
Can Desalination Counter the Drought? - cwal37
http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/can-desalination-counter-the-drought
======
alwaysdoit
> All told, it takes about 3460 kilowatts per acre-foot to pump water from
> Northern California to San Diego; Carlsbad will use about thirty per cent
> more energy, five thousand kilowatts per acre-foot, to desalinate ocean
> water and deliver it to households, according to Poseidon’s report to the
> Department of Water Resources

These units are abominations. Couldn't just say 2.8 Watts per liter vs 4.0
Watts per liter? Or even 10.6 and 15.3 Watts per gallon? I'm not a metric
purist, but the only advantage to using imperial units is that they are more
familiar to the average American, but when does the average person deal with
acre-feet?

~~~
msandford
It doesn't even make sense! The units don't match up. Kilowatts are a measure
of power, energy over time, and an acre-foot is a measure of volume, not flow
(volume over time).

It's like saying how many horsepower it takes to drive from SF to LA. Makes no
sense.

~~~
oaktowner
Yes, they must have meant kilowatt hours. Was there no editor?

~~~
istorical
Scientific mistakes in a paper like the new yorker is like poor grammar in a
startup CEO's writing.

It just happens.

------
function_seven
> All told, it takes about 3460 kilowatts per acre-foot to pump water from
> Northern California to San Diego;

Does the author mean 3,460 kilowatt- _hours_?

> Lambert showed me a series of pumps at the Carlsbad plant that collectively
> exert seven thousand horsepower of energy (eleven hundred pounds per square
> inch of pressure)

Holy hell, how am I supposed to reason about any of these numbers? The mix of
units and ignorance of power/energy differences makes the numbers completely
useless to the reader. Near the beginning of the article, the daily volumes
are discussed in terms of millions of gallons, but later on, acre-feet is
used.

Sorry if this comment is too ranty...

~~~
mikeash
Not nearly ranty enough, IMO. Units are not _that_ hard, and anyone who wants
to write about this stuff for public consumption must put in the effort to get
them right.

------
lucaspiller
I've posted about this before, but the UAE has an interesting solution to
water and electricity generation.

One of the by products of oil production is natural gas that accumulates as
pockets in the wells. Compared to crude oil this is a lot harder to store and
transport, so in most cases is just burned off (if you ever fly over The Gulf
at night, you can see the flames from the wells doing this).

This by product is what is used to generate water and electricity. Sea water
is heated with the natural gas, and turned into steam which runs turbines to
generate electricity. The steam is then cooled, which provides desalinated
water. The water is stored in tanks for a few days where limestone rocks are
added (from other parts of the country) to provide minerals, then fed into the
public water system.

The newest "M" plant produces 2,000 MW of electricity and 140 million gallons
of water a day, with an overall efficiency of 85%. It cost around $3 billion
to build.

[http://www.power-technology.com/projects/jebel-ali-m-
station...](http://www.power-technology.com/projects/jebel-ali-m-station/)

~~~
tertius
How much natural gas does this cost?

~~~
deegles
Presumably very little since the natural gas is a by-product of oil drilling.

~~~
tertius
I was asking how much natural gas, not how much money. And I'm assuming it's
not very little since the energy required to desalinate is the #1 cost.

------
scythe
The conclusion of the debate here is boring: yes, but only by extreme effort,
i.e. redirection of 1-10% of economic and energy resources towards water
acquisition. We're not all gonna die, but that's as comforting as it gets.
Desalination is great for supplying coastal cities, bonkers everywhere else.

The economic consequence is a drastic rise in the price of conventional
agricultural products (especially land meats) and a corresponding _relative_
fall in the price of unconventional products (nuts, seeds, beans, aquaculture)
which drives investment in the latter to hopefully yield a less water-hungry
agricultural system... but a very different palate. The general outcome of
capitalist systems are heterodox (one of capitalism's advantages); we expect
to see some compensation from desalination, tertiary sewage treatment, and
more water-efficient farming practices. It would be less painful if we didn't
fight reality with agricultural subsidies and water grants.

------
sageabilly
Drought caused by global warming countered by using desalinated water which is
produced using energy from fossil fuels which contributes to more global
warming.

Although in CA looks like the majority of their electricity comes from natural
gas and renewable resources[1] which is a start, I suppose.

[1][http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.h...](http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html)

