5 ms·

seems like desalination parried with nuclear and solar power (because desalination is expensive electricity wise) is the solution. most of our problems comes do

seems like desalination parried with nuclear and solar power (because desalination is expensive electricity wise) is the solution. most of our problems comes down to energy, to which fusion power will one day solve. we just need some stop gaps.

01100011 5y ago
Why would we desalinate water when there is water already desalinated by nature available for us? Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not against desalination, it just seems crazy to leverage it to supply all of our water shortfall. Wouldn't a network of canals and pipelines allow the country to be more secure and handle disasters more effectively?
- CrazyStat 5y ago
  You would still need a network of canals and pipelines, because places like Colorado and Utah facing imminent water shortages aren't close to the ocean. Desalinating plus pumping water up to those places would be insanely expensive though. It's not economically feasible for the primary uses of fresh water (farming).
  - thehappypm 5y ago
    Maybe places like Colorado and Utah just aren't meant for water-intensive farming. Why should the ecological sins of the past just be grandfathered in?
  - 01100011 5y ago
    Well yeah, how else would you move the water? USPS? You need a massive network of canals, pipelines, pumps and reservoirs. I'm really glad our ancestors had the foresight to build the national electrical grid and the national highway system because with an attitude like I'm seeing in this thread I think the folks today would just throw up their hands and say it's too big and too difficult.
- thehappypm 5y ago
  It's arrogant to expect that water irresponsible states should have any claim whatsoever to the water in states that are responsible with their supply.
  - 01100011 5y ago
    Why is it a claim? It's an economic exchange? Do you get upset when CA buys electricity from WA?
- bluGill 5y ago
  > Wouldn't a network of canals and pipelines allow the country to be more secure and handle disasters more effectively? No. The Colorado river is big. I mean really big. And we are using it all. Sure the Mississippi has more than enough water, but the elevation of the source of the Mississippi (where you can walk across it) is a lot lower than most of the Colorado river. That means we need massive numbers of pumps to get that work to where it is needed. We can't afford that, either economically, or CO2.
  - 01100011 5y ago
    So we can run desalination plants, with all of their various pumps and external costs related to their consumables, with magical free energy(solar? nuclear?) but we can't pump water uphill because energy. Did I understand that right?
    - WkndTriathlete 5y ago
      Well energy, #1, and you should actually do the napkin math to figure out that it takes an enormous amount of energy to pump 14.8 maf/year (which is the average annual flow of the Colorado) of water uphill. (Hint: Desalination of water for California comes out to far less than petajoules.) But #2, the Great Lakes are effectively staying level right now. Pumping 14.8 maf/year out of the Great Lakes would eventually deplete those as well. The Mississippi flow is 73.1 maf/year, but diverting 14.8 maf/year would result in catastrophic devastation to the surrounding ecosystem and other uses of the river.
      - 01100011 5y ago
        Why do you need to pump the equivalent of the CO river uphill? Do high elevation states need that much water? Could you not pump the water to CA instead(a net energy wash, minus transportation losses(friction, turbulence?))? Why would you need to pump out the equivalent of the CO river from the Great Lakes Basin? Why would you need to pump out the equivalent of the CO river from the Mississippi river mouth? I'm trying to sort through your straw men here. Maybe you can help me out. Why is the annual flow of the CO river an important number to you? Why does a single source of water need to make up for our current shortfall?
- autokad 5y ago
  draining other aquifers is only delaying the inevitable. Look what happened to the Aral sea. we will need canals and pipelines too, but I do think we are going to have to rely on water desalination. I have a crazy dream of greening the Sahara with desalination plants.
simiones 5y ago
Fusion will likely never happen (maintenance costs are simply untenable - any fusion plant would need to be rebuilt about once every 20 years because of structural issues caused by the high-energy radiation that escapes the reactor that makes any material porous and radioactive). The amount of energy required to water the country through desalination would be mind-boggling. Not to mention the impact on ocean ecosystems of dumping that much salt near the shore.

01100011 5y ago

Why would we desalinate water when there is water already desalinated by nature available for us? Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not against desalination, it just seems crazy to leverage it to supply all of our water shortfall. Wouldn't a network of canals and pipelines allow the country to be more secure and handle disasters more effectively?

CrazyStat 5y ago
You would still need a network of canals and pipelines, because places like Colorado and Utah facing imminent water shortages aren't close to the ocean. Desalinating plus pumping water up to those places would be insanely expensive though. It's not economically feasible for the primary uses of fresh water (farming).
- thehappypm 5y ago
  Maybe places like Colorado and Utah just aren't meant for water-intensive farming. Why should the ecological sins of the past just be grandfathered in?
- 01100011 5y ago
  Well yeah, how else would you move the water? USPS? You need a massive network of canals, pipelines, pumps and reservoirs. I'm really glad our ancestors had the foresight to build the national electrical grid and the national highway system because with an attitude like I'm seeing in this thread I think the folks today would just throw up their hands and say it's too big and too difficult.
thehappypm 5y ago
It's arrogant to expect that water irresponsible states should have any claim whatsoever to the water in states that are responsible with their supply.
- 01100011 5y ago
  Why is it a claim? It's an economic exchange? Do you get upset when CA buys electricity from WA?
bluGill 5y ago
> Wouldn't a network of canals and pipelines allow the country to be more secure and handle disasters more effectively? No. The Colorado river is big. I mean really big. And we are using it all. Sure the Mississippi has more than enough water, but the elevation of the source of the Mississippi (where you can walk across it) is a lot lower than most of the Colorado river. That means we need massive numbers of pumps to get that work to where it is needed. We can't afford that, either economically, or CO2.
- 01100011 5y ago
  So we can run desalination plants, with all of their various pumps and external costs related to their consumables, with magical free energy(solar? nuclear?) but we can't pump water uphill because energy. Did I understand that right?
  - WkndTriathlete 5y ago
    Well energy, #1, and you should actually do the napkin math to figure out that it takes an enormous amount of energy to pump 14.8 maf/year (which is the average annual flow of the Colorado) of water uphill. (Hint: Desalination of water for California comes out to far less than petajoules.) But #2, the Great Lakes are effectively staying level right now. Pumping 14.8 maf/year out of the Great Lakes would eventually deplete those as well. The Mississippi flow is 73.1 maf/year, but diverting 14.8 maf/year would result in catastrophic devastation to the surrounding ecosystem and other uses of the river.
    - 01100011 5y ago
      Why do you need to pump the equivalent of the CO river uphill? Do high elevation states need that much water? Could you not pump the water to CA instead(a net energy wash, minus transportation losses(friction, turbulence?))? Why would you need to pump out the equivalent of the CO river from the Great Lakes Basin? Why would you need to pump out the equivalent of the CO river from the Mississippi river mouth? I'm trying to sort through your straw men here. Maybe you can help me out. Why is the annual flow of the CO river an important number to you? Why does a single source of water need to make up for our current shortfall?
autokad 5y ago
draining other aquifers is only delaying the inevitable. Look what happened to the Aral sea. we will need canals and pipelines too, but I do think we are going to have to rely on water desalination. I have a crazy dream of greening the Sahara with desalination plants.

simiones 5y ago

Fusion will likely never happen (maintenance costs are simply untenable - any fusion plant would need to be rebuilt about once every 20 years because of structural issues caused by the high-energy radiation that escapes the reactor that makes any material porous and radioactive). The amount of energy required to water the country through desalination would be mind-boggling. Not to mention the impact on ocean ecosystems of dumping that much salt near the shore.