HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » DU: Beware the Water Desa...

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 02:49 PM

 

DU: Beware the Water Desalination Movement and it's Lies.

"Water is the next Oil" "Be Prepared to Pay Gas Prices for Water"

Citizens, we are going to see more and more posts promoting desalination as a solution to drought and scarcity of water.

-- Proceed with caution, desalination is a very costly and energy-intensive process and has dire environmental consequences.
-- It is favored by mega-utility companies and if deployed will make us more and more dependent upon nameless faceless corporations that will not answer to our needs.
-- Defend your local water utility, if you still have one, and lobby for more conservation measures and penalties for water waste.
-- Hold your legislators' feet to the fire to hold big agriculture and fracking entities to strict conservation and water recovery standards.
-- Water scarcity keeps suburban sprawl to a minimum; desalination plants are a developer's dream. Don't be tempted, be informed.

Marin County voters have always had the right to vote on water plans. In recent times, however, egged on by greedy developers and builders that need water to grow Marin development, the Marin Water Board has been trying to sneak one over on the voters and get a desalination plant up and running there.
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/blogs/desalination-has-a-big-problem/


Read Food & Water Watch’s report, Desalination – An Ocean of Problems

Read Debbie Cook’s essay, Desalination – Energy Down the Drain

Watch the PBS "POV" video, "Thirst"! http://www.pbs.org/pov/thirst/



And, THANK YOU!!!

89 replies, 13946 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 89 replies Author Time Post
Reply DU: Beware the Water Desalination Movement and it's Lies. (Original post)
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 OP
arcane1 Apr 2015 #1
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #3
CentralMass Apr 2015 #2
MindMover Apr 2015 #5
arcane1 Apr 2015 #7
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #8
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #38
MindMover Apr 2015 #4
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #10
MindMover Apr 2015 #22
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #25
Post removed Apr 2015 #27
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #35
pbmus Apr 2015 #73
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #75
pbmus Apr 2015 #77
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineReply .
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #79
pbmus Apr 2015 #85
bananas Apr 2015 #46
pbmus Apr 2015 #67
bananas Apr 2015 #86
pbmus Apr 2015 #88
bananas Apr 2015 #89
Ghost in the Machine Apr 2015 #43
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #47
Ghost in the Machine Apr 2015 #54
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #57
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #42
pbmus Apr 2015 #68
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #69
pbmus Apr 2015 #72
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #76
pbmus Apr 2015 #80
pbmus Apr 2015 #74
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #78
pbmus Apr 2015 #83
tularetom Apr 2015 #6
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #9
Warpy Apr 2015 #26
pbmus Apr 2015 #71
Travis_0004 Apr 2015 #12
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #18
4139 Apr 2015 #11
Spider Jerusalem Apr 2015 #23
mopinko Apr 2015 #13
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #15
mopinko Apr 2015 #33
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #50
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #16
mopinko Apr 2015 #17
Chemisse Apr 2015 #29
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #32
Chemisse Apr 2015 #45
Warpy Apr 2015 #30
mopinko Apr 2015 #31
Warpy Apr 2015 #36
tularetom Apr 2015 #70
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #14
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #19
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #21
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #39
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #49
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #52
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #61
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #66
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #41
Spider Jerusalem Apr 2015 #24
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #20
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #51
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #55
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #59
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #60
Agnosticsherbet Apr 2015 #62
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #63
mopinko Apr 2015 #64
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #65
mopinko Apr 2015 #81
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #82
mopinko Apr 2015 #87
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #28
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #34
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #37
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #44
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #48
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #53
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Apr 2015 #56
NYC_SKP Apr 2015 #58
rhett o rick Apr 2015 #40
roody Apr 2015 #84

Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 02:55 PM

1. There's a big push for that in California, while our good, clean water is sucked up by Nestle

 

Which is then bottled and sold at absurd prices.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #1)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:00 PM

3. Precisely. Some bottled water comes directly from municiple sources; tap water.

 

We've been suckered into this shit.

I'm old enough to remember the presence of drinking fountains EVERYWHERE, in schools and parks and municipal buildings and stores.

Where are they now? Replaced with for-sale dispensers of bottled drinks.

Fuck that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 02:58 PM

2. Lets take California as a start. there are 38.4 million residents who live there.

The states reservoirs have about 1 year capacity left and meteorologists and climatologists dont see an end to the drought anytime soon. Do you suggest they drink sand ?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralMass (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:05 PM

5. The era of free ground water is over, I say OVER ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralMass (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:11 PM

7. And companies like Nestle (not to mention agriculture) use the majority of it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralMass (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:11 PM

8. The LA Times article was very misleading, scientifically inaccurate.

 

A previous version of this article's headline left the impression that California has only one year of water left. As the article indicates, the state has one year of water stored in its reservoirs.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-famiglietti-drought-california-20150313-story.html


No, California won't run out of water in a year

Lawmakers are proposing emergency legislation, state officials are clamping down on watering lawns and, as California enters a fourth year of drought, some are worried that the state could run out of water.

