Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District
West Basin Municipal Water District
Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County

http://www.mwdh2o.com/

[hunter]

184. LA City proper gets it's water from the Eastern Sierra and local groundwater.

The city dried up the Owens Valley, 233 miles north, to get it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mulholland

It has a stake in Colorado River water, but that source has been stretched far beyond it's capacity most years, mostly at the expense of Mexico and Native Americans. Southern California took a huge hit when Arizona and Nevada started taking their "share" of Colorado River water.

I happen to be one of those radical environmentalists who thinks Glen Canyon Dam, upstream the Grand Canyon should be removed when it goes entirely stagnant, which seems likely to happen this century.

At the moment it seems likely our civilization will sputter out, we will lose our ability to maintain this dam, and then some very bad year the dam will fail leaving an inglorious path of destruction all the way to the Gulf of California.

The dam almost failed in 1983, and the only thing that saved everyone living downstream, and probably all the dams downstream, was some quick thinking, a few of truckloads of plywood panels, and a break in the weather.

[Exultant Democracy]

69. Thank you for the common sense. They said the same about solar as little as 3 years ago.

There in no way for a layman to keep up with the pace of improvements in our technology. I think there is a good chance the OP is coming from this from the totally wrong angle. For example the right bacteria could make the energy requirement moot, or even make a net positive gain in energy.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/32558231/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/study-bacteria-can-make-salt-water-drinkable/
Maybe someone will figure out how to make what these folks are trying work on a massive scale. Of course if we throw up our hands and say impossible then we will definitely fail.

[CreekDog]

98. I'm 100% right that we should not desalinate water at the coast to grow cotton in the Central Valley

or to grow alfalfa in the Central Valley.

and we should not desalinate water to flush the salts from fields, salts that are there because of irrigation.

if you don't understand these aspects of water use in California, then you have no basis to say I'm wrong.

[Exultant Democracy]

105. You can be right on unsustainable Californian farming while wrong about desalinization

at the same time. You continue to point to the energy cost associated with it, which is a very defeatist attitude toward developing a technology.

I don't understand why people want to eat out of those oil fields in the first place, if people saw a lot of the farm acreage in California I think they would freak out.

[Throd]

116. Why would they freak out? A lot of the produce I eat comes from that acreage.

[Exultant Democracy]

127. Oil pumps in the middle of every field pumping away, it's very disturbing.

[Throd]

180. I guess I'm just used to it.

[Warpy]

56. Producing enough for agriculture is cost prohibitive.

Converting from spray and trench irrigation to drip systems will take some of the pressure off the water supply but if the California drought continues much longer, a lot of ag land is going to be rendered useless until the drought ends, if it does.

Potable water on the coasts might have a better solution, producing water from coastal humidity and fog:

[Major Nikon]

191. Or simply producing food from methods that require far less water

The technology to do so is already here and it's already been implemented in many markets.

One such solution is hydroponics. It also uses very little land and can be implemented inside city centers, which mitigates the problems associated with transportation.

[KamaAina]

59. Could they be solar-powered?

[GeorgeGist]

66. Creative people need not apply?

[CreekDog]

156. creativity should be tapped to solve problems

not sustain them.

the way we use water in California is a problem.

finding a new source so we can keep doing the wrong things with it is not something we should be using our creativity for.

[Gore1FL]

67. What is your solution? n/t

[CreekDog]

99. Not making the problem worse is the basic theme

I'd address the demand side. Our water supply will be reduced using our current systems, but that still leaves us a lot to work with to supply both agricultural and domestic uses. Conservation on the domestic side, as well as recycling and graywater uses can bring domestic use to very small amounts.

San Francisco uses less than 50 gallons per person per day.

As for agriculture, the Imperial Valley has been dealing with big cuts in water deliveries from the Colorado River, not as much due to drought but because other states are using their rightful allocations, and Imperial Valley has been thriving nevertheless --and they're in the most arid region of the country, drought or not.

[Gore1FL]

120. Are there reclaimation options?

I'm fortunate. I live at the confluence of the MO into the MS. Demand control is definitely a short-term remedy, but ultimately it seems like some sort of infrastructure will be required if it going to sustain a large population into the future--especially with climate change only getting worse.

