Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-17 18:24:53

For SpaceNut re #50

If a person has never seen a farm, he or she might not realize what open land looks like.

I was curious to see if any farms exist in New Hampshire. According to Google, there ** are ** a few farms...

People also ask
How much farmland is NH?
New Hampshire covers almost 6 million acres, meaning that about 7% of it is farmed. (David Brooks can be reached at 369-3313 or dbrooks@cmonitor.com or on Twitter @GraniteGeek.)Feb 23, 2021
Number of New Hampshire farms remains steady but fewer ...https://www.concordmonitor.com › farm-census-new-h...

There might be a farm within driving distance. It might be an "experience" to see what a real farm looks like, even though it is located in a state with plenty of water.

Here's an estimate for New Mexico:

About 145,000,000 results (0.63 seconds)
New Mexico had about 50 million acres of nonfederal rural land in 1997. 80% of it is rangeland, 4% cropland, 11% forestland, and 5% other.
NRI - NM Findings | NRCS New Mexico

Your proposal to cover 50 million acres with buildings might help to keep water from evaporating, if there were any water.

We seem to be dancing around the problem ... regardless of how we might want to ** preserve ** fresh water, we can only achieve that if we have fresh water to conserve.

New Mexico, Arizona and ** all ** western states have observed that the amount of fresh water arriving by natural means is decreasing.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-01-17 18:32:48

Yes we still have a few milk farms but they are on the losing side of farming just like most feed crops were a period of time not more than a couple of decades ago. We still have large hay feeds as well but even they are losing ground to not being able to sell the crop for the investment.

Production of crops within a building are much higher than those in the open....so the level of building to acreage is by far less as you make not only the horizontal but the vertical as well which is something that open farming can not do.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/16/infarm- … stors.html

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-17 20:37:29

For SpaceNut re numerous posts about indoor agriculture ...

This topic is not about growing indoors or outdoors.... it is about the need for a supply of fresh water.

It doesn't matter if you have a building for your plants, or if you have open sky above .... you can't grow plants, or grass for cattle, if you don't have water.

It would help the progression of this topic if we could stay focused on the problem.

Natural sources of fresh water are insufficient in the Western US states, and the conditions will get steadily worse.

This topic was opened with the proposition that nuclear power (fission now and fusion later)_ is capable of taking on the task of supplying fresh water for citizens of the Western states.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-01-17 20:56:31

water conservation is and the farming is just one of the areas that water usage can be lowered.
https://cuesa.org/article/10-ways-farme … ving-water
10 Ways Farmers Are Saving Water

https://www.foodunfolded.com/article/wa … griculture
Water Scarcity | 6 Ways To Reduce Water Consumption in Agriculture

https://aquaoso.com/blog/methods-of-con … riculture/
Future Methods of Conserving Water in Agriculture

Water creation from a non existent source is part of the future fix but that is the piping of water in and not the measures needed to reign in the current level of availability to usage.

There is no one fix to the water situation its about using them all. Which includes voluntary cuts to how much you can use.

Gov. Doug Ducey has proposed spending $1 billion from the state's general fund over three years to help “secure Arizona's water future for the next 100 years.”

https://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2021/12 … ttlements/
$2.5B headed to tribes for long-standing water settlements

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/lo … 918026002/
Arizona joins Nevada, California and tribes in a pledge to slash Colorado River water use

Found low income program for water help but that does not set a level of usage
https://des.az.gov/lihwap

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-18 01:49:11

For SpaceNut re #54

There is an ocean full of water just a few hundred miles away.

All rain water is desalinated by Ma Nature and delivered for free, to locations chosen by Ma Nature, without regard to Human desires.

As I read post #54, I see a point of view that whatever Nature provides is all that humans are going to get.

Any hope of adding to the diminishing supply from nature appears (according to Post #54) to be denied.

There must be a reason why people whose live stock are starving due to lack of rain are condemned to move in poverty or to die, as is the case right now in various nations in Africa.

Conservation only works when there is a supply to be conserved.

I look at the ocean and I see an inexhaustible supply of water, and all the aspects of vibrant life that flow from such a supply.

Some effort is required to secure an unlimited supply of fresh water from the ocean. So what? Effort is required to dig wells to pump water from underground aquifers. Effort is required to dig canals to direct what little water Nature provides to multiple users. Effort is required to manage legal issues relating to division of water among thirsty regions.

What is the reason to avoid the obvious solution?

On Mars, the solution is required from the outset. Why are the people of the American Southwest denied abundant fresh water, when it is available just a short distance away, with a little effort.

The answer may turn out to be the Capitalist system. Fresh water can be supplied by commercial vendors, to those who are willing to pay whatever the price might be. The price of fresh water is set by local authorities in the region where I live. The price includes supply of potable water, which is "manufactured" by processing surface water collected up stream, and it includes disposal and processing of waste water.

The people in the region where I live appear to be willing to pay for the water they use, and I would imagine the same is true for most regions in the United States. "Free" water is still needed by most agricultural enterprise in this region.

The supply of "free" water that might have been available in the American Southwest is decreasing.

At some point, I expect that the prices of products "made" with water will reflect the cost of supply.

The premise of ** this ** topic is that nuclear energy (fission at first and then fusion) provides a permanent, inexhaustible supply of fresh water at a price that some will be able to afford. As the "free" water becomes less and less available (as in parts of Africa) the land will either remain unused (ie, desert) or it will be farmed by those who can manager cost of water and other supplies and make a profit by selling produce.

What Post #54 may be telling us is that there is a normal human desire to try for "free" as long as possible, even when "free" leads to conflict.

It's possible that the doctrine of abundance through cooperative effort just doesn't come naturally to humans.

(th)

Void · 2022-01-18 11:36:38

I should know better, but I will speak on this.

First of all, Nuclear might be a poor choice for desalinating water, as the American Southwest is about as good as it can get for Solar. And as per water, having a constant energy source is not as needed as for other things.