State water managers and other experts said Thursday that California is in no danger of running out of water in the next two years, even after an extremely dry January and paltry snowpack. Reservoirs will be replenished by additional snow and rainfall between now and the next rainy season, they said. The state can also draw from other sources, including groundwater supplies, while imposing tougher conservation measures.

"We have been in multiyear droughts and extended dry periods a number of times in the past, and we will be in the future," said Ted Thomas, a spokesman for the California Department of Water Resources. "In periods like this there will be shortages, of course, but the state as a whole is not going to run dry in a year or two years."

The headline of a recent Times op-ed article offered a blunt assessment of the situation: "California has about one year of water left. Will you ration now?"

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0320-drought-explainer-20150320-story.html


We have water, ground water and precipitation to come.

The typical Californian is using easily TWICE as much water as is needed to live comfortably.





I use about 40 gallons per day, including the watering of a few plants.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CentralMass (Reply #2)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:41 PM

38. You know I do think that's what he is suggesting. I missed it until you pointed it out. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:02 PM

4. WATER is not next, it is now ...

and there are new technologies that are coming online concerning desalting and power consumption and "dire consequences for what environment" ????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:23 PM

10. Desal is a scheme to preserve our wasteful way of life. New tech or not, it's a loser.

 

There are no magical tech solutions. Nature gave us a predictable amount of water to use and all of the schemes to get more of it have had consequences.

Rightwingers look the other way or brush off the consequences.

We're better than that, we've done enough damage in this state just with the California Aqueduct and Delta Mendota Canal and other water projects.

Maybe we need to just cut that shit out and live with nature, not against it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #10)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 05:27 PM

22. "Nature gave us a predictable amount of water to use"

OMG, are you serious ..???? That is the same argument that oil has had for 30 years and how they have used that argument to keep the price of oil at above 10 bucks a barrel....I cannot believe that your argument is the same as there's ... you do know that we have something like 50-100 years of oil left in the ground , depending upon whose figures you use and which consumption schedule you maintain ... which we all know , we have to stop using fossil fuels altogether ... but I just cannot believe that you believe we have a finite source of water ... that is just patently unbelievable ...I have to ask, Do you go to the bathroom and do number 1????....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I know you are playing your April fools joke late .... oh and by the way, I heard there is a shortage of sand somewhere in Ethiopia ...!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #22)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 05:42 PM

25. "Loading Order" in electric utilities would be instructive here.

 

In meeting demand, electric utilities in California are mandated to take steps in this very logical and sustainable order:

Increase efficiency; reduce demand; generate using renewables; generate using clean fossil fuels; and lastly purchase dirty power from states next door at a penalty.


Procurement plans detail what is going to be procured and how it will be done. These plans must adhere to State Policies, including the Loading Order, which mandates that energy efficiency and demand response be pursued first, followed by renewables and lastly clean-fossil generation. If the procurement plans do not comply with State policies and adequately balance safety, reliability, cost, and environmental goals, utilities are ordered to modify them.

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Procurement/LTPP/


The approach for water should be the same: Be efficient and reduce demand; institute recycling and reuse technologies; and as a last resort, only after the others have been exhausted, desalinate.

Now I don't know what you think is so funny, but this is a serious topic and one about which I am personally and professionally well-connected.
This state and this climate allow for scientific modeling, conservative models predicted some of what we are experiencing.
A natural range of water can be determined to be available in any given year.

[font size=30]Our Use Exceeds What Nature Provides to Us.[/font size]

Building desalination plants is the Right Wing Corporatist approach to solving the problem.

Good day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #25)


Response to Post removed (Reply #27)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:33 PM

35. I'm not sure what your issue is with me and my statements.

 

Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:15 PM - Edit history (1)

There is a limited amount of freshwater on this planet, but that amount is known and, within some limitations, the amount available is predictable from year to year.

This limited supply is further limited by one's location on the planet; one may have no water or one may have a lot, and these things change.

Natural variations and anthropogenic forces create changes in rainfall and temperature patterns that result in droughts.

California is experiencing a drought, and our usage patterns need to adapt to the changes in available water supplies.

We are going to need to be very active and vocal and insist that legislators are careful in how demand is met.

They need to revisit every existing rule and regulation and make sure that water wasters pay dearly and that conservation measures are in place before any large capital projects are approved, if any.

The chances are that if funds are spent on conservation and recycling technologies instead of desalination plants, and if big corporate customers bear their share of load, that we'll be just fine.

Have a nice day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #35)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:20 PM

73. Freshwater and water are two different substances to you?

I think Mindmover is saying that water is water like a tomato is a fruit/berry.

but of course you knew that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Reply #73)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:28 PM

75. They technically, environmentally, and regulatorily are different substances, yes.

 

Mindmover was on a roll, I've no idea where the misunderstanding arose and the accusation that I'm an industry shill are without reason.

Our available freshwater has always been somewhat predictable, but Mindmover would have none of that.

