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: 2, Interesting) by Natales on Sunday April 12 2015, @08:34PM
It's about time the desalination topic start to get more coverage. 75% of the surface of the planet is covered with water. California is a coastal state. Simply dismissing desalination as a viable option is just lack of imagination.
All the problems the critics point to are really engineering problems. They can ALL be addressed with the proper technology and R&D investment. In fact, they could spur a bonanza of new technologies and start-up companies that would ultimately make desalination a a much efficient and safe for sea creatures. As I've pointed before in another thread, Saudi Arabia is building the largest desalination plant in the world [cleantechnica.com], all powered by solar. Why not California?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by SubiculumHammer on Sunday April 12 2015, @08:40PM
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.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Adamsjas on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:44PM
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
"...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.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by Leebert on Monday April 13 2015, @02:37AM
Can you elaborate a bit?
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Monday April 13 2015, @03:48AM
Here is a lead to one: http://scitechdaily.com/researchers-develop-graphene-membrane-water-filters/ [scitechdaily.com]
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 13 2015, @05:44AM
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.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @08:45PM
says Rick Wilson
The dude who lives in florida and rants on twitter about everything. Yeah hes a viable source to listen to for something on the other end of the country.
SoCal specifically SD is ideal for solar. They should be in 100% on it. OH wait... they are. The company I used to work for slathered all their buildings in it. Lets just say if that company says should happen in that city, it does.
The only reason I have not put solar up on my house is because I am about to sell it. I want the ROI not the next owner. Selfish I know but hey there we are...
There are downsides with this tech. Specifically brine and waste filters. What do you do with it? Is there a way we can reuse it? Are we removing things from the environment that are needed. Things that need to be addressed. But to not do it because of these things will be short sighted on their part.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by gznork26 on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:30PM
The salt can be used to offset the huge amounts of fresh water melt entering the North Atlantic from Greenland and weakening the salinity-based current that drives the Gulf Stream. The by-product of one solution is the solution to another problem.
Khipu were Turing complete.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:47PM
The by-product of one solution is the solution to another problem.
Except of the small problem of moving billions of gallons of material to the other side of the world of something that pretty much acts like a long term acid with metal. Plus the idea may or may not work? Plus what sort of organisms would you be introducing to that area that are not native? Or perhaps one organism in that stew that is prey for another but the predator can not live in that temperature/salinity range and you create a huge algae blooms?
It is not an 'easy' problem to solve and one that could cause many others. Go slow but dont stop! It is a good idea. But do not be so quick to say you have a plan to fix it.
If you could pump that much sludge from greenland to socal you would be better off going the other way... Probably from the great lakes would be easier.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 12 2015, @11:53PM
That would be an equally valid complaint to make against relocating oil, yet someone finds the economic benefit suffucient to outweigh the cost of doing it. Who cares if a few environments and species are devastated when (not if) the spills occur, right? It's just a statistical cost of doing business.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday April 12 2015, @10:09PM
So ship this salt all the way to the Atlantic then?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @02:24AM
Put the salt in blue cylindrical boxes and sell it.
Want to really draw in the suckers?
Mention that it's SEA salt and that it's ALL NATURAL. [wordpress.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 4, Informative) by mendax on Sunday April 12 2015, @11:26PM
Well, not really. Given that the water from desalinization plants will be used in cities, most of it will eventually end up back in the ocean anyway after passing through treatment plants.
Honestly, the best way of dealing with a drought in a city is to reuse the water you already have. Water that goes through the sewage treatment plants is drinkable when it comes out. It really ought to simply be pumped back into the fresh water supply.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Hartree on Sunday April 12 2015, @11:34PM
They've been trying to get water consumers to accept that for some time. The problem is that human thought just can't get over the idea that it's recycled toilet water no matter that it's absolutely pristine pure after treatment. So, instead they treat it somewhat and then inject it back in the ground to recharge the aquifer. More expensive, and not as effective, but the consumers will accept it as somehow being different water than the waste water.
