[A, sort of]California is desiccating![A, sort of]

1RTK1 said:
Actually "nature" "environmental causes" is/are the biggest consumer of water, with over 50+% mandated by the state for streams, fish, estuaries, etc.
Click to expand...

I lived ON the CA Delta for several years so know first hand the effects of water through that area. It is more than simply saving the Delta Smelt as many like to point out as the culprit. You take all the water and divert it all from flowing out to the Bay you have far reaching environmental consequences. The collapse of the Salmon season a few years ago is just the start.

If there is no water flowing out of the streams, there are no way for the fish to go back to spawn...there are no fish, there is no food for the sea lions (or grilled salmon on your BBQ). There is a dye off of marine mammals due to lack of food, there is a collapse of the marine sanctuary...all so we can have cheaper nuts and produce.

I am a full business supporter and hate the environmental regulations but there has to be a balance of protecting the environment and ecosystem vs pumping all the water to the Central Valley for the commercial agro farms so that Blue Diamond can have another profitable quarter.

I am OK with food costing a bit more if it means not turning the Delta into a wasteland.
 
Last edited:
1RTK1 said:
Actually "nature" "environmental causes" is/are the biggest consumer of water, with over 50+% mandated by the state for streams, fish, estuaries, etc. Basically it goes into the ocean.
The mass media has done a very good job of lying in their reports/articles of agriculture using the majority of stored water. Mr. MoonBeam (for those that don't know he is our governor) says it's 80% so everyone drinks the kool-aid..........It is NOT so.
You are correct desal will not work for farming

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-use-80-percent-californias-water-devin-nunes
Click to expand...

Point well taken, I wasn't counting those diversions. But yes that is correct.

Mr. Moonbeam makes Lenin look like a right wing fanatic.
 
Dav8or said:
No kidding. A lot of dumb talk about California. We'll be just fine. A whole lot of states in the union have areas where humans just weren't meant to live, or overpopulation for the natural resources at hand and yet we keep building and moving on. These population problems are not unique to California in any way.
Click to expand...

The problem lies in the lack of infrastructure and supply in general to solve the impending calamity. The NE can have natural gas and fuel oil shipped/piped to them easily because it already exists, despite most of it not extracted from the NE region itself. There aren't a lot of states willing to pipe Cali the water to maintain their current and future populations. Once Cali/Nevada drain their section of the Colorado and Lake Mead, there won't be a lot of other states willing to pipe in their excess supplies of fresh water except in times of extreme over-supply. Waiting for the Mississippi to flood as a sustainable water supply plan isn't going to hold up, and people won't likely be able to afford the cost of water being piped halfway across the US.

I don't think people have a disdain for the state of California, so much as they have disdain for the state's limited-action on a problem that has been decades in the making. What happens to the 8th largest economy when you have another few years of drought and the agriculture starts drying up at an alarming rate? There has already been a ton of investment into WA/OR by farmers looking to relocate to areas with a plentiful/more consistent water supply.

Note that I could pick on my own state (OK for its roads/education system) just as easily. However, this topic is about Cali's water problem, so that's what we're discussing.
 
1RTK1 said:
Actually "nature" "environmental causes" is/are the biggest consumer of water, with over 50+% mandated by the state for streams, fish, estuaries, etc.
Click to expand...

And on a side note, as the article points out that 80% figure should not apply to ALL water in CA, but of the usable water that is diverted out of the Delta that 80% number IS correct.
 
I enjoy the nature probably more than 90% of kalifornias population (I am a very avid hunter and fisherman) and also do not want the environment destroyed. I know there is a balance that needs to be struck, unfortunately our politicians have ignored all the ways we can solve all the states water needs. It takes more than a major crisis to get the ball rolling.
 
Shawn said:
And on a side note, as the article points out that 80% figure should not apply to ALL water in CA, but of the usable water that is diverted out of the Delta that 80% number IS correct.
Click to expand...

The "delta Mendota" and "aquaduct" take water from the "delta" and transport it to los angeles, farmers have access to that water also. Unfortunately water the farmer used to have access to has been cut by over 90%... Next years projections are 0% water allocations.............
 
