4 ms·

Dumb question, why doesn't California invest in desalination plants? I know they're expensive and complex. But Israel and Singapore have several of them running

Dumb question, why doesn't California invest in desalination plants? I know they're expensive and complex. But Israel and Singapore have several of them running, if they can do it California should be able too.

mgr86 5y ago
I'd be curious as well. It appears they have at least 11, including in San Diego. With 10 more planned as of 2019[0] [0]: https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-water-scarcity-increases-desalination-plants-are-on-the-rise https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-water-scarcity-increases-d...
- mdorazio 5y ago
  They are fabulously expensive for the water output you get. The San Diego one is (or was) the largest in the Western hemisphere, cost about a billion dollars to build, requires 40MW to run, and only covers about 7% of the potable water needs for the San Diego area.
  - stickyricky 5y ago
    Do you have a figure for price per gallon? It might be interesting to do a cost benefit analysis between desalination and the water pipeline from Canada mentioned elsewhere in the comments.
    - mdorazio 5y ago
      The best I have is from [1], which estimates 50 million gallons a day at an ongoing operating cost of around $50 million per year. You'd have to pick a timeframe to also amortize the cost of the plant itself and add that in. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324049504578545661598973132 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324049504578545...
  - maybelsyrup 5y ago
    A billion? Only? I think some context can be helpful here. As a nation, we're happy -- hell, our elites (yes, we on HN) practically begged -- to spend $6.4 trillion dollars over 20 years to have fun foreign adventures in the sand, playing guardian of freedom and feeling real nice about it [1]. $1bn for 7% of the water needs for a major (and growing) US metro area sounds like a bargain to me. For a measly $14bn we'd cover the whole city. Defund the Pentagon, turn it into a WeWork, and let's do fun, neat stuff with our civilization. If we're gonna throw piles of money at things with low ROI, why not throw it at fusion and desalination instead of drone striking children at Pakistani weddings? 100% sincere here, not being cheeky. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/us-spent-6point4-trillion-on-middle-east-wars-since-2001-study.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/us-spent-6point4-trillion-on...
    - foobiekr 5y ago
      the 40MW is a bigger issue
      - maybelsyrup 5y ago
        Sure, maybe -- I'm no scientician -- but $6.4tn can buy mega megawatts. For that much money we can put everybody in Southern California on treadmills hooked up light bulbs.
babesh 5y ago
Bad leadership in the political ranks. The problems that California has has hurt it for many years. We just have been able to get away with it due to tech and entertainment money largesse. The progressive wing is against desalination plants and dams. They say that they are anti environment. They push for conservation. The problem is that since 80% of the water is used by agriculture all the conservation efforts won't be enough. You can't reapportion the water because of water rights. The agricultural interests won't give up theirs. Thus you end up doing nothing much and hoping for rainy seasons. Other longstanding California issues: wildfires, insufficent power generation, bad schools, expensive housing.
- tharkun__ 5y ago
  It's so interesting. I'm all for _not_ firing coal for electricity but many environmentalists seem to really just be against everything. I also have nothing against a rational look at and discussion of all the options. The problem is the _same_ people will condemn you for coal and nuclear power trying to get you to use solar, wind and water. Then you do that and they block wind for killing birds and destroying the view, solar for using so much space and precious materials and water for the impact on the environment. Yes absolutely, flooding a huge area for a dam can potentially destroy habitat for both humans and animals and will create greenhouse gases from dying plant matter and such. Agreed. What is the alternative? Burn a bunch of coal? That btw does the same but is not renewable. Look up "Garzweiler 2" in Germany. Wind is curious. Destroying the view? Really? You care about 30 wind turbines destroying the view more than coal combustion particles in the air killing people slowly and painfully? That said, if you look at the "total possible wind capacity" in Germany for example it is laughable compared to the energy needs. As in the solar potential at max built out capacity ignoring all 'view' concerns is in the low Gigawatthours territory. Energy consumption in Germany is in the hundreds of Terwatthours. As in over 500 TWh, so over 500000 GWh. Installable wind capacity less than 15 GWh with estimates around half of that actually usable due to 'view concerns' and such. Other countries will have better ratios for sure.
  - ianlevesque 5y ago
    As with most sweeping generalizations, it's not the same person making all of those points. It's possible to hold one of those views each and have a large group with contradictory interests.
gumby 5y ago
In addition to the power requirements there is some concern about the environmental effects of releasing brackish water back close to the coastline.
DoreenMichele 5y ago
They actually are starting to do that: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/desalination-advances-california-despite-opponents-pushing-alternatives-2021-07-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/desalination-advances-calif...
Sevii 5y ago
I think the reason desalination doesn't make sense is because most of the water is used for agriculture as the comments above mentioned. As such the marginal cost of repurposing water from agriculture to people is probably significantly less than getting that water via desalination.
tharkun__ 5y ago
The pull seems to have been to get Canada to either sell their own water or even bring down water all the way from Alaska. I tried to find it quickly but can't. I seem to remember hearing on the radio about some 100 year contract to sell water cheaply from BC or Alberta to CA. So potentially it's one of those scrapped plans or maybe they figured how bad the plan was just buried it. I can easily find propaganda trying to co Vince us that Canada has so much water and that it magically renews itself that it would be stupid not to sell it. Over and over. Which is in stark contrast to my experience here. We have had less and less snow in recent years. We've had rivers running lower. We've had watering bans and lawns looking like we are in Arizona (yes, an exeggeration to make a point) more often in recent years. This year is an exception with more normal sun/rain cycles returning after a really dry spring (lawns recovered - who cares - some crops not so much, other are doing much better than in recent years)
- SllX 5y ago
  Not sure if this is still the case under USMCA, but as I recall, Canadians have been very against selling water into the US because under NAFTA once they started, they couldn’t stop. Well, whether that was ever true or not, that was the reason I heard cited.
- dehrmann 5y ago
  This doesn't sound right. The pipeline would be longer than the Alaska Pipeline, but carry a commodity that retails for 3 2-3 cents per gallon, not $3.50.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > This doesn't sound right. The pipeline would be longer than the Alaska Pipeline, but carry a commodity that retails for 3 2-3 cents per gallon, not $3.50. That's a gasoline price, but don't they typically pump crude through pipelines? So more like $1.50 a gallon, based on my calculations. I suppose if they built such a pipeline, they'd have to charge a lot more than 2-3 a gallon for the water. Though as a project, it seems less ambitious than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93North_Water_Transfer_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93North_Water_Tran.... Edit: I wonder if this was the (defunct) North American plan that was being referred to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power....
walty 5y ago
There is some investment. E.g., San Diego has had a desalination plant since 2012: http://carlsbaddesal.sdcwa.org/financial-affordability/ http://carlsbaddesal.sdcwa.org/financial-affordability/ .
- aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 5y ago
  Santa Barbara, likewise, since 1992. https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/pw/resources/system/sources/desalination/default.asp https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/pw/resources/system...
rasz 5y ago
You want state paid water for pistachio farming? Farming is less than 2% of California GDP but uses over 80% of the water.
kevin_thibedeau 5y ago
Israel has a patron handing them a few billion each year.