~~~
logfromblammo
I have wondered for a long time whether pairing a desalinator with a
generation III+ or later fission reactor could be made more efficient than
having both built separately and linked via transmission lines. It seems like
there ought to be some opportunity for synergy there, but there are now so
many reactor designs that include light water that I have no idea how that
might work for any of them.

~~~
mrfusion
And potentially the same plumbing for incoming water could be used to cool the
reactor. In fact now that I think about it, all of the waste heat of the
reactor could go toward evaporating the water.

~~~
sliverstorm
Waste heat? Evaporating the water? Nuclear power plants are steam engines.
_All_ their heat goes to evaporating water.

Come to think of it, I wonder if you could harvest the steam from a nuclear
plant, run it through a condenser or distiller, and in that way produce
electricity and purify water at the same time.

~~~
cpeterso
Harvesting the steam is a clever idea, but I don't know if the average
consumer is ready for what would be spun as "radioactive Franken-water".

------
markbnj
> Add to that the fact that almost all of the freshwater consumed by the
> twenty-two million people of Southern California is imported, much of it
> pumped long distances, over mountains, from Northern California

The author's conclusion may very well be correct for all I know, but I think
it is somewhat misleading to say that the water is "pumped long distances."
There are points where it is pumped, but one of the things that makes the
system so fascinating from an engineering standpoint is how much of it relies
on gravity, including massive siphons that literally pull the water over
mountain ranges.

~~~
pacificmint
You are correct that it's only being pumped in places, but that doesn't really
change the fact how much energy we are using to move water.

A fifth of energy usage in California is water related, and a fifth of that is
for pumping, over 10TWh anually.

~~~
mentat
Citation? I find that an incredible figure.

~~~
pacificmint
Sorry for the late reply. The 19% power figure comes from the PUC. Here are
some links:

[http://www.kqed.org/news/science/climatewatch/waterandpower/...](http://www.kqed.org/news/science/climatewatch/waterandpower/waterneedspower.jsp)

This one goes into more detail and picks that 19% number apart. Also quotes
the 10TWh number:

[http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/06/10/19-percent-
cal...](http://blogs.kqed.org/climatewatch/2012/06/10/19-percent-californias-
great-water-power-wake-up-call/)

~~~
mentat
Thanks

------
mindcrime
I've often felt a twinge of guilt that I don't spend my time working on
something with a more _direct_ path to making people's lives better... by
doing something like creating freshwater, for example. I sometimes wish I'd
chosen to major in materials science (or whatever) and was working on, say,
creating a newer better desalination technology or something.

Oh well, too late to go back now, but at least it warms the heart a bit to see
this happening. I've always thought desalination was an amazingly powerful
technology, and I'm glad to see it getting some use on a large scale.

Of course, that's not to ignore the side effects, like what to do with the
leftover salt, but almost everything has _some_ side effect.

~~~
ZenoArrow
"Oh well, too late to go back now"

I understand the regret, but it's only too late when you're dead. If you want
to do it you can find a way.

~~~
mindcrime
Strictly speaking, yes. On a more practical level, not really. As old as I am,
if I started over now trying to learn a new field like that, I'd probably be
ready to retire before I learned enough to be useful.

Anyway, it's not that I dislike the path I'm on, it's just the occasional
twinge of that feeling that I wish the stuff I was doing had a more direct
impact on the world. OTOH, given the path I'm on, I still hope to help make
the world a better place, and if we'e successful I think we'll have a chance
at doing that, albeit in a different way.

