Phoenix Arizona Fresh Water Supply vs Mars City Fresh Water Supply

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-18 12:00:51

For Calliban re #125 and continuing support of this topic...

Picking up on your line about focus on part of the problem ...;

My contact in Arizona/Phoenix had written a tightly woven email, which I only scanned when it first arrived, due to press of time.

Upon second reading, I discovered he'd written to NuScale with a suggestion/inquiry on behalf of a subset of his clients (Native Americans).

No reply has arrived, and that is not surprising. I think this is probably the same situation as you are facing with First Light.

However, what I find most encouraging is that (buried in that tight text) was a confirmation that my contact remains interested in the all-elements-for-sale concept I offered last year.

No one else (naturally) is thinking along those lines, so the way forward is totally free of competition at this point. As soon as ** anyone ** shows the feasibility of the idea, ** everyone ** (and his brother-in-law) will jump on the opportunity.

As I understand his focus, he is thinking as small as possible, with his clients as the beneficiaries of a not-for-profit that sells refined elements at market price, and water at various prices, depending upon degree of processing.

His expertise is in finance of projects for his client communities, so running a business is not a primary skill.

This enterprise would require some significant business skills, in addition to the obvious engineering ones.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-04-18 12:46:20

I was surprised to discover that energy costs were far from being the dominant cost of historical desalination projects. They represent 44% of average operating costs.
https://www.advisian.com/en/global-pers … salination

There are strong scale economies associated with desalination plants. The average project appears to show a cost trend line that levels off at $0.70/m3 of water (total cost) for production volumes greater than 300,000 gallons per day. This suggests that energy costs are 10-20% total cost. This suggests to me that two of the most significant cost drivers are scale and utilisation rate. To keep costs per gallon as low as possible, we would seek to build large reverse osmosis plants and operate them 24/7 at 100% capacity.

Most municipal desalination projects have a two-pass system, that removes trace elements like boron. This increases the cost of water by 30%. It may be unnecessary for water intended for agricultural uses, which can be rougher than municipal drinking water. Many trace elements are depleted on agricultural land and there is speculation that this may be a contributor to degenerative diseases. If we need to desalination for agriculture we may be able to employ cheaper systems.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-18 12:55:39)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-18 15:00:13

For Calliban re #127

Thanks for doing the additional research reported in #127, and for the specific item about pulling Boron from water fed into a desalination process. I'm guessing that boron is found in water from non-ocean locations, since I don't recall it listed as one of the major components of sea water.

However, Boron is particularly interesting because Boron 11 is a potential feed stock for fusion, if the process can be achieved. So far, (as nearly as I can tell) all attempts to achieve breakeven have failed.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-18 18:48:47

https://www.britannica.com/science/seawater

Mining valuable minerals from seawater

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-18 18:56:06

For SpaceNut re #129

Thank you for the second link in Post #129.

It is perfect for forwarding to the gent in Phoenix. I'll send the link tomorrow!

The first link is a good foundation item, of course!

Thanks to all for contributions to this topic.

While it seems that human inertia is far to great for any initiative like this one to have an impact, a teeny tiny seed appears to have been planted, and perhaps these links will help it grow despite the harsh terrain.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-18 19:48:40

Arizona has one nuclear power site that has 3 reactors on it. Every 6 months one is taken offline for maintenance.

Palo Verde generator helps Southwest meet climate goals, but future of nuclear is debated

https://www.maricopa.gov/1002/PVGS
producing a total of 3,810,000 kilowatts. The electricity generated serves portions of the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.

So if Arizona needs to stop selling the energy to others and use it for the water it needs. Not to mention that there is a seasonal surplus that also could be used.

https://ein.az.gov/hazards/palo-verde-g … ng-station

Why Palo Verde, the country’s largest nuclear plant, is cutting its wastewater use

There’s something in the Buckeye groundwater – a high mineral and salt content – that makes it hard to use, but the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station wants to tap into that source to reduce the amount of more valuable wastewater it now uses to cool the plant’s three reactors.
The plant uses millions of gallons of treated wastewater, with much of it coming from Phoenix’s 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. Heat from nuclear reactions boils water into steam, which turns the turbines that generate electricity. The steam then must be cooled and condensed. Palo Verde is looking for additional water sources to reduce its wastewater use by 20%.
“In the winter, we can use up to 40,000 gallons per minute, and that makes up for the evaporation rate of the cooling towers at the nuclear plant. In the summer it’s more, it’s up to 60,000 gallons per minute,”

DOE Announces $20 Million to Produce Clean Hydrogen From Nuclear Power

Six tonnes of stored hydrogen will be used to produce approximately 200 MWh electricity during times of high demand, and may be also used to make chemicals and other fuels. The project will provide insights about integrating nuclear energy with hydrogen production technologies and inform future clean hydrogen production deployments at scale.

