Dumb question, why doesn't California invest in desalination plants? I know they're expensive and complex. But Israel and Singapore have several of them running, if they can do it California should be able too.
Bad leadership in the political ranks. The problems that California has has hurt it for many years. We just have been able to get away with it due to tech and entertainment money largesse.
The progressive wing is against desalination plants and dams. They say that they are anti environment. They push for conservation.
The problem is that since 80% of the water is used by agriculture all the conservation efforts won't be enough. You can't reapportion the water because of water rights. The agricultural interests won't give up theirs.
Thus you end up doing nothing much and hoping for rainy seasons.
Other longstanding California issues: wildfires, insufficent power generation, bad schools, expensive housing.
It's so interesting. I'm all for _not_ firing coal for electricity but many environmentalists seem to really just be against everything. I also have nothing against a rational look at and discussion of all the options. The problem is the _same_ people will condemn you for coal and nuclear power trying to get you to use solar, wind and water. Then you do that and they block wind for killing birds and destroying the view, solar for using so much space and precious materials and water for the impact on the environment.
Yes absolutely, flooding a huge area for a dam can potentially destroy habitat for both humans and animals and will create greenhouse gases from dying plant matter and such. Agreed. What is the alternative? Burn a bunch of coal? That btw does the same but is not renewable. Look up "Garzweiler 2" in Germany.
Wind is curious. Destroying the view? Really? You care about 30 wind turbines destroying the view more than coal combustion particles in the air killing people slowly and painfully? That said, if you look at the "total possible wind capacity" in Germany for example it is laughable compared to the energy needs. As in the solar potential at max built out capacity ignoring all 'view' concerns is in the low Gigawatthours territory. Energy consumption in Germany is in the hundreds of Terwatthours. As in over 500 TWh, so over 500000 GWh. Installable wind capacity less than 15 GWh with estimates around half of that actually usable due to 'view concerns' and such. Other countries will have better ratios for sure.
The pull seems to have been to get Canada to either sell their own water or even bring down water all the way from Alaska.
I tried to find it quickly but can't. I seem to remember hearing on the radio about some 100 year contract to sell water cheaply from BC or Alberta to CA. So potentially it's one of those scrapped plans or maybe they figured how bad the plan was just buried it. I can easily find propaganda trying to co Vince us that Canada has so much water and that it magically renews itself that it would be stupid not to sell it. Over and over.
Which is in stark contrast to my experience here. We have had less and less snow in recent years. We've had rivers running lower. We've had watering bans and lawns looking like we are in Arizona (yes, an exeggeration to make a point) more often in recent years. This year is an exception with more normal sun/rain cycles returning after a really dry spring (lawns recovered - who cares - some crops not so much, other are doing much better than in recent years)
Not sure if this is still the case under USMCA, but as I recall, Canadians have been very against selling water into the US because under NAFTA once they started, they couldn’t stop. Well, whether that was ever true or not, that was the reason I heard cited.
This doesn't sound right. The pipeline would be longer than the Alaska Pipeline, but carry a commodity that retails for 3 2-3 cents per gallon, not $3.50.
They are fabulously expensive for the water output you get. The San Diego one is (or was) the largest in the Western hemisphere, cost about a billion dollars to build, requires 40MW to run, and only covers about 7% of the potable water needs for the San Diego area.
I think the reason desalination doesn't make sense is because most of the water is used for agriculture as the comments above mentioned. As such the marginal cost of repurposing water from agriculture to people is probably significantly less than getting that water via desalination.
babesh|4 years ago
The progressive wing is against desalination plants and dams. They say that they are anti environment. They push for conservation.
The problem is that since 80% of the water is used by agriculture all the conservation efforts won't be enough. You can't reapportion the water because of water rights. The agricultural interests won't give up theirs.
Thus you end up doing nothing much and hoping for rainy seasons.
Other longstanding California issues: wildfires, insufficent power generation, bad schools, expensive housing.
tharkun__|4 years ago
Yes absolutely, flooding a huge area for a dam can potentially destroy habitat for both humans and animals and will create greenhouse gases from dying plant matter and such. Agreed. What is the alternative? Burn a bunch of coal? That btw does the same but is not renewable. Look up "Garzweiler 2" in Germany.
Wind is curious. Destroying the view? Really? You care about 30 wind turbines destroying the view more than coal combustion particles in the air killing people slowly and painfully? That said, if you look at the "total possible wind capacity" in Germany for example it is laughable compared to the energy needs. As in the solar potential at max built out capacity ignoring all 'view' concerns is in the low Gigawatthours territory. Energy consumption in Germany is in the hundreds of Terwatthours. As in over 500 TWh, so over 500000 GWh. Installable wind capacity less than 15 GWh with estimates around half of that actually usable due to 'view concerns' and such. Other countries will have better ratios for sure.
pl-94|4 years ago
This is the case for most developed areas.
[0] https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-water-st...
walty|4 years ago
aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA|4 years ago
https://www.santabarbaraca.gov/gov/depts/pw/resources/system...
tharkun__|4 years ago
I tried to find it quickly but can't. I seem to remember hearing on the radio about some 100 year contract to sell water cheaply from BC or Alberta to CA. So potentially it's one of those scrapped plans or maybe they figured how bad the plan was just buried it. I can easily find propaganda trying to co Vince us that Canada has so much water and that it magically renews itself that it would be stupid not to sell it. Over and over.
Which is in stark contrast to my experience here. We have had less and less snow in recent years. We've had rivers running lower. We've had watering bans and lawns looking like we are in Arizona (yes, an exeggeration to make a point) more often in recent years. This year is an exception with more normal sun/rain cycles returning after a really dry spring (lawns recovered - who cares - some crops not so much, other are doing much better than in recent years)
SllX|4 years ago
dehrmann|4 years ago
mgr86|4 years ago
[0]: https://e360.yale.edu/features/as-water-scarcity-increases-d...
mdorazio|4 years ago
rasz|4 years ago
DoreenMichele|4 years ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/desalination-advances-calif...
gumby|4 years ago
Sevii|4 years ago
kevin_thibedeau|4 years ago