Megadrought Threatens California Power Blackouts This Summer

User Forum Topic
Submitted by phaster on May 2, 2022 - 11:21am

Wonder what drought and blackouts is going to do to real estate prices and the economy???

Megadrought Threatens California Power Blackouts This Summer

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...

A troubling sign for the south western USA is,...

Vegas water intake now visible at drought-stricken Lake Mead

http://apnews.com/article/climate-busine...

FYI looking at the science literature the South Western USA can have dry periods that lasts thousands of years

Submitted by XBoxBoy on May 3, 2022 - 9:18am.

Anyone know why San Diego isn't being hit with the watering restrictions that are happening in LA? Does San Diego get its water from somewhere else? Did San Diego make a better deal regarding how much water they would get?

Submitted by Coronita on May 3, 2022 - 12:27pm.

XBoxBoy wrote:
Anyone know why San Diego isn't being hit with the watering restrictions that are happening in LA? Does San Diego get its water from somewhere else? Did San Diego make a better deal regarding how much water they would get?

I'm surprised that Phaster hasn't posted the specifics about San Diego....

From 2021: It's an interesting read.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/17/us/sa...

Quote:

"Despite a Punishing Drought, San Diego Has Water. It Wasn’t Easy. Sustainability measures that the city and county have taken over decades are paying off. But residents still might have to do more."

....
For much of the past century, San Diego was almost entirely dependent on water that came from elsewhere in the state, or from the Colorado River. Their supplies were effectively controlled by water officials in Los Angeles — a contentious relationship that seeded long-running legal battles.

In 1991, during a punishing drought, San Diego reached a turning point. The Metropolitan Water District, the Los Angeles-based wholesaler that controlled nearly all of San Diego’s water, slashed the county’s supply by 30 percent for a little more than a year. Grass turned brown. Residents put bricks in their toilet tanks to make them flush less water.

And, crucially, the region’s burgeoning biotechnology industry was hammered by water shut-offs that came with little warning.

....In 1996, the San Diego County Water Authority struck a landmark agreement to buy water from farmers in the Imperial Valley, in California’s southeastern corner, that heralded the beginning of the region’s water divorce from Los Angeles.

Over the following two decades, the agency took on a series of significant — and expensive — infrastructure projects aimed at establishing more diverse sources of water, more places to keep it and more ways to move it around the county.

In 2010, the authority lined canals in the Imperial Valley with concrete to prevent water from seeping into the earth, and made a deal to take the water saved by the process — some 26 billion gallons a year. The authority finished raising the San Vicente Dam in 2014, adding more capacity to San Vicente Reservoir in the biggest water storage increase in the county’s history.

Then there was the long, fraught gestation of a seawater desalination plant, the largest in the United States and now the envy of desperate communities up the coast, in spite of environmental concerns. Since 2015, millions of gallons of seawater have flowed into the $1 billion facility in Carlsbad each day, where it is filtered into something that tastes like it came from an Evian bottle, not the Pacific Ocean.

Across the county, restrictions and conservation pushes have led per capita water use to fall by half over the past three decades.

The next major task? Expand the region’s so-called pure water programs, once given the derisive moniker “toilet to tap,” because they purify gray water to make it drinkable. Today, such programs are seen as some of the most promising paths forward, not just in San Diego but across the state. (The system in neighboring Orange County is often cited as a gold standard.)

San Diego has provided a road map for others now scrambling for water, said Toni Atkins, who is the president pro tem of the California Senate and previously served on the San Diego City Council. And she is proud of that.

Also....
https://voiceofsandiego.org/2021/06/28/s...

https://timesofsandiego.com/life/2022/03...

Also. This was interesting...
https://www.sandiego.gov/public-utilitie...

And this...

https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/f...

And this...
https://www.carlsbaddesal.com/faqs.html

And this

Submitted by an on May 3, 2022 - 8:31pm.

Considering the desalination plant in Carlsbad cost us $1b and can give us 8% of our water usage, we just need to build 12 more and we're set. Considering global warming and sea level rise, that supply of water is only increasing. Maybe we can just do what OC did w/ their freeway and build 20 desalination plants, go bankrupt, and we'll be set w/ water for a very long time.

Submitted by phaster on May 7, 2022 - 7:23am.

Coronita wrote:
XBoxBoy wrote:
Anyone know why San Diego isn't being hit with the watering restrictions that are happening in LA? Does San Diego get its water from somewhere else? Did San Diego make a better deal regarding how much water they would get?

I'm surprised that Phaster hasn't posted the specifics about San Diego....

well seem's I didn't need too given ya posted lots of specifics about SD

anyway FWIW decades ago (just before 9/11) found myself exploring the aral sea (or what was left of it)

closest analog pigg's would relate to is the Salton Sea region,... which most would say is harsh,... BUT having explored both areas have to say the Salton Sea region is akin to a walk in the park compared to,...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_Sea

sadly the same mindset (i.e. a lack of 'situational awareness') that caused the aral sea environmental destruction issue,... is happening here in the USA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68h_DXpN-A0

WRT watering restrictions in LA vs SD,... if people were smart they would start conserving and look at water as a very precious resource which is a need for people to live (AND have a working economy)

said another way w/ out water an economy is not possible AND w/ out water a person is dead

Quote:

May 6 (Reuters) - California energy officials on Friday issued a sober forecast for the state's electrical grid, saying it lacks sufficient capacity to keep the lights on this summer and beyond if heatwaves, wildfires or other extreme events take their toll.