From what I have read, the problem of maintaining humidity in the Great Basin is a question of rate of evaporation rather than loss of input of water. During the ice age, evaporation was less, and so large lakes could accumulate in the Great Basin.

Here are some views of such lakes that existed in the past.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ic … RE&first=1

The Los Angeles Aqueduct was quite an accomplishment and probably served a very important purpose in its time. But now, it is wrong. Fresh water should not be pumped out of the Great Basin to a seacoast. Really dumb now to do that.
But politics and water empires are what they are. First of all, you make fresh water from the sea near Los Angeles and stop taking water to the coast from the Colorado.

To do this gerrymander California and Arizona at the least. Cut South California off and join it to Arizona, and call the results Calizonia. Then rename the rest of California to Californication. That way the southies can do as the please without the religious ecotopian interfering.

Then Arizona gets a seacoast, but still has to partly change their name. and this way the water not taken from the Colorado to Los Angeles can be used on both banks of the Colorado in Calizonia.

Next, see if you can make an energy deal with Mexico concerning the Salton Sea, and the Gulf of California.

Let Sea water drive turbines at night and use solar power to pump the water back during the day.

It seems likely to me that the Great Basin has been greening, due to excess CO2, just as the Sahara has been.
This should be helping to cool the sky.

Also, the use of solar energy methods could be used to alter the temperature of the sky. It would be preferred to induce precipitation.

So, then your additional tech would be to reduce evaporation, and also increase precipitation.

In some sea location it may be possible to shine mirrors on the water surface, at night to increase evaporation, and possibly to have the winds bring that moisture into the Great Basin. This could also be a sink for CO2, and a source of food.

Having cut the Californicators off from Los Angelis, maybe it could be there. Maybe in Mexico. Possibly off of Texas?
We would need to know the weather patterns.

Done.

Oh, might as well have locks and a canal, to make the Salton Sea a seaport while you were at it.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-01-18 12:09:34)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-18 13:47:07

For Void re #56

There would seem to be a trade-off involved in choosing solar panels to power desalination.

Land used for solar panels is less likely to be useful for agriculture or for recreation.

If you have a friend who is good with math, it might be possible to work out the quantity of solar panels that would be needed to supply enough fresh water to meet the needs of the American Southwest, or most of Africa where drought is endemic.

Solar panels are only good for a few years, and they require electronic devices of various kinds to manage current flows. Current must be carried to the desalination facility over physical wires, and the efficiency of those depends upon the voltages used and whether or not the current alternates.

It would certainly be interesting to see what a work up for solar power to meet fresh water needs might look like.

Here is a report on conditions in Kansas.

I note that farmers are (apparently) learning how to use electronic sensors to improve the efficiency of watering.

***

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nonrenewable … 00472.html

Allison Kite
Tue, January 18, 2022, 5:18 AM
For the better part of a decade, the drinking water supply for a small southwest Kansas town was almost constantly contaminated with unsafe levels of radium, a radioactive element that can cause cancer.
The city of Lakin found unsafe levels of uranium in its water in 2007, said Mike Heinitz, the city’s administrator. For years, it sent quarterly notices telling residents they could be consuming high levels of uranium before opening a multimillion dollar treatment facility in 2015.
Now, Lakin’s water meets federal standards. But neighboring Deerfield, downstream on the Arkansas River, might have to pipe in water from Lakin for the same reason.
Uranium and sulfate flow into Kansas from Colorado on the Arkansas River. Quality of the water in that part of the state is expected only to get worse as groundwater supplies are depleted, causing concentrations of the contaminates to rise.
It’s one of myriad water issues facing Kansas that members of the House Water Committee studied in informational meetings last year. This legislative session, committee members will look to reorganize the Kansas agencies that deal in water and identify long-needed funding for projects.
“We learned that it’s not critical, but it’s a situation we need to deal with and we need to have a plan put in place now,” said Rep. Ron Highland, a Wamego Republican who chairs the committee. “And we can’t wait, quite frankly.”
Lakin residents’ water bills doubled, Heinitz said, to pay for the uranium treatment. The High Plains aquifer, which supplies water to huge swaths of Kansas, is fast depleting, threatening farmers’ access to water and, by extension, the state’s largest industry. And in eastern Kansas, reservoirs that provide drinking water are filling with sediment, forcing Kansas to consider costly dredging or come up with another way to protect residents’ access to drinking water.
Highland said the state has, for years, vastly underfunded projects needed to ensure Kansans — and Kansas farmers — have the water they need to survive.
“The funding is a little trickier,” Highland said, “because we’re up against education and all the social programs in our state. And there’s just not enough money to go around.”
Highland didn’t say how the committee might restructure the 16 state agencies that play some role in regulating water quality and quantity. He has some ideas but wants to discuss them with colleagues.
But he said he has spoken with Lt. Gov. David Toland about identifying federal funds to help with some water projects.
Uranium in southwest Kansas
Uranium and sulfate likely have been flowing from Colorado to Kansas for more than 100 years, according to the Kansas Geological Survey.
In 2009, the average uranium content in the Arkansas River at the Colorado-Kansas border was double the standard set for drinking water by the Environmental Protection Agency.
And because, for decades, the High Plains Aquifer in western Kansas has been depleting, the water entering the state on the Arkansas River doesn’t get far. The riverbed is nearly always dry from just upstream of Garden City east to Larned or Great Bend, said Don Whittemore, a senior scientific fellow emeritus at the Kansas Geological Survey.
That means the contamination that comes over from Colorado stays in the groundwater of southwest Kansas, building the concentration over time.
“It’s kind of like a positive feedback loop where it keeps getting more and more concentrated,” said Erin Seybold, an assistant scientist for the survey. “As you continue to lose water, the salt product that is left behind becomes more and more concentrated.”
At this point, Whittemore said, the uranium isn’t found in high concentrations in the grains grown in the area, though it exists in higher concentrations in the roots of crops. As salt and uranium accumulate in the closed water basin, he said, there needs to be more study.
“Because if we’re going to accumulate this in a closed basin, well, does that mean in the future these crops start to get higher so that they become a concern?” Whittemore said.
For the last couple of years, the Kansas Geological Survey has been analyzing samples to update its understanding of where the uranium is concentrated in the area.
Access to water
The High Plains Aquifer has lost more than 60% of its depth in some parts of far western Kansas, particularly the western third of the aquifer, known as the Ogallala Aquifer.
Rep. Lindsay Vaughn, of Overland Park, serves as the House Water Committee’s ranking Democrat. She called the Ogallala Aquifer “more or less a nonrenewable resource.”
“So the water that we have in the aquifer is all that we essentially get, and it is hugely influential for our agricultural industry,” Vaughn said.
In some places, only 20 years of supply remain.
“When you’re in Garden City and you take the bridge over the Ark River, it’s completely dried up,” Vaughn said. “… Just visually, it’s very apparent how the lack of water is present in the daily lives of that community and how it’s an increasing concern, especially for the western part of our state.”
Some farmers in western Kansas have begun using probes underground to assess the soil moisture and irrigate more strategically. Highland said they have managed to save water while still maintaining a good crop yield, meaning their profits have increased.
Highland said he would like to see a cost-sharing program to help more farmers install that technology.
Meanwhile, the wetter eastern part of the state has its own problems.
Reservoirs that supply drinking water, like Tuttle Creek Lake, are filling up with sediment carried from upstream and settling in the dammed reservoirs.
Tuttle Creek Lake has lost about half of its storage capacity since it opened 60 years ago. It’s too large for the state to dredge, Highland said. He hopes the state can fund a pilot program this year to stir up the silt in Tuttle Creek Lake and send it down river as it would flow if it weren’t for the dam that formed the reservoir.
The year ahead
In Kansas, 16 state agencies — from the Adjutant General’s Office to the Kansas Forest Service and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment — have overlapping authority over water quality, research, flood management and other issues.
On top of those, federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Army Corps of Engineers have jurisdiction over water.
Highland said that creates the potential for substantial overlap and confusion for citizens.
One of his priorities for the Water Committee will be restructuring the state departments to streamline water policy.
Beyond that, Vaughn and Highland said water priorities in Kansas had been underfunded to the tune of more than $70 million in recent decades.
A task force in 2017 said it would take about $55 million per year to fund a long-term vision for Kansas water management developed under former Gov. Sam Brownback.
“We are just barely scratching the surface of projects that need to be implemented,” Vaughn said.
This story was produced by the Kansas Reflector, a nonpartisan, nonprofit news organization covering state government, politics and policy.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-01-18 19:28:01