Again, the politicians keep diverting and redirecting who is to blame instead of fixing the "real" problem, thus never having to address the problem to begin with. Two or three more dams would fix the surface water problem and make all the environmentalists happy... Oh, that's right, dams are bad.
 
1RTK1 said:
The "delta Mendota" and "aquaduct" take water from the "delta" and transport it to los angeles, farmers have access to that water also. Unfortunately water the farmer used to have access to has been cut by over 90%... Next years projections are 0% water allocations.............
Click to expand...

Correct. Only 20% of the water that is flowing down the California aqueduct is pumped into Pyramid Lake (which is always full BTW) for use by the So Cal population. The rest is for ag purposes in the Central Valley.

Our current water policy relies on a steady snow pack each winter with only enough storage for only the following year. Politicians have been pushing for more storage solutions for years but it is not a hot button issue cuz taps still run in people's homes...then you have projects like the tunnels which make claims that it will solve the problem but in reality does zero for times like this where the water is just not there.

What we need is solutions like San Luis Reservoir between Gilroy and Los Banos. That is a reservoir that is storage only...not a dam of a river way or creek. Water is pumped in when there is excess and drained out the aqueduct when more is needed. It is simply a massive holding tank.
 
Last edited:
Too bad the populous and politicians don't seem to mind billions being spent on the bullet train to no where when that money could be spent to fix more critical water problems.............
 
Shawn said:
Sane could be said for the Gulf Coat or any other area that gets battered by hurricanes or tornadoes (CA does not have hurricanes BTW...or at least not any of significant impact compared the rest of the country)



CA being the 8th largest economy in the world gives to the Federal Government as a whole FAR more than it receives back in Federal resources. We will be just fine.

t!
Click to expand...

If you can be so fine, then please go be fine.
 
LoL this topic sure does draw the 7th grader's out of the crowd.
 
Dav8or said:
People on the street here talk about desal plants, but I haven't seen any proposals to actually build any more, or open any.
Click to expand...

They are around. Not very practical, but they exist.

For instance, Monterey County has proposed one at Moss Landing, right next to the power plant.

Lots of details to work out, like where the wastewater goes (the adjoining Bay is a very productive fishery), not to mention where the energy comes from.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Its also the cheapest surface drinking water supply in the state. It is exempt from treatment requirements.
Click to expand...
I know that the water that comes out of the faucet in San Francisco is better than most tap water. No need at all for filtering or bottled water.
 
1RTK1 said:
One more funny note about kalifornia and san francisco in particular... Some time ago there was a movement by people from san francisco to remove the hetch hetchy dam and return that part of yosemity to it's natural beauty. Those dumb SOB's didn't realize or didn't care they get most of their water from that dam.
Click to expand...

Yeah that was the stupidest plan of all time. It's still ongoing too. They haven't given up. Hetch Hetchy not only provides the best drinking water in the state, but it generates much needed electricity too.

Previous leaders of San Francisco had the foresight to build this fantastic asset for the city back in the '20s. The city of San Francisco used to own the reservoir, the dam and power generators, but somewhere in the '60s, or '70s, the bone heads decided to sell off this city gem to the private sector and now they have to buy their water and electricity back at a much, much higher rate.

The moronic restore Hetch Hetchy plan is predicated on the idea that surrounding reservoirs will make up the difference somehow. Suddenly water and electricity supplies that now are earmarked other counties and cities would have to be shared with San Francisco. All so that in an estimated 80 years from now, people could go visit a park that would be much like Yosemite only not as good.

I say the state should make a deal with these green weenies and force them to put their money where their mouth is. I think a restoration of Hetch Hetchy should be approved only if San Francisco first builds a desalinization plant to replace the equivalent water supply in San Francisco County and they build an equivalent electrical power supply (type of their choosing) in San Francisco County.

This will never happen. San Francisco is majority populated by spoiled NIMBYs.
 
Shawn said:
I lived ON the CA Delta for several years so know first hand the effects of water through that area. It is more than simply saving the Delta Smelt as many like to point out as the culprit. You take all the water and divert it all from flowing out to the Bay you have far reaching environmental consequences. The collapse of the Salmon season a few years ago is just the start.