[MisterP]

74. it's the "quick fix" syndrome: the panacea looks so good they feel compelled to post it

Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 06:18 PM - Edit history (1)

all over the place--usually just the word alone, or maybe a link to a crank site

so far I've counted: the Dvorak keyboard, the draft, pebble bed reactors, personal rapid transit, self-driving cars, Mars missions, the Hyperloop, British republicanism, intactivism, getting a Mac, getting a Dyson, metrication, Esperanto, hiding next to furniture rather than under it during a quake, term limits, cremation, geoengineering, school uniforms, cryogenics, and telecommuting: not all, but enough, of their advocates do nothing but spam their hobby-horse in every tangentially-related field

this isn't necessarily a criticism of those things or the research on it, but of their being turned into slogans that people litter everywhere without any economics, physics, or actual thinking about the issue, like a one-word hit-and-run is going to overturn our whole way of thinking

and the campaigns always promise so much that they verge into the literally-impossible (that was the Scottish referendum's problem: it got outright Fourierist): and it's always said to be a royal road out of war and poverty, always uses one-tenth the energy and costs one-tenth as real-world solutions, always lighter and stronger and faster, and is 100% downside-free

[CreekDog]

87. Your post should be its own OP

thanks. you're getting at the larger issue for me.

[still_one]

77. Do you have any idea what the drought is costing farmers, and if this

Continues something needs to be done, at least for a long term solution

Desalinazation plants should not be the only path, but it should not be thrown out just because of costs.

Most electric cars or solar energy was cost prohibitive, but prices have come down, and will continue to do so

Tesla would never have happened if cost was the only factor, and that led to the leaf, the volt, an others

[Hekate]

140. Agribusiness needs to stop overhead irrigation, period, and go to drip. Gray water & reclaimed water

...need to be more widely used in ag.

During the last big drought we had (not even as bad as this, which is the worst on record) a lot of "institutional lawns and gardens" (i.e. the University, City Hall, some businesses) posted signs indicating that they were using non-potable reclaimed water, and warned in two languages not to drink it. Some households use gray water, but it's a pain to go to the city or county and get permission to have the systems installed -- there are legitimate health concerns, after all.

[hunter]

78. Water projects are like freeways.

Build them and people will come. And then you have to build more.

Developers love them.

It makes more sense to simply use less water, and to encourage people to move where the fresh water is.

Some of California's Central Valley simply shouldn't be farmed. The soil contains high levels of toxic elements and these leach out and contaminate waters downstream. The dairy farms and feed lots, cows and cattle standing on great mountains of shit, nothing green in sight, are not improving the environment either.

As for the California Coast, we ought to be undeveloping it, not developing it, restoring natural wetlands in retreat from rising oceans and ahead of the coming storms. That will much reduce the need for imported water.

But it will probably take about a century of highways and celebrities' houses falling into the ocean before we clue in.

[haele]

84. Desalination could be used for the coastal areas to reduce export water

I know that it doesn't help inland, but there is a large enough amount of agriculture - and industrial use - along the coast, as well as the majority of the population base that an investment in 3 or 4 strategically placed desalination plants would be economical in the long run.
I would also like to see a grey-water/black-water treatment and recycling plant in place.
More importantly, I would like to see a plan for a infrastructure separation between recycled agricultural/heavy industrial/sewage use water and potable water for drinking, cooking and health use (bathing, washing), which will probably have to be built into new construction or as some sort of add-on. We just don't have enough potable water available that we can have a shared use between actual drinking/cooking/health and agricultural/sewage/heavy industrial. The water my plumber uses to mix thin-set does not have to be drinking quality.

Something everyone forgets...elsewhere in the world where there's a shortage in potable water - including first world countries, like Germany or England, it's very expensive to provide water to a population.

As much as it pains me to say this as a California resident living paycheck to paycheck - If I must be pragmatic, California water is not as expensive as it should be for large volume users - including residential users.
If the state can offset a rise in the cost of water per gallon with subsidies or rebates for repairs or purchasing grey-water processing, leak-detecting and water-saving devices, or implement some sort of low-income/multi-resident/medical needs program as they do for electrical utilities, most residents won't be too badly hurt by a necessary look at how much potable water and water delivery in California.

