Building a pipeline from Oregon or something to the SF Bay Delta would cost at least 50 billion dollars. Desal would cost at least 2 billion for each major city.
Desalinization also has the benefit of: we know where the ocean's going to be. If they spend 50 billion on a pipeline, what happens when the source experiences a drought?
Everyone who either lives in California or has lived in California knows that 'common sense' is something that is severely lacking in the people who are in political office.
Unfortunately we haven't come up with a commonly acceptable solution to the pollution from desal. All of that brine has to go somewhere.Desalinization also has the benefit of: we know where the ocean's going to be. If they spend 50 billion on a pipeline, what happens when the source experiences a drought?
Dang... maybe we just have to curb population. :$Unfortunately we haven't come up with a commonly acceptable solution to the pollution from desal. All of that brine has to go somewhere.
That's a really good article! :thumbsup: That plant is already under construction, due to complete in 2016. It'll be the largest desal plant in the USA, cost is $1 billion. Article discusses desal in CA in general, other plants that are already built, others proposed, the surrounding issues.Looks to me like they need more desalination plants. Perhaps they could build one near San Diego....ohh wait, they did:
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near
Agreed! But there are costs, both monetary and environmental. When droughts abate, the plants often are shut down because alternative water sources become cheaper, such as the one at Santa Barbara.What's bad is the states that have oceans at their disposal. They need more coastline plants + pipelines. Increase the cost of water per gallon for the folks that use over X gallons and let the major consumers of water eat the costs.
Looks to me like they need more desalination plants. Perhaps they could build one near San Diego....ohh wait, they did:
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near
What's bad is the states that have oceans at their disposal. They need more coastline plants + pipelines. Increase the cost of water per gallon for the folks that use over X gallons and let the major consumers of water eat the costs.
I don't know where they get those figures, but in the heat of summer (when I water my vegetables) I've never been into triple figures in my gallons/day. Maybe they are figuring water consumption of a county as a whole divided by its population. Industry/government would use a big chunk.
That's a lot less than the 400 to 600+ gallons/day/person that was cited:Actually no, in much of California the average per day from a residential family us close to 400 gallons per day.
I recently read that water consumption in one of the richest counties in CA was an average of 570+ gallons per day per person. In surrounding areas it was still hitting 300-400 gallons per day per person.
No wonder they are running out of water.
That's a lot less than the 500 or 600 gallons/day/person that was cited.
They should just truck in all the snow from Buffalo.
But really, just build solar desalination plants that use either electrolysis or just plain evaporation. Once it's built it will cost very little to run. These places tend to get lot of sun light too.
No, actually (look above) that was for one of the richest areas and surrounding. I'm not disputing the 1000 GPD for certain high use areas. Average is probably closer to the 400 GPD/family.That is average for the state, some parts with low population massive yards have close to 1000 GPD.
Electrolysis? Think you're thinking of making hydrogen.
I always wondered why they didn't dam up all rivers where they went into the ocean and sold the water. It's going into the ocean anyways? Obviously, cost and shipping... but aye...
Was thinking it would create hydrogen and oxygen and leave all the crap behind then it can be recombined, but not sure how efficient it would actually be. Solar evaporation system would probably be more efficient.
Though I always wondered if the hydrogen produced by electrolysis could be used to generate more power than is required to perform that electrolysis. If yes you could actually use the sea as a power source that is practically free and it could also create distilled water at same time with the residual heat from the plant. I'd like to think that if it was possible we'd be using that for power generation, but you never know these days, energy companies tend to hush (patent) technologies that could threaten them.
CA needs to build desalinization plants and sell water to cities. You are sitting by an OCEAN of water for Heaven's sake! D:
http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-nearSince the 1970s, California has dipped its toe into ocean desalination --talking, planning, debating. But for a variety of reasons -- mainly cost and environmental concerns-- the state has never taken the plunge. Until now. Fifteen desalination projects are proposed along the coast from Los Angeles to San Francisco Bay. Desalination technology is becoming more efficient. And the state is mired in its third year of drought. Critics and backers alike are wondering whether this project in a town better known as the home of Legoland and skateboard icon Tony Hawk is ushering in a new era.