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-18 20:18:01

For SpaceNut re #131

Thank you for this informative presentation on the Arizona nuclear facility. You probably noted that the plant was discussed earlier in this topic. It is good to have the additional detailed information you provided.

I logged in just now to drop off an article about the the changes observed and expected for the Colorado River. In a recent post, one of our NewMars contributors expressed an interest in how the Colorado River serves the Southwest and Western regions of the US.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/colorado-riv … 00842.html

Sharon Udasin
Mon, April 18, 2022, 6:30 PM
The Colorado River, which provides drinking water to more than 40 million Americans, has become the country’s most endangered river amid rising temperatures and punishing drought conditions, a new report has found.
Climate change, coupled with outdated water management, poses an ongoing threat to the lifeblood of the Mountain West — a waterway that serves 30 federally recognized tribal nations, seven U.S. states and Mexico, as well as some 30 native fish species and 400 types of birds, according to the report.
In “America’s Most Endangered Rivers,” published on Monday night, the conservation nonprofit American Rivers ranked the country’s 10 most imperiled tributaries, based on three criteria: the waterway’s significance to people and wildlife, the magnitude of the threat and the possibility for members of the public to influence relevant decisions over the upcoming year.
“The Colorado River Basin is ground zero for the climate and water crisis,” Matt Rice, director of the southwest region for American Rivers, said in a statement, describing the report as “an urgent call to action.”
“The seven basin states and the Biden administration must work with Tribal Nations and Mexico to act urgently,” Rice said. “Failure is simply not an option, given all that depends on a healthy Colorado River.”
Just last month, water levels at the system’s Lake Powell storage reservoir dropped below a critical threshold — the point at which no water could be released from the reservoir’s dam, also known as “deadpool.” Meanwhile, the Colorado River system is already operating at a deficit, and forecasts predict a 10 to 30 percent additional reduction in river flow by 2050, the authors warned.
The report described the Colorado River as “the lifeblood for some of the country’s largest cities,” including Denver, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, Phoenix and Albuquerque.
In one region of Arizona alone — Pinal County — mandatory cutbacks in 2023 triggered by water shortages will result in the loss of more than 500,000 acre-feet, or enough to serve about 1.5 million households, according to the report.
“As the region learns to live with the river that we have, it is critically important that we continue to work together on equitable solutions for a healthy river, productive farms and thriving communities,” Rice said. “I fear that if we dig into our corners and pursue litigation over collaboration, we will not be able to meet the challenge.”
Many tribal nations, meanwhile, suffer from a lack of modern water infrastructure despite the significant water rights that they hold to Colorado River water, the authors noted.
Water rights are a U.S. West phenomenon dating back to the mid-1800s, which enabled a downstream user to secure higher-priority consumption status than a user at the river’s headwaters — based on the principle of “first in time, first in right.”
When a 1908 Supreme Court case deemed that the water priority date for tribal nations must match the date of a reservation’s establishment, most nations gained a status superior to those of existing users.
Nonetheless, systemic inequities and historic disinvestment has led to a situation in which tribal nations remain marginalized in terms of basin-wide policymaking, according to the report.
American Rivers therefore called upon the Biden administration and the seven basin states to engage with the region’s tribes, as well as allocate funds from November’s bipartisan infrastructure bill to prioritize river health and water security.
“On the Colorado River and nationwide, the climate crisis is a water crisis,” Tom Kiernan, president and CEO of American Rivers, said in a statement. “Just, equitable solutions for rivers and clean water are achievable and are essential to our health, safety and future.”
While the Colorado River took the top spot in this year’s endangered rivers list — an accolade it previously achieved in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2013 — the other nine members also generated significant concern among the report’s authors.
The next most endangered rivers, according to the report, were the Snake River, Alabama’s Mobile River, Maine’s Atlantic Salmon Rivers, the Coosa River, the Mississippi River, California’s Lower Kern River, Arizona’s San Pedro River, the Los Angeles River and Oklahoma’s Tar Creek.
Along the Snake River — which crosses Idaho, Washington and Oregon in the Pacific Northwest — four federal dams are generating “lethally high reservoir temperatures for salmon,” enabling nonnative predators to thrive, the report found. Maine’s Atlantic Salmon River fish are likewise “on the brink of extinction,” in large part due to destruction from dams.
The Mobile River, meanwhile, is struggling to withstand significant coal ash contamination — a result of decades of dumping from Alabama Power’s Plant Barry, according to the report.
Coal contamination there, as well as industrial agricultural pollution in the Coosa River — which crosses Tennessee, Georgia and Alabama — will likely become worse with severe flooding, causing disproportionate impact to Black and low-income communities, the authors warned.
The report authors called upon state and federal policymakers to “follow the lead” of frontline communities and tribal nations, many of whom, they said, are working to advance solutions for clean water.
“All life on this planet depends on clean, flowing rivers, so when rivers are at risk we must sound the alarm,” Kiernan added.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-25 21:38:38

