Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-10 09:57:56

For Calliban re #100

There is information missing from your understanding of the situation.

This is not a criticism. Your vantage point is thousands of miles from the region of discussion, and your interests are truly global. It is (surely) understandable that information is missing from a small part of the scope of global affairs you are tracking.

To try to bring our forum readers up to date, in as few words as possible ...

The Colorado is drying up. It will never come back.

The aquifers built up over millions of years are drying up. They will never come back.

Humans have been living on the yolk of the egg. The yolk is looking shriveled.

It is time for everyone to accept responsibility to learn how to use atomic power while we still can.

All of this is thoroughly documented in this topic, for that rare person who might wish to study it.

Person years have been devoted to building up the body of knowledge that underlies the documentation.

It is literally impossible for any one person to try to read, let along understand it all.

The assertion that Colorado River water is cheaper than atomic supplied power is already in error, for those many persons who can no longer receive it.

For those customers, there ** is ** no natural source of water. All future water must be artificially acquired.

Ma Nature has chosen to distribute Her abundant desalinated sea water to other locations on Earth.

If humans who live in a desert want fresh water, they are going to have to provide it for themselves.

Thanks for noting the similarity of the present and future situation on Earth to that of Mars.

Artificial water supply is now and will always be required in both locations. It is time to get going on learning how to provide it.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-10 12:26:25

CI_Map_nuclear_US_10.jpg?itok=CroHe-Ok

https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/index.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verd … ng_Station

https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/ano1.html

https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/ano2.html

Calliban · 2022-04-10 13:12:38

tahanson43206 wrote:

For Calliban re #100
There is information missing from your understanding of the situation.
This is not a criticism. Your vantage point is thousands of miles from the region of discussion, and your interests are truly global. It is (surely) understandable that information is missing from a small part of the scope of global affairs you are tracking.
To try to bring our forum readers up to date, in as few words as possible ...
The Colorado is drying up. It will never come back.
The aquifers built up over millions of years are drying up. They will never come back.
Humans have been living on the yolk of the egg. The yolk is looking shriveled.
It is time for everyone to accept responsibility to learn how to use atomic power while we still can.
All of this is thoroughly documented in this topic, for that rare person who might wish to study it.
Person years have been devoted to building up the body of knowledge that underlies the documentation.
It is literally impossible for any one person to try to read, let along understand it all.
The assertion that Colorado River water is cheaper than atomic supplied power is already in error, for those many persons who can no longer receive it.
For those customers, there ** is ** no natural source of water. All future water must be artificially acquired.
Ma Nature has chosen to distribute Her abundant desalinated sea water to other locations on Earth.
If humans who live in a desert want fresh water, they are going to have to provide it for themselves.
Thanks for noting the similarity of the present and future situation on Earth to that of Mars.
Artificial water supply is now and will always be required in both locations. It is time to get going on learning how to provide it.
(th)

Understood. I am reading a book on desalination at present. I remain of the opinion that a combined approach is the best option. Sea water reverse osmosis can recover some 35-65% of water input, whilst removing some 99.9% of salt contaminants. It is the most energy efficient method. But the energy it does use is electrical. The remaining brine will need a thermal evaporation approach. There needs to be some thought about what is done with the salt. There is a market for it, but desalination will yield huge quantities. We may need a railway track to remove it all.

Evaporation based desalination is energy hungry. It takes around 2MJ to evaporate 1 litre of water. But this method can make use of low grade waste heat, which as the name suggests, would otherwise be dumped up a cooling tower. Specific energy consumption per litre can be minimised by staging. That involves using the condenser from one stage to serve as evaporator for the next. This can only go so far before the evaporators clog up with crystallised salt. The final stage will be an evaporation pond into which highly saturated brine will be dumped. This will use solar heat to evaporate the last of the water. Solid salt slush will need to be removed from the pond somehow.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-10 13:48:55)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-10 14:17:48

So create the natural hot pan evaporation system that uses a mix of solar thermal and low heat from any source that can be created. The panel has the sea water come in and has a cover that seals in the vapor that collects and runs down the side wall into the collection tray.