Since all nations are looking to do the same thing with taking free sea water then you have a system in place to keep that water free from harmful chemicals that could be sent in as a terrorist attack on the people getting the water.

Like mars we need to ensure that the water is not contaminated with something that can not be removed.

Mars will also waste stream recycle all the water and sludge from it. It will be processed to make use of this as fertilizers, food for algae ponds, pyrolysis of the sludge will drive out even more moisture and create co2 plus other chemicals that we can make use of as part of the reprocessing. Mars will also make use of electrolysis and co2 to make fuel plus water that is clean, It will also use the RWGS to take co and H2 to make water and solid carbon, we will also make use of reverse osmosis to clean water.

Solar panels over the land will if given enough distance allow for other crops to grow under them that would otherwise not be there.

coming some where between 3 billion and 10 billion
Valley Voice: Why 'fixing' the Salton Sea with pipelines is unrealistic and too expensive

https://www.watereducation.org/aquaforn … lternative

Void · 2022-01-18 22:24:12

Well, I noticed that for the most part things that I presented were ignored, and misinterpreted.

But it does not matter. I have no dog in this fight as that saying goes.

It is not logical that diluting the Salton Sea will bring the salt levels down to sea level salt levels. But it is true that the Salton Sea might be modified to become an energy storage device. In that, at the very least, fish could be farmed in ponds, that could be filled with input sea water. The rest of the sea, if it should become too salty for fish, would still be suitable for brine shrimp farming, and for recreations.

Otherwise, then the Salton Sea can become only a salty inland body of water unsuitable for fish.

I am quite aware that for any changes to be installed that would be necessary to cause profitable alterations, then the baby-kings would try to impede progress for a price. If a rational method were found, then the silly hillbillies would get in the way anyway. It is not my problem if they sit in dirty diapers, just because they lack ability to understand what needs doing.

Where I live, water is not a problem so far.

As for modifying behaviors as to not continue to take water from the Colorado River to Los Angeles, you ignored me. Truth is other than to call you out for it I don't care.

As for solar panels and farmland, if you don't have water, then perhaps there is no farmland.

I did not indicate solar panels. Although I don't have to rule such out. I am a sort of a solar thermal person. It can be noted that for solar thermal, you might distil water directly and skip electricity. Also, for a canal, it might even be possible to have steam engines, to pump water, without electricity.

As you may know, I am also interested in trying to use the photons from a concentrator to drive a garden process, a closed one.

I am not mad, I am just making sure that the readers understand that in trying to solve a problem, one does not circle back to what is currently known, but rather you solve one problem after another. You see as I see it you are trying to use "Old Tech", and when it does not fit, you give up trying. That is not how you do it.

But please don't be insulted, I just wanted you to know that I do not consider your rebuffs and ignores and diversions to be a sensible or just dialog.

But no hard feelings. I remake the point that it is not my problem.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-01-18 22:38:37)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-19 08:45:25

For Void re #59

This topic was created to address a serious concern.

If you have something to contribute, that is one thing.

If you do not have anything meaningful to contribute, and are writing material that is a distraction from the focus of the topic, then the flow will be interrupted for anyone who comes along later to try to follow development of the topic.

If you have chosen this topic for a post because it seems to have activity going on, then please try to think LONG and HARD about how your powerful brain can assist the people of Arizona and the Southwestern United States.