Not all are in favor of Coastal Commission staff says Poseidon’s ocean-to-tap water plant should not be built

With drought conditions now a new normal in California – and water supplies expected to grow tighter in coming decades – many view desalination as an expensive but necessary option to meet future needs.
Public statements suggest Poseidon has spent $100 million in research, planning, marketing and political contributions, among other things, to make the project happen.
Many of the 12-member commission were appointed to their roles by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who favors the idea, and the $1.4 billion project has bipartisan support from business and labor groups throughout the county and the state.

Another case of not in my back yard....

California desalination plant suffers setback with denial recommendation

A proposed California desalination plant that would produce 50 million gallons of drinking water per day failed a crucial regulatory hurdle on Monday, possibly dooming a project that had been promoted as a partial solution for sustained drought.
The commission's staff said the project was more susceptible to sea-level rise than was understood when it was first proposed more than two decades ago. The plant is expected to produce 50 million gallons (189.3 million liters) of drinking water per day, enough for 16% of the homes in the Orange County Water District, where 2.5 million people live.

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-26 06:32:17

For SpaceNut re #133

Thanks for posting these reports of human folly. I didn't have the heart.

The observation about susceptibility of the original design to sea level rise is a valid objection. The obvious answer is to mount the systems on floating platforms.

In thinking about the dismal state of affairs, I thought about the pipeline originally envisioned for the Sea of Cortez desalination facility.

Then, it occurred to me that fresh water "created" off shore might be delivered to well-healed customers ON shore, using hydrogen as a lifting gas, and collecting the hydrogen for use as fuel after delivery of the water.

Something I caught in a radio broadcast yesterday perked my interest ... the interviewer and the interviewee were discussing an emergency that has led the federal authorities who regulate the Hoover Dam electric power production facility to refuse to release Colorado River water to drinking customers, because without sufficient flow of water to the dam, 5 million customers would be cut off from electricity.

** That ** is a reason for belt tightening (or whatever the water equivalent might be) for sure!

The incident pretty much shows where the priority lies, when it comes to distribution of a declining resource.

However, what caught my attention was the list of "belt tightening" policies that are in effect or about to take effect....

While elimination of watering of grass is a familiar restriction, I was intrigued to hear swimming pools mentioned as another focus of attention.

Those who are wealthy enough to have swimming pools might be wealthy enough to buy commercially supplied fresh water.

I wrote to my contact in Arizona with that thought in mind ... a market survey might be conducted with modest investment of time.

The question would be how much such wealthy customers might be willing to pay for swimming pool water, and how many of them there might be.

Water could be delivered from off-shore floating platforms powered by nuclear reactors using hydrogen lifted dirigibles.

The dirigibles would be designed to deliver water to customers, and then return to base with residual hydrogen since the mass of the water load would be absent.

Since both the water production facility and the nuclear power plant would be off-shore, the environmentalists should be happy.

The wealthy customers who could afford "manufactured" fresh water should be happy.

And the poor folks who are left would be dividing what little fresh water arrives from Ma Nature by whim.

it seems to me this concept has an incentive that should appeal to those who believe in Capitalism ... those who are NOT (currently) wealthy enough to afford fresh water would have incentive to produce wealth (by working or inventing or both).

Another benefit of the proposal is the incentive for costs to come down as volume increases, so in the end, even less wealthy folks may be able to receive a portion of "manufactured" water.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-26 06:41:13

For SpaceNut (primarily ... all other members are welcome to comment) ...

Nature provides an abundant supply of desalinated water. The problem to be addressed by this post (a follow on to #134) is collecting that fresh water where it is haphazardly delivered by Ma Nature, and delivering it to where it is needed.

The mechanism I'm thinking about is Hydrogen lifted dirigibles able to carry fresh water hundreds of miles from off-shore (where fresh water is delivered uselessly back into the ocean) to on-shore locations where it is needed.

Because this mechanism is dependent upon the vagaries of Ma Nature, it is less reliable. On the ** other ** hand, it ** would ** require less energy investment, because Ma Nature will have done all the hard work of desalinating water from the surface of the ocean, and carrying it to the delivery point.

There may be areas of the Earth where natural rainfall at sea is reliable, so rain could (presumably) be harvested there and transported to where it is needed.

Some energy would still be required to prepare Hydrogen for lifting, and for fuel for the delivery flight and return to base.

