4 ms·

While I think there should absolutely be limits of some kind, if the water need in places like California could be spread out over the water table of, say, ever

While I think there should absolutely be limits of some kind, if the water need in places like California could be spread out over the water table of, say, everything else west of the Mississippi, I imagine it could make a big difference to the water-poor places without running the risk of depleting the water-rich places enough for anyone to even notice. Of course, that's assuming that such a pipeline network would be practical to build and maintain. Personally, I suspect that local desalination will end up being better for coastal or near-coastal areas like California.

CapricornNoble 5y ago
The nuclear power + desalination plant combo seems like a no-brainer to me in particular. Even if it meant sticking them in Oregon or Washington (for reduced seismic risk) and piping the fresh water down to Cali.
- wiredfool 5y ago
  Nope. Washington/Oregon has the same or greater seismic risk to California due to the offshore Juan de Fuca Subduction zone. Less common, but much bigger earthquakes, and generally we're overdue for one. (return period, low hundreds of years. Last one, Jan 26, 1700, magnitude 8.7-9.2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1700_Cascadia_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1700_Cascadia_earthquake)
- mindslight 5y ago
  Does anyone know how the capital depreciation versus electricity cost of desalinization works out? As in, would desalinization make for a good capacity smoother (for solar/wind and the like), where the plant could produce more fresh water while electricity was abundant and then idle when it was not? Or if desalinization is done by something like reverse osmosis then perhaps storing energy as accumulated pressure, while the filter membranes worked full time. It would seem to make more sense than using lithium for grid scale batteries.
- jandrewrogers 5y ago
  The Pacific Northwest does not have reduced seismic risk. It is prone to regular strong earthquakes, both from the subduction zone and from systems of major thrust faults that run through populated areas. Also major tsunami risk since many of the thrust faults run through large bodies of water.

CapricornNoble 5y ago

The nuclear power + desalination plant combo seems like a no-brainer to me in particular. Even if it meant sticking them in Oregon or Washington (for reduced seismic risk) and piping the fresh water down to Cali.

wiredfool 5y ago
Nope. Washington/Oregon has the same or greater seismic risk to California due to the offshore Juan de Fuca Subduction zone. Less common, but much bigger earthquakes, and generally we're overdue for one. (return period, low hundreds of years. Last one, Jan 26, 1700, magnitude 8.7-9.2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1700_Cascadia_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1700_Cascadia_earthquake)
mindslight 5y ago
Does anyone know how the capital depreciation versus electricity cost of desalinization works out? As in, would desalinization make for a good capacity smoother (for solar/wind and the like), where the plant could produce more fresh water while electricity was abundant and then idle when it was not? Or if desalinization is done by something like reverse osmosis then perhaps storing energy as accumulated pressure, while the filter membranes worked full time. It would seem to make more sense than using lithium for grid scale batteries.
jandrewrogers 5y ago
The Pacific Northwest does not have reduced seismic risk. It is prone to regular strong earthquakes, both from the subduction zone and from systems of major thrust faults that run through populated areas. Also major tsunami risk since many of the thrust faults run through large bodies of water.