Google images of solar thermal desalination tray

one could also make the user responsible for the processing if the sea water were supplied and be paid for the extra that they did not use.
mall-Scale Solar Desalination System Aims for Affordable Water Independence __opt__aboutcom__coeus__resources__content_migration__treehugger__images__2014__12__desolenator-f0dffe078ac34b1a84403c1cc0edbee7.png

https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/48502

Its still going to cost enough just to get sea water to the end user....

edit
power generation going the wrong way A power plant’s expansion plan galls environmentalists — and sows dread in a Black enclave next door; In Randolph, Arizona, residents see a plan to more than double the size of a natural gas-burning plant as part of a long pattern of environmental racism.

12 turbine engines burning natural gas for electricity, a process that emits carbon dioxide.

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-10 15:46:04

For Calliban and SpaceNut re recent posts ...

Thank you to each for respective contributions!

I will study them later .... this post is just to acknowledge your posts!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-13 10:37:49

Here is a thoughtful presentation on the state of affairs in Arizona, as the future without water looms.

Several NewMars members have suggested conserving water, and the author of this article covers that ground thoroughly.

I get the impression the author is not technically inclined, so the review of the situation is free of bias one way or the other, as nearly as I can tell.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/deserves-ari … 09357.html

AZCentral | The Arizona Republic
Who 'deserves' Arizona's water? Our future rests on this and 3 other questions00
Joanna Allhands, Arizona Republic
Tue, April 12, 2022, 11:30 AM
Danny Mark, an irrigation foreman at Ramona Farms, closes off a canal gate after flood irrigating an alfalfa crop with water from the Casa Grande Canal at Ramona Farms in Sacaton in the Gila River Indian Community on February 9, 2022.
The headlines are alarming.
Residential wells are going dry in Willcox. A community near Scottsdale will soon lose its sole source of water. Lake Mead, a significant source of water for Arizona, is already in shortage and expected to go lower, forcing even more painful cuts on central Arizona cities.
How do we make sense of all this bad news?
Here are four fundamental questions to consider about Arizona’s water supply. Hopefully, they’ll challenge your thinking about this precious resource as much as they have mine:
Who 'deserves' the water we have?
Arizona does not have enough water for everyone. So, who “deserves” to use what we have?
You can see this question playing out in central Arizona’s attempt to lease water from the counties that border the Colorado River, in the debate over how to preserve farmland, and whether golf courses, water parks and grass are valid uses of water. (Come to think of it, it’s also a driving force behind the following three questions in this column.)
It’s easy to suppose that how I use water is valid, but how others use it is not. Just give me mine, and you can figure out how to find yours.
And it’s true: There are no perfect solutions when valid uses compete for the same, limited water sources. Even the best compromises will have winners and losers.
But this doesn’t have to be a zero-sum game.
Arizona is at its best when we find ways to balance competing uses, make mutual sacrifices and know when to take a deal we may not love, but at least can live with.
How do we handle growth?
Why don’t we just cut off new growth? I often hear this question, and I get it: If we don’t have enough water for everyone, it doesn’t seem fair to prioritize those who haven’t yet moved here over those who already call Arizona home.
But it’s not that simple.
Growth has been decoupled from increased water use for years in Arizona. We are now using less water than we did in the 1950s, despite our population having multiplied many times over since then.
That’s mostly because homes have replaced sprawling farmland, but also because farmers are using more efficient irrigation techniques. And homes are now being built on smaller lots, which saves water because most residential use is outdoors.
Does that mean we continue to grow into the hinterlands, or is there another way to provide the affordable housing we need? That’s the conversation we should be having: Where and how we grow, but not whether.
How do we use less water?
Arizona needs to use less water. There is more we could do to help people use less.
But what’s the best way to conserve?
Consider California, which mandated water-saving measures during its last drought. The practice worked – the state saved water, and in many areas, the savings have been ongoing. People took advantage of rebates to convert turf or upgrade appliances, lowering their bills and keeping their yards from looking unsightly when they couldn’t irrigate.
But that also took out the easy fixes, the things people could do without changing their behavior.
Now that drought has returned, California has asked residents to save even more. But the savings aren’t even close to reaching targets. Some areas are now using more water than they were a year ago.
This is a tricky balance – and a reminder that if people aren’t on board to make these sacrifices, neither voluntary nor mandatory measures are likely to make a lasting difference.
How do we find new supplies?
As important as it is to conserve the water we have, we’re also going to need new sources of water. We’ve been talking about this for decades.
Should we pursue ocean water desalination? Brackish desalination, which removes salt from groundwater? Water recycling? Something else?
This is a fine debate, but it’s just theory. Projects have not been fleshed out with the necessary location, cost and delivery details to know how much they would help Arizona. (Remember: There’s an unused desalting plant in Yuma that no one wants to update).
The governor and some lawmakers have proposed creating an Arizona Water Authority and seeding it with $1 billion, in hopes that it will finally catalyze some of these projects (and potentially store the water they will produce if users are unwilling, in the short term, to pay its higher cost).
It’s a worthy idea – again, in theory. But we also haven’t given this proposed authority much guidance on how to prioritize projects. And that gives some of us heartburn.
Because this – like virtually everything else in our water future – requires a balancing act between competing interests.
There are no silver bullets or simple solutions to shore up our supplies, just a lot of sacrifice and compromise to find a more sustainable path.
If we agree that getting there is not a zero-sum game.
Reach Allhands at joanna.allhands@arizonarepublic.com. On Twitter: @joannaallhands.
If you love this content (or love to hate it – hey, I won't judge), why not subscribe to get more?
This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Arizona's water future hinges on how we answer these questions