~~~
ZenoArrow
I understand, but what if what you were interested in learning was something
you wanted to pursue even after your formal retirement? Wouldn't it make sense
to switch earlier rather than later?

------
kondor6c
I've thought about solar desalination a lot lately, pumps + glass + desert =
water. Then you can sell the salt by product during the cold weather to the
north east.

~~~
cwal37
That's the sort of thing that sounds like you're closing the loop, but has
some serious flaws the deeper you go. First off, where is that water coming
from? You mention desert, so is it an incredibly saline salt lake or briny
fossil aquifers? If you're pumping out mass quantities of fossil water, be
prepared for an eventual end, and localized subsidence, depending on the
depth/structure of the formation.

Then there's the salt. Salt's actually kind of on the downslope in terms of
its use in de-icing. You're literally salting the earth around roadways.
Places that see a lot of snow and have a lot of waterways (from personal
experience, like Northern Wisconsin and the UP), actually use sand instead.
You expect there to be snow on the roads for a number of months regardless, so
you're just offering some traction. Certain places in the Northeast are the
same as far as I'm aware. Here's a resource on road salt from New
Hampshire[1]. Pickle brine[2] and beet juice[3] are also beginning to get some
play. Not to say the rock salt market couldn't absorb some additional supply,
but I don't know where the limit is if we're talking mass desalinization.

[1]
[http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/was/salt-...](http://des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/was/salt-
reduction-initiative/impacts.htm)

[2]
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140204-melt-...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/02/140204-melt-
snow-ice-salt-beet-juice-pickle-brine/)

[3] [http://time.com/5761/salt-shortage-triggers-beet-juice-
chees...](http://time.com/5761/salt-shortage-triggers-beet-juice-cheese-brine-
alternatives/)

~~~
logfromblammo
The Salton Sea is below ocean level. If you dug a canal out to Laguna Salada
and into the Gulf of California, the ocean water would flow, by gravity, into
the depression.

If nothing else, you could probably truck the salt to Coyote Dry Lake and just
dump it on the existing salt flats there.

~~~
johnmackey
The Salton Sea is 230 feet below sea-level. Locks would be necessary to
negotiate the difference. Obtaining a "right-of-way" for the 68 miles from the
Border would be lengthy & expensive. The salt, however, can be mined for
Lithium! Visit the salton sea on facebook and see what a lot of us are doing.
All the best, John Mackey

~~~
logfromblammo
If someone were to buy out the residents of Mexicali, Imperial, Indio,
Brawley, El Centro, Coachella, etc. the area could nearly fill to the ancient
extent of Blake Sea/Lake Cahuilla, and a canal would need no locks. Aside from
the buyout compensation, actual construction of a canal suitable for
international shipping vessels would probably be only about $5 billion.

As most people every remotely familiar with politics might guess, the
technical challenges are not even remotely the most difficult obstacles to be
overcome for such a project.

------
xigency
Considering the environmental impact of desalination and the power
requirements, it doesn't seem like a proper way to end the drought. The answer
is always going to be adequate planning and conservation, as well as improved
infrastructure with higher-level planning. And legislators need to consider
the true cost and benefit of catering to either the interests of farms and
corporations or the people.

Living by the great lakes, I'm sure the people of California would lay a pipe
across 1700 miles of the country if they could, but irresponsible usage of
water is always going to drain whatever freshwater source is available. I do
hope projects like these can help in some small way, though.

This also isn't the first time there has been a drought in any part of this
country, obviously, and looking at weather in Texas recently, for example, you
can see how quickly rain will come and go. There are large numbers of people
in California. I'm sure that some of them must be smart enough to figure this
out. Otherwise, we're looking at the beginning of another dustbowl.

The future of climate change is only going to make these problems more severe,
and this obviously isn't a conservative solution going forward.