The position I have taken, representing the interests of the Mars Society (as I understand them) is that nuclear power (fission now and fusion later) is essential to preparation of fresh water for citizens of Mars.

Whatever is done in Arizona to demonstrate the effective use of nuclear power (fission at first and fusion later) to produce abundant fresh water from the unlimited supply represented by the Pacific Ocean, will (hopefully) accrue to the benefit of the citizens of Mars.

The idea of using a very low intensity power source (ie, solar radiation in the visual spectrum) is interesting but it may not be sufficient to meet the need.

The need is present now, and it is growing steadily, as rain patterns shift due to climate change.

I have tried to show snapshots of views of people living in several Southwestern US States. Unfortunately, they ** all ** show the limited thinking that is characteristic of the human population. There are hints of awareness there is a problem looming, but the magnitude of the problem is beyond the (apparent) ability of most humans to process.

This forum contains a higher proportion of humans who can think on the scale required, but even here limited thinking ability exists. That is not a criticism. It is simply a fact that the ability to think on a large scale is not an evolutionary advantage to most humans, so there is not much of it.

(th)

Void · 2022-01-19 10:26:44

(th), Surely, I earned a reprimand but cannot not giggle about it.

My message was not intended to be anything except a OK, then ya.....

Perhaps it will help for you to know that I have cousins in both California and Arizona. And I can care.

In my opinion certain problems exist, in this conversation. For instance, even though both Arizona and Mars have canyons, they are not the same. This has been a great flaw, I think in American thinking, as they saw what looked like the American Southwest, on Mars and so supposed that they could solve for Mars by the template of that SW America.

Also, if there is anywhere in the USA where solar energy can work it would be in the USA Southwest. So, while true that for Mars we might really want to cuddle with nuclear fission, it is not so much mandated for California or Arizona.

And also, Californians along with the East Coast are far too self-important. If I get a chance to tweak them from time to time this could improve their character, I feel.

As per the Salton Sea, they have the choice to do something about it or nothing about it, and so have the consequences that they have earned.

I have done that post to show that if south California and Arizona were joined as a state, then due to vanity of notions of tribe, the Arizona side of the Colorado could have more water. As I have said, it makes no sense to pump Colorado water out of the Great Basin to SW California at this time, although it made sense when they set that up. In general, if you can get water into the Great Basin, then it may fall as rain or snow many times before getting back out.

But to solve the political/commercial/tribal issues would be an insane task.

And so, then we have to work around that, as it is likely quite harder than to create alternate solutions in technology.

And that then comes down to concerns of evaporation and precipitation for the entire Great Basin.

But for Arizona, I have some trouble understanding why nuclear the solution is. (The spell corrector did that, who am I to correct it? )

I was more than a bit of a jerk, but it is hard to resist giving the "Golden People" a bit of a tweak when the opportunity offers itself.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2022-01-19 10:41:02)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-19 11:36:36

For Void re #61

This is not intended as a criticism, but as an observation

You jumped into this topic without having read the opening premise of the topic, or (possibly) any of the many posts about the serious matter under discussion.

We have too few members of this forum as it is, and you are in a class by yourself for creative thinking on a grand scale.

However, your contributions to ** this ** topic are distractions from the flow from premise to solution.

Your posts could probably fit well into one of the Chat topics, but I don't see how they fit here.

I am intending for this topic to reflect the best thinking that humanity can bring to bear on the problem of draught.

We have some posts in this topic that (appear to) reflect a desire to deny the problem (a) and to propose "solutions" that don't address the problem (b).

At ** some ** point, human kind has to address the fact that Ma Nature could ** not ** care ** less ** what we think. She just does whatever she feels like at any moment.

In other times, humans have found solutions that met their needs for food, shelter and water.

Now, after the "Age of Chemical Stored Energy", we are drawing a close on that chapter.

We have some efforts underway to try to capture a bit more of the energy flowing onto the planet from the Sun, but those efforts will always fall short of the needs of the human population.

This topic opened with the observation that settlement of Mars ** demands ** mastery of atomic power. Any efforts to collect solar energy will be welcome and I expect they will find customers willing to pay whatever the going rate may be. However, any serious plan to establish a human presence on Mars is ** highly ** likely to be built upon abundant nuclear energy.

So it is going to turn out to be on Earth.

The folks living in Arizona (as reflected by published studies and by articles published in media) are edging toward an understanding of what it is going to take to insure they have an abundance of clean, fresh water far into the future.

They are beginning to show dim awareness that the aquifers will run out in a few years, and that water flows from Ma Nature were cut off for bad behavior some time ago.

The costs of various solutions are beginning to receive some attention, but it seems to me that the amount of the costs to be assumed by human customers is beyond discussion. The fact is, humans have been living on the generous distributions by Ma Nature for thousands of years, so the ** true ** cost of goods and services has not been charged during all that time.

The human race has the "opportunity" to change procedures before Ma Nature lowers the boom, but that boom has already fallen on several nations of the Earth, and it is lowering on the United States.

(th)

Void · 2022-01-19 12:05:39

Well, I read the topic, which did not include Nuclear, and also the recent and initial posts.

But what is the point of causing trouble? I made my points as I thought they were important. I did put some notions of humor into it, and yet that was useless. Reality is funny, especially in this case.

You may find it hard to believe, but I have been working on this sort of problem(s) for some time. I think I know quite a lot on the subject but attempts to convey how I see the nature of reality have apparently been wasted. So, either other members cannot recognize what I presented, or I have major flaws in my thinking that I am not currently aware of, so, in either case it makes no sense for use to waste each other's time on this topic. I will exit as it is not productive in any way.

But I will not yet choose to leave the site. I will see if I can stay at the "Little Kids" table and get anything done of value.

No hate, just don't have time for not doing any good.

Done.

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-19 13:11:14

For Void re contributions to ** this ** topic ...

