Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Sunday April 12 2015, @07:57PM   Printer-friendly
from the salty-savior dept.

Justin Gillis writes in the NYT that as drought strikes California, residents "can't help but notice the substantial reservoir of untapped water lapping at their shores — 187 quintillion gallons of it, more or less, shimmering invitingly in the sun."

Once dismissed as too expensive and harmful to the environment, desalination is getting a second look. [...] A $1 billion desalination plant to supply booming San Diego County is under construction and due to open as early as November, providing a major test of whether California cities will be able to resort to the ocean to solve their water woes. [...] "It was not an easy decision to build this plant," says Mark Weston, chairman of the agency that supplies water to towns in San Diego County. "But it is turning out to be a spectacular choice. What we thought was on the expensive side 10 years ago is now affordable."

Carlsbad's product will sell for around $2,000 per acre-foot (the amount used by two five-person U.S. households per year), which is 80 percent more than what the county pays for treated water from outside the area. Water bills already average about $75 a month and the new plant will drive them up by $5 or so to secure a new supply equal to about 7 or 8 percent of the county's water consumption.

Critics say the plant will use a huge amount of electricity, increasing the carbon dioxide emissions that cause global warming, which further strains water supplies. And local environmental groups, which have fought the plant, fear a substantial impact on sea life. "There is just a lot more that can be done on both the conservation side and the water-recycling side before you get to [desalination]," says Rick Wilson, coastal management coordinator with the environmental group Surfrider Foundation. "We feel, in a lot of cases, that we haven't really explored all of those options."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by SubiculumHammer on Sunday April 12 2015, @08:40PM

    by SubiculumHammer (5191) on Sunday April 12 2015, @08:40PM (#169402)

    Agreed. Although one of the more expensive problems with desalinization is pumping the water from the coast to the central valley where 80% of California's water is used for farming.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Adamsjas on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:44PM

    by Adamsjas (4507) on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:44PM (#169431)

    Agreed, the pumping cost is always there, but it is free once you build the infrastructure.

    Solar power on the mountain sides could power the whole project, including the desalination process. (if its reverse osmosis it really only needs pumps).

    I've often thought that if any place could make de-sal work without burning a boatload of oil it would be California, and Arizona.

    • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Sunday April 12 2015, @11:34PM

      by captain normal (2205) on Sunday April 12 2015, @11:34PM (#169464)

      "...but it is free once you build the infrastructure."
      "(if its reverse osmosis it really only needs pumps)"

      There is nothing "free" about running and maintaining a RO desal plant, to say nothing about maintaining any large scale solar power plant. Besides having to clean and change filters often, Pumps moving salt water have to be maintained and replaced. All not "free". Then there is the cost of keeping the intake strainers and filters unclogged . These also require constant maintenance...Also not "free". Then there is question of what to do with the heavy brine discharge (which is also quite a bit warmer than the coastal waters off California. Not an easy engineering task. This also adds to the list of parts that need constant maintenance. No or this is "free" nor is it a trivial expense.
      There are much better and less costly technologies being developed. Building and blowing huge amounts of tax dollars and added water bills on maintenance will look foolishly shortsighted and wasteful in a few years.

      --
      When life isn't going right, go left.
      • (Score: 2) by Leebert on Monday April 13 2015, @02:37AM

        by Leebert (3511) on Monday April 13 2015, @02:37AM (#169519)

        There are much better and less costly technologies being developed.

        Can you elaborate a bit?

        • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday April 13 2015, @03:48AM

          by captain normal (2205) on Monday April 13 2015, @03:48AM (#169535)
          --
          When life isn't going right, go left.
          • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 13 2015, @05:44AM

            by frojack (1554) on Monday April 13 2015, @05:44AM (#169555) Journal

            Sorry, Its still strictly in the world of "doesn't work." At least not for seawater desalination. Your own link says as much.
            And, it has EVERY SINGLE DRAWBACK that you mentioned above for regular RO plants.

            RO is proven technology, used in countries all over the world. Its well understood.

            Further Solar powered small RO plants are off the shelf [dwc-water.com] products.
            Large scale Solar RO [hitachi.com] plants are also well established.

            On top of that, you twisted my words. I said the pumping was free by using solar power. I didn't say the entire plant was free, or never needed maintenance.

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.