Still, the need for fresh water on shore can be expected to continue increasing in the years ahead, so a mechanism like this might become a successful business.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-04-26 08:25:18

Hydrogen filled airships may be useful options for delivering freight that is too bulky for road or rail transportation out in the sticks. They may even be workably practical and safe for passenger transport, for distances up to 1000 miles. But are they really the thing you want to use to transport a bulk low-value commodity like water, which would have sale value of maybe $1/tonne? I don't think this makes any more sense than using a jet aeroplane to deliver water. There is a reason why pipelines are used to deliver bulk liquids like this. They have very low marginal cost per tonne-mile.

This thread has reached a few important conclusions so far.

(1) Firstly, exploiting natural fresh water sources is usually cheaper, which is why we have tended to do that up to now. But the cost of shipping water over very long distances by pipeline is not trivial; it has to go through someone's back yard and water use is already overstretching natural fresh water supplies. So we concluded that options in that area are limited, but not necessarily off the table. It is worth pursuing other options.

(2) Agricultural demands dominate total fresh water usage in the US. Domestic consumption of fresh water, is much lower, to the tune of two orders of magnitude. There is no problem meeting domestic fresh water supplies using desalination, at least not from a cost and resource perspective. It would increase the electric power demand of a city like Phoenix by 10%. Agricultural water use would be more of a stretch. To meet all US fresh water needs with reverse osmosis desalination (which are dominated by agriculture) would require the equivalent of the entire existing US nuclear generating capacity. That is intended to give a measure of scale, rather than being a practical suggestion. So whilst meeting agricultural water needs by desalination is possible, it is a major engineering project. In theory, it is doable. On the plus side, agricultural water can be much rougher than drinking water. That may cut the bill somewhat.

3) The economics of desalination are strongly driven by capacity factor. This is because energy inputs are only one cost driver. Marginal capital and maintenance costs are the others. All of these costs must be divided by the total output of the plant per year. If it only runs at 50% capacity, then marginal capital and operating costs per gallon of water produced will double. This strongly indicates that attempting desalination using intermittently available energy is a bad idea.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-04-26 08:28:16)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-26 09:48:55

For Calliban re #136

Thank you for your continuing support of this topic!

I find your latest contribution to be particularly energizing, and that is while noting the generally energizing nature of most (by no means all) of your posts.

I'd like to focus upon a very significant element of post #136

The estimate of the price of fresh water, suitable for drinking, for uses typical in a civilized culture, and for care and feeding of plants, is a starting point for what I hope will be a fruitful discussion.

which would have sale value of maybe $1/tonne?

This single estimate (admittedly a wild guess) is where I'm inviting members of the forum to take up the cause.

A bottle of potable water in the middle of a desert is literally worth it's weight in Gold. In fact, Gold is without value in a situation like that.

What I am arguing is that the value of fresh potable water is already far above the estimate, and the value will most certainly increase as natural supplies of fresh water become less and less available, as is happening and as will continue to happen at an accelerating pace.

Here is a Google citation for Walmart:

Bottled Water - Walmart.com
www.walmart.com › Food › Beverages › Water › Bottled Water
Bottled Water ; Arrowhead 100% Mountain Spring Water, 16.9 Fl Oz, 24 Pack Bottles · $9.98. current price $9.98. $9.98/ea · 113.6 out of 5 Stars. 11 reviews. Save ...

24 bottles of potable water sells for $10 (USD) today, on the open market.

each bottle contains 16.9 fluid ounces, which equates to a Metric value of (per Google) 29.57 * 16.9 or 500 grams.

Aside: the 500 grams per bottle certainly rings a bell, in today's global market.

So! multiplying 500 grams by 24 bottles gives 12 kilograms, so 12 kilograms of potable water costs $10.00 (USD) at Walmart **today**!!!

1 metric ton of fresh water, divided by 12, gives 83 lots at $10.00 (USD) each, for a grand total of $830.00

Now! for the ** very ** few of us (NewMars members) who have any experience at all with business (I'm thinking of OF 1939 and GW Johnson), please see if you can sketch out a scenario which delivers fresh, potable water to the existing market, using an offshore nuclear powered facility as the source, and using hydrogen dirigibles as the (automated) delivery mechanism.

I am guessing that the price quoted for Walmart is low, in regions like Alaska, Hawaii, most of Africa, much of Asia, and in many parts of the world where Ma Nature has "decided" to make fresh water a rarilty.

Let's assume a 50% markup, so this can be a viable commercial enterprise, with a handsome return to share holders.

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-26 10:47:20

This is another look at the California debate about a desalination plant ...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/california-s … 53384.html

Environmentalists have long campaigned against the plant, saying desalination decimates ocean life, costs too much money and energy and soon would be made obsolete by water recycling.