You may have missed the opening sentences of this topic. They have not changed:

In the Nuclear Power is Safe topic, forum members have been discussing the opportunity to use nuclear fission power to provide fresh water to the City of Phoenix, Arizona, by drawing sea water from the Sea of Cortez (with the cooperation and ongoing support of Mexico).
This topic is offered to note the similarity of the problem of delivering reliable supplies of fresh/potable water to residents of a large city on Mars, and the challenge of delivering fresh/potable water to the residents of Phoenix, Arizona in the US.

There have been several posts that were leading off in other directions.

That is normal in a free ranging forum like this one.

I try to bring the topic back to it's singular focus when contributions seem too far afield.

I have confidence that your known creative powers can help the people of Phoenix in particular, and residents of other drought threatened regions in general, but perhaps the time is still pending.

Whatever solution is proposed must not only be technically feasible, but it must pass muster with the population that would have to support it.

In the case of Phoenix, this topic contains posts that show very clearly, in precise numbers, how much fresh water is needed just for the city of Phoenix.

The quantity of water needed for the American Southwest is measured in rivers and underground aquifers.

Every molecule of water in any of those rivers, or in the underground aquifers was put there by solar power.

Solar power evaporated the water from the salt water oceans, and then carried each molecule from the oceans over the surface of the Earth in a random distribution. So to say that solar power might be able to deliver fresh water to the population of half a continent, or even an entire continent, would be correct.

However, for ** human beings ** to enlist solar power to accomplish that feat seems (to me at least) to be asking for more from the human population than it is capable of delivering.

Thus, I am trying to offer congratulations for your insight, but at the same time, trying to show how past is not always prologue.

The people of Phoenix in particular, and of the American Southwest in general, need more fresh water than Ma Nature is willing to provide using Her tried and true solar power methods.

(th)

Void · 2022-01-19 16:29:47

I took a quick look, this topic is " Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply".

I did not notice an early mention of Nuclear.

However, I don't care do Nuclear if you like. I am done bothering here. Good Luck.

Done.

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-19 18:12:55

For Void re #65 ... thanks for taking a look at the top of the topic.

Recenly, Void took a look at California and some of it's residents, in a post in this topic.

By coincidence, this report appeared in today's news feed. There was no mention of specific technology in the article. It was more about encouraging public investment in solutions, without indicating what those might be.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/proposed-cal … 32313.html

This simple economic argument, which leans old-school Democrat and decentralizes wealth, used to inform public infrastructure spending without debate. In the 1930s, the Works Progress Administration publicly funded roads, public buildings, rural electrification and water infrastructure that are still paying economic dividends today. Similarly, in the 1950s and 1960s, the California State Water Project publicly funded a water system that, despite decades of neglect, enables millions to live in coastal cities.
It is time to upgrade California’s water infrastructure for the 21st century. Voters deserve the chance to make that happen.
Where are the angels?
Edward Ring, former senior fellow at California Policy Center, is the lead proponent of the Water Infrastructure Funding Act, a proposed state ballot initiative.
This article originally appeared on Visalia Times-Delta: Proposed ballot measure would create water infrastructure

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-01-19 19:26:52

https://new.azwater.gov/conservation/public-resources

On average, each Arizona resident uses about 146 gallons per day. About 20 percent of the State's water supply is for municipal use, and most of this is residential. Up to 70 percent of that water is used outdoors (watering plants, swimming pools, washing cars, etc.) especially during the summer months, with the remaining used indoors (bathing, cooking, cleaning, etc.).

https://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts

Each farm (Irrigation Grandfathered Right) is assigned a maximum annual groundwater allotment, based on assumed irrigation efficiencies of 65 to 80%. Irrigation district distribution system losses are not to exceed 10%.

https://azbigmedia.com/business/here-ar … er-supply/

Arizona has 13.2 million acre-feet of water stored in reservoirs as well as underground, with 7.1 million acre-feet of that total stored in Greater Phoenix. Because of the infrastructure in place, we can pull and replace water as needed, making our water supply more resilient during times of drought.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/lo … 806899002/

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/questions … oenix-area

Phoenix metropolitan region, we use about 2.3 million acre-feet of water. An acre-foot is the amount of water required to cover an acre of land with one foot of water. It is about 325,851 gallons which is about how much an average family of 4 uses in a year. Most of the water is used for farming (about 40%) and for city water supplies (about 35%). Phoenix-area residents use over 50% of the water we get from city water supplies outside water for watering lawns and maintaining swimming pools.

https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documen … _00805.pdf

“Pipe-sizing” in which it states the prescribed minimum requirement of 12-inch in major streets, 8-inch mains in collector streets, and 6-inch mains in local streets in case of conflict regarding design minimums.
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documen … _00142.pdf
METER SIZE & DESCRIPTION MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE G.P.M
6” COMPOUND 1,000
8” COMPOUND 1,600

city just broke ground on a $280-million initiative to address the issue.

Known as the Drought Pipeline Project, five-and-a-half-foot pipes will soon be buried underground in the city. The pipes are made of steel, which gives them strength, city engineer Clayton Freed says.
“This pipe will be able to carry about 75 million gallons of water a day
new pipeline will move that water nine miles north to part of Phoenix where 400,000 people rely almost entirely on water from the Colorado River.

https://azwaterblueprint.asu.edu/gettin … gIXffD_BwE

Calliban · 2022-01-20 04:56:30

I would suggest a careful review of desalination technology would be in order, before rushing into suggesting a specific technical approach. A good place to start is the wiki article on desalination.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desalination

There are actually a continuum of options that need to be considered in arriving at a cost-optimum means of meeting the city's water needs. Demand management and water recycling need to be part of a balanced solution. It is noted in the wiki article, that desalination is likely to be cost effective if natural water must be pumped a horizontal distance greater than 1600km or vertically 2000m. But I note that the desalination proposal being considered here involves pumping sea water from the gulf of California. That will be a huge infrastructure project in itself with a lot of concrete pipework and dependent on pipe diameter and flow speed, a non-trivial amount of pumping power and pumping infrastructure. You then have desalination costs on top of that. It may be competitive to think about tapping natural fresh water sources that are further away than would normally be considered. But Arizona does not appear to be well placed from that point of view and its mountainous geography may impose heavy pumping power requirements on delivered water.