It's also interesting that the Santa Barbara desalination plant is mentioned.
I lived in Santa Barabara recently (12 months ago) and I was unaware that
there was a desalination plant there at the time during the drought. Recently
I had heard that it was going to start up again, after never having ran more
than 1 month in its lifespan. I would be surprised that that project is still
behind its timeline, but then again, I wouldn't really be surprised.

(Edit: After 1 year, the city council voted to restart the plant last
Tuesday.)

~~~
thaumaturgy
The water management situation in California is very complex. It really bugs
me that desal is the most popular drum to beat, along with "California is a
desert" and "California is irresponsible".

California's per capita water usage is roughly in the neighborhood of other
western states
([http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2014/10/di...](http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/planetpolicy/posts/2014/10/differences_in_water_use_across_states),
scroll down), and although there's certainly room for improvement, it's really
not bad considering the massive amount of agriculture in California.

Not mentioned in the article -- unless I missed it -- is that the Carlsbad
plant is being built at a cost of around $950 million, and I wouldn't be
surprised if it crossed the magic $1 billion line by the time it was
operational. That's a huge amount of money for just one plant; it could take
around 50 plants of that size to completely offset the effects of an extended
drought, and there would still be significant costs in then moving all of that
water into the central valley areas where it's needed for agriculture.

Everything that I've read recently is suggesting that what we're experiencing
now is likely to be the new normal for California. This is because the Sierra
snowpack has become nearly nonexistent in recent years, and it previously
accounted for around 30 percent of California's total water storage, and it
provided that water year-round. That's a 30 percent haircut right off the top.

Even when we get wet seasons, it's not expected that they will be _cold_ wet
seasons, which means we'll see less snow in the mountains. And, since most of
the rain that falls west of Sacramento gets funneled directly to the Bay, wet
seasons won't even be helpful in the long term.

So what's happening is California is experiencing some of the effects of
climate change. (I know HN at large doesn't believe AGW is real, but that's
not really what this comment is about.) That means there's going to have to be
a lot of adaptation, and not just in one area.

California's environmentalists -- and I usually count myself among them -- are
going to have to get used to the idea of more dams and more reservoirs.
California needs to make up for that missing 30% somehow. It also needs to
start adopting water conservation the way that energy conservation has been
seeing adoption; we should be seeing affordable greywater systems that move
water from your bathroom sink into your toilet tank, for example, and
residential water storage systems for landscape use should become more common.

We're going to have to figure out how to handle the agricultural industry.
They're adapting too. They should get more help and encouragement, with access
to more resources for water conservation. California is one of the most
technologically advanced states in the US; it should be possible to dedicate
some of that technological expertise to new forms of irrigation.

Storm runoff has to be handled better. It should be captured and treated and
stored, diverted into marshes and other wetland areas.

Of all of these various things that need to be done, desalination is one of
the most expensive per-gallon solutions.

~~~
mentat
Can you post some citations for your "new normal" assertion?

~~~
thaumaturgy
It's a fair question, but no, I haven't started a bookmark tag for those. I
keep bookmark tags for all the other things that I read that I expect someone
will want citations for during some internet debate, but I haven't started one
for this particular subject yet, since it's relatively new.

I have however gone back through a lot of my reading history and dug out quite
a bit of other links and supporting data. Interestingly, that specific phrase,
"new normal", came up quite a bit, which is probably why I used it without
thinking about it.

Finding supporting articles wasn't super difficult, but synthesizing them into
something coherent will take way more effort than I'm willing to put into a
10-hour-old HN thread which probably nobody will ever read.

So I'll synthesize it and post it to my personal site in due time, and then
post that to HN (where I expect it won't get any traction at all, but at least
I'll have something to point to the next time someone wants citations).