If there is no water flowing out of the streams, there are no way for the fish to go back to spawn...there are no fish, there is no food for the sea lions (or grilled salmon on your BBQ). There is a dye off of marine mammals due to lack of food, there is a collapse of the marine sanctuary...all so we can have cheaper nuts and produce.

I am a full business supporter and hate the environmental regulations but there has to be a balance of protecting the environment and ecosystem vs pumping all the water to the Central Valley for the commercial agro farms so that Blue Diamond can have another profitable quarter.

I am OK with food costing a bit more if it means not turning the Delta into a wasteland.
Click to expand...

Being a resident currently living on the Delta, I whole-heartedly agree. I do not believe you should just toss the environment under the bus just so some agribusinesses and home builders can make a tidy profit on housing developments and export.

As was pointed out, the vast majority of California's water release is for the purpose of environmental protection and preservation. My best friend works for the Feds on water conservation issues in Sacramento. They are looking at ways to be more efficient with some of the environmental water release issues. A 10% improvement if possible would be huge in terms of water savings. So the problem is being looked at.

I personally am not OK with scorching the earth just so I can have a nice green lawn and buy cheap food. I actually enjoy the wetlands, the birds, the animals and the fish. There are long term solutions and they won't be cheap, but just wrecking the environment to save some money isn't smart or ethical.
 
azure said:
Civilization is fragile. Climate change has negatively impacted and probably brought down thriving civilizations before. It is the ultimate hubris to think that ours is immune.
Click to expand...

Our civilization has no humility.
 
MAKG1 said:
They are around. Not very practical, but they exist.

For instance, Monterey County has proposed one at Moss Landing, right next to the power plant.

Lots of details to work out, like where the wastewater goes (the adjoining Bay is a very productive fishery), not to mention where the energy comes from.
Click to expand...

Yes. The Desal problem does have it's issues and number one is power. In my mind the only thing that makes sense is modern nuclear power. Not 1950s-70s nuclear power. Very expensive, but once in place, would supply continuous, reliable, consistent power and water for decades if not centuries. It requires long term thinking.

If we had every major metropolitan area along the coast, SF Bay area, Santa Barbara/Ventura area, LA Basin and San Diego all on desal, that would free up the snow pack and watershed for environmental, agriculture and folks living inland as well. In addition, more reservoirs need to be built as a buffer. If it's true that there is to be be more ocean and less snow, this is the only thing that makes sense to me anyways.

Unfortunately, the only thing that will make this a reality is all out dire emergency and we haven't hit that yet. If the El Nino does happen, that will only set us back even more. The stupid bullet train should be scrapped. The idiot tunnel swindle should be scrapped. Use the borrowed money to address the real issues facing California.
 
Dav8or said:
Yes. The Desal problem does have it's issues and number one is power. In my mind the only thing that makes sense is modern nuclear power. Not 1950s-70s nuclear power. Very expensive, but once in place, would supply continuous, reliable, consistent power and water for decades if not centuries. It requires long term thinking.

If we had every major metropolitan area along the coast, SF Bay area, Santa Barbara/Ventura area, LA Basin and San Diego all on desal, that would free up the snow pack and watershed for environmental, agriculture and folks living inland as well. In addition, more reservoirs need to be built as a buffer. If it's true that there is to be be more ocean and less snow, this is the only thing that makes sense to me anyways.

Unfortunately, the only thing that will make this a reality is all out dire emergency and we haven't hit that yet. If the El Nino does happen, that will only set us back even more. The stupid bullet train should be scrapped. The idiot tunnel swindle should be scrapped. Use the borrowed money to address the real issues facing California.
Click to expand...

If we used the waste heat from our powerplants to distil water, that would be a lot of water.
 
Henning said:
If we used the waste heat from our powerplants to distil water, that would be a lot of water.
Click to expand...

Umm, if you could use waste heat to make steam in a power plant, it wouldn't be waste heat, but could be used to generate electric power.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Umm, if you could use waste heat to make steam in a power plant, it wouldn't be waste heat, but could be used to generate electric power.
Click to expand...

Steam that dives turbines is a lot hotter than required to distil water. Look at cooling towers, see all that steam coming out of them? Most plants are 30-35% thermally efficient, the rest of the heat going out the stacks.
 