? water recycling?

Sounds a ** lot ** like Mars!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-26 10:57:37

Follow up to post #138 .... there is a web site dedicated to the concept of water recycling (there are probably several)

What none of these sites would be addressing is water that leaves the State of California ..

1) Agriculture
2) Rain flowing to the ocean
3) Evaporation to the atmosphere
4) ? things to be added by NewMars members

People also ask
How far off the coast of California is international waters?
about 200 nautical miles
They generally extend about 200 nautical miles from the shore of a country, and are broken into different sections in which the particular country has various rights.Dec 3, 2015
What are international waters and what are their boundaries?https://www.jonesactlaw.com › FAQs
Search for: How far off the coast of California is international waters?
How far from the US coastline is international waters?
How far off land is international waters?
Where is the international water line?
Why is international waters 12 miles?
Can I live in international waters?
Feedback
U.S. Maritime Limits and Boundaries - NOAA Nautical Chartshttps://nauticalcharts.noaa.gov › data › us-maritime-limi...
Maritime limits and boundaries for the United States are measured from the official U.S. baseline, recognized as the low-water line along the coast as ...
How far off the California coast is international waters?https://greedhead.net › how-far-off-the-california-coast-...
Apr 18, 2020 — Once you pass 24 nautical miles from a country's coastline, you start to get into international waters or the high sea.
county boundaries at sea - Don Roberson - Monterey Bayhttp://creagrus.home.montereybay.com › MtyBay-boun...
Pinos, plus 3 miles westward into the Pacific Ocean. ... This map (left) shows the official county lines across Monterey Bay and to 3 nmi west of the narrowest ...
Territorial waters - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Territorial_waters
Normally, the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured is the low-water line along the coast as marked on large-scale charts officially ...
U.S. Boundary Lines website - Coast Guard Deputy ...https://www.dco.uscg.mil › CG-ENG-2 › BoundaryLine
In the Gulf of Mexico between the Marquesas Keys, FL, and the Rio Grande river mouth, TX, the Boundary Line is located 12 nautical miles offshore. This creates ...
3-Nautical Mile Coastal Boundary, California, 2001 - EarthWorkshttps://earthworks.stanford.edu › catalog
This polygon shapefile shows the standard 3 nautical mile California state water boundary. It was created by buffering the line file called county-coast.shp ...
Missing: international | Must include: international
Methodology for the creation of the Maritime Boundarieshttps://www.marineregions.org › eezmethodology
The coastline was extracted from the ESRI Countries 2014 and then combined ... rock off the west coast of Scotland and the Alijos rocks off Baja California.
What are international waters and what are their boundaries?https://www.jonesactlaw.com › FAQs
Dec 3, 2015 — The U.S. Maritime Boundaries · territorial sea (extending 12 nautical miles from the baseline); · contiguous zone (extending 24 nautical miles ...

The purpose of the Google search above is to try to determine where an International Fresh Water Production facility would have to be located to escape California regulation. I ** think ** the distance is 12 miles, but am happy to be corrected.

If the distance ** is ** only 12 miles, then fresh water could be delivered by pipeline (as Calliban suggests) or by freighter (allowing multiple delivery points) or by the Hydrogen dirigible, which would allow for delivery inland.

The Poseidon company is (apparently) owned by a Canadian conglomerate, so they could set up shop just "off shore" and market to those willing to pay whatever the going rate for potable water is going to be.

I am confident there are those who will pay whatever is necessary.

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-04-26 11:12:45

1. Water desalination and treatment isn't done the way it's done to justify or de-justify the use of any particular type of energy source. If solar power provides 24/7/365 energy, then it can be used. Ditto for wind, coal, gas, or nuclear. If it does not, then it can't be used or requires a backup that is capable of 24/7 operation, which always increases the cost of the solution.

2. There are fundamental technical reasons why intermittent energy input is a bad idea for a desalination processes. In the quantities that cities and industrial agriculture requires, production of potable water is NOT a batch process and it never will be. If the plant ever goes off line, you lose pressure, grey water backwashes or otherwise mixes with potable water, and then you have "boil water" orders issued by your local government because the municipal water treatment plant can't guarantee that what they're sending to your home is potable / drinkable water. The only other way to deal with waterborne nasties, is through dilution. In the same way that the mere presence of a bacteria or virus is not indicative of an infection, there are acceptable levels for all contaminants, some fairly high (fecal matter- after treatment, obviously), others exceptionally low (Lead, Arsenic, pesticides or other neurotoxins, industrial chemicals, radioactive materials).

3. All modern water treatment schemes of the scale we're talking about rely upon continuous movement of water through the desalination or waste water treatment plant. The stuff that comes out of the local river or lake is not drinkable, merely because it's not turbid or reeking of sewage. That means practical water treatment relies upon continuous power. It's not economical or practical to do it any other way. At any scale significantly beyond camping gear type water filtration, continuous process and chemical treatment is required.

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-26 12:06:50

With a nod to Post #140 by kbd512, and earlier posts by Calliban ....

As a follow up to in inquiry about what people (in California in this case) might be willing to pay for potable water...

Google came up with this list of snippets ... I didn't see an exact answer, but a figure of $75 a month shows up for non-potable water, but I'm not sure of quantity.

Drinking Water Fees | California State Water Resources Control Board
www.waterboards.ca.gov › resources › fees › drinking_water
Nov 4, 2021 · The Drinking Water Unit of the Fee Branch is responsible for setting and collecting fees for The Safe Drinking Water Program.
People also ask
Can you drink California tap water 2021?
Does California have water tax?
What is California's plan for water?
Does California have potable water?
Statewide Safe Drinking Water Funding Solution
www.acwa.com › trust
The State Budget provides $130 million for Fiscal Year 2019-'20 for safe drinking water solutions in disadvantaged communities that do not have access to safe ...
Unpaid water bills top $1 billion in California - CalMatters
calmatters.org › water-debt-california-households-face-water-shutoffs
Jan 26, 2021 · California's $130 million per year Safe and Affordable Drinking Water fund could help bail them out, but the water debt “dwarfs” it, Esquivel ...
A Million Californians Don't Have Clean Drinking Water. Where Do ...
khn.org › news › a-million-californians-dont-have-clean-drinking-water-w...
Jun 28, 2019 · But they still pay about $75 a month for it because they need water for bathing and for washing dishes and clothes. They are among nearly 1 ...
California governor's plan for drinking water tax faces resistance
www.cnbc.com › 2019/03/29 › california-governors-plan-for-drinking-wat...
Mar 29, 2019 · Newsom's plan proposes to raise about $140 million annually from the tax on water customers. The tax would range from 95 cents to $10 a month. A ...
Paying for Water in California
www.ppic.org › wp-content › uploads › content › pubs › report
$160 million to provide safe drinking water in small, disadvantaged rural ... Funding sources to fill critical gaps, now and with recommended legal reforms.
California Is Making Progress On Safe Water For All, But Work ...
www.capradio.org › articles › 2020/11/12 › california-is-making-progress-...
Nov 12, 2020 · “We had to keep paying the bill as if it was clean water,” Cazares said, speaking through a translator. He now receives free deliveries of ...
Some Rural California Residents Doubt They'll Ever Get Clean Water
www.circleofblue.org › Home › WaterNews
May 5, 2021 · That means that many residents of the unincorporated town, including the Hernandezes, continue to pay for water they can't drink.
California drinking water could soon be taxed - The Mercury News
www.mercurynews.com › 2017/08/23 › first-ever-tax-on-california-drinki...
Aug 23, 2017 · SACRAMENTO — For the first time Californians would pay a tax on drinking water — 95 cents per month — under legislation aimed at fixing ...
300 California Communities Can't Drink From the Tap. Will More ...
civileats.com › 2019/07/29 › will-californias-new-water-fund-bring-safe-ta...
Jul 29, 2019 · A new fund created to direct cap-and-trade dollars to communities could bring clean drinking water to the state's agricultural communities. By ...

The question at hand is:

Is there a business case for delivery of desalinated fresh potable water to enough customers in California, to justify investment in an off-shore nuclear powered desalination plant with air delivery?

Pipeline delivery is an option, but it has the disadvantage of permanence.

A floating delivery option might make sense. A barge full of fresh water might be moved to a receiving terminal at a cost that would allow an enterprise to squeak by with a small surplus. However, investors are going to want a substantial surplus.

We **do** have an upper figure on cost of water available, from the Walmart example given a few posts before this one.

That figure is $830 per Metric ton of potable water, of which a substantial part is packaging in plastic, delivery via truck, and handling in retail stores.

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-04-26 15:00:36

tahanson43206,

There is no business case for delivering water using an aircraft of any description, and there never will be. Water is too heavy and it's too low-value, except after natural disasters (the only circumstance where we will pay to deliver water by air). If you built barges containing nuclear reactors and more barges containing tanks of desalinated water, then that's the most practical alternative to a shore facility and pipelines. Perhaps nuclear reactor barges have the benefit of being immersed in their source of coolant at all times, but they won't be any less expensive to operate than a shore facility and the steel barge hulls will require periodic maintenance to prevent unacceptable corrosion. The only advantage I see is in not requiring much shore real estate in a place where real estate is very expensive to own and could have other uses.