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-13 10:42:21

Follow up on Post #106

The key sentence (from my perspective) is this one:

Arizona does not have enough water for everyone. So, who “deserves” to use what we have?

This is the statement of a person (a human being) who is resigned to a dismal fate.

Clearly this person cannot imagine a future in which there is enough water for everyone.

Some NewMars members ** can ** imagine a future in which there is enough matter (whatever it might be) for humans to enjoy, but I get the impression that the majority of NewMars members ** cannot ** imagine such a future.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-13 17:31:43

For SpaceNut ... this article is about ageing .... It could probably go multiple places, but Life Support seemed (to me) like a good place to start. The gist of the work is that (apparently) aging occurs based upon a fixed count of genetic mutations, and not body size, as had been supposed.

https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/my … 39273.html

The Telegraph
Mystery of why humans die around 80 may finally be solved
Sarah Knapton
Wed, April 13, 2022, 1:35 PM
an elderly gentleman
The mystery of why humans die at around 80, while other mammals live far shorter or longer lives, may finally have been solved by scientists.
Humans and animals die after amassing a similar number of genetic mutations, researchers have found, suggesting the speed of DNA errors is critical in determining the lifespan of a species.
There are huge variations in the lifespan of mammals in the animal kingdom, from South Asian rats, which live for just six months, to bowhead whales, which can survive for 200 years.
Previously. experts have suggested that size is the key to longevity, with smaller animals burning up energy more quickly, requiring a faster cell turnover, which causes a speedier decline.
But a new study from the Wellcome Sanger Institute in Cambridge suggests the speed of genetic damage could be the key to survival, with long-living animals successfully slowing down their rate of DNA mutations regardless of their size.
It helps explain how a five-inch long naked mole rat can live for 25 years, about the same as a far larger giraffe, which typically lives for 24.
When scientists checked their mutation rates, they were surprisingly similar. Naked mole rats suffer 93 mutations a year and giraffes 99.
The study suggests it is the speed of genetic damage that could be the key to survival which helps explain how a giraffe typically lives for 24 years - Thomas Mukoya/Reuters
In contrast, mice suffer 796 mutations a year and only live for 3.7 years. The average human lifespan in the study was 83.6 years, but the mutation rate was far lower at around 47.
Genetic changes, known as somatic mutations, occur in all cells and are largely harmless, but some can start a cell on the path to cancer or impair normal functioning.
Dr Alex Cagan, the first author of the study, said: “To find a similar pattern of genetic changes in animals as different from one another as a mouse and a tiger was surprising.
“But the most exciting aspect of the study has to be finding that lifespan is inversely proportional to the somatic mutation rate. This suggests that somatic mutations may play a role in ageing.”
The team analysed genetic errors in the stem cells from the intestines of 16 species of mammal and found that the longer the lifespan of a species, the slower the rate at which mutations occur.
The average number of mutations at the end of lifespan across species was around 3200, suggesting there is a critical mass of errors after which a body is unable to function correctly.
‘Ageing is a complex process’
Although the figure differed about threefold across species the variation was far less than the variation in body size, which varied up to 40,000 fold.
The researchers believe the study opens the door to understanding the ageing process, and the inevitability and timing of death.
Dr Inigo Martincorena, the senior author of the study, said: “Ageing is a complex process, the result of multiple forms of molecular damage in our cells and tissues.
“Somatic mutations have been speculated to contribute to ageing since the 1950s, but studying them has remained difficult.
“With the recent advances in DNA sequencing technologies, we can finally investigate the roles that somatic mutations play in ageing and in multiple diseases.”
The research was published in the journal Nature.
Our goal is to create a safe and engaging place for users to connect over interests and passions. In order to improve our community experience, we are temporarily suspending article commenting