MAKG1 said:
Umm, if you could use waste heat to make steam in a power plant, it wouldn't be waste heat, but could be used to generate electric power.
Click to expand...

Look up waste heat watermakers - pretty much the standard method of making water offshore for the past 20 years...
 
Geico266 said:
Because California starts BS legislation & PC crap that travels through the country.
Click to expand...

Yeah, like clean air and water, **** that noise, it costs money to have clean air and water, and everyone knows money is more important.
 
There is a world of difference between the lunatic fringe and their aversion to building electric plants, and sensible stewardship, but you knew that and only wanted to whore out your point. For aguythat claims he drives mega yachts, burning more fossil fuel in a week than the rest of us doin a decade, your environmental lectures are pretty thin.
 
I'll bet you I could get approval to build a power plant in CA.
 
Dav8or said:
Yes. The Desal problem does have it's issues and number one is power. In my mind the only thing that makes sense is modern nuclear power. Not 1950s-70s nuclear power. Very expensive, but once in place, would supply continuous, reliable, consistent power and water for decades if not centuries. It requires long term thinking.
Click to expand...

I can see it now, a nuke plant is proposed to help power a desal plant and millions of people take to the streets waving protest signs with "Fukushima Daiichi" on them.

Its bad enough that a lot of the utilities are already on or near the beach. One strong tsunami and you're going to be hurting.

I'm curious how earthquake proof the aqueducts are.
 
Last edited:
bnt83 said:
I can see it now, a nuke plant is proposed to help power a desal plant and millions of people take to the streets waving protest signs with "Fukushima Daiichi" on them.

Its bad enough that a lot of the utilities are already on or near the beach. One strong tsunami and you're going to be hurting.

I'm curious how earthquake proof the aqueducts are.
Click to expand...
Google Passive Nuclear Safety. It's why he specified *modern* nuclear technology. The Fukushima reactors are based on old technology from the 60s.

And as an aside, nuclear is potentially a more environmentally friendly route to zero carbon footprint than trying to rely entirely on renewables, particularly later in the century when the population rises into the 9-10 billion range. But we won't do it because of the initial expense, and for political reasons, both to do with the misconception that ANY nuclear plant can become a Chernobyl or Fukushima, and because the most fuel-efficient modern reactors are breeder reactors. For example, the IFR program was ditched because of mostly unreasonable (highly exaggerated anyway) fears about diversion.
 
azure said:
Google Passive Nuclear Safety. It's why he specified *modern* nuclear technology. The Fukushima reactors are based on old technology from the 60s.

And as an aside, nuclear is potentially a more environmentally friendly route to zero carbon footprint than trying to rely entirely on renewables, particularly later in the century when the population rises into the 9-10 billion range. But we won't do it because of the initial expense, and for political reasons, both to do with the misconception that ANY nuclear plant can become a Chernobyl or Fukushima, and because the most fuel-efficient modern reactors are breeder reactors. For example, the IFR program was ditched because of mostly unreasonable (highly exaggerated anyway) fears about diversion.
Click to expand...

We'll never get there. We'll bomb ourselves out of existence first. :yikes:
 
bnt83 said:
I can see it now, a nuke plant is proposed to help power a desal plant and millions of people take to the streets waving protest signs with "Fukushima Daiichi" on them.

Its bad enough that a lot of the utilities are already on or near the beach. One strong tsunami and you're going to be hurting.

I'm curious how earthquake proof the aqueducts are.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that there would be protesters and due to general ignorance about modern nuclear power, it will be a tough sell. The vision of earthquakes and tsunamis causing mushroom clouds of radiation is the first thing people will jump to.

The latest generation of nuclear reactors can be easily shut down and there is no risk of melt down, but they won't be a reality in the US until we really get desperate because we have been beaten into submission and automatically accept that nuclear is bad. More lives have been lost and more ruin has been brought upon the world by the extraction and burning of coal than all the nuclear reactors ever built combined, but nuclear is the big bad.

