4 ms·

This is about creating potable water, not cooling water for nuclear plants. Huge portions of the US population live in areas with lots of access to saline water

This is about creating potable water, not cooling water for nuclear plants. Huge portions of the US population live in areas with lots of access to saline water, but minimal access to fresh water - desalination would help reduce demand on a supply that is already collapsing. The DOE is doing the work because desalination takes huge amounts of energy, and they're looking at ways to reduce this.

roenxi 2y ago
> The DOE is doing the work because desalination takes huge amounts of energy, and they're looking at ways to reduce this. Everything that happens takes energy. Is the DoE going to try and be experts in all of it? They'll have the broadest mandate in history. The consumers of the energy are in a better place to direct the research. But hey, the US is adding a trillion dollars in debt every 100 days, so the DoE may as well do this thing. There isn't enough money in the pot here to have a serious argument over it.
- SECProto 2y ago
  Yes, the DOE does research on various energy related topics to prepare for the future. First you suggest they should be investing in supply side research (thorium reactors), then you say they shouldn't invest in demand side research (desalination)?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    Yes? You say that like it is an unreasonable position, but if you add energy demand and supply side together technically you get the entire economy and a fair amount of stuff that isn't even measured in money. The DoE isn't a bank. That is an absurdly wide field of interests. If you look at, y'know, energy use in the US [1] then desalination doesn't even rate a mention as an energy sink. The biggest source of waste by far is the 66% losses during energy generation and in electricity and transport. Realistically they should be focusing on the supply of energy. And to be fair they probably are. I'm repeating myself, but this looks like the bureaucratic equivalent of someone with a bee in the bonnet and nobody could be bothered to tell them no. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Energy_2022.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Energy_2022.png

roenxi 2y ago

> The DOE is doing the work because desalination takes huge amounts of energy, and they're looking at ways to reduce this. Everything that happens takes energy. Is the DoE going to try and be experts in all of it? They'll have the broadest mandate in history. The consumers of the energy are in a better place to direct the research. But hey, the US is adding a trillion dollars in debt every 100 days, so the DoE may as well do this thing. There isn't enough money in the pot here to have a serious argument over it.

SECProto 2y ago
Yes, the DOE does research on various energy related topics to prepare for the future. First you suggest they should be investing in supply side research (thorium reactors), then you say they shouldn't invest in demand side research (desalination)?
- roenxi 2y ago
  Yes? You say that like it is an unreasonable position, but if you add energy demand and supply side together technically you get the entire economy and a fair amount of stuff that isn't even measured in money. The DoE isn't a bank. That is an absurdly wide field of interests. If you look at, y'know, energy use in the US [1] then desalination doesn't even rate a mention as an energy sink. The biggest source of waste by far is the 66% losses during energy generation and in electricity and transport. Realistically they should be focusing on the supply of energy. And to be fair they probably are. I'm repeating myself, but this looks like the bureaucratic equivalent of someone with a bee in the bonnet and nobody could be bothered to tell them no. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Energy_2022.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Energy_2022.png