Getting down to the specifics of desalination. The wiki article lists a large number of potential technologies. In terms of total energy consumption, reverse osmosis takes first place. Total energy consumption (all electricity) is typically around 3 kWh per tonne fresh water and 2 kWh per tonne has been demonstrated. You could use solar power to provide that electricity. But the problem there is that solar power follows both diurnal and seasonal cycles. You either have to store electricity (which adds to cost) or run your desalination plant at lower capacity factor. The problem then is poor utilisation of the capital asset, which adds cost in other ways. A light water reactor can produce power almost continuously, pausing only for refuelling and planned maintenance. Nuclear reactors also produce waste heat, which can also be used for desalination. Using heat to distil water through boiling or evaporation is relatively inefficient, because it takes about 2MJ of heat (0.6 kWh) to evaporate 1kg of water. One way of partially mitigating this energy cost is through multiple effect distillation (MED). Sea water is sprayed of tubes containing steam or vapour. Some of the sea water evaporates. Warm vapour then flows in the next stage, where it condenses by providing heat to another round of sea water evaporation. Heat is therefore cascaded through the system.

There are three problems with MED. Firstly, relatively large amounts of electric power are needed to spray the sea water (1.5 - 2.5 kWh per tonne). This is only marginally better than reverse osmosis. Secondly, to use heat efficiently, requires many evaporation-condensation stages in series. For high thermal efficiency, the thermal gradient across the heat exchangers must be as small as possible, but the smaller it is, the smaller the heat fluxes and the larger each heat exchanger needs to be. My guess is that MED would have high capital costs because it would drive the need for bulky and expensive stainless steel heat exchangers. Thirdly, sea water is a corrosive nightmare for steels of all grades. Those spray nozzles need to be either stainless steel with a relatively high turnover, or nickel alloy with a higher capital cost. My engineering judgement tells me two things. Firstly, the high efficiency of reverse osmosis achieved in the past, is dependent on relatively low concentration gradients across the membranes. That is fine for a coastal desalination plant, because the brine goes straight back into the sea. But it our case we need to reduce that brine all the way down to salt. So any reverse osmosis will produce brine tailings, which we have to subject to further desalination. Secondly, the light water reactor powerplant condenser produces a lot of very low grade heat - around 30°C. This will allow some evaporation, but the temperature is too low for many stages. But that heat must be dumped somewhere.

My proposal: A three stage desalination process. The first stage will use standard reverse osmosis, which can produce fresh water for 3 kWh per tonne. I don't know what proportion of fresh water can be produced in this way. The second stage will use nuclear waste heat to evaporate waste brine in an evaporation pond. The pond will be resin lined concrete, with polyethylene pipes carrying warm water from the powerplant condenser to the underside of the pond. The pond will be covered with sheet glass or a polythene canopy, allowing sunlight to contribute to evaporation. A fan will then be used to blow water saturated air into a single pass stainless steel heat exchanger. The cold side will be incoming sea water. Water vapour will condense on the tubes and drain into a sump. Cool air would be returned to the pond. Evaporation rate will be greater during day time and during summer. So a solar assisted process may make sense, with total fan power being supplied by a combination of solar and nuclear electricity. The final stage involves pumping, probably with a jet pump) highly saturated brine and salt slurry, out of the waste heat pond and into an open air evaporation pond. The solid salt can then be removed mechanically and transported away by truck, rail or maybe even a hydraulic capsule pipeline. The brine is returned to the evaporation pond. The nuclear power plant would produce water by a mixture of reverse osmosis and waste heat disposal. It would probably generate excess electricity to supply the city.

Other options. Freeze thawing has been used to provide limited amounts of fresh water for centuries. The idea is simple. Freeze sea water and collect ice off the top, which is salt free. The problem is energy consumption. To freeze water means removing around 100kWh per tonne of heat. Assuming we use a heat pump with a COP of 2-3, then you need 30-50 kWh of electricity per tonne of fresh water. That is about an order of magnitude more than reverse osmosis. But it might be workable in situations where we can use the transferred heat. The cold ice is useful for refrigeration and air conditioning. The hot water has a variety of uses. So water produced in this way could be a byproduct.

Atmospheric condensers are another option. They could work in conjunction with air conditioning. We could supply individual buildings with condensers. Wind would blow moist air through a duct, which would contain condenser tubes. Moisture would condense on the tubes and run into a sump. The tubes would be supplied with cold water from a heat pump. The heat pump would dump heat into the building's hot water tank. So the products are cool air for air conditioning, heat for municipal hot water and water. We could use the condensed water for the building toilet system, reducing the demand placed on the city water supply.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-01-20 06:29:02)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-20 07:47:24

For Calliban re #68

Thank you for this detailed and thoughtful analysis of osmosis options.

For those who may be following this topic, please note that Calliban has not yet bought into my recommendation that the intake from the Sea of Cortez (Mexican name for Sea of California) be totally consumed using nuclear power (fission now and fusion later) so that the output is a concentrated set of the constituents of the mixture.

My thesis may or may not be valid, but it is that the economic value of the constituents of sea water, separated by the appropriate technologies, using nuclear power as the primary energy source, will be (can be) greater than the cost of the investment in plant and equipment, and operating costs, including salaries, fees, taxes and whatever else comes up.

Practices done today that need to be eliminated include:

1) returning brine to the ocean (this is objectionable for a variety of reasons)
2) collecting salt as a solid mass that must be stored (this is objectionable for other reasons)
3) ignoring economic value of materials arriving with the sea water (missed opportunity)

The technologies described by Calliban in Post #68 appear to me to be worthy of careful study to see how they might blend into an operation that achieves the desired end result with maximum efficiency. Since heat produced by the reactor must be carried away, Calliban's suggestion of employing that thermal energy for part of the desalination process should improve the overall efficiency of the solutions.

