3 ms·
The process doesn't even have to be super efficient Economics are important. We didn't go back to the moon because it was too expensive, and we're not going to
by sbierwagen 13y ago
The process doesn't even have to be super efficient
Economics are important. We didn't go back to the moon because it was too expensive, and we're not going to see massive-scale desalination because it's also too expensive: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/10/the-energy-water-nexus/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/10/the-energy-water...
California uses 46 billion gallons of water per day.
Supplying 25% of this via desalination would require 36 GW of
thermal-equivalent power. California runs on 30 GW of
electricity, and a total energy budget of 262 GW (thermal;
from oil, gas, coal, hydro, nuclear, etc.—according to the
EIA). That’s a substantial amount for 25% of our water needs.
A "ten dollar glass of water" isn't even the big issue. Agriculture requires water, and expensive water means expensive food. Expensive food means people die, mostly from bullet wounds inflicted by people who are hungry. (I hardly need to provide citations for the number of wars resulting from food shortages)
- efsavage 13y agoA very informative article, thanks for linking. However, his estimates for the energy required were very conservative, and even if these numbers don't work out with today's water prices, they do make sense at a certain point that is likely lower than one encouraging violence. That effectively provide a cap where we start to go this route if necessary, and the vast supply means that we shouldn't go above that for very long.
- adventured 13y agoThese types of x-y-z is impossible due to cost assumptions have always been made throughout modern history, and they often end up being wrong. You're judging everything based on today's technology. When in fact technology tends to leap forward massively at times due to necessity, and it's rarely foreseen. The same leaps will happen again and again and again.
- gabemart 13y agoAgricultural requires water. But much of the "requirement" is a product of the ready supply and low cost of that water. If fresh water prices rise, the more water-intensive agricultural crops are grown less and become more expensive. I wonder what the water-used-to-calories-produced ratio is for something like lettuce compared to something like corn or beans. I imagine it's a good number of orders or magnitude higher. In other words, an increase in the price of fresh water does not necessarily significantly increase the price of feeding yourself, it significantly increases the price of water-intensive crops and likely increases the demand for less water intensive crops.