The government and other NGOs monitor precipitation and snowpack and groundwater levels and salt intrusion and other factors and compare that against demand predictions.

It's a shame that we don't manage water the way we manage electrical energy generation supply and demand, which is very progressive.

The water industry has a long way to go. Desalination isn't necessary to solve our problems, it's sure to create more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #75)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:33 PM

77. I have read thru all of mindmovers posts and he/she never ever used

an accusation of an industry shill, I believe those are your words.

Other than using the word ludicrous to describe your argument, I believe that is all he/she said about you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Reply #77)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:36 PM

79. .

 

Read the content of the hidden reply, above.

This part:

....suckers ... or are ya???

Good night, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #79)

Mon Apr 6, 2015, 12:33 AM

85. Metaphorically speaking the question was

are you a 1% er or something else.

you must have a big following to have that post hidden.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #27)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:08 PM

46. NYC_SKP is absolutely correct.

https://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycle.html

... the natural water cycle, also known as the hydrologic cycle, ...


And although the oceans are large, they aren't "infinite", and the kind of thinking you exhibit is what leads to overfishing, ocean pollution, ocean acidification, and now you will cause oversalinization.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Reply #46)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 10:48 PM

67. "and now you will cause oversalinization."

do you mean salinization ... I think that refers to soil and irrigation issues .

I believe the other issues you mention are related to greed and fossil fuel use .

Sorry, just trying to clarify

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Reply #67)

Mon Apr 6, 2015, 05:45 AM

86. It just means too much salt.

Get a salt-water fish tank, add too much salt, and watch what happens to the fish.

The Dead Sea is dead because it has too much salt.

I believe the other issues you mention are related to greed and fossil fuel use.


They're a result of the Second Law of Ecology: there is no "away" to throw things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Commoner#Four_laws_of_ecology

It used to be said the solution to pollution is dilution, but we do things on such massive scales that's no longer true. A single desal plant will only have local ecological effects, but if you put hundreds or thousands of them along the coast, you will disrupt the entire coastal ecology.

That's why Europe and China are moving towards circular economies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy#Impact_in_Europe

http://europesworld.org/2014/06/15/chinas-policies-and-instruments-for-developing-the-circular-economy/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bananas (Reply #86)

Mon Apr 6, 2015, 08:44 PM

88. "if you put hundreds or thousands of them along the coast, you will disrupt the entire coast ecolog"

Last edited Tue Apr 7, 2015, 12:06 PM - Edit history (1)

I believe if you put hundreds of thousands of just about anything along the coast you would disrupt the coastal ecology ... You are the only one who has ever used the amount of hundreds or/of thousands ... do you realize how ridiculous that number is ... even hundreds has never ever been proposed ...!!!!

"Some methods of desalination, particularly in combination with evaporation ponds, solar stills, and condensation trap (solar desalination), do not discharge brine. They do not use chemicals in their processes nor the burning of fossil fuels. They do not work with membranes or other critical parts, such as components that include heavy metals, thus do not cause toxic waste (and high maintenance).

A new approach that works like a solar still, but on the scale of industrial evaporation ponds is the integrated biotectural system.[46] It can be considered "full desalination" because it converts the entire amount of saltwater intake into distilled water. One of the unique advantages of this type of solar-powered desalination is the feasibility for inland operation. Standard advantages also include no air pollution from desalination power plants and no temperature increase of endangered natural water bodies from power plant cooling-water discharge. Another important advantage is the production of sea salt for industrial and other uses. Currently, 50% of the world's sea salt production still relies on fossil energy sources."

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Reply #88)

Tue Apr 7, 2015, 12:49 AM

89. "or" not "of"

Hundreds OR thousands, not hundreds OF thousands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #25)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:03 PM

43. "Building desalination plants is the Right Wing Corporatist approach to solving the problem."

BULLSHIT!!!! I have been advocating this for years, mainly as a way to combat rising sea levels due to global climate change. I think they should build them in States along the coastlines, then pump the water into other states into water tanks or even man-made resevoirs. It would help create thousands of jobs, boost production of our steel plants, boost the economy in general and help rebuild our infrastructure along the way.

Someone recently asked "what about all the brine that would be produced?" Very easy" sell it to the States that are experiencing record snowfalls and icing to recoup some of their operating costs, and SELL water to companies like Nestle that are just using up our resources for free and profitting from it.

I like you, NYC_SKP, but I think that this comment is way off base and dead wrong. You're entitled to your opinion though, and I wouldn't even *think* of alerting on it, as offensive as I find it because I'm sure as hell not a right-wing corporatist. Just do me a small favor and rethink your statement, considering the parameters that I gave about job creation. economy boost and rebuilding our infrastructure, ok?



Peace,

Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #43)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:14 PM

47. You do know that desalination won't put a dent in sea levels, right?

 

First, all the water we use is going to end up back in the sea no matter what we do with it.

And, even if what we used went someplace else forever, all of humanity's water use in one year is something like 0.02 inches of the oceans. I did the calculation, it wasn't much.