...In an online briefing with reporters, the officials forecast a potential shortfall of 1,700 megawatts this year, a number that could go as high as 5,000 MW if the grid is taxed by multiple challenges that reduce available power while sending demand soaring, state officials said during an online briefing with reporters

http://www.reuters.com/world/us/californ...

Submitted by an on May 7, 2022 - 8:26am.

phaster wrote:

WRT watering restrictions in LA vs SD,... if people were smart they would start conserving and look at water as a very precious resource which is a need for people to live (AND have a working economy)

said another way w/ out water an economy is not possible AND w/ out water a person is dead


If people were smart, they would demand the cancellation of the $105B bullet train project and spend that $105B to build 105 desalination plants. We would stop talking about water right now and people would not die from lack of water. Afterall, we have virtually limitless water right next to us. If you want to go crazy, build 1000 desalination plants or build ways to collect water from the east and create water pipelines (like oil pipelines) to bring water to the West. It's not a hard problem to solve, just require $.

Submitted by gzz on May 7, 2022 - 8:34am.

Most of the train money is coming from the federal government.

It still should be cancelled.

From 2009-3/2020 I flew to the bay area about 10 times per year.

Only 1 time since then.

About 90% of court hearings now are video or telephone conference. Bluejeans, zoom. MS Teams, I do them all. State, federal, appellate. All remote.

Intra-city transit is also cheaper, used more, and has larger environmental benefits. Those above ground muni trams in SF were awful, usually packed to the brim with people and barely moving faster than a brisk walk.

Submitted by phaster on May 10, 2022 - 11:45am.

an wrote:
phaster wrote:

WRT watering restrictions in LA vs SD,... if people were smart they would start conserving and look at water as a very precious resource which is a need for people to live (AND have a working economy)

said another way w/ out water an economy is not possible AND w/ out water a person is dead

If people were smart, they would demand the cancellation of the $105B bullet train project and spend that $105B to build 105 desalination plants. We would stop talking about water right now and people would not die from lack of water. Afterall, we have virtually limitless water right next to us. If you want to go crazy, build 1000 desalination plants or build ways to collect water from the east and create water pipelines (like oil pipelines) to bring water to the West. It's not a hard problem to solve, just require $.

...about that 'virtually limitless water right next to us'

spending $105B to build 105 desalination plants is simplistic thinking,... point being desalination plants and moving water requires lots of energy (so it might be a good idea to think about electrical generators)

things can get more complicated with other unaddressed ticking time bomb issues (for example),... ever wonder about the millions of pounds of spent fuel left on the beach at san onofre (basically spent fuel is left on the beach simply because democratic politicians ignored the science)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpAv9fIjrbo

FYI in the meantime SoCal water departments are considering using physical water restrictors in affluent areas to prevent using water for outdoor landscaping


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKT3R5n4_3M

Submitted by phaster on May 15, 2022 - 9:29am.

sigh,... given California has almost a 100 billion dollar budget surplus

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2...

...so just like TRUMP (spending other people's money)

http://money.yahoo.com/coronavirus-stimu...

seems Newsom sees fit to hand out checks to voters?!?!

http://abc30.com/california-gas-rebate-c...

...meanwhile there are water and power shortages

http://www.latimes.com/california/story/...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/electricity-...

Just thinking out loud,... seems sending out checks is a calculated political move that does nothing to address the problem of insufficient water AND insufficient electrical power generating capacity in the South Western USA

Perhaps concerned citizens (and especially elected officials) should be made aware there is a wiser way to spend taxpayers money (such as) 'Covering the 4,000 miles of California’s water canals could save billions of gallons of water and generate renewable power for the state every year, according to a new study.'

http://news.ucmerced.edu/news/2021/solar...

Submitted by svelte on May 14, 2022 - 10:33am.

gzz wrote:

Those above ground muni trams in SF were awful, usually packed to the brim with people and barely moving faster than a brisk walk.

We rode those once. It was relatively empty when we boarded but as we went through Chinatown that thing was wall to wall people. It would have been impossible to fit a sheet of paper between me and those surrounding me. I couldn't even see where my wife was on that little tram.

That's the only time I can honestly say I've felt claustrophobia. I can recall the thought going through my head that if I lived in SF there is no way in hell I would ride the tram. I'd rather walk.

Submitted by an on May 14, 2022 - 3:50pm.

phaster wrote:

spending $105B to build 105 desalination plants is simplistic thinking,... point being desalination plants and moving water requires lots of energy (so it might be a good idea to think about electrical generators)

Of course, it's simplistic thinking. But it can be done if we want to... but obviously, we don't want to. We whine about it. As for energy, we have the desert east of us where we can spend another $100b to build solar farms, we can spend $100b to add a few more nuclear power plants, etc. We have the technology to solve the problems. Whether we really want to solve them is the real question. The Huntington beach desalination plant proposal was rejected. So, I don't see it happening.