So a Desalination Plant is a start. Otherwise, we soon run out of affordable water, without any back-up or mitigation started. Putting it off only makes the pain greater when it happens.

Haele

[Hekate]

143. Informative and well-said. Thanks, haele. nt

[TheKentuckian]

91. People don't want the real answers of protecting our freshwater, giving back to the desert, and

reducing population and therefore demand.

Desalination? How about not poisoning the good water we have while pissing much of the rest into the sand to maintain golf courses and multimillion person metropolises in the desert?

[One_Life_To_Give]

97. What is the cost of shutting down California farms?

If food wasn't grown there, then water wouldn't be such a problem. So what is the effect of shutting down California agriculture? I would think places like Brazil would be happy to replace the lost production.

[cherokeeprogressive]

101. You're talking about greatly increasing the carbon footprint of every piece of produce. n/t

[MADem]

139. California, by itself, is one of the world's largest economies.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-16/brown-s-california-overtakes-brazil-with-companies-leading-world

(Bloomberg) -- California is overtaking Brazil as the world’s seventh-largest economy, bolstered by rising employment, home values and personal and corporate income, a year after the most-populous state surpassed Russia and Italy.
The Golden State, with an equivalent gross domestic product of $2.20 trillion in 2013, expanded last year by almost every measure, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Brazil’s gross domestic product, in contrast, declined 1 percent from $2.25 trillion in the first three quarters of 2014 as its export of raw materials fell.

[Trajan]

107. Something seems untoward about this commentary.

I can't quite put my finger on it ...

After all, people might get thirsty ... don't use a proven technology to help supply water to the population? ...

And, looking downthread; someone spoke of reducing the population ... by what method?

Something is stinking here ...

[CreekDog]

108. If people were literally at risk of dying from thirst, I'd support anything to avoid that

including desalination.

but as i've stated on this topic, my argument is that desalination is not the best solution, and it's not even needed in almost all our urban areas. the only places where it could be argued a new supply is needed is in agriculture, but desalinating water for high intensity irrigation in distant and inland areas separated from the source by mountain ranges is foolish, not smart.

and while i do support sustainable population growth, personally i'm against laws that limit reproduction and i'm against limitations on immigration which some would justify on the basis that if we don't have as many Americans, we will harm the planet less.

instead i support reducing poverty and improving women's rights, both of these lead to reduced birthrates and lessened poverty.

[Kaleva]

110. The world's largest solar powered desalination plant is being built in Saudi Arabia.

The Al Khafji desalination plant is projected to produce about 60,000 m3 of water a day (1,5850,323 US gal) and it will be powered by a 15 megawatt solar array.

[CreekDog]

158. yes and California gets many times the rain amounts that Saudi Arabia does

and gets less sun.

so why would we be doing that?

we have supplies that they don't.

why would we build a system as if we were Saudi Arabia?

do you think they'd build that system if they didn't need it?

[Kaleva]

186. California doesn't have a uniform enviroment and climate thoughout the state.

Some parts get as little precipitation and as much sun as parts of Saudi Arabia.

To the north of LA lies Edwards AFB which sits on 470 square miles of land. To the east of LA is NAWS China Lake situated on 1718 square miles of land. To the south east is Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range takes up another 712 square miles.

Topaz Solar Farm is a 550-megawatt (MW) photovoltaic power station is located in San Luis Obispo County, California and is currently the world's largest solar farm. The station rests on 10 square miles of land.

If one were to build solar farms on just 10% of Edwards AFB, NAWS China Lake and Chocolate Mountain Aerial Gunnery Range, it'd be possible to have a combined PV power station with a nameplate capacity 30 times that of Topaz. About 16.5 GW. It takes about 3 kWh to desalinate 1 cubic meter of seawater.

Desalinization plants have been built and are being built on the coast of southern California. The power required to operate these and future plants is readily and reliably available.

[CreekDog]

193. Nearly all of California is wetter than most of Saudi Arabia

I have no idea why you suggest a far wetter place act like it's as dry as Saudi Arabia.