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-13 19:58:56

1 billion for water delivered but its got limits

Some taking Arizona’s water future with a grain of salt

estimated the cost of a desalination plant and the 160 mile pipeline to get it to Avra Valley would cost $4.1 billion.

https://tucson.com/news/local/subscribe … 779ea.html

cost could add up to $60 to $90 per month to the typical Tucson-area homeowner's water bill,

is delivery by truck viable?

Shipping costs could rise as Arizona trucking companies deal with spiking diesel fuel costs

not knowing the amount to do the cargo hauling its hard to know if its more costly than a pipeline

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-14 12:44:42

For SpaceNut re #109 ... thanks for that humor about trucks delivering water ... it works in India and Africa ... it could work in the US as well

https://www.yahoo.com/news/drought-stri … 30320.html

FELICIA FONSECA
Wed, April 13, 2022, 5:39 PM
FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) — Federal officials say it may be necessary to reduce water deliveries to users on the Colorado River to prevent the shutdown of a huge dam that supplies hydropower to some 5 million customers across the U.S. West.
Officials had hoped snowmelt would buoy Lake Powell on the Arizona-Utah border to ensure its dam could continue to supply power. But snow is already melting, and hotter-than-normal temperatures and prolonged drought are further shrinking the lake.
The Interior Department has proposed holding back water in the lake to maintain Glen Canyon Dam's ability to generate electricity amid what it said were the driest conditions in the region in more than 1,200 years.
“The best available science indicates that the effects of climate change will continue to adversely impact the basin,” Tanya Trujillo, the Interior’s assistant secretary for water and science wrote to seven states in the basin Friday.
Trujillo asked for feedback on the proposal to keep 480,000 acre-feet of water in Lake Powell — enough water to serve about 1 million U.S. households. She stressed that operating the dam below 3,490 feet (1,063 meters), considered its minimum power pool, is uncharted territory and would lead to even more uncertainty for the western electrical grid and water deliveries to states and Mexico downstream.
In the Colorado River basin, Glen Canyon Dam is the mammoth of power production, delivering electricity to about 5 million customers in seven states — Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. As Lake Powell falls, the dam becomes less efficient. At 3,490 feet, it can’t produce power.
If levels were to fall below that mark, the 7,500 residents in the city at the lake, Page, and the adjacent Navajo community of LeChee would have no access to drinking water.
The Pacific Northwest, and the Rio Grande Valley in New Mexico and Texas are facing similar strains on water supplies.
Lake Powell fell below 3,525 feet (1,075 meters) for the first time ever last month, a level that concerned worried water managers. Federal data shows it will dip even further, in the most probable scenario, before rebounding above the level next spring.
If power production ceases at Glen Canyon Dam, customers that include cities, rural electric cooperatives and tribal utilities would be forced to seek more expensive options. The loss also would complicate western grid operations since hydropower is a relatively flexible renewable energy source that can be easily turned up or down, experts say.
“We’re in crisis management, and health and human safety issues, including production of hydropower, are taking precedence,” said Jack Schmidt, director of the center for Colorado River Studies at Utah State University. “Concepts like, ‘Are we going to get our water back’ just may not even be relevant anymore.”
The potential impacts to lower basin states that could see their water supplies reduced — California, Nevada and Arizona — aren't yet known. But the Interior's move is a display of the wide-ranging functions of Lake Powell and Glen Canyon Dam, and the need to quickly pivot to confront climate change.
Lake Powell serves as the barometer for the river’s health in the upper basin, and Lake Mead has that job in the lower basin. Both were last full in the year 2000 but have declined to one-fourth and one-third of their capacity, respectively, as drought tightened its grip on the region.
Water managers in the basin states — Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico and Colorado — are evaluating the proposal. The Interior Department has set an April 22 deadline for feedback.
___
Associated Press writers Sam Metz in Salt Lake City contributed to this report.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-14 20:27:13

I know that we have swimming pools filled that way and its not all that costly as compared to a towns water bill.
On average, the cost is between $4 and $10 per thousand gallons.

Calliban · 2022-04-16 12:03:40

Study: Combined desalination and electric power production at Diablo Canyon plant.
https://www.lucidcatalyst.com/assessmen … t-benefits

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-16 12:16:15

For SpaceNut re #111 ... Interesting concept, I'll admit...

A railroad would be more appropriate to carry water from the Mississippi River (for example) across to Texas and nearby states. If the railroad cars could propel themselves using solar power, you might be on to something.

One difficulty that may NOT be a problem is that Mississippi River water is NOT drinkable, but it may be suitable for agriculture, and if fresh water is NOT required for agriculture then it would (presumably) free up existing supply for drinking and other clean fresh water uses.

***
For Calliban ... haven't read the link yet, but thanks for the contribution!

At first impression, it is more like what I am looking for from this topic.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-16 13:08:37

There is more than merit as Using a fleet of railroad tank cars, filled with over 26,000 gallons each, Water Train can deliver up to 2.8 million gallons of water per train.

https://www.railwayage.com/freight/clas … f-by-rail/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport

https://railroads.dot.gov/rail-network- … l-overview

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-16 16:34:25

For SpaceNut re (interesting) rail car idea....

The specific water usages for the City of Phoenix is given earlier in this topic.

if you have time, and the energy, please translate that requirement into trainloads of Mississippi River water to be shipped to Phoenix.

Please estimate the cost of fuel to power the locomotives, if solar power is not enlisted to provide the needed power.

If the idea has merit, the numbers will come out better than would be true for the nuclear reactor solution I would prefer to see.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-16 19:00:58

here is the summary of earlier posts

post 39 had that for a question and then some.

your post 45

Arizona, Salt River Project and partners in Mexico, California, Nevada and the federal government participated in a binational report on the desalination proposal in 2020. It is estimated that two plants, each situated on the sea’s eastern shore south of Puerto Peñasco and each producing 100,000 acre-feet a year, would cost $3 billion to $4 billion in upfront costs.
That and annual operating costs would create a price of $2,000-$2,200 per acre-foot, which consultants determined would be in line with other potential sources of new water.
An acre-foot is 326,000 gallons, which the Arizona Department of Water Resources estimates can support about three households for a year.
The binational desalination report estimated that the river’s users in the Southwest and Mexico will face a water deficit of about 1.2 million acre-feet a year by 2035, so a 200,000-acre-foot project would cover about a sixth of the need. Water recycling, conservation or other projects would need to cover the rest.

my post 67

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.).
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.
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.

first problem is to cut down on the lawn watering...

your post 97

Wilson said 80-90% of the water used in the Ogallala aquifer region goes to irrigation. That averages out to about 2.5 billion gallons a day, pumped up and sprayed on crops.

Seems we have several numbers to consider....

SpaceNut · 2022-04-16 19:16:35

data on transport costs

Comparing the Costs of Rail Shipping vs Truck

Comparing Maritime Versus Railway Transportation Costs

why-is-road-freight-higher-than-water-transport-but-it-still-works-well

https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-11-134.pdf
A Comparison of the Costs of Road, Rail, and Waterways Freight Shipments That Are Not Passed on to Consumers

https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/t … 35-002.pdf
Analysis of Rail-Water Price Competition

kbd512 · 2022-04-16 21:37:41

Here on Earth we use pipelines for transporting water and fuel, because that is the most efficient means of transporting liquids. We don't move water by truck or rail car unless it's going to a specific location where pipeline delivery would be impractical. Trucking or rail car delivery of enough potable water, half-way across the country, to keep a desert city's people alive, is a non-starter. River water is not potable water, no matter which river it came from. If it's not potable water, then it can never be connected in any way to a potable water supply system unless it's being dumped into a waste water treatment plant (the ultimate source for all potable water systems).

SpaceNut · 2022-04-16 22:13:59

The processing plant needs water of and from any source at this point but lets get some numbers for pipelines to add for the decision making.

https://lake-powell-pipeline.org/lake-p … -expensive
Lake Powell Pipeline will waste at least $2.24 billion of Utah taxpayer money that will never be repaid

https://lisbdnet.com/how-long-does-it-t … -pipeline/

A large diameter water pipeline costs about $2 million per mile to build.