Worse, the energy needed to run these plants is considerable and, in the short term, requires massive new generation capacity, which would likely be Natural Gas powered plants.

And, thus, we worsen the climate problem.

I'm sorry if my broad generalization sweeps in innocents, it could have been phrased more carefully.

To clarify, under today's government and corporate climate, such large scale plants would only be build by the private sector. Water would become even more of a commodity used to grow profits.

If we had to do this, it should be done like a municipal public utility, but I don't see that happening.

Thus the R W Corporatist pipe dream if it gets done in the current corporate friendly climate.

Now even if we could do the public utility approach, I worry that people would continue to waste water and we'd just be promoting more waste.

I prefer that we all look in the mirror and accept that we have been wasteful and look to ways to live within our environmental means rather than look to more large scale projects to solve problems.

Take care!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #47)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:54 PM

54. Thank you for your clarification, my friend....

I'm glad you did the math on it, I didn't know that it wouldn't put a dent in it. I just figured if they built enough of them, say 2 in Washington, 2 in Oregon, 5 or 6 along the California Coast, a few along the Gulf Coast and several along the Atlantic Coast, we could, so to speak, kill several birds with one stone. I guess we could forget about Florida on both the Gulf and Atlantic sides since they are in denial though, huh?

Of course I would want it in the hands of the Public Utilities, not Private Corporate hands. The rising sea levels concern me even though I live in Tennessee, because I am Native Miamian and still have friends and family from the Keys to near Daytona Beach and New Smynra Beach. My biggest goal was the job creation and rebuilding the infrastructure and economy though.

I conserve as much water as I can. My home is run on well water that is some of the sweetest tasting water I've ever drank, and I don't even like plain water! My parents live a few doors up from me and they are hooked up to the city water system (even though we live way out in the country), and I can tell the difference. When I turn their faucet on, all I can smell is chemicals! The only reason I drink tea at their house id because my mom brews it the old fashion way, boil the water, then drop the tea bags in. You couldn't pay me to drink the water straight from the tap there.


Peace to you and yours,



Ghost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost in the Machine (Reply #54)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:13 PM

57. So I went to do the math again. Humans consume +/- 3,000 km^3 per year worldwide...

 

And the oceans cover an area of about 360,000,000 km^2.

So, even if we were to get ALL of our water from the ocean, the ocean level would drop only 8.3 millimeters, or 0.32 inches for one year's extraction.

Of course we aren't talking about getting ALL of our water, maybe just 1/20 of that or less.

And, all of it would just end up back in the ocean.


I LOVE that you have sweetwater. My water is just OK, NYC water is really nice but I'm on the Central Coast of California these days.

The tastiest water I have ever sipped was water deep inside a cave we found in high school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MindMover (Reply #4)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:02 PM

42. SORRY. There are no "new technologies that are coming online" that will provide more water.

 

That's what we've heard from the GMO industry, the energy industry, auto makers, hydrogen snake oil salesmen, etc.

And they all have this in common: centralized control of a commodity that used to be cheap or free.

We can handle this better without their "help".

If you have some fantastic new technology, feel free to send a PM or reply in one of my other threads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #42)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 10:51 PM

68. I believe I have heard this argument used with oil and how

we will never ever find more oil, . OIL is finite and we will be running out soon, remember those arguments

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Reply #68)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 10:53 PM

69. That line of thinking brought us horizontal drilling, fracking, and oil shale and tar sands...

 

Oh, and deepwater horizon.

There's a limit, even if they keep finding new ways to screw the planet, the planet will win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #69)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:00 PM

72. So you do agree that your arguments are the same .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Reply #72)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:32 PM

76. I liken "advancements" in water exploitation to those used in fossil fuel extraction, yes I do.

 

They are two entirely different sets of technologies and circumstances.

But this much is true: the companies that stand to profit from sales of these commodities want to get more, sell more, and make keep us dependent upon them to provide it.

It's not that hard to understand, really.

I'd be happy to recommend some reading, if you'd like to learn more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #76)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:38 PM

80. If you are likening water resources to other commodities

You are absolutely correct in your assumptions, however you must realize that we are living and condoning this economic environment and if you do want to change anything in the future then we will need new structures to our current economic and political structures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #69)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:25 PM

74. We (humans) have been using or as you say screwing the planet

for as long as we have been in existence, which is between 3,000 or 2.8 mil yrs ago

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/04/jaw-bone-discovery-in-ethiopia-is-oldest-ever-human-lineage-remains

You are correct, the universe will win

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pbmus (Reply #74)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:34 PM

78. Yeah, we might have another 2.8 million years to go without changing our ways.

 

You betcha.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #78)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:45 PM

83. So your entire point is that we must change.

TOTALLY AGREE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:08 PM

6. Is there any beneficial use for the salts that are removed during the desalination process?

Or are we going to have to figure out what to do with these ginormous piles of toxic crap that spring up everywhere?