[JCMach1]

113. In the UAE, they build desalinization plants that work in conjunction with generating stations

So, it's not all bleak... The problem is CA should have been building these for years... they are going to have to catch-up in a hurry.

[CK_John]

114. Is anyone using sound vibration or deep ocean layers of temp,pressure, and salinity

to provide fresh water. Sort of cherry pick the oceans itself for the least salty layers and location. Seems like we may be able to cut the input energy and concentrate on the transportation and distribution.

[JCMach1]

178. The reason why they couple the desalinization with electric generation is that it uses the excess

heat from the burning of whatever fossil fuel you are using to get the process rolling.

There have also been big advances in reverse osmosis filtration in recent years... kind of like with solar, the costs have come way down.

[nationalize the fed]

118. Much of the rest of the world would disagree

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Existing_facilities_and_facilities_under_construction

Estimates vary widely between 15,000-20,000 desalination plants producing more than 20,000 m3/day.

Algeria
Believed to have at least 15 desalination plants in operation

Australia
Large-scale seawater reverse osmosis plants (SWRO) now contribute to the domestic water supplies of several major Australian cities including Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and the Gold Coast

Israel
By 2014, Israel's desalination programs provided roughly 35% of Israel's drinking water and it is expected to supply 40% by 2015 and 70% by 2050.

Saudi Arabia
The Saline Water Conversion Corporation of Saudi Arabia provides 50% of the municipal water in the Kingdom, operates a number of desalination plants, and has contracted $1.892 billion[124] to a Japanese-South Korean consortium to build a new facility capable of producing a billion liters per day, opening at the end of 2013. They currently operate 32 plants in the Kingdom

United Arab Emirates
At least 12 desalination plants

More detail and more countries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination#Existing_facilities_and_facilities_under_construction

Cost? the US is currently spending >$10 MILLION DOLLARS PER HOUR on the wars and "homeland security".
http://costofwar.com

Also, the US manages to pump oil from the top of Alaska to the bottom, over mountains, for 800 miles

[CreekDog]

159. those places would not be desalinating on a large scale if they were California

California has resources they don't, California has water those places don't.

California shouldn't do mass desalination with such substantial existing supplies.

And if they were us, they wouldn't be doing it.

And, did you read my OP? My OP questioned the desire to desalinate for agricultural reasons, which no area with as much water as California, has done or would want to do.

[Journeyman]

123. The promise of desalination comes with a host of endemic problems and concerns . . .

The need for massive amounts of energy to drive it, the ravages to oceanic life and the coastal impact from the intake, the seemingly intractable problem of saline disposal, and the ever-present issue of funding for construction and maintenance (witness the near-criminal response the plant at Huntington Beach, California has generated, what with the proposed requirement that participating water districts must pay for their full allotment of water no matter whether they need it or not in any given year).

The Pacific Institute has an informative report on the topic:

Desalination, With a Grain of Salt: A California Perspective

available for free download from the Institute's website:

http://pacinst.org/publication/desalination-with-a-grain-of-salt-a-california-perspective-2/

In Desalination, With a Grain of Salt – A California Perspective, the Pacific Institute provides a comprehensive overview of the history, benefits, and risks of ocean desalination, and the barriers that hinder more widespread use of this technology, especially in the context of recent proposals for a massive increase in desalination development in California. Long considered the Holy Grail of water supply, desalination offers the potential of an unlimited source of fresh water purified from the vast oceans of salt water that surround us. The public, politicians, and water managers continue to hope that cost-effective and environmentally safe ocean desalination will come to the rescue of water-short regions. While seawater desalination plants are already vital for economic development in many arid and water-short areas of the world, many plants are overly expensive, inaccurately promoted, poorly designed, inappropriately sited, and ultimately useless. To avoid new, expensive errors, policymakers and the public need to take a careful look at the advantages and disadvantages of desalination and develop clear guidance on how to evaluate and judge proposals for new facilities.

