SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:19PM
I've had the concept in my head for a long time of using nuclear power to desalinate ocean water and solve our county's water problems. Build a fleet of the latest safest reactors to power desalination plants along the coast of California. (If its safer to put the reactors elsewhere in the state do it.) Why nuclear? It doesn't pollute the atmosphere with carbon (and other nasty things), and the waste can be contained and moved around instead of pumped into the air. Solar, wind, and geothermal could help power this setup, but I don't think they can provide enough regular power to make this work by themselves.
Start by providing all the water for LA and San Diego, then build a pipeline/aqueduct to Phoenix so that when their aquifer runs out, they have a source of water. Use nuclear reactors that are NOT a once through fuel setup so they don't use obscene amounts of uranium -- perhaps a design like the IFR or a LFTR, that's a question better answered by nuclear engineers. Then build industrial facilities to extract as many useful things (like salt) from the brine before we throw it back into the sea. Take any reasonable precautions to protect sea life from the desalination process. Fund all this federally. Saving California is worth it for the whole country. Not to mention that a huge public works project like that would be a great economic stimulus.
I have a concept in my head to address nuclear power's biggest weakness, corporate corner cutting and mismanagement, if anyone is interested in hearing it, reply to this comment, and I'll type it up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:27PM
> build a pipeline/aqueduct to Phoenix so that when their aquifer runs out, they have a source of water.
Better build at least a couple miles a year, because Phoenix only has 100 years' worth of water left... that we know about.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:33PM
I have read that their main aquifer only has about another 30 years of water left.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:28PM
Why not jump on the thorium bandwagon?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:32PM
I have a good place on mind: San Andreas Lake
(grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Monday April 13 2015, @01:49AM
Use solar concentrators instead?
Nuclear reactors near the coast in an earthquake zone with a lot of people and corporate corner cutting.. hmm ask the Japanese how that works out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @06:36AM
Parent AC poster here.
I agree that corporate profiteering and corner cutting are a MAJOR problem with nuclear, in fact probably the largest flaw of that method of energy production. There was another plant that was similar to Fukushima at Onagawa. You can read the whole story here. [oregonlive.com] The short version is that the corporate people wanted a cheaper cooling system, and a lower seawall. One of the men involved insisted upon, and got, a taller seawall, and a cooling system that could deal with the lack of water from a tsunami. Onagawa survived the tsunami without any major problems. They got cheap at Fukushima.
I propose a possible solution to this corporate problem -- socialization and nationalization. While I won't write up my whole proposition, basically the short version is as follows. Nationalize the entire nuclear power generation industry. Pay everyone that works at a plant at least double, if not triple the going wage for their job. Now, here's the kicker: When people take those jobs, they become liable to the full extent of their assets if the plant melts down. This applies especially to the administrators at the top, and goes all the way down to the guy sweeping the floor. So, if the plant goes, so do the houses, cars, and all the money of those responsible. Basically, financially speaking, the workers and administrators marry the plant. Who is going to want to risk their gravy train by cutting corners?
Now, since the government has a magical power of being able to operate enterprises for the public good at a loss (like the military), the nuclear arm can run with a different set of priorities. Instead of the usual corporate priority -- profit, profit, more profit, and some profit after that; the nuclear arm can run with the priorities of safety, producing the energy that the country needs, and seeking to break even economically, in that order.
All that being said, if the renewables can truly ramp up to provide the energy necessary to desalinate and pump enough water to meet California's demand, that would be great. When I think the epic amount of energy necessary to desalinate, purify, and then pump most of the water California needs, I just don't see the renewables being able to do it alone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @10:06PM
The liability point you bring up is interesting, but I don't think it would work because it is too long-term. Tie the liability to frequent external safety reviews so there is an immediate consequence that is less financially catastrophic. This would have the added benefit of catching problems early that may be missed by internal reviews.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @02:44AM
Heh. Find the most expensive method ever devised to boil water|generate electricity and use it to make the most expensive potable water ever.
Meanwhile, Cali get pounded with petawatts of sunlight.
March 24, 2015
California Is The First State To Get More Than 5 Percent Of Its Power From Solar [thinkprogress.org]
-- gewg_