I guess you could dump it all back into the ocean but the biggest water users in CA are 100+ miles from the coast.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:21 PM

9. They dump it back into the ocean at higher concentrations.

 

Most plants don't extract all of the water, they get some of the water-- all of it would be prohibitively expensive and then they'd have to have drying ponds to extract the salt and minerals, the value of which is insignificant compared to the cost.

Carol Reeb of the Hopkins Marine Research Station at Stanford University outlined the effects of brine discharge on sea life at the recent gathering.

“When it sinks to the seafloor, it can cut off oxygen like a layer of plastic wrap. … It basically creates a dead zone,” she said.

Reeb said even a small increase in salinity can harm or prevent the reproduction of marine life such as California market squid, who lay their eggs on the seafloor.

Species affected by the high salinity “become lethargic. They’re basically dead. They become bait.”

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/sep/26/drought-carlsbad-poseidon-california-water/2/?#article-copy


It's a loser, but trust me, some on this board think it's A-OK.

More technology to support overpopulation when more conservation would do the trick. Desal is a scheme to preserve our wasteful way of life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 05:47 PM

26. That's really dumb when they could bag it, dry it

and sell it more cheaply than mined salt since it's a byproduct of another process.

Or they could dry it in clay beds and go into competition with fleur de sel, an overpriced French sea salt with a little purplish clay from the drying beds mixed in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #9)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 10:59 PM

71. Thank you God for Wiki

"A new approach that works like a solar still, but on the scale of industrial evaporation ponds is the integrated biotectural system.[46] It can be considered "full desalination" because it converts the entire amount of saltwater intake into distilled water. One of the unique advantages of this type of solar-powered desalination is the feasibility for inland operation. Standard advantages also include no air pollution from desalination power plants and no temperature increase of endangered natural water bodies from power plant cooling-water discharge. Another important advantage is the production of sea salt for industrial and other uses. Currently, 50% of the world's sea salt production still relies on fossil energy sources."


"Supplying all domestic water by sea water desalination would increase the United States' energy consumption by around 10%, about the amount of energy used by domestic refrigerators.[14]"

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #6)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:54 PM

12. Couldnt they sell the salt

 

My city uses about 40 tons of salt a year in the winter on roads.

I would imagine salt from desalanation can be used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #12)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 04:25 PM

18. Desalenizaton uses three liters of salt water to make one liter of freshwater.

The removed salt is mixed in a brine that is pumped back into the ocean. To make salt, they would have to set up a facilty to convert the birne to salt. Since most salt now coms form mines, and is pretty cheap, it is unlikely they could come up with a product that coudl be sold at a reasonable price.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 03:43 PM

11. California has been WET! ...

"...past century has been among the wettest of the last 7,000 years."

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

So far it is just a tiny short drought, when it hits 50 years you can call it a major drought.

Ground water is near gone.


Choice may be: act fast or depopulate the state later

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4139 (Reply #11)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 05:35 PM

23. Ahistorically wet; long dry periods are "normal", some of them lasting centuries.

Compared to the palaeoclimatological record of the past 7000 years? the past century has been a short wet period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 04:03 PM

13. but maybe you can answer me this-

Last edited Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:15 PM - Edit history (1)

couldnt we pump salt water into dead aquifers?
seems to me the salts would be filtered out by the rock that it would filter through.

ever heard of doing this? any thoughts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 04:19 PM

15. Filling a salt wate lake would kill local vegatation nad indigenous animals that need the fresh

water.

In California, saltwater intrusion into undergorund aquivers near the cost is a big problem. (I've read that this is happening in Texas.)

This would contaminat inland aquifes with salt water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #15)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:21 PM

33. i meant aquifers.

senior moment.
i was thinking about dry aquifers, where the water will filter down through rock that should filter out the salt.

didnt mean an lakes or anything.
would have to worry about connected areas.

but it seems like it would work as long as you didnt have to drag the water too far.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #33)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:28 PM

50. The salt would remain with the water. There are, in fact,

many salt water aquifers in the US. They are not usable.

What has been done in several places is filtering gray water and pumping them into the aquifers near the costs to stop salt water intrustion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 04:21 PM

16. Under the right circumstances, this might yield some water, not sure if it's economical.

 

A great deal of energy is needed just to transport and the water in this state in a good year.

The reservoirs available for such a project are many miles from the sea and from the communities that need to be served so I think the cost of building and maintaining the infrastructure on something experimental would be better spent on proven conservation technologies, like grey water reuse:

Check this out, I want one:



We're livin' too large, Mo!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #16)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 04:24 PM

17. want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #16)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 05:57 PM

29. What about creating large reservoir beds closer to the ocean

and filling them with salt water, to filter and produce some fresh water?

Yes, they need to cut back on water usage. My daughter, who lives in SF, said there is NO restriction on water. People still water their lawns, etc. Although may be a drop in the bucket compared to the water needs/usage of Central California's large and important agricultural industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chemisse (Reply #29)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:19 PM

32. I think solar distillation would be more cost effective and less impactive.

 

I bought one of these for my students in 2010:

The water cone can create potable water through evaporation, just add sun!

