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: 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.