5 ms·

What is freshwater usage? My water comes out of a Great Lake and substantially ends up back in it, about as clean as it came out. It's not used up. Some energy

What is freshwater usage? My water comes out of a Great Lake and substantially ends up back in it, about as clean as it came out. It's not used up. Some energy is consumed making it potable and pumping it around, and then treating it. Farms in the Midwest happen to catch a lot of rain, are they using freshwater in a different way than an almond orchard in California, or is it the same (my expectation is that the almond orchard is considered a user and the Midwest farm is often not).

noahtallen 4y ago
Completely different scenarios, right? The rainy parts of the Midwest aren’t in a drought which makes water consumption important to track. California is. Anyways, they do use in freshwater differently. Where I grew up in NW Ohio, there is practically no irrigation. It rains enough there’s no need. Freshwater use is passive, in other words. Out west, farms have to actively pump water to irrigate since there’s not enough rain. They can control how much freshwater they take out of the water source in a way the Midwest farmer can’t.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  They are both consuming some of the natural growth/agricultural capacity of the planet.
  - eru 4y ago
    But that capacity is localised. Me preserving water here in rainy Singapore doesn't help anyone in Spain, nor vice versa.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > Where I grew up in NW Ohio, there is practically no irrigation. It rains enough there’s no need. Freshwater use is passive, in other words. Out west, farms have to actively pump water to irrigate since there’s not enough rain. Interestingly, the natural state of much of California was a swamp. We put in a lot of effort converting the swamp to desert. If we reestablished the swamps, California would be a much less pleasant place to live, but it might be a better place to grow stuff like rice.
  - biztos 4y ago
    Isn’t the rice mostly grown in Northern California, which is definitely not a desert and AFAIK was not a swamp?
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      Is there some reason that would continue to be true if Southern California[1] was replaced with swamps? [1] You're using "Northern California" and "Southern California" differently from everyone else; in normal use, Northern California is the Bay Area, not the north of the state.
      - tekknik 4y ago
        > You're using "Northern California" and "Southern California" differently from everyone else; in normal use, Northern California is the Bay Area, not the north of the state. No, norcal is north of LA, not just the bay area. I’ve never heard of anybody referring to the bay area as norcal, it’s always “bay area”
        thaumasiotes 4y ago
        I mean, I assume there's a vaguely-defined line between San Francisco and Los Angeles that notionally separates the north from the south. It doesn't make any more sense to say Southern California is nothing but LA than it does to say Northern California is nothing but the Bay Area. But my point is that the region to the north of, say, Berkeley, is not part of "Northern California". It's too far north for that.
        biztos 4y ago
        I’m from Sierra County, is that north enough for you? We consider ourselves part of Northern California and have since at least the 70s. For many up there, the Bay Area is only nominally part of Northern California, in fact as a kid I didn’t think it was. But having gone on to live in San Francisco for a long time, I came to realize that the the Bay Area, for better or for worse, has more in common with Redding then it does with Manhattan Beach. But I can’t figure out what you think the too-northern Northern Californians should call themselves if they let you lop off the Bay Area (and most would thank you for it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_California
riffraff 4y ago
I would not underestimate the hypothesis that a lake can be screwed up too, consider what happened to the aral sea. Near my home town a big volcanic lake has been used to get water during droughts and it got to a dangerous low level in recent years.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  The Aral Sea was used for irrigation. Huge volumes of water were pumped out over millions of acres to evaporate. The water pumped out of the great lakes is far less and it is largely returned to the lakes (closed loop).
neuronic 4y ago
Don't make the mistake and rely on current rain. It's not funny how quickly moist regions can turn arid as a result of climate change. We have currently seen major droughts in Europe and it severely affects the ongoing energy crisis. A lot of power plants, nuclear and others, are in direct danger of not being able to be cooled anymore because you need RIVERS for that. And they need to be cool. Germany is currently experiencing issues with low water levels in some of its major waterways, such as the Rhine. When they dry up to low levels periodically, and they evidently do nowadays, then you have to shut down the plants accordingly. In France, rivers are too warm to cool plants [1]. There needs to be water AND it needs to be cool. There is no nuclear power without water cooling. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threaten-frances-already-tight-power-supply-2022-07-15/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threa...
- rob74 4y ago
  Not only power plants - river barges have to reduce their loads because of the low water levels, which leads to shortages and price increases.
- garblegarble 4y ago
  >In France, rivers are too warm to cool plants. There needs to be water AND it needs to be cool. There is no nuclear power without water cooling. Just for clarity for others, the reason the water needs to be cool is so that after being used for cooling it doesn't come out too hot and kill wildlife. French plants have applied to temporarily lift these restrictions[1] (which also is not great). If this becomes a problem longer-term, it might be possible to build larger cooling reservoirs for the water prior to being released back into the river. 1: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-asn-nuclear-regulator-adapts-hot-water-discharge-rules-light-heatwave-2022-08-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-asn-nuclear-reg...
- pyrale 4y ago
  > There needs to be water AND it needs to be cool. There is no nuclear power without water cooling. The water doesn't really need to be cool, it can also be used in cooling towers, which means you don't have to put it back into the stream, and therefore you don't care about water temperature. The issue with river water is that we currently don't have enough to divert it for all our needs, be it for a nuclear plant, for irrigation or for drinking. This winter and spring have been exceptionally dry in France, with slightly more than half the rain we usually get.
throwaway894345 4y ago
It’s mostly a question of sustainability. In the midwest, the water isn’t diverted from rivers, lakes, or reservoirs.