All fresh water on Earth is the result of natural desalination and physical transport by Solar Power.

We are proposing in this topic, to supplement natural desalination with carefully planned and managed processes, where natural flows of desalinated water are insufficient to meet the needs of the population.

On Mars, there is NO natural flow that yields desalinated water.

Therefore, whatever processes are developed to provide desalinated sea water to the residents of Phoenix ** will ** be immediately applicable to the Mars case.

For that reason, all discussion of alternatives that might work on Earth but which are not available on Mars is (respectfully) discouraged for this topic.

We have an opportunity to work through the thought process (as Calliban has done, and as kbd512 has done) to deliver a plan that will work in the economic environment of Earth of 2022.

The new Sodium cooled Small Modular Reactor under construction in Wyoming by a company backed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffet is of interest because it will (of course) consume a supply of pure Sodium. I am hoping to reach someone associated with that project, to try to enlist their consideration of a joint venture with the (proposed) Phoenix water concept.

Chlorine is a material with a significant economic value.

The other materials found in sea water have value when purified, although that value may not be great in the grand scheme of things for any given material, the income earned for delivery of that material to a customer contributes to a viable economic solution.

Low grade hydrocarbon gas is routinely burned off in oil fields, because the cost of capturing and preparing that gas for customer use is greater than what value it might have on the open market.

A traditional desalination plant treats the brine flowing from the reverse osmosis filters in exactly the same way.

Since the source of sea water for this project is a body of water in the jurisdiction of Mexico, the objections of the people of Mexico to this practice should work to the advantage of a competitive proposal that would eliminate that effluent from the process.

As reported earlier in this topic, the people of Mexico have funded investment in small (traditional) desalination plants that feed brine back into the Sea of Cortez. An option for a competitive bid is to accept that brine as input to a process powered by nuclear energy.

Finally, one of the materials that (in my opinion) can and should be harvested from the Sea of Cortez intake is Deuterium.

This material is valuable already, but it will be much MORE valuable as an input to operation of nuclear fusion reactors.

SearchTerm:osmosis analysis of by Calliban in Post #68

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-20 07:55:54

To try to keep this topic in tight focus, please refrain from suggesting water conservation, production of brine to go back into the Sea of Cortez, or praying for Ma Nature to change her wind patterns to increase natural distribution of desalinated sea water.

The focus of this topic (to the extent I am able to persuade contributors) is to develop an understanding of a set of procedures that will allow nuclear energy (fission now and fusion later) to deliver fresh water to the citizens of Phoenix, and refined materials to customers world wide, and thus to achieve economic break even for the enterprise.

Nuclear energy is reported to deliver between 1,000,000 and 20,000,000 more energy than does chemical energy for a given mass of input material.

It seems reasonable (to me at least) to suppose that extra costs of using nuclear energy should total to less than the economic value of energy produced.

The human race ** must ** master nuclear energy in order to expand out into the Universe. There is massive inertia to keep using traditional energy sources as long as possible.

I concede that collecting Solar Energy is a way of harvesting nuclear energy. The low density of that energy results in the need for materials to harvest that energy, and those materials and their fabrication and maintenance detract from the economic value of the energy collected.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-01-20 08:56:30

On Mars, our only real energy sources are nuclear power (fission or fusion) and solar power. That is it. There are no fossil fuels (so far as we know) and no oxygen to burn them in even if there were. There is no useful amount of energy in the wind. No liquid water and therefore no hydropower. No large moons or bodies of water - therefore no tidal power. No wave power for same reasons. And the crust is relatively thick, making geothermal gradient only about one third that of Earth on average. So we will be limited to some mixture of fission (and possibly fusion) and solar power. Solar constant is half that of Earth and average surface temperature is -60°C. We need a lot more energy to prosper on Mars because we need to use energy to provide so many things that we get for free on Earth. Air must be manufactured using electrolysis and atmospheric fractionation. Water must be thawed and distilled from permafrost that is so cold it is as hard as stone. Any habitable small must be a pressure vessel, manufactured using tensile materials or built underground. Living spaces may or may not need supplementary heat. Agricultural areas almost certainly will and they will cover a larger area. Where am I going with this?

A Mars colony will need an expanding fission power supply. That energy source will provide electricity, chemicals, fuels and will be used to process minerals into metals. We need a lot of heat as well. Most of it low grade. That heat will be used to heat agricultural areas and to mine and distill water. On Earth, we seldom have use for that low grade heat. On Mars, we need it in great abundance. It isn't easy to supply using solar power, because flat plate collectors, in addition to being energy intensive to produce, will not get warm enough in the weak Martian sunlight. We could use some combination of Solar PV powered heat pump, with flat plate collectors as a cold source. But the area of panels needed makes this a poor option in EROI terms. So we need nuclear heat to produce water and grow food on Mars. We need lots of it, so it needs to be cheap. It would be advantageous if we could start building nuclear power plants on Mars using components that are made there. Ultimately, we would like the fuel to come from Mars as well. But what is most important initially, is being able to produce reactors cheaply and quickly. They need to be easy to build, preferably using materials from disused Starships. Thermal efficiency is less important, because low grade waste heat is valuable on Mars.