Water main installation costs an average of $50 to $150 per linear foot.

https://www.vocativ.com/culture/science … index.html

water pipeline from Boston to Los Angeles, a distance of 2,600 miles, would cost about $5.2 billion to build

Pumping water from the San Francisco Bay to Southern California requires approximately 3,200 kilowatt hours per acre-foot. That’s a bill of $970 million a year by our calculation.

http://www.twdb.texas.gov/publications/ … 42/r42.pdf
COST OF TRANSPORTING WATER BY PIPELINE

From a terraformer link
https://wehoville.com/2016/12/08/much-w … ities-use/

Calliban · 2022-04-18 09:25:28

Whilst not giving up on desalination, has anyone considered the possibility of a megaproject for shipping fresh water from other US states?

A 2m diameter pipe, with a flowspeed of 10m/s, could deliver 2.6 million tonnes of water each day. That is one cubic kilometre per year. It would be a huge project to construct such pipelines over entire US states. However, we are considering piping salt water over hundreds of km to a desalination plant and then using railways to remove the salt.

The Great Lakes appear to represent a virtually inexhaustible supply of water. The US uses a total of 322 billion gallons of water per day, which is 1.2 cubic km. Only a small fraction of this is consumed in drier US states, like Arizona. Water could be transported across US states using a mixture of concrete pipelines, clay, stone or concrete lined culverts and excavated gullies. Flow resistance increases with the square of flow speed, so pumping could make use of intermittent electricity.

The Mississipi drainage area, is served by a huge network of rivers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississ … new-01.png

Rivers in Kansas, Texas and Oklahoma could provide water for a pipeline that crosses New Mexico to Arizona.

The Arkansas River has a discharge volume of 1100m3/s, that is 4,000,000m3/hour. Compare this to Phoenix water demand, which is around 500,000m3 per day.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-18 10:15:34)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-18 10:12:03

For Calliban re #120

You have the great advantage of living thousands of miles from the site of discussion.

This great distance gives you perspective those who live closer may lack.

However, even while noting my personal bias, I think it is fair to say that the Great Lakes are already over drawn, and residents around them are going to fiercely resist attempts by outsiders to draw from them

***
Next, I'd like to take on the quaint notion that weather is going to be behaving in the future as it has in the past.

The idea of building a pipeline (or a canal) from a location with fresh water today, to supply a region that needs it for ever and ever, is shown by current experience to be subject to correction.

The ** only ** answer is to acquire the energy needed to provide fresh water where Ma Nature is unwilling or unable to provide it. The idea of building pipelines or railroad tracks or roadways for water transport seems (to me at least) ** so ** 19th Century!

However, I ** do ** understand the power of inertia in human thought.

We've been making canals for thousands of years, so let's just keep making canals.

We've only been transporting liquids by pipeline for a few hundred years, but by all means, let's continue doing that.

***
I heard back from my contact in Phoenix .... he took a long break after working hard on this issue last year.

I recognized his need to take a break, and said nothing.

The gist of his message is that while he sees the problem as urgent, and the atomic solution as by far the best available, he also assesses the currently state of human thought as beyond change.

I have chosen to drop the subject. There are just too many millions of people who want to do anything except implement the one solution that would actually work, both now and as far into the future as we can see.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-18 10:28:50

This post is a special for Calliban ....

This forum is fortunate to be attended by members who have significant talent, experience and knowledge in a great variety of disciplines.

However, you are the ** only ** member who can bring a knowledge of nuclear physics to bear on the problems faced by humans in the current age.

For that reason, I find it disheartening that your posts reflect a commitment to ancient ways of doing things as appropriate for the current age.

The ** only ** way humans are going to expand out into the Cosmos (or even just to Mars) is by mastery of atomic energy.

All suggestions that seek to avoid confronting the central problem of our age, by advocating ancient practices, simply fall short of what is needed.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-04-18 10:36:08

Going back to the original question then.

Reverse osmosis takes around 5kWh of electrical energy per m3 of fresh water. If we take Phoenix water consumption to be 500,000m3 per day, the energy requirement is 2.5 million kWh, or 2.5GWh per day. That is about 10% of the electrical power output of a large nuclear reactor. The energy cost of pumping the salt water will depend on the pipe size and flow rate. However, it is likely to be small in comparison.

