3 ms·

Transportation is extremely expensive, and in every case I've researched more expensive than local production or recycling. I'm one in a long line of people wh

Transportation is extremely expensive, and in every case I've researched more expensive than local production or recycling. I'm one in a long line of people who have looked into the failed idea[1] of buying an old single hull oil tanker, gutting the insides, cleaning and refitting, and running it between Sitka and LA filled with water. Much cheaper to produce in LA. Current sale price in LA is very low - largely due to state subsidies and lack of an actual water market, but thats unlikely to change soon. If you can lower the energy cost of transport its still likely cheaper to produce locally, due to high energy cost of desalination and wastewater recycling. Large plastic bladders are another possibility for transportation. Just let the current take the bags down the coast and fix a GPS to the bag. Lots of issues with other boats destroying the bladders though, along with running aground, etc. Likely still cheaper to produce locally. Only economic way to transport water currently is in water dense crops like rice, tomatoes, corn, most fruits, etc. [1] http://www.treehugger.com/clean-water/us-company-set-to-ship-billions-of-gallons-of-water-from-alaska-to-india.html http://www.treehugger.com/clean-water/us-company-set-to-ship... Edit: To answer the question at the bottom of your post, the real problem is energy. If you lower the cost of energy production and storage, you've removed a huge chunk of water production costs. Focusing on water first is likely to lead nowhere.

joshuak 10y ago
Ok, too expensive seems like a reasonable argument, but how much too expensive, specifically? I mean if water is available but not clean how expensive can a purifier be before being at parody with cost of transporting the same amount of water? What is the "cheaper to produce locally" method, and in what way is it not the solution? Also, what about pipelines? Even if only useful in limited contexts (i.e. downhill, or open channels), or for very short distances. That's a really good idea to transport water using large bladders. Perhaps you could even control movement as needed with small engine craft and nets. You'd need no where near the infrastructure of commercial shipping, yet bladders could be put in shipping containers as well.
- anubisresources 10y ago
  Mojomark has some figures re: cost. Current methods of local production are desalination and wastewater recycling, both of which are heavily state subsidized, and in the case of wastewater recycling state owned. Very difficult to get into actual production of water. Most desalination companies actually just manage the desalination plants. Pipelines have some potential, but in very limited cases. Could be useful in Caribbean though. Pipe water from Dominica to other Eastern Caribbean islands. I haven't run the numbers on that, but there might be some potential for an intrepid investor. Shallow water means its easy to lay and repair pipelines, every other island in the Caribbean being water deficient means demand. Might work.
- mojomark 10y ago
  Ok, too expensive seems like a reasonable argument, but how much to expensive, specifically? See my other reply. In short, based on a CBA we did a few yrs back, fuel consumption alone using a diesel-powered handy size tanker to ship H20 from Alaska to Ca yields a shipping cost of ~$0.15/gal. Ca H20 costs <$0.002/gal. So, a factor of 75 more expensive.
  - joshuak 10y ago
    Ok, thanks. So that particular solution is not cost effective for the CA market, but what about a different market? Or perhaps a different mechanism of transportation?
    - mojomark 10y ago
      > but what about a different market? Or perhaps a different mechanism of transportation? I'm not sure what you mean by 'a different market', but I can address the latter: Generally, commercial shipping will yield the greatest economies of scale for bulk cargo transport of any mode of transport (except perhaps pipeline - I'm not sure). You could use a larger tanker ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/oilandgaslogistics.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/types-of-tankers/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/oilandgaslogistics.wordpress.co...), like a ULCC that has 4X the displacement (cargo carrying capacity) as the handy size tanker we assessed. However, that would perhaps yield a ~50% cost reduction - far short of the ~99% reduction needed. https://project-firefly.com/node/19396 https://project-firefly.com/node/19396 - this depicts containersips, but the exponential decay scale/cost relationship is similar for tankers.

joshuak 10y ago

Ok, too expensive seems like a reasonable argument, but how much too expensive, specifically? I mean if water is available but not clean how expensive can a purifier be before being at parody with cost of transporting the same amount of water? What is the "cheaper to produce locally" method, and in what way is it not the solution? Also, what about pipelines? Even if only useful in limited contexts (i.e. downhill, or open channels), or for very short distances. That's a really good idea to transport water using large bladders. Perhaps you could even control movement as needed with small engine craft and nets. You'd need no where near the infrastructure of commercial shipping, yet bladders could be put in shipping containers as well.

anubisresources 10y ago
Mojomark has some figures re: cost. Current methods of local production are desalination and wastewater recycling, both of which are heavily state subsidized, and in the case of wastewater recycling state owned. Very difficult to get into actual production of water. Most desalination companies actually just manage the desalination plants. Pipelines have some potential, but in very limited cases. Could be useful in Caribbean though. Pipe water from Dominica to other Eastern Caribbean islands. I haven't run the numbers on that, but there might be some potential for an intrepid investor. Shallow water means its easy to lay and repair pipelines, every other island in the Caribbean being water deficient means demand. Might work.
mojomark 10y ago
Ok, too expensive seems like a reasonable argument, but how much to expensive, specifically? See my other reply. In short, based on a CBA we did a few yrs back, fuel consumption alone using a diesel-powered handy size tanker to ship H20 from Alaska to Ca yields a shipping cost of ~$0.15/gal. Ca H20 costs <$0.002/gal. So, a factor of 75 more expensive.
- joshuak 10y ago
  Ok, thanks. So that particular solution is not cost effective for the CA market, but what about a different market? Or perhaps a different mechanism of transportation?
  - mojomark 10y ago
    > but what about a different market? Or perhaps a different mechanism of transportation? I'm not sure what you mean by 'a different market', but I can address the latter: Generally, commercial shipping will yield the greatest economies of scale for bulk cargo transport of any mode of transport (except perhaps pipeline - I'm not sure). You could use a larger tanker ( https://www.google.com/amp/s/oilandgaslogistics.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/types-of-tankers/amp/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/oilandgaslogistics.wordpress.co...), like a ULCC that has 4X the displacement (cargo carrying capacity) as the handy size tanker we assessed. However, that would perhaps yield a ~50% cost reduction - far short of the ~99% reduction needed. https://project-firefly.com/node/19396 https://project-firefly.com/node/19396 - this depicts containersips, but the exponential decay scale/cost relationship is similar for tankers.