This could be done on a larger scale with more output, IMO, than any sort of filtration system which, at some point, would become saturated with the salts and minerals being filtered out.

Honestly, we will be alright if we start living on less water: No lawns, no using water to wash down trucks and sidewalks, shorter showers and reuse of water.
We should only use drinking water for drinking, cooking, and bathing and nothing more.
Agriculture should be required to use drip and other efficient forms of irrigation.
Fracking, well, if we have to do it then the water should be costly so that they're forced to recycle it.
And all use should be metered and we can institute tiered rates to incentivize low use and punish waste.

The money going to desalination and large projects that don't really change out habits would be better spent on residential upgrades to allow greywater use and other conservation technologies.

We haven't even begun to do these things.

Good to see you!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #32)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:06 PM

45. I love this idea!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 05:58 PM

30. The reservoirs contain fresh water

You're asking if we can pump salt water in and once it's through the sluice gates into the irrigation channels, the salt will be somehow filtered out?

No, it doesn't work that way. The salt is ionized within the sea water. The only ways to get rid of it are energy intensive, either by distilling the water or by using semipermeable membranes and pumps.

While nuclear powered desalinization units for small amounts of people on submarines are cost effective, trying to support a city the size of LA through desalinization plants is not, nor is it cost effective to use it in agriculture.

There are prototype setups that condense humidity along the coastline into potable water, but those wouldn't be particularly useful in semi arid conditions inland.

California's best bet in the short term is strict conservation. Longer term, they'll have to join those conservation measures with population reduction and a change in agricultural irrigation methods from spray or trench irrigation to subsoil drip irrigation. Living in California is not going to be nearly as convenient as it was 20 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #30)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:17 PM

31. i meant to say aquifers.

not necessarily in cali, but in general.
so that it would be filtered by the stone that it goes through.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #31)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:34 PM

36. No, it doesn't work that way, either

Pouring salt water into an aquifer would get you a salty aquifer.

If this were a simple matter of filtration, desalinization would be up and running already, every home with a unit to filter sea water into drinkable water.

Aquifers have been fed by fresh water that fell as rain or snow and were either trapped between layers of rock during geologic events like vulcanism or have percolated down through porous layers until they hit bedrock. Fresh water is produced by the hydrologic cycle, evaporating from sea water to condense as rain or snow over land.

The problem the west is having is that climate change has caused the weather patterns to change, shifting the rain clouds north and south of where they are needed, all the rain and snow falling in the wrong places at the wrong times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #13)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 10:55 PM

70. It might work in the short term but eventually all that salt that was filtered out would

clog (and poison) the aquifer.

Google "Kesterson" if you want to see an actual example of why this wouldn't be a practical solution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 04:17 PM

14. California is not getting enough water from rain or snow.

Our aquifer's are being drained at a record rate. Desalinization will be increasingly important to meet the needs of people that live here.

The largest Daslenization plant in the Western Hemisphere is being built about 20 miles away. It takes about ten years to go from planning ot completion. There will be more.

There is simply not eouugh water from rain, snow or the Aquifer to do the job. Unles the US spends enormous amounts of money to move water form places that have an overabunance to states that do not have enough, Desaleniation will be the answer for coastal states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 04:29 PM

19. We simply use too much. No need for desal plants, better to invest in greywater systems.

 

Desalination takes far too much energy.

It would be one thing if we already had done all we can to conserve and lower use, but we are nowhere near that point.

Drought resistant plants, greywater use, use water sustainably: these are the common sense and sustainable solutions.

If, after these, we still are hurting then maybe a few renewably powered desal plants would be OK.

I was at the Poseidon Plant in Carlsbad in December, is that the plant you're talking about?

It uses a ton of energy and is only barely viable because it's situated RIGHT NEXT to the NRG natural gas power plant.

They will share the water flow lagoons, inflow and outflow, or else it would never have been permitted due to environmental impacts.

http://carlsbaddesal.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 04:39 PM

21. No, we are not getting enough water. This is a symptom of climate change.

Certainly, Californians are using less, and the new law means they will continue to save.

Cities are starting to build more systems to recycle water. That will not be enough.

Desalinization is going to be one part of the solution, especially in light that there is no will to create a nationwide water system that would collect water from areas that get too much and move it to areas that are in need more water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:48 PM

39. I don't understand the concept of areas of the country that get too much water.

 

Could you elaborate?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #39)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:24 PM

49. We've had flooding back east. What I suggest is we set up a naton wide system

to redistribue water. As global warming intensifies, an infrastruture for water will be critical for the nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #49)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:41 PM

52. My initial impression is that you are suggesting that some areas steal water from other areas.

 

Like California has stolen the Colorado River and Las Vegas is stealing all the water they can get from areas in Nevada. Just because an area has flooding doesn't mean they have water to spare.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #52)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:48 PM

61. That seems to be the suggestion being made. It was a failure then and would be again.

 

Sold as a win-win-win back in the day, major water projects popped up like crazy.