mgr86 5y ago

I'd be curious as well. It appears they have at least 11, including in San Diego. With 10 more planned as of 2019[0] [0]: https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-water-scarcity-increases-desalination-plants-are-on-the-rise https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-water-scarcity-increases-d...

mdorazio 5y ago
They are fabulously expensive for the water output you get. The San Diego one is (or was) the largest in the Western hemisphere, cost about a billion dollars to build, requires 40MW to run, and only covers about 7% of the potable water needs for the San Diego area.
- stickyricky 5y ago
  Do you have a figure for price per gallon? It might be interesting to do a cost benefit analysis between desalination and the water pipeline from Canada mentioned elsewhere in the comments.
  - mdorazio 5y ago
    The best I have is from [1], which estimates 50 million gallons a day at an ongoing operating cost of around $50 million per year. You'd have to pick a timeframe to also amortize the cost of the plant itself and add that in. [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324049504578545661598973132 https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324049504578545...
- maybelsyrup 5y ago
  A billion? Only? I think some context can be helpful here. As a nation, we're happy -- hell, our elites (yes, we on HN) practically begged -- to spend $6.4 trillion dollars over 20 years to have fun foreign adventures in the sand, playing guardian of freedom and feeling real nice about it [1]. $1bn for 7% of the water needs for a major (and growing) US metro area sounds like a bargain to me. For a measly $14bn we'd cover the whole city. Defund the Pentagon, turn it into a WeWork, and let's do fun, neat stuff with our civilization. If we're gonna throw piles of money at things with low ROI, why not throw it at fusion and desalination instead of drone striking children at Pakistani weddings? 100% sincere here, not being cheeky. [1] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/us-spent-6point4-trillion-on-middle-east-wars-since-2001-study.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/20/us-spent-6point4-trillion-on...
  - foobiekr 5y ago
    the 40MW is a bigger issue
    - maybelsyrup 5y ago
      Sure, maybe -- I'm no scientician -- but $6.4tn can buy mega megawatts. For that much money we can put everybody in Southern California on treadmills hooked up light bulbs.