~~~
mentat
Having studied some meteorology in college I haven't heard a coherent example
of what changes people believe have happened to the weather patterns or why.
If you want to reply here, I'll check back from time to time.

~~~
thaumaturgy
> _Having studied some meteorology in college_

Ah, in that case, here's my understanding, in brief. There are several
components:

1\. California has had multi-hundred-year drought cycles in the past,
according to tree ring data, and the last several hundred years have been
unusually wet by comparison. It's possible that we're re-entering a long
period of overall drought. (e.g.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-
histor...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/science/californias-history-of-
drought-repeats.html?_r=0))

2\. The current drought has been exacerbated primarily by a pattern of high
and low pressure systems over the arctic, the polar vortex system. The newer
"curvy" shape of the polar vortex is leading to systems which are keeping cold
fronts from descending into the west coast.

3\. The current working theory is that the shape of the polar vortex is
influenced mostly by the temperature of the arctic, so it's not likely to
return to what we thought of as normal until the arctic starts to cool down
again, which might not be happening anytime soon. (e.g.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex#Climate_change](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex#Climate_change)
\-- sorry for Wikipedia link.)

4\. There has been a gradual decrease in snowfall over the Rockies and, I
think, the Cascades region. (e.g.
[https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought/201502](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/drought/201502),
[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-10-clima...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/news/2011-06-10-climate-
change-global-warming-rockies-snow_n.htm)) A lab in Berkeley is responsible
for measuring snow pack in the Sierra, and they have some data going back to
the late 19th century. Unfortunately, all I can find are graphs of their data,
not their actual data, so I have to contact them and see if they're willing to
share that so I can see how the average is changing. My hunch -- although it's
only a hunch at this point -- is that I'll find a slight overall decline in
average snowfall, same as there is in the Rockies and Cascades. Seeing if this
data is available is part of what's holding up a more comprehensive reply.

I have links to articles for most (all?) of this, but ... it's a little bit
discombobulated still. I think it really needs to be presented more coherently
to look very convincing. Part of the reason that I'm reluctant to start
sharing links right away is that some of the sources I have at the moment are
crappy little blogs -- thank you very much Google -- and I have to take the
graphs they've ripped off and try to locate the primary sources they ripped
them off from and then read them and make sure the context is correct and all
that.

I'm not a meteorologist or climate scientist, it's likely there are areas that
I'm oversimplifying or misunderstanding. But, I am an avid reader, and I
haven't come across much material that's painting an optimistic view of
California's climate in the near future.

------
hinkley
The only time these designs seem to work is when there's never any water
(islands) or they have a complex cogeneration strategy.

For instance, ship the brine to someone who needs chill water, and then ship
the warm brine off for salt extraction (apparently it's hard to profit off of
sea salt if you can't get free BTU's from somebody, like a neighbor or the
sun)

------
vondur
I've often wondered why solar power are not used with the desalination plants?
Perhaps that would help bring the power usage down to the same level as
pumping the water in from the north of the state.

~~~
dredmorbius
Solar power isn't free. you've got the costs of plant capital and maintenance.
That said, desalination is the type of readily added or shed load which can
tolerate surplus / deficit variable energy supply.

------
KaiserPro
No. its not the answer.

The answer is keeping that water where it is for longer. this means that it'll
evaporate where it lays. Which means more rain.

It also mean that the water table is higher for plants and animals.

a brilliant example are johads: [http://www.ecotippingpoints.org/our-
stories/indepth/india-ra...](http://www.ecotippingpoints.org/our-
stories/indepth/india-rajasthan-rainwater-harvest-restoration-groundwater-
johad.html)

cheap, easy, quick and simple.

~~~
mindcrime
> this means that it'll evaporate where it lays. Which means more rain.

I'm no meteorologist or anything, so I honestly don't have any idea about
this, but I can't help but wonder if that matters? I mean, if there's "more
rain" overall, but it all happens somewhere else, that doesn't necessarily
help California. Is there any connection between where water evaporates and
where it ultimately falls as rain? That is, is it actually possible to cause
more rain in a certain spot, but doing what you're talking about?

~~~
mentat
There are these things called winds generated by pressure systems that tend to
move evaporated water around, so yes, you are right.