They never took into account, however, environmental impacts.

Today, in California, large hydro projects don't even count toward our renewable energy portfolio for generated electricity.

Anyway, this is really old-school backward thinking, that MAN can build it's way out of trouble, we can tame the environment.

Just like before, we were going to combine flood control and agriculture and recreation and subdivisions with just a few dams.

Now the Colorado River doesn't even make it to the Sea of Cortez and you can walk across the San Joaquin river.

It's human arrogance, usually overcome by knowledge and education, but not always.

Plain truth is that we use too much stuff and we've settled in areas we should not have settled in, given local resources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #61)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 10:37 PM

66. Yes I do agree, "we use too much stuff".

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #21)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:59 PM

41. We are using too much, too fast, and simply need to use less.

 

If agriculture and all the other sectors institute conservation and efficiency methods and technologies, we'll be OK.

We still use potable water to wash down driveways and keep lush lawns, for crying out loud.

We simply need to use less to match what is available. No need for costly and energy intensive desal plants.

None.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #19)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 05:37 PM

24. Agriculture uses too much, that's the biggest issue

80% of California's water goes to agriculture, a lot of it to water-intensive crops like almonds, rice and cotton. Residential use accounts for 10% of the total. You can get residential users to make all the cuts in use possible...no more lawns, no more swimming pools, low-flow toilets, etc...and it still won't be enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #14)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 04:34 PM

20. Alternatively: water demand is too high, the amount of water is the natural amount.

 

Use less, maybe drop the population a bit, find incremental solutions like conservation technologies and incentives.

In the energy industry, there's something called the "Loading Order".

The first step in meeting demand is reducing demand, then comes generation using renewables, then cleaner nonrenewables, then whatever is left.

Procurement plans detail what is going to be procured and how it will be done. These plans must adhere to State Policies, including the Loading Order, which mandates that energy efficiency and demand response be pursued first, followed by renewables and lastly clean-fossil generation. If the procurement plans do not comply with State policies and adequately balance safety, reliability, cost, and environmental goals, utilities are ordered to modify them.

http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Procurement/LTPP/


Building desal plants should only come after the other approaches like demand reduction and recycling and rainwater catchment and greywater systems are exhausted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #20)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:31 PM

51. The amount of watner needed is based on the states populaton.

What would you suggest we do with the extra people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #51)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:57 PM

55. The residential water needed is actually state population X gallons/person/day.

 

So yeah, it's based on population but also the use per capita.

Solution: Just reduce the gallons/person/day.

This value varies dramatically. California average is around 200 gallons/person/day. I use about 40.

Outdoor water use is often the greatest single component.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #55)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:22 PM

59. So we should cease farming and put several million people out of work,

and jerk the food California grows off the market, which would cause a massive increase in prices everywhere else in the country. Most of the food we grow is exported through out the US.

You also might what to add Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico to that decision to strip people of water. The whole South West is suffering the same weather problems and shortage of water.

Also, Texas , Colorado, and Kansas are suffering.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #59)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:42 PM

60. Allow me to continue to educate you, my good friend:

 

Just as I have written elsewhere in this thread, sustainable irrigation practices need to be mandated.

Did you know I grew up on a farm and worked every summer in agriculture? No? I've also fought against water projects in defense of the San Joaquin Sacramento Delta most of my life.



Anyway, flood irrigation was all that was ever used in the past, even in the deserts of Kern county that wouldn't have ever been ag if not for the projects.

We now know that sprinkler, drip, and subsurface irrigation techniques are like WAY more efficient. But they are not used to their full potential, yet.

So NO, dude, I don't wanna put anyone out of work, hell no! I'm a lover notta hater!

And so, we institute modern efficient water techniques, let those freepers in Kern county live with the desert they chose to live in, and carry on with the same tonnage of crops that we've had before this particular drought.

And we do it on LESS water than we used last year or the year before that or before that.

We cool now?



http://www.nrdc.org/water/files/ca-water-supply-solutions-ag-efficiency-IB.pdf

//

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #60)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:49 PM

62. Due go long term changes in weather patterns (climate change)

the entire southwest is not getting sufficient water.

In California we need to develop new sources of water. Those include deslaenization. There is little that can be done for states that do not have a sea coast.

We can develop better ways to use water. But there is simply not enough at this time.

Desalenizaton is one of a basket of solutions that will be important to the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #62)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 09:10 PM

63. Please look into the energy demand and environmental impacts of desalination.

 

And keep in mind the deathgrip that multinationals are developing on cities through their ownership of water systems.

If there have to be desalination plants, then do whatever you can to see that they are publicly owned utilities and not private sector enterprises.