babesh 5y ago

Bad leadership in the political ranks. The problems that California has has hurt it for many years. We just have been able to get away with it due to tech and entertainment money largesse. The progressive wing is against desalination plants and dams. They say that they are anti environment. They push for conservation. The problem is that since 80% of the water is used by agriculture all the conservation efforts won't be enough. You can't reapportion the water because of water rights. The agricultural interests won't give up theirs. Thus you end up doing nothing much and hoping for rainy seasons. Other longstanding California issues: wildfires, insufficent power generation, bad schools, expensive housing.

tharkun__ 5y ago
It's so interesting. I'm all for _not_ firing coal for electricity but many environmentalists seem to really just be against everything. I also have nothing against a rational look at and discussion of all the options. The problem is the _same_ people will condemn you for coal and nuclear power trying to get you to use solar, wind and water. Then you do that and they block wind for killing birds and destroying the view, solar for using so much space and precious materials and water for the impact on the environment. Yes absolutely, flooding a huge area for a dam can potentially destroy habitat for both humans and animals and will create greenhouse gases from dying plant matter and such. Agreed. What is the alternative? Burn a bunch of coal? That btw does the same but is not renewable. Look up "Garzweiler 2" in Germany. Wind is curious. Destroying the view? Really? You care about 30 wind turbines destroying the view more than coal combustion particles in the air killing people slowly and painfully? That said, if you look at the "total possible wind capacity" in Germany for example it is laughable compared to the energy needs. As in the solar potential at max built out capacity ignoring all 'view' concerns is in the low Gigawatthours territory. Energy consumption in Germany is in the hundreds of Terwatthours. As in over 500 TWh, so over 500000 GWh. Installable wind capacity less than 15 GWh with estimates around half of that actually usable due to 'view concerns' and such. Other countries will have better ratios for sure.
- ianlevesque 5y ago
  As with most sweeping generalizations, it's not the same person making all of those points. It's possible to hold one of those views each and have a large group with contradictory interests.

gumby 5y ago

In addition to the power requirements there is some concern about the environmental effects of releasing brackish water back close to the coastline.

DoreenMichele 5y ago

They actually are starting to do that: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/desalination-advances-california-despite-opponents-pushing-alternatives-2021-07-28/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/desalination-advances-calif...

Sevii 5y ago

I think the reason desalination doesn't make sense is because most of the water is used for agriculture as the comments above mentioned. As such the marginal cost of repurposing water from agriculture to people is probably significantly less than getting that water via desalination.

tharkun__ 5y ago

The pull seems to have been to get Canada to either sell their own water or even bring down water all the way from Alaska. I tried to find it quickly but can't. I seem to remember hearing on the radio about some 100 year contract to sell water cheaply from BC or Alberta to CA. So potentially it's one of those scrapped plans or maybe they figured how bad the plan was just buried it. I can easily find propaganda trying to co Vince us that Canada has so much water and that it magically renews itself that it would be stupid not to sell it. Over and over. Which is in stark contrast to my experience here. We have had less and less snow in recent years. We've had rivers running lower. We've had watering bans and lawns looking like we are in Arizona (yes, an exeggeration to make a point) more often in recent years. This year is an exception with more normal sun/rain cycles returning after a really dry spring (lawns recovered - who cares - some crops not so much, other are doing much better than in recent years)

SllX 5y ago
Not sure if this is still the case under USMCA, but as I recall, Canadians have been very against selling water into the US because under NAFTA once they started, they couldn’t stop. Well, whether that was ever true or not, that was the reason I heard cited.
dehrmann 5y ago
This doesn't sound right. The pipeline would be longer than the Alaska Pipeline, but carry a commodity that retails for 3 2-3 cents per gallon, not $3.50.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > This doesn't sound right. The pipeline would be longer than the Alaska Pipeline, but carry a commodity that retails for 3 2-3 cents per gallon, not $3.50. That's a gasoline price, but don't they typically pump crude through pipelines? So more like $1.50 a gallon, based on my calculations. I suppose if they built such a pipeline, they'd have to charge a lot more than 2-3 a gallon for the water. Though as a project, it seems less ambitious than this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93North_Water_Transfer_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South%E2%80%93North_Water_Tran.... Edit: I wonder if this was the (defunct) North American plan that was being referred to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power_Alliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power....

walty 5y ago

There is some investment. E.g., San Diego has had a desalination plant since 2012: http://carlsbaddesal.sdcwa.org/financial-affordability/ http://carlsbaddesal.sdcwa.org/financial-affordability/ .

aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA 5y ago
Santa Barbara, likewise, since 1992. https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/pw/resources/system/sources/desalination/default.asp https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/pw/resources/system...

rasz 5y ago

You want state paid water for pistachio farming? Farming is less than 2% of California GDP but uses over 80% of the water.

kevin_thibedeau 5y ago

Israel has a patron handing them a few billion each year.