It's the same idea as a toddler not wanting "that" juice. So you put it behind your back so they lose track of it and magically now it's different juice. ;)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Monday April 13 2015, @06:15AM
They've been trying to get water consumers to accept that for some time.
No they haven't.
No where in North America is sewer outfall considered safe to drink. Even after tertiary treatment. Good enough to water lawns, wash cars, flush toilets, but not for drinking or cooking.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Hartree on Monday April 13 2015, @08:43AM
It requires more than just tertiary treatment but it is already being used here in the US.
Here's just one organization that's brought it up: https://www.watereuse.org/foundation/research/DPR-Initiative [watereuse.org]
One of the members of WateReuse Research Foundation is American Water which (among many other places) supplies the water for much of East Central Illinois where I live (My town is independent of them, but where I work, the University of Illinois and Urbana Illinois are supplied by them.)
Here's another article where both Big Spring, Texas and Wichita Falls, Texas are already doing it: http://www.wateronline.com/doc/texas-leads-the-way-with-first-direct-potable-reuse-facilities-in-u-s-0001 [wateronline.com]
There was a whole bunch of PR done about it a couple years ago on NPR and other media outlets.
Yes, they use it as input to their existing potable water treatment plant as 50/50 mix with raw water and it never goes back into the aquifer.
The comment previous to me mentioned sewer plant output being drinkable directly, and I think that's what you conflated with mine. But even with further treatment, there is considerable public push back on DPR.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @09:46AM
Given that the majority of water use is for watering lawns, washing cars, flushing the toilet and similar activities, and only a minor part actually goes into drinking, that's fine. You also might use that water for agriculture, another big consumer of water where no one would mind using treated sewage water — after all, for organic food you put animal excrements on the fields!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Monday April 13 2015, @06:11PM
The Black Diamond water company got around that by bottling the water and selling it as "water from the Black Diamond" in a different location. (I think Black Diamond was a coal mine, but I never checked.) But it *was* recycled sewage. Possibly the ran it through the coal mine after treating it, but I don't know that they even did that. (I only saw a short article about it once in, I think, the 1980's. You might check out http://www.ci.blackdiamond.wa.us/homepage.html [blackdiamond.wa.us] if you're interested enough.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday April 13 2015, @06:10AM
Water that goes through the sewage treatment plants is drinkable when it comes out.
Ummm, No. Not really. Nowhere except perhaps the ISS.
http://www.beachapedia.org/Sewer_Systems_and_Sewage_Treatment [beachapedia.org]
Reclaimed water (also sometimes called recycled water or tertiary treated water) is wastewater that has gone through primary and secondary treatment and typically additional filtration and/or chlorination/dechlorination. It is often used for irrigation of parks, golf courses, and general landscaping. It is not suitable for drinking.
There are other issues as well, such as drugs. [scientificamerican.com]
Even with tertiary treatment, water is not safe for drinking due to frequent lapses in these systems, and their inability to remove drugs.
Re-injection into ground water, and outfall into estuary water systems isn't a cheap shot. Its an essential step in the recycling process.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 13 2015, @09:39AM
If it saves the future owner money, then it should rise the amount you are able to get from selling the house, shouldn't it? That is, you'd get your ROI when selling the house.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mtrycz on Sunday April 12 2015, @08:47PM
I don't know the details, and could be plain wrong, but discussion here on Soylent on ths topic a while ago pointed to the problem not being of the engeneering kind, but economic.
Can't find the comment now, but the point was that the water is sufficient, but it's sold to farmers for a very low price, they can farm the hell out of the land with it. Since it isn't abbundance, market "laws" would say that the price of water should rise, but a subtle "please" from a few big farmers to a few big decision makers keep it low.
Hence the shortage.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 1) by Natales on Sunday April 12 2015, @09:22PM
The Wikipedia entry [wikipedia.org] has some interesting numbers on the actual costs: "Achievable costs in 2013 range from 0.45 to 1 US$/cubic metre (2 to 4 US$/kgal). (1 cubic meter is about 264 gallons.)".