Proceed with Caution: California’s Drought and Seawater Desalination


-- California's current drought has highlighted the need for improved freshwater management and has elevated seawater desalination in discussion of water supply alternatives.
-- Seawater desalination is energy-intensive and very expensive, and can have significant impacts on the marine environment through the intake of large volumes of seawater containing marine life, as well as from the discharge of brine.
-- In the vast majority of locations, water conservation, water use efficiency, stormwater capture, rainwater harvesting, and wastewater recycling measures are less expensive, have fewer negative environmental impacts, and have multiple economic and environmental benefits over seawater desalination.

http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/ca-drought-seawater-desalination.asp

Full 12 page brief is here, PDF: http://www.nrdc.org/oceans/files/ca-drought-seawater-desalination-IB.pdf




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #60)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 10:05 PM

64. hugelkultur

srsly. my first hugel pile is now 3 years old. barely starting to work, they say.
last summer i grew heirloom tomatoes on it. i not only got tomatoes as big as baby's heads, i got no watering faults. no blossom end rot, no fungi.
i watered the plants in for a few days, and NEVER WATERED AGAIN. all season, zero water.

all from landscape waste.
stops runoff, too.

i wonder what the situation out there is with this issue.
there were just rewrites to the illinois composting rules, letting farmers accept more organic waste. but the real incentive would be if the farmers could get a tipping fee. but the big boys want to keep that part to themselves, so no fees were allowed.

and paul stamets would tell you that you need more fungi w your almonds. he has a "fertilizer" that is really fungi spores.

drip irrigation is a no brainer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #64)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 10:22 PM

65. Inertia. Systems at rest tend to remain at rest (agribusiness)

 

It will take a pioneer to practice it for a few years out here, proof of concept.

Then they need to share their work, but they need to be careful or they get chastised, blackballed, messed with, for rocking the boat.

It took forever to get straw bale houses approved and still only in a handful of jurisdictions.

I met a dairy man named John Fiscalini is famous for his cheese and I was surprised to learn of all of his biomass projects. He got in a little bit of trouble but pioneered a lot of what is now becoming commonly used technologies. The regulatory labyrinth is a mess.

http://biomassmagazine.com/articles/3377/methane-migraine

http://www.dairyherd.com/dairy-news/latest/bon-appetit--raves-about-fiscalini-cheese-114040894.html



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #65)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:40 PM

81. tell me about it.

but hey, as long as the spell my name right.

well, i am finally starting to get somewhere here i think. the water rec district has a chronic flooding problem. they are desperate for good flood control.
think i might actually pull of a legislative day soon. got to buttonhole my favorite commish last week. got a couple more folks on board.

maybe they can learn something from chicago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #81)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:42 PM

82. Yeah, right? You're under a freakin' microscope there!

 

You're a real trooper!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #82)

Mon Apr 6, 2015, 08:30 AM

87. hey, beating city hall was on my bucket list.

i should thank whoever it was.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 05:51 PM

28. I wonder if you could make floating passive solar evaporators.

Big black flat sheets that float just under the surface, so that the sun strikes them, heats them up, and causes more of the water to heat up enough to put more vapour into the air, and increase rainfall? I'm assuming prevailing winds sweep inland, though I suppose that could be wrong. I guess though if you made them large enough to be significant, they'd screw up the ecosystems below them and be a traffic hazard at sea to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #28)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:23 PM

34. Black bottoms, clear tops maybe, like giant "Water Cones":

 



I have one of these:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #34)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:40 PM

37. Sorta what I was thinking, but simply open at the top

just to put more moisture into the air. Probably a silly idea, though, since I suppose the humidity is always pretty much 100% at the edge of the ocean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #37)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:04 PM

44. Better if it's closed at the top, need to maintain high temp, humidity , closed system.

 

As the water condenses, and runs down to the rim, more water is able to condense.

Given adequate radiant heat and temperatures, the only limiting factor is how much salt water is in the black tray and how much condensate the rim can hold.

On a good day one can get two fill-ups from the device.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #44)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:23 PM

48. What if the black layer was permeable, in a loose weave?

As water evaporated out, the salts would simply be able go back into the ocean, and more water would enter in. You could have some permanent tube extending out to the evaporation collection area, with a valve such that it needed to be mostly full to have enough pressure to push the valve open and allow the water to run down into a larger collector on the other end of the tube.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #48)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 07:51 PM

53. This could be a great improvement, provided the high temps can be reached and maintained.

 

IOW, a device as you suggest that maintains a water level, and added to that a way to pipe out the condensate.

It would never need to be filled/emptied, maybe just cleaned periodically.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Reply #53)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:02 PM

56. Do some mirroring, not just transparency, so it functions a bit more like a solar oven?

It would have to be closed at the top so the trapped air keeps it floating, and wouldn't work too well in rough waters unless it was big enough not to allow waves to slosh seawater into the fresh part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #56)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 08:15 PM

58. I'd keep it closed, mirrors might work well, and flotatation would be build in.

 

Photovoltaics could provide power to controllers and motors that manage water levels.

Let's build it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 06:49 PM

40. Important subject. Thanks for posting. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC_SKP (Original post)

Sun Apr 5, 2015, 11:46 PM

84. Thanks for the thread.

My rainwater catchment system is getting inspected by the city tomorrow; two 530 gallon tanks. They already have some water because it has rained a little in N. Cal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread