4 ms·

The great question is why. That is, if we build a ton of solar and storage capacity, wouldn't it actually make a ton more sense to use that to decarbonize the

The great question is why. That is, if we build a ton of solar and storage capacity, wouldn't it actually make a ton more sense to use that to decarbonize the rest of our energy infrastructure, rather than going into a giant desalinization project? I'm not arguing that what TFA proposes is technically impossible, I'm just arguing that it makes 0 sense from an economic or societal perspective. For all the advancements the world has made in renewable energy, we still pump out a record (or near record) amount of greenhouse gases every year: https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions

Log_out_ 2y ago
? Its more a pump it already desalinated from up north rowards the south?
reducesuffering 2y ago
> wouldn't it actually make a ton more sense to use that to decarbonize the rest of our energy infrastructure Some portion of electricity is lost in transmission the longer the distances no? At some point it makes more sense for solar panels in San Diego to desalinize right next to them then try to get that energy to Maine.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  High voltage transmission lines are remarkably efficient, with losses of 2-3% per 1000km. And while I assume you were using hyperbole, nobody needs to get power from San Diego to Maine in the first place.
  - reducesuffering 2y ago
    It's hyperbolic, but isn't the result the same if San Diego gives solar power to Utah, and then Utah gives power to Kansas, then Pennsylvania, then Maine? But if that's only ~10% (4,500km across the US) that's not bad.
oceanplexian 2y ago
It makes a lot of sense for the same reason California is the most productive agricultural region in the world. The arid climate is optimal for consistently growing crops with low risk of disease year-round. Instead of having to import winter crops from overseas we could instead grow them in Arizona, and transport them on rail across the United States vs. importing them on ships from around the world. That also would have a huge impact on greenhouse emissions, and farmland really does "Terraform" the desert and make it more livable by lowering temperatures and helping to keep down dust.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  I obviously have no idea how the math works out in detail, but I'd be pretty surprised if the economics of this were feasible. That is, spend a ton of money (and energy) to terraform sizable swaths of the Arizona desert just to avoid transporting in crops from Mexico right across the boarder? I'd be skeptical that even a back-of-the-napkin estimate would consider this possible. Relevant example: there are a bunch of rice farmers near Houston that are dependent on the Colorado River for irrigation (note, this is the Colorado River in Texas that runs through downtown Austin - completely different river from the Colorado River that goes through the Hoover Dam and supplies a ton of the Western US with water). Given how we've been getting drier over the past decades, the rice farmers are now frequently cut off from water because that water is deemed more important for city dwellers upstream where the economic return on that water usage is much greater. If we can't even get enough water to these rice farmers (where it's actually relatively swampy, and note TX is a leader in renewable energy generation in the US), it seems like a silly pipe dream to talk about growing kale in the Arizona desert.
photonthug 2y ago
> I'm just arguing that it makes 0 sense from an economic or societal perspective Arguments like this might be true, but will always feel incomplete if you don’t explain why the situation now is so different from the 1930s. The Hoover dam enabling the city of Las Vegas, and the new deal employing millions to drag the US out of the depression is usually regarded as a success story. There must have been status quo naysayers at the time too, but they look wrongheaded today. Environmental arguments about carbon or greenhouse gases add color but also can’t make the case completely. Before you can really argue against anything new on the basis of carbon, you kind of need to show that not doing the thing is actually significantly improving things and also that this is low hanging fruit compared to, say, enforcing existing regulations that companies or countries are ignoring.
jes5199 2y ago
solar has a seasonal cost curve such that if we build enough to displace fossil fuels in the winter, then during the summertime we’ll have more energy than we know what to do with - in fact, we already have to “curtail” energy production in the summer. after we charge all our batteries, what are we going to do with the summer surplus? using it for desalination sounds good to me

Log_out_ 2y ago

? Its more a pump it already desalinated from up north rowards the south?

reducesuffering 2y ago

> wouldn't it actually make a ton more sense to use that to decarbonize the rest of our energy infrastructure Some portion of electricity is lost in transmission the longer the distances no? At some point it makes more sense for solar panels in San Diego to desalinize right next to them then try to get that energy to Maine.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
High voltage transmission lines are remarkably efficient, with losses of 2-3% per 1000km. And while I assume you were using hyperbole, nobody needs to get power from San Diego to Maine in the first place.
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  It's hyperbolic, but isn't the result the same if San Diego gives solar power to Utah, and then Utah gives power to Kansas, then Pennsylvania, then Maine? But if that's only ~10% (4,500km across the US) that's not bad.

oceanplexian 2y ago

It makes a lot of sense for the same reason California is the most productive agricultural region in the world. The arid climate is optimal for consistently growing crops with low risk of disease year-round. Instead of having to import winter crops from overseas we could instead grow them in Arizona, and transport them on rail across the United States vs. importing them on ships from around the world. That also would have a huge impact on greenhouse emissions, and farmland really does "Terraform" the desert and make it more livable by lowering temperatures and helping to keep down dust.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
I obviously have no idea how the math works out in detail, but I'd be pretty surprised if the economics of this were feasible. That is, spend a ton of money (and energy) to terraform sizable swaths of the Arizona desert just to avoid transporting in crops from Mexico right across the boarder? I'd be skeptical that even a back-of-the-napkin estimate would consider this possible. Relevant example: there are a bunch of rice farmers near Houston that are dependent on the Colorado River for irrigation (note, this is the Colorado River in Texas that runs through downtown Austin - completely different river from the Colorado River that goes through the Hoover Dam and supplies a ton of the Western US with water). Given how we've been getting drier over the past decades, the rice farmers are now frequently cut off from water because that water is deemed more important for city dwellers upstream where the economic return on that water usage is much greater. If we can't even get enough water to these rice farmers (where it's actually relatively swampy, and note TX is a leader in renewable energy generation in the US), it seems like a silly pipe dream to talk about growing kale in the Arizona desert.

photonthug 2y ago

> I'm just arguing that it makes 0 sense from an economic or societal perspective Arguments like this might be true, but will always feel incomplete if you don’t explain why the situation now is so different from the 1930s. The Hoover dam enabling the city of Las Vegas, and the new deal employing millions to drag the US out of the depression is usually regarded as a success story. There must have been status quo naysayers at the time too, but they look wrongheaded today. Environmental arguments about carbon or greenhouse gases add color but also can’t make the case completely. Before you can really argue against anything new on the basis of carbon, you kind of need to show that not doing the thing is actually significantly improving things and also that this is low hanging fruit compared to, say, enforcing existing regulations that companies or countries are ignoring.

jes5199 2y ago

solar has a seasonal cost curve such that if we build enough to displace fossil fuels in the winter, then during the summertime we’ll have more energy than we know what to do with - in fact, we already have to “curtail” energy production in the summer. after we charge all our batteries, what are we going to do with the summer surplus? using it for desalination sounds good to me