There's no net economic benefit to making any commodity more expensive than it needs to be, and once again, there never will be. You find the method that has the least capital and operating cost that delivers acceptable quality product, and that's what you go with in the business world. If Californians object to having a reactor on their shoreline, then I don't believe anchoring one offshore will change their opinion of where it's located. Maybe out-of-sight, out-of-mind, but the media will step in to incessantly remind everyone for ideological reasons. Dying of thirst is the only thing that will make those people revisit their mistakes (shutting down operable nuclear reactors).

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-26 17:15:00

For kbd512 re #142

Your argument that there is no business case to deliver water by air is certainly interesting, and it may even be persuasive.

What it ** did ** do was to inspire me to ask Google if water was delivered to Berlin during the Berlin Air Lift, when the Soviet Union cut off all supplies to the City of Berlin not occupied by the Soviet Union.

It appears that water was indeed part of the flow of materials.

Now, I understand that the expression "business case" may not apply to an emergency airlift.

The only "business" in such a case is the survival of the citizens being supported.

However, semantics aside, here is what Google found:

About 4,420,000 results (0.61 seconds)
In response to the Soviet blockade of land routes into West Berlin, the United States begins a massive airlift of food, water, and medicine to the citizens of the besieged city. For nearly a year, supplies from American planes sustained the over 2 million people in West Berlin.
Berlin Airlift begins - HISTORYhttps://www.history.com › this-day-in-history › berlin-airl...
About featured snippets
•
Feedback
People also ask
What did the Berlin Airlift carry?
Where did the Berlin Airlift bring supplies to?
How did the Allies get supplies to West Berlin?
Feedback
U.S. Begins Berlin Airlift - HISTORYhttps://www.history.com › this-day-in-history › u-s-beg...
The first planes took off from England and western Germany on June 26, loaded with food, clothing, water, medicine and fuel. READ MORE: Why the Berlin Airlift ...
Berlin Blockade - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Berlin_Blockade
American and British air forces flew over Berlin more than 250,000 times, dropping necessities such as fuel and food, with the original plan being to lift 3,475 ...
Start of the Berlin Airlift · Winter 1948 to spring 1949 · End of the blockade
The Berlin Airlift: What It Was, Its Importance in the Cold Warhttps://www.defense.gov › Inside-DOD › Blog › article
Jun 25, 2018 — On June 24, 1948, Soviet forces blockaded all road, rail and water routes into Berlin's Allied-controlled areas, stifling the vital flow of food ...
The Berlin Airlift, 1948–1949 - Milestones: 1945–1952 - Office ...https://history.state.gov › milestones › berlin-airlift
The crisis started on June 24, 1948, when Soviet forces blockaded rail, road, and water access to Allied-controlled areas of Berlin. The United States and ...
The Berlin Airlifthttp://www.spiritoffreedom.org › airlift
It was a daunting logistical task to provide food, clothing, water, ... Over 200,000 planes carried in more than two-and-a-half million tons of supplies.
The Berlin Airlift - Air Force Magazinehttps://www.airforcemag.com › ... › June 1998
How much coal do you want us to haul?” “All you can haul,” Clay replied. The independent Air Force, not even a year old, launched the full-scale airlift on ...
Coal, Calories and Candy Bombers: the Berlin Airlift 1948-9https://history.blog.gov.uk › 2018/06/18 › coal-calories...
Jun 18, 2018 — Initial estimates were that the airlift needed to transport 4,500 tonnes of goods into West Berlin every day, although it took a while to reach ...
Berlin blockade | Overview, Significance, History, & Factshttps://www.britannica.com › ... › The Modern World
He did not take office, as mayor of West Berlin, until after the division of the city in 1948 into a western and an eastern sector. After 1951, Reuter also ...
The Berlin Airlift - Institute for Cultural Diplomacyhttps://culturaldiplomacy.org › amerikahausberlin › en_...
A significant side project of the Berlin Airlift was operation 'Little Vittles' whereby US pilot Gail Halvorsen dispensed chocolates for the children of Berlin ...

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-26 17:27:38

For kbd512 re the proposition that there is no "business case" to deliver fresh water by air.

Ma Nature does not seem to be aware of your observation.

** All ** fresh water ever lifted from the oceans, and delivered to land, over the course of the history of the planet, ** has ** been delivered by air.

It might be argued that (so far) humans have shown they are not as clever as Ma Nature, but that's to be expected.

(th)

kbd512 · 2022-04-26 17:46:52

tahanson43206,

Ma Nature required no aircraft to deliver "water from the sky", so that's a non-sequitur. If your "airship" requires no engines or fuel or airframe or pilots, then it may be practical. The Berlin Airlift also cost $224 million dollars, or $2.688 billion dollars in today's money. I would think that a banker's first question would be how much money any given business proposition entails. The problem has little to nothing to do with being clever. It has a lot more to do with getting the specific product you want, in the quantity you want, at the exact time it's required.

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-26 17:56:40

For kbd512 re #145

Thanks for thinking more about the proposition.

If there is a business case for delivery of fresh water to citizens of California who can afford it, then a business will come into being.

The idea of trying to harness the "natural" transport of water molecules in a mass of air molecules ** has ** been considered before, and it may come to pass some day. My recollection is that there are posts in the not-too-distant archives of this forum where the idea is described.

The challenge for anyone thinking seriously about such a transport mechanism is control. Ma Nature does not (appear to) take kindly to human requests for delivery scheduling. That could change in the future, but that time is definitely not yet.

In addition, the method of harvesting transported water molecules remains elusive. Humans have been trying to figure that out for some time.

It seems to me likely that if some clever human can figure out how to control the release of water molecules from their airborne transit support system, that person would be able to charge for the service.

This forum contains a number of posts that report on various ideas to force water molecules to drop out of their comfy cushioned rides, but (so far) it is my impression none of the ideas seem to work.

However, this topic is certainly available for a post about a success along these lines.

(th)

Calliban · 2022-04-26 19:44:01

The energy consumed by SWRO is pressurised water, at a pressure of 55 - 70 bar. In principle, you could feed the cells using salt water stored in an elevated storage lake, some 2000' above the RO plant. The salt water lake could then receive sea water intermittently using intermittent energy for pumping. This would avoid the problem of running the RO plant at reduced capacity factor. The problem is that a major additional engineering project is needed just because intermittent energy is involved. There are no free lunches in this world.

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-29 20:58:35

For all who are interested in the problem of delivering potable water to those who need it...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/mit-engineer … 12910.html

The article at the link above describes promising research that (apparently) is able to process sea water to separate water molecules from a mixture using an electric current, instead of a filter that becomes clogged over time.

The demonstration equipment is ideal for a small scale application, such as providing fresh/potable water for a family on a picnic.

The researchers are looking into possible larger scale designs.

What I'm not clear on is how (or if) the new system removes biology from the water ... removal of all carbon containing entities from surface water is a need in much of the world right now, let alone as the impact of climate change continues to reduce available water supply.

Update after reading further into the article:

He also explained that he wants to tackle challenges beyond desalination including detecting and removing contaminants in water such as heavy metals and disease-causing pathogens like viruses and bacteria.
“Most of these contaminants are open charge, so technically speaking we have the opportunity to remove a broad spectrum of contaminants such as lead and bacteria,” Han said. “In the future, we want to engineer our system to remove industrial contaminants. Those prospects are very exciting.”

Now we're talking!

(th)

tahanson43206 · 2022-04-29 21:35:23

For Void ... this is not intended to cause disagreement or difficulty ...

It is offered purely as a fact ... Salton Sea is reported to be 227 feet below sea level.

The water admitted will bring salt and other minerals, and (if unfiltered) it will bring some sea life.

However, water leaving the Salton Sea due to evaporation will leave minerals behind, so the See will become steadily more briny.

There would be no shipping channels.

There would be a 227 head of pressure at the inlet port, so I suppose that could be harnessed as a source of energy.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2022-04-30 10:27:30

Mars_B4_Moon wrote:

MIT Engineers Created a Portable Device that Zaps Seawater to Make Drinking Water
https://news.yahoo.com/mit-engineers-cr … fb&tsrc=fb
From seawater to drinking water, with the push of a button
https://techxplore.com/news/2022-04-sea … utton.html

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2022-04-18 12:00:51

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

#127 2022-04-18 12:46:20

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

#128 2022-04-18 15:00:13

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

#129 2022-04-18 18:48:47

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

#130 2022-04-18 18:56:06

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

#131 2022-04-18 19:48:40

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

#132 2022-04-18 20:18:01

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

#133 2022-04-25 21:38:38

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

#134 2022-04-26 06:32:17

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

#135 2022-04-26 06:41:13

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

#136 2022-04-26 08:25:18

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

#137 2022-04-26 09:48:55

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

#138 2022-04-26 10:47:20

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

#139 2022-04-26 10:57:37

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

#140 2022-04-26 11:12:45

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

#141 2022-04-26 12:06:50

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

#142 2022-04-26 15:00:36

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

#143 2022-04-26 17:15:00

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

#144 2022-04-26 17:27:38

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

#145 2022-04-26 17:46:52

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

#146 2022-04-26 17:56:40

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

#147 2022-04-26 19:44:01

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

#148 2022-04-29 20:58:35

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

#149 2022-04-29 21:35:23

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

#150 2022-04-30 10:27:30

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

Board footer