4 ms·

> 20% of all of the electricity generated in California goes to pumping water today. Hi, this is wrong. The 20% figure includes all electricity for water-relat

by rnrn 2y ago

> 20% of all of the electricity generated in California goes to pumping water today. Hi, this is wrong. The 20% figure includes all electricity for water-related uses, not just pumping. Most of that (80-90%) is heating and other end uses, not pumping and transport.

boringg 2y ago
It is true that end-use heating takes a lions share of the energy from the water-energy nexus in California. That said conveyance and pumping water over the Tehachapi takes a pretty impressive workload. Water is lifted 1,926 feet by fourteen 80,000 horsepower pumps. OP comment is that the article is flippant on pumping water. OP is correct that they shouldn't be and it is energy intensive. Correct quote is "Water conveyance, treatment, delivery, heating, and sewage treatment account for about 20% of California's electricity and 30% of natural gas use."
- jeffbee 2y ago
  It doesn't matter how inefficient this is because as it stands we are "curtailing" — which means throwing away — an insane amount of energy in the spring just because we can't figure out what to do with it. The amount of solar power curtailed so far in 2024 was more than enough to desalinate one million acre-feet of seawater and pump it to 1000' above sea level.
  - mike_d 2y ago
    Residential solar was a terrible idea. It only works during the day, it is hard to store, and you can't efficiently transport it to where there is demand without a major overhaul of the grid. I guess you could pump seawater to affluent neighborhoods for processing, but then you need to rethink drinking water distribution. It would have made so much more sense to just build nuclear plants along side desalination plants, but the oil industry convinced everyone that nuclear is a scary boogie monster.
    - xp84 2y ago
      Naive question: if we expanded a lot of residential and light commercial solar heavily enough, could the excess capacity no longer needed from the grid in the daytime be efficiently transmitted to where it’s needed?
      - Gibbon1 2y ago
        Somewhere I saw someones study that said it's better to build solar and batteries than solar and transmission lines. I think wind is maybe more of an issue since wind and people don't line up geographically as much as solar and people.
        lukas099 2y ago
        I saw somewhere the opposite: that it’s better to build solar and transmission lines. So idk what the truth is.

by rnrn 2y ago

boringg 2y ago

It is true that end-use heating takes a lions share of the energy from the water-energy nexus in California. That said conveyance and pumping water over the Tehachapi takes a pretty impressive workload. Water is lifted 1,926 feet by fourteen 80,000 horsepower pumps. OP comment is that the article is flippant on pumping water. OP is correct that they shouldn't be and it is energy intensive. Correct quote is "Water conveyance, treatment, delivery, heating, and sewage treatment account for about 20% of California's electricity and 30% of natural gas use."

jeffbee 2y ago
It doesn't matter how inefficient this is because as it stands we are "curtailing" — which means throwing away — an insane amount of energy in the spring just because we can't figure out what to do with it. The amount of solar power curtailed so far in 2024 was more than enough to desalinate one million acre-feet of seawater and pump it to 1000' above sea level.
- mike_d 2y ago
  Residential solar was a terrible idea. It only works during the day, it is hard to store, and you can't efficiently transport it to where there is demand without a major overhaul of the grid. I guess you could pump seawater to affluent neighborhoods for processing, but then you need to rethink drinking water distribution. It would have made so much more sense to just build nuclear plants along side desalination plants, but the oil industry convinced everyone that nuclear is a scary boogie monster.
  - xp84 2y ago
    Naive question: if we expanded a lot of residential and light commercial solar heavily enough, could the excess capacity no longer needed from the grid in the daytime be efficiently transmitted to where it’s needed?
    - Gibbon1 2y ago
      Somewhere I saw someones study that said it's better to build solar and batteries than solar and transmission lines. I think wind is maybe more of an issue since wind and people don't line up geographically as much as solar and people.
      - lukas099 2y ago
        I saw somewhere the opposite: that it’s better to build solar and transmission lines. So idk what the truth is.