Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instead of Canada piping oil to us, and with their excess supply of water, send us water, forget the oil, and then we won't need the de-sal plants.
I realize that the U.S. and Canada are on friendly terms, but I don't want to be beholden to ANY foreign source for the single most fundamental basis of life. Our two countries can trade all kinds of commodities all day long, but I would rather pay a fortune to build a ton of desalination plants than to ever be dependent on someone else for any of our water.
In California, in particular, with their zeal in protecting the CA Coastline and the run-away Nimby's, what city would even want one marring their views?
Malibu? Santa Monica? La Jolla? Santa Barbara? Monterrey? Laguna Beach?
Ah! There we go! Off the coast of Camp Pendelton! Federal land!
In California, in particular, with their zeal in protecting the CA Coastline and the run-away Nimby's, what city would even want one marring their views?
Malibu? Santa Monica? La Jolla? Santa Barbara? Monterrey? Laguna Beach?
Ah! There we go! Off the coast of Camp Pendelton! Federal land!
If that is the case, time to break out those bumper stickers, only with some new words. You know, the ones that said, "Drive 70. FREEZE A YANKEE!"
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,576 posts, read 81,167,557 times
Reputation: 57813
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover
In California, in particular, with their zeal in protecting the CA Coastline and the run-away Nimby's, what city would even want one marring their views?
Malibu? Santa Monica? La Jolla? Santa Barbara? Monterrey? Laguna Beach?
Ah! There we go! Off the coast of Camp Pendelton! Federal land!
The California coast is one of the better places for desalination, with the ocean close to major population centers. The problem besides expensive homes and recreational areas is that the state is already suffering from problems getting enough electricity, with planned or urgent shutdowns to prevent fires. Even using a lot of solar for the plant, there have to be a lot of pumps and it will require grid power.
It requires energy, but energy can be generated. We're not cavemen.
It costs money, but Californians aren't broke. Paying for water is better than having no water.
Problem is getting said water from the ocean to where it's used in the field. A lot of the water intense stuff will probably go to indoor vertical farming. Hard to imagine pumping a bunch of water into Kern Valley to grow lettuce. Other stuff like almonds in Turlock and Merced... Dunno. Growing almonds indoors seems less easily done than lettuce. Probably just rip most of it out and the price skyrockets.
CA is facing an almost insurmountable task already of producing more energy and also an increasing percentage of it as renewable on a 24-7 basis year after year while not driving their energy costs through the roof beyond already being 70% higher than the national average.
They do not even remotely have the kind of excess power required for desalination and even if they did it would be delayed for 30 years over environmental concerns.
Would there still be a water shortage in California if farming was drastically reduced?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