So in conclusion to your original question, yes we certainly can use nuclear energy to provide fresh water for a city like Phoenix. In fact, it would add about 10% to the per capita electricity consumption of the average Phoenix citizen. If nuclear electric power is charged at a rate of $0.05/kWh to big industrial users, then the electricity cost for desalination water would be $0.075 per citizen per day.

Agriculture is a more difficult issue. How much energy would it take to produce the 1.2km3 of fresh water that the US uses every day? Most of this is agricultural water. An energy cost of 5kWh/m3 x 1.2 billion m3 = 6 billion kWh, or 6000GWh. That is the power output of 200 large nuclear reactors dedicated to fresh water production. It would cost the US about $1 per capita per day. It could be done.

On Mars, we face very different issues. Water is more energy expensive, but most of our water use is in closed systems where we can recycle. The dominant energy cost of producing fresh water on Mars is not desalination, it is thawing solid ice. It takes 5kWh to desalinate a tonne of water, but something like 150kWh of heat to thaw it from solid ice. This makes it important to locate subsurface aquifers in volcanically active areas if they exist. Desalination has trivial energy cost compared to thawing.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-18 11:07:08)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-18 11:07:57

For Calliban re the "central question" of this topic!

Thank you very much for adding the figures in Post #123 to the topic.

As you probably know, Arizona is host to the largest nuclear plant in the United States.

The gent I've been working with and I (assisted by others including kbd512 in this forum) came to the conclusion that a duplicate of the existing plant could provide all the fresh water needed by Phoenix, plus a great part of the fresh water needed by the neighbors, including a 10% premium "payable" to the citizens of Mexico, for the use of their land to draw water from the Gulf of Cortez.

In a recent post, I noticed that you are not aware of the option of removing salt from sea water and rendering it for sale as packaged Chlorine and Sodium. All other components of sea water can similarly be captured, isolated and sold on the open market. There is NO need whatsoever to continue with the 19th Century practice of returning contaminated water to the Sea of Cortez.

it seems to me that "Capitalism" for all it's many faults, including excesses and waste, corruption and graft, is ** still ** the best answer to serving the population of the Earth with fresh water, in such quantity and condition as may be needed.

I am including fresh water to be supplied to mountain slopes and meadows, to take the place of fading natural delivery of fresh water to those locations.

Thank you again for the inspiration and encouragement your posts provide, in multiple topics.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-04-18 11:29:45

The State of Arizona consumes about 7 million acre-feet per year.
https://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts

That is about 8.5km3. Desalination would consume around 40 billion kWh, or 40,000GWh. That is the output of four large nuclear reactors. So that concurs with your conclusion. If we use all of the waste heat as well, maybe 2-3 large reactors will do it.

But we don't need to solve the whole problem at once. Looking at the water supply statistics, about 40% of the state water supply is withdrawn from aquifers. If the state could build a single large pressurised water reactor dedicated to water production, it would eliminate or greatly reduce the draw on the aquifers.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-18 11:41:59)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2022-04-10 09:57:56

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

#102 2022-04-10 12:26:25

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

#103 2022-04-10 13:12:38

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

#104 2022-04-10 14:17:48

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

#105 2022-04-10 15:46:04

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

#106 2022-04-13 10:37:49

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

#107 2022-04-13 10:42:21

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

#108 2022-04-13 17:31:43

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

#109 2022-04-13 19:58:56

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

#110 2022-04-14 12:44:42

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

#111 2022-04-14 20:27:13

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

#112 2022-04-16 12:03:40

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

#113 2022-04-16 12:16:15

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

#114 2022-04-16 13:08:37

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

#115 2022-04-16 16:34:25

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

#116 2022-04-16 19:00:58

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

#117 2022-04-16 19:16:35

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

#118 2022-04-16 21:37:41

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

#119 2022-04-16 22:13:59

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

#120 2022-04-18 09:25:28

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

#121 2022-04-18 10:12:03

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

#122 2022-04-18 10:28:50

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

#123 2022-04-18 10:36:08

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

#124 2022-04-18 11:07:57

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

#125 2022-04-18 11:29:45

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

Board footer