This is why Kbd512 and I, have spent some time discussed aqueous homogeneous reactors. They are naturally self-stabilising, because boiling in the fuel fluid creates voids, which enable more neutrons to escape without causing fission. They have excellent load following capabilities. Open the steam valves on the boiler and boiler pressure drops, resulting in more boiling, which causes temperature to drop, which increases heat transfer through the heat exchanger, which reduces moderator temperature, which increases the rate of fission in the core. If load drops off, the opposite happens. So you barely need to use control rods. So long as fuel and fission product concentrations are controlled, all reactivity control can be achieved by thermal feedback effects that respond to load. Very efficient in this respect. On Earth, these reactors fell out of favour because of low thermal efficiency ~25% and corrosion problems. The corrosion problems were eventually solved. But the world had moved on by that point. Thermal efficiency is less of a problem on Mars because we can use the heat.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-01-20 09:06:40)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-20 09:23:15

For Calliban ... Thanks for the inspiration of your post #71

I have opened a new dedicated topic for aqueous homogeneous reactors

Please suggest other reactor types you would like to see covered in an overview of reactor technology.

We have achieved a modest permanent storage capability, and it is conceivable we might earn support by Mars Society at some point.

We are opening this initiative with one of Dropbox free trial accounts.

Mars Society has the real thing.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-01-20 10:16:43

Apologies, I got interrupted by a phone call half way through that post. The point I was getting to was that AHRs using heavy water on Mars could make use of any natural uranium and thorium that we find, thanks to their excellent neutron economy. They can be made using old Starship fuel tanks as reactor vessels. The heavy water can be produced using a cascading boiling process (D2O and HDO have slightly higher boiling point than H2O), which can be supplied using low grade waste heat - exactly the sort of process that we are discussing here for desalination. Importantly, thermal leakage from the desalination and heavy water production will be roughly room temperature heat, which can be used to keep agricultural areas warm. So on Mars, heat will never be wasted. We have a cascade of processes: Electricity production (200°C inlet, 30°C outlet); desalination / heavy water production (30°C inlet, 20°C outlet); Agricultural heating: 20°C inlet temperature.

If we are making productive use of waste heat for desalination, heavy water production and thermal heating, it does alter the economics of competing nuclear power concepts. I begin to wonder if an AHR might be a more appropriate technology for desalination here on Earth, given that most of the energy that we need is in the form of heat. This is certainly the case if we intend to actually evaporate sea water all the way down to solid salt. Doing that tends to favour thermal approaches to desalination. We need a dirt cheap source of heat and relatively small amounts of supplemental electricity.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-01-20 10:25:17)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-20 10:52:00

For Calliban re #73 ...

We should enjoy such phone call interruptions, because of the suspense of the drama ... will Calliban say anything more ??? Ah! Yes!

***
The people of Arizona (US) have a track record of supporting nuclear fission power. They are reported to have the world's largest such reactor plant in their legal framework. However, the population is divided, and there is a significant percentage who are afraid of nuclear power in any form, and there are a small number with the ability to sway through verbal and written expression.

In short, an enterprise that would offer to deliver fresh water to the citizens of Phoenix have psychological challenges to manage, in addition to the purely technical ones (all of these have been solved elsewhere), and the economic ones.

I am advocating a study to see if the economics of taking the Sea of Cortez input down to bare atoms might yield a result that would compete successfully with the short-term same-old-same-old solutions that are in play.

The price of water ** must ** inevitably rise because Ma Nature is doling it out to other regions, and all the stash she provided over millions of years is slurping up into current usage. A recent estimate posted earlier in this topic is for aquifers to dry up in 20 years, and that's being optimistic. That water will never be replaced, once it is gone.

The price humans pay for produce and livestock products will inevitably rise, and humans who enjoy these items are going to need to earn more income to pay for them.

You've said similar things many times in this forum. Your posts (as i remember them) are mostly about hydrocarbon fuel stocks, but the principles would seem (to me at least) comparable to the stored water stocks. The are going away and there ** is ** no backup.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-01-20 12:01:41

The following email was transmitted to TerraPower's web site:

The purpose of this inquiry is to try to understand the potential market for pure Sodium, if the Natrium reactor concept succeeds.
Please send a link to any public information that might be helpful for analysis.
This question arises in the context of an attempt to provide an alternative fresh water solution for entities serving the State of Arizona.
Work has been done by the State of Arizona (working with Mexico) to evaluate the potential for supply of water from the Sea of Cortez for desalination.
From everything I have seen so far, energy supply for such a project has been left in the "to be determined" category.
I am attempting to serve as a consultant to a citizen of Arizona who is interested in the water challenges facing his State.
My proposal differs from competing proposals in several respects:
1) Nuclear fission energy
2) Do NOT put brine back into the Sea of Cortez
3) Harvest ** every ** atom in the flow from the Sea of Cortez
The energy invested in harvesting the contents of the water mixture from the Sea of Cortez should yield:
1) Water (varying grades of quality for varying prices)
2) Pure Sodium
3) Pure Chlorine
4) Many lesser quantities of minerals/molecules/atoms separated for respective markets
The Arizona resident is interested in Small Modular Reactors.
TerraPower is reported to be working on a design for an SMR.
To me, the interesting aspect of the design is the nice coincidence of need for Sodium as a coolant, and the available of Sodium as a consequence of my proposal.
***
Thank you for any information you may be inspired to provide.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2022-01-17 18:24:53

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#52 2022-01-17 18:32:48

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#53 2022-01-17 20:37:29

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#54 2022-01-17 20:56:31

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#55 2022-01-18 01:49:11

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#56 2022-01-18 11:36:38

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#57 2022-01-18 13:47:07

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#58 2022-01-18 19:28:01

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#59 2022-01-18 22:24:12

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#60 2022-01-19 08:45:25

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#61 2022-01-19 10:26:44

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#62 2022-01-19 11:36:36

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#63 2022-01-19 12:05:39

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#64 2022-01-19 13:11:14

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#65 2022-01-19 16:29:47

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#66 2022-01-19 18:12:55

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#67 2022-01-19 19:26:52

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#68 2022-01-20 04:56:30

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#69 2022-01-20 07:47:24

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#70 2022-01-20 07:55:54

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#71 2022-01-20 08:56:30

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#72 2022-01-20 09:23:15

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#73 2022-01-20 10:16:43

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#74 2022-01-20 10:52:00

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

#75 2022-01-20 12:01:41

Re: Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

Board footer