[robr2]

Originally Posted by Chappy2017

I was thinking, that California has the Pacific. Why do they not have desalinization plants, that would reduce/eliminate their need for Lake Meade? I lived in Barcelona and would go to the town of Sitges. The water that came from the tap was salt water. Years later they had a desalinization system installed.
If climate change is causing rising sea levels, why not use technology and use that water?
In Valencia, Spain they had a problem with a river causing flooding, they diverted the river, now a park, and loved the problem.
We have oil pipelines from Alaska and Canada, why can we not have water pipelines from flood areas pumping water where it is needed. I guess water is not as valuable as oil, or so they think.

It comes down to cost and some environmental issues.

A desal plant costs about $1 billion to build. Only private companies are willing to put up that much money and want to get a return+profit fairly quickly. Even with desal plants, they still won't be able to provide water for agriculture use which is about 80% of the state's water use. Further, the current desal plant in San Diego - the biggest in the western hemisphere - can only supply 10% of the water needed in that area.

Another issue is the 50% of the water that has to be returned with twice as much salt in it - basically brine. It has to go into an perforated outfall pipe thousands of feet into the ocean so it disperses. Brine doesn't mix well with salt water and can affect the ecosystem.

Originally Posted by Chappy2017

Exactly, I have a beautiful coastline to look at, but no water to drink or grow my vegetables and water my livestock but ain't that a pur-ty view.

Properly located, a desal plant doesn't have to ruin any views.

[moguldreamer]

Originally Posted by robr2

Another issue is the 50% of the water that has to be returned with twice as much salt in it - basically brine. It has to go into an perforated outfall pipe thousands of feet into the ocean so it disperses. Brine doesn't mix well with salt water and can affect the ecosystem.

A better thing to do is to use the brine as a source for mining sea salt. Pulverized sea salt can be flown over and dispersed into the marine layer of clouds over the ocean, thereby "brightening" them so they reflect more solar energy back into outer space, thereby contributing to cooling the planet.

Or, you need to extend the waste pipe farther out in to the ocean into a permanent current so it is rapidly dispersed.

[robr2]

Originally Posted by moguldreamer

A better thing to do is to use the brine as a source for mining sea salt. Pulverized sea salt can be flown over and dispersed into the marine layer of clouds over the ocean, thereby "brightening" them so they reflect more solar energy back into outer space, thereby contributing to cooling the planet.

Or, you need to extend the waste pipe farther out in to the ocean into a permanent current so it is rapidly dispersed.

Mining the salt from sea water isn't economically feasible - it costs more to extract than it's value as a commodity. As for cloud seeding, that has it's drawbacks that may outweigh the positives.

[longviewJoe]

Originally Posted by robr2

It comes down to cost and some environmental issues.

A desal plant costs about $1 billion to build. Only private companies are willing to put up that much money and want to get a return+profit fairly quickly. Even with desal plants, they still won't be able to provide water for agriculture use which is about 80% of the state's water use. Further, the current desal plant in San Diego - the biggest in the western hemisphere - can only supply 10% of the water needed in that area.

....

If Spain could build one I have to imagine it didn't cost them $1b. We could do it!

I suspect the environmental issues are a much bigger "problem" (or barrier) than the money. Just a guess on my part as I have zero knowledge on the subject.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by longviewJoe

If Spain could build one I have to imagine it didn't cost them $1b. We could do it!

I suspect the environmental issues are a much bigger "problem" (or barrier) than the money. Just a guess on my part as I have zero knowledge on the subject.

The Alicante II desalination plant was completed in December 2008, having received ERDF cofinancing of EUR 67.9 million, 75% of its overall cost.

so ... 67.9 million = 75 % of 90.5 million
90.5 million euros X 1.4 = $126.8


About $127 million, but in 2008, 14 years ago. I agree we should be able to build one for far less than $1B. But once the federal, state and local governments get involved, ... well... it might not be possible for any amount of money.

[robr2]

It all depends on the size of the plant and the connection to the distribution system. One can't simply compare the cost to build.

Another plant in Spain that was still idle in 2013 after construction began in 2007 cost $400 million. It was too expensive to operate at the time due to the cost of power.

[USMC1984]

I'm gonna put on my Joe Biden hat and give y'all the correct answer!


The simple way to deal with this is for all the residents in Las Vegas to go to their sink, fill up a busket of water, then get in their electric car and drive to lake Mead. Then proceed to pour that busket into the lake...problem solved!


...Now can someone wipe my heinie and get me some of Nancy's ice cream?

[robr2]

IMHO, trying to figure out how to get more water is a long range and difficult endeavor.

In the short term, reducing use is key. To me, it makes no sense to cultivate grass and other water loving plants in the desert of Las Vegas. It makes no sense to grow alfalfa in the desert of Arizona. Building more and more housing anywhere without access to increased water anywhere makes no sense.

I realize that this is a LV-centric board. But simply telling CA to find new water really doesn't solve the issue. Shouldn't NV and AZ work to find new sources as well? LV already gets water from deep wells - perhaps expanding that is an answer and one where you don't have to share the water.

[Mike from back east]

Agree, all states here in the Southwest USA should be part of a regional / national water scheme.

I won't repeat my full diatribe other than to say that growing cotton, hay, alfalfa, corn, etc, using wasteful irrigation methods, in arid regions of TX, NM, AZ, CO, UT, NV, CA is a capricious use of a scarce resource that borders on insanity, especially if these commodities are exported. To add injury to insult, using immigrant labor to work these farms increases the abomination of it all.

[WestieJeff]

Reductions are likely to be percentage based and that means AZ and CA will (and should) bear the brunt.

Perhaps my perception is off, but I feel like NV has pushed conservation much much more than AZ or CA due to our extremely small portion of the allocation we are assigned. My purview, AZ and CA need to step up their conservation efforts significantly.

Originally Posted by robr2

I realize that this is a LV-centric board. But simply telling CA to find new water really doesn't solve the issue. Shouldn't NV and AZ work to find new sources as well? LV already gets water from deep wells - perhaps expanding that is an answer and one where you don't have to share the water.