The potential benefits of ocean desalination are great, but the economic, cultural, and environmental costs of wide commercialization remain high. In many parts of the world, alternatives can provide the same freshwater benefits of ocean desalination at far lower economic and environmental costs. These alternatives include treating low-quality local water sources, encouraging regional water transfers, improving conservation and efficiency, accelerating wastewater recycling and reuse, and implementing smart land-use planning.

while UC Berkley hosted the author of the report, Heather Cooley, which the University posted to YouTube as part of its "California Colloquium on Water":

Thanks for your post, CreekDog. Too many people see that giant ocean next to us and seem to believe the answer to our problems is an easy answer away.

Personally, we'd be better off spending what money people want to throw at desalination in a more useful pursuit, helping farmers across the state develop more efficient irrigation methods -- drip instead of flood, for one.

[Hekate]

144. Ah, science. Thanks for this, Journeyman. nt

[CreekDog]

160. Thank you for your post

Excellent and addresses the key issues perfectly.

[Turbineguy]

148. Desalinization at low pressures

can use low temperatures using cooling water from other uses. Stack gasses on natural gas fired power plants could supply a heat source that is otherwise wasted. Desalinators coupled with steam power plants can use LP turbine bleed steam. Solar is also ideal for feed heaters.

[JDPriestly]

157. "Creek"dog says it all.

Does anyone know what it would cost if California's drought got any worse?

Does anyone know what would happen to food prices (especially in the winter) if California's agricultural sector were to fold?

Dams and flood control also cost money.

California voters just voted to raise and spend a lot of money to deal with water issues. The drought in California may and is by some scientists expected to be just a harbinger of droughts to come in other parts of the country.

If we get better technology, and we will, desalination will become a realistic alternative. I don't know whether you read the headlines about Tesla's development of a hydrogen-based battery to heat and cool our homes.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096778_tesla-to-offer-batteries-to-consumers-for-home-energy-storage

The technology to produce the energy to desalinate water will become less expensive if it is used. It is just a matter of time and investment in the research. I've seen a lot. Just this evening I was thinking about the first time I used a computer. For me it was 1985. The progress made in the field of computers since that time is just unbelievable. I remember using an electric typewriter for the first time. Technology develops very quickly.

[CreekDog]

165. While you say that we can make supply the energy to desalinate easily in the future

the fact that you don't mention any energy needed to move it long distances, uphill to agricultural areas suggests that you don't understand the feasibility of what you're advocating.

[JDPriestly]

168. The Romans moved water downhill. We just have to make uphill, downhill.

That can be done. Especially today. If we need water, we will find a way to deliver it to the Central Valley. Otherwise we do without the food produced in that area. That could be even more expensive than getting water to that area.

[CreekDog]

169. We do move it uphill at great cost

And no we don't have to desalinate water to preserve agriculture in the Central Valley.

If you think our only choice is to do what you're saying or agriculture will die off, then you're thinking in black and white and you're wrong.

[CreekDog]

170. tell us the tax increase in thousands of dollars per year you're willing to pay for this alone

how much money are you willing to kick in for extra taxes to fund this?

you are going to pay for this, right? the infrastructure, the energy to desalinate, to move the water, etc.?

were you thinking that big agriculture is going to pay for all that to grow alfalfa and almonds?

were you actually thinking they'd do that?

no, we're going to pay it.

so tell me, how much you're going to kick in per year, in the thousands.

cause it ain't cheap.

[JDPriestly]

172. The aquaducts weren't cheap either.

Nor are the dykes in Holland.

We have to have water. It's a necessity. The alternative is to abandon large human settlements in California. I don't think that is going to happen.

The building of the railroads was also an impossible project.

Then there was the building of interstate highways and the development of the auto industry. All impossibly expensive when viewed at the outset.

It will happen gradually but surely. It will happen.

Israel and Saudi Arabia already use water desalination technology however primitive.

[CreekDog]

173. you're saying we won't have any water unless we desalinate?

incorrect.

[JDPriestly]

174. We could find water somewhere else, but at this time, where would that be?

I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that we will find some other solution.

While water costs more in California, heating costs a lot less. And we have trees around our house so we don't use air conditioning. We spend more in some areas and less in others. The agricultural areas will need water. But we need the food from the agricultural areas. We spend very little on heat. This year our heating bills are even lower than usual. So there is some give and take.