The truth is, California will have to go to desal plants eventually if the population keeps rising and the seasons keep dry. Those plants have to be by the ocean. Those plants need a lot of power. People will scream "Wind and solar!!", but windmills are a blight on the coast line and solar isn't practical due to the marine layer. This means these options would require long transmission lines from inland sites and they still don't address the base load problem to keep the power continuous which the desal plant will require.

We could put up natural gas plants as we have an abundance, but the stated goal was to reduce carbon emissions and avoid fracking. Nuclear is the obvious choice, but it will require a good salesman and a public reeducation on the subject. I suspect that prolonged drought that leads to an emergency will be just the thing to move this along. We're not there yet.
 
Norman said:
We'll never get there. We'll bomb ourselves out of existence first. :yikes:
Click to expand...

Yep, plenty of thing that will have global scale conflicts around 9 billion people. Unless we change or priorities and start leaving the planet enmass, we will fail at that point and the planet will be given over to the development of a new apex species. We have failed to become cooperative to the level required, we just refuse to learn.
 
Norman said:
We'll never get there. We'll bomb ourselves out of existence first. :yikes:
Click to expand...

That is a real possibility. There will be competition for resources and it will be between major powers with nuclear weapons. All it takes is for someone to go first and the planet gets set on fire.

The other possibility is a global pandemic that spreads faster, or mutates faster than we can figure it out. Nature has a way of culling the herd when necessary.

Either way is not pretty. Birth control is the better option, but that is not likely to happen.
 
Henning said:
So why aren't the power companies pushing thorium reactors?
Click to expand...

Probably because they have a firm grasp of the obvious and know that anti-nuke idiots will protest the plants in so many different ways and venues that a plant will cost hundreds of millions of dollars before the first shovel of dirt is turned -- if it ever even gets that far.

All the anti-nuke morons "know" is that nuclear = bad. It's a religion to them. Don't even bother trying to explain how thorium is different than uranium. They'll stick their fingers in their ears and declare you the spawn of Satan before they'll even try to understand.

Rich
 
No, even the anti nuke crowd has settled that in the battle between carbon and thorium, thorium is the winner for clean and safe.
 
Dav8or said:
That is a real possibility. There will be competition for resources and it will be between major powers with nuclear weapons. All it takes is for someone to go first and the planet gets set on fire.

The other possibility is a global pandemic that spreads faster, or mutates faster than we can figure it out. Nature has a way of culling the herd when necessary.

Either way is not pretty. Birth control is the better option, but that is not likely to happen.
Click to expand...
Either outcome is possible, but I suspect that pandemic is more likely. In the post-Cold War era, with all we know today about the paths that lead to and the consequences of nuclear war, I think we will probably avoid that fate unless the next generation forgets the lessons we learned - which is also possible.

Pandemic is nature's way and it is impossible to protect ourselves against all pathogens. Sooner or later it will happen, and the larger the population, the more devastating the consequences, everything else being equal.
 
Dav8or said:
That is a real possibility. There will be competition for resources and it will be between major powers with nuclear weapons. All it takes is for someone to go first and the planet gets set on fire.

The other possibility is a global pandemic that spreads faster, or mutates faster than we can figure it out. Nature has a way of culling the herd when necessary.

Either way is not pretty. Birth control is the better option, but that is not likely to happen.
Click to expand...

One more possibility on the nuke front, next nuke that launches, aliens 'catch' them and harvest humanity off the planet so a reboot of the apex species can happen without without losing the rest of the resource supply. 7.5 billion human bodies is a nice load of feed and fertilizer that will help repopulate the ancillary species on the planet that we have decimated, both flora and fauna. That would be the most likely reality of the 'Rapture' scenario, the abortion of mankind, still born in the womb of our planet, diseased and useless by the cancer of greed.
 
Henning said:
One more possibility on the nuke front, next nuke that launches, aliens 'catch' them and harvest humanity off the planet so a reboot of the apex species can happen without without losing the rest of the resource supply. 7.5 billion human bodies is a nice load of feed and fertilizer that will help repopulate the ancillary species on the planet that we have decimated, both flora and fauna. That would be the most likely reality of the 'Rapture' scenario, the abortion of mankind, still born in the womb of our planet, diseased and useless by the cancer of greed.
Click to expand...

What aliens?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top