Large Desalination Plant Approved for US West Coast

Technocrat

Large Desalination Plant Approved for US West Coast

zogger

Thu Aug 07 09:59:00 -0700 2008

Science.

manage

What will be the largest desalination plant in the western world has won tentative approval by the California Coastal Commission, despite opposition from environmentalists who say it will destroy too much marine life, primarily larva in the ocean water it will tap from. The plant will be going in just north of San Diego and manufacture 50 million gallons a day.

"We must diversify our region's water-supply portfolio," the mayor said. "We cannot conserve our way out of the water crisis." ed.z.: Well, you are going to have to do both Mr. mayor. You can't stick multiple millions of people in concentrated areas of pure desert, add hundreds of thousands more a year, and think this will be either cheap or easy. And you really should look into a natural resource you have in abundance, heat and sunlight, and see what you can do with that to help yourself out of a looming water crisis. It might help with the longer range "cheap" part anyway. Quick fixes have a habit of turning into perpetual bandaids that cost more than they are worth.

Large Desalination Plant Approved for US West Coast

jeff

Thu Aug 07 10:47:54 -0700 2008
manage

letsee... average pool volume 25000 gallons, so that'll refill 2000 pools/day. that might fill the needs of the homes "just north of San Diego". i wonder what commercial uses there are for the various salts n' stuff that get removed (how far the nearest pringles factory) ..?

Environmentalists

Charles E Hill

Thu Aug 07 12:49:00 -0700 2008
manage

Is there ANYWHERE in the world we could put a large desalination plant and not impact marine life?

Exactly what would be an environmentally acceptable way to provide adequate water for a sizable urban popuation?

Environmentalists

Bhima

Thu Aug 07 13:12:00 -0700 2008
manage

Well, I think one good start would be to locate the inlet somewhere that was not the nursery for the vast majority of fish species as the costal / wetland areas are. As I understand there are huge spaces of oceans off shore and below a few meters depth, that are extremely sparsely inhabited. Another good plan would be not to over fish the adult fish population to point of population collapse, in this way the destruction of dozens of millions of the larvae aquatic species per day would not pose as much as a threat (to our fishing industry and to our ability to actually eat fish). A 3rd plan could be control growth / water usage in such a way that does not cause the local aquifers and rivers to go dry. A 4th plan could be to improve waste water treatment technology, control farm run off, an limit other sources of water pollution such that water could be reused or at least not create ginormous dead zones in the oceans around river deltas and port cities, where said waste meets the ocean. A 5th good plan would be not dump so much shit in the ocean that continent sized gyres of non biodegradable solid wastes form.

Environmentalists

d47xeiwP

Thu Aug 07 14:36:02 -0700 2008
manage

or at least not create ginormous dead zones in the oceans around river deltas and port cities

Problem solved. Pump from the dead zones.

Environmentalists

Charles E Hill

Thu Aug 07 15:48:24 -0700 2008
manage

Unfortunately, plans 2-5 are preventative measures and don't deal with where to put a desal plant. They're along the lines of "if you do this, you won't need a desal plant".

Proper location of the inlet/outflow is a big point.

I still maintain that the U.S. would be wise to invest in a nationwide infrastructure of water pipelines similar to what we have to nat gas and oil now. Feed from a couple large, strategically placed desal plants, and pump to already in-place "storage facilities". That is, the lakes and aquifers we've drawn down and are using now.

Environmentalists

Uncle Entity

Thu Aug 07 16:04:49 -0700 2008
manage

But, but, that would be unnatural...

Large Desalination Plant Approved for US West Coast

Matt T

Thu Aug 07 19:20:00 -0700 2008
manage

Another politician's promise is all that I read about. Another $300 million plus in a state with a perpetual budget crisis, to water an additional 112,000 homes, $2.7M per home. I rather doubt that $300M includes a new power plant either. How much more will be the cost to offset the reported 5.8B fish larvae? If California can not get a power plant built, I doubt a desalination plant has much chance of getting by the environmental impact studies. Were those included in the $300M price? Then there is the problem of the brine. Is is just to be pumped back to the ocean?

Lots of ways to desalinate and I did not see details in the article. The median energy usage looks like 4-5000 kWh per AF. 153 AF per day, roughly $1000 daily per AF, $150,000+ daily, plus generating the 600,000 to 765,000 kWh per day, all just for the desalination for 112,000 homes.

Face it, the lawns will have to go, along with the golf courses and non-native water loving vegetation. That or cut down on the population.

Large Desalination Plant Approved for US West Coast

Penthor

Thu Aug 07 21:36:07 -0700 2008
manage

Can't they just scalp from large floods and store in off-channel reservoirs to meet peak demands?? They have floods don't they? And steep canyons to make storage reservoirs?

Large Desalination Plant Approved for US West Coast

Uncle Entity

Fri Aug 08 03:53:38 -0700 2008
manage

I was reading a while back that Vegas was thinking hard about putting in a desal plant in S. California in trade for their share of the Colorado River water as this would be cheaper than any other option available to them.

This may just be the fruits of that labor.