noahtallen 4y ago

Completely different scenarios, right? The rainy parts of the Midwest aren’t in a drought which makes water consumption important to track. California is. Anyways, they do use in freshwater differently. Where I grew up in NW Ohio, there is practically no irrigation. It rains enough there’s no need. Freshwater use is passive, in other words. Out west, farms have to actively pump water to irrigate since there’s not enough rain. They can control how much freshwater they take out of the water source in a way the Midwest farmer can’t.

maxerickson 4y ago
They are both consuming some of the natural growth/agricultural capacity of the planet.
- eru 4y ago
  But that capacity is localised. Me preserving water here in rainy Singapore doesn't help anyone in Spain, nor vice versa.
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> Where I grew up in NW Ohio, there is practically no irrigation. It rains enough there’s no need. Freshwater use is passive, in other words. Out west, farms have to actively pump water to irrigate since there’s not enough rain. Interestingly, the natural state of much of California was a swamp. We put in a lot of effort converting the swamp to desert. If we reestablished the swamps, California would be a much less pleasant place to live, but it might be a better place to grow stuff like rice.
- biztos 4y ago
  Isn’t the rice mostly grown in Northern California, which is definitely not a desert and AFAIK was not a swamp?
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    Is there some reason that would continue to be true if Southern California[1] was replaced with swamps? [1] You're using "Northern California" and "Southern California" differently from everyone else; in normal use, Northern California is the Bay Area, not the north of the state.
    - tekknik 4y ago
      > You're using "Northern California" and "Southern California" differently from everyone else; in normal use, Northern California is the Bay Area, not the north of the state. No, norcal is north of LA, not just the bay area. I’ve never heard of anybody referring to the bay area as norcal, it’s always “bay area”
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        I mean, I assume there's a vaguely-defined line between San Francisco and Los Angeles that notionally separates the north from the south. It doesn't make any more sense to say Southern California is nothing but LA than it does to say Northern California is nothing but the Bay Area. But my point is that the region to the north of, say, Berkeley, is not part of "Northern California". It's too far north for that.
        biztos 4y ago
        I’m from Sierra County, is that north enough for you? We consider ourselves part of Northern California and have since at least the 70s. For many up there, the Bay Area is only nominally part of Northern California, in fact as a kid I didn’t think it was. But having gone on to live in San Francisco for a long time, I came to realize that the the Bay Area, for better or for worse, has more in common with Redding then it does with Manhattan Beach. But I can’t figure out what you think the too-northern Northern Californians should call themselves if they let you lop off the Bay Area (and most would thank you for it). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_California

riffraff 4y ago

I would not underestimate the hypothesis that a lake can be screwed up too, consider what happened to the aral sea. Near my home town a big volcanic lake has been used to get water during droughts and it got to a dangerous low level in recent years.

throwaway894345 4y ago
The Aral Sea was used for irrigation. Huge volumes of water were pumped out over millions of acres to evaporate. The water pumped out of the great lakes is far less and it is largely returned to the lakes (closed loop).

neuronic 4y ago

Don't make the mistake and rely on current rain. It's not funny how quickly moist regions can turn arid as a result of climate change. We have currently seen major droughts in Europe and it severely affects the ongoing energy crisis. A lot of power plants, nuclear and others, are in direct danger of not being able to be cooled anymore because you need RIVERS for that. And they need to be cool. Germany is currently experiencing issues with low water levels in some of its major waterways, such as the Rhine. When they dry up to low levels periodically, and they evidently do nowadays, then you have to shut down the plants accordingly. In France, rivers are too warm to cool plants [1]. There needs to be water AND it needs to be cool. There is no nuclear power without water cooling. [1] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threaten-frances-already-tight-power-supply-2022-07-15/ https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/warming-rivers-threa...

rob74 4y ago
Not only power plants - river barges have to reduce their loads because of the low water levels, which leads to shortages and price increases.
garblegarble 4y ago
>In France, rivers are too warm to cool plants. There needs to be water AND it needs to be cool. There is no nuclear power without water cooling. Just for clarity for others, the reason the water needs to be cool is so that after being used for cooling it doesn't come out too hot and kill wildlife. French plants have applied to temporarily lift these restrictions[1] (which also is not great). If this becomes a problem longer-term, it might be possible to build larger cooling reservoirs for the water prior to being released back into the river. 1: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-asn-nuclear-regulator-adapts-hot-water-discharge-rules-light-heatwave-2022-08-08/ https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/frances-asn-nuclear-reg...
pyrale 4y ago
> There needs to be water AND it needs to be cool. There is no nuclear power without water cooling. The water doesn't really need to be cool, it can also be used in cooling towers, which means you don't have to put it back into the stream, and therefore you don't care about water temperature. The issue with river water is that we currently don't have enough to divert it for all our needs, be it for a nuclear plant, for irrigation or for drinking. This winter and spring have been exceptionally dry in France, with slightly more than half the rain we usually get.

throwaway894345 4y ago

It’s mostly a question of sustainability. In the midwest, the water isn’t diverted from rivers, lakes, or reservoirs.