Submitted by barnaby33 on May 15, 2022 - 9:06am.

It's not a hard problem to solve, just require $.

It is exactly a hard problem to solve because it is expensive to do so. Water is the foundation of our society, cheap water that is. It must be transported in bulk and is heavy. We consume more of it than our ecology can produce (at least the non-salt version.) Most importantly, people are not smart. Nobody cares as long as the taps still function.
Josh

Submitted by phaster on May 15, 2022 - 9:52am.

barnaby33 wrote:

It's not a hard problem to solve, just require $.

It is exactly a hard problem to solve because it is expensive to do so. Water is the foundation of our society, cheap water that is. It must be transported in bulk and is heavy. We consume more of it than our ecology can produce (at least the non-salt version.) Most importantly, people are not smart. Nobody cares as long as the taps still function.
Josh

yup 100% agree,... people are not smart. Nobody cares as long as the taps still function.

...infrastructure while necessary for survival, isn't sexy or thought about by the masses till it no longer works


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJLMgCnYyG4

Submitted by an on May 16, 2022 - 11:28am.

barnaby33 wrote:

It's not a hard problem to solve, just require $.

It is exactly a hard problem to solve because it is expensive to do so. Water is the foundation of our society, cheap water that is. It must be transported in bulk and is heavy. We consume more of it than our ecology can produce (at least the non-salt version.) Most importantly, people are not smart. Nobody cares as long as the taps still function.
Josh


CA have $100b surplus in just 1 year. Spend that $ to build infrastructure to increase our supplies on stuff that keep society running instead of trying to limit demand.

Storage, recycling, and desalination would be some of the solutions. I'm sure there are more. But given the rejection of desalination in Huntington Beach, I'm not encouraged that we'll solve the supply problem.

Submitted by barnaby33 on May 17, 2022 - 6:09pm.

CA have $100b surplus in just 1 year. Spend that $ to build infrastructure to increase our supplies on stuff that keep society running instead of trying to limit demand.

Woe to him who treats water as a market commodity. He shall reap what he sows. It takes decades to build the kind of infra you're talking about. It won't solve the problem. Humans are maximizers. All you are doing by playing the lets-expand-supply-game is heightening the fall. Water is the most fundamental human need. It almost doesn't exist in Southern California. Market forces will not in any real sense lead us to a better place, or even a place where our society can survive. Think tragedy of the commons.

We will drill, drill, drill until the water runs out; or is too expensive to extract. That will presage a collapse. One where food will get much more expensive and millions around the world will starve. Lets just stop growing almonds and other stupid for profit, for export shit we don't need and save the water for things we do.

Getting used to doing with less is the only way forward till fusion becomes a reality. Then all bets are off.
Josh

Submitted by an on May 17, 2022 - 10:02pm.

barnaby33 wrote:
Woe to him who treats water as a market commodity. He shall reap what he sows. It takes decades to build the kind of infra you're talking about. It won't solve the problem. Humans are maximizers. All you are doing by playing the lets-expand-supply-game is heightening the fall. Water is the most fundamental human need. It almost doesn't exist in Southern California. Market forces will not in any real sense lead us to a better place, or even a place where our society can survive. Think tragedy of the commons.

We will drill, drill, drill until the water runs out; or is too expensive to extract. That will presage a collapse. One where food will get much more expensive and millions around the world will starve. Lets just stop growing almonds and other stupid for profit, for export shit we don't need and save the water for things we do.

Getting used to doing with less is the only way forward till fusion becomes a reality. Then all bets are off.
Josh


We'll just have to agree to disagree. With global warming and sea level rise, we not only have virtually limitless supply of water, but it's also growing. With the technology we have today, we could solve this problem if we want to. Not everyone wants to, which is fine. But to say we'll run out of water while staring out into the ocean boggles my mind. This is not 1800s. We have all the technology and tools we need to solve this problem. Not to mention inflation and passage of time, why not borrow $ today with a bond to build these infrastructures. Since future generations will use these infrastructures too, they should pay for it too.

We don't need to do w/ less, and I don't want to do with less, especially when we/I don't have to.

Submitted by an on May 18, 2022 - 12:45pm.

We can build a few thousands of these too, to power the desalination plants https://electrek.co/2022/05/18/electrify...

Submitted by barnaby33 on May 18, 2022 - 6:01pm.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Okie dokie.

We don't need to do w/ less, and I don't want to do with less, especially when we/I don't have to.

Now you just sound like one of the scared old people in my HOA who don't want change! We do need to do with less. The whole premise of this thread is that available sources of water are not running out in some distant unknowable future, they're running out now. The investment and infrastructure necessary to rectify that for the present population is decades away, even if funded now.

Submitted by svelte on May 18, 2022 - 6:02pm.

an wrote:

We'll just have to agree to disagree. With global warming and sea level rise, we not only have virtually limitless supply of water, but it's also growing. With the technology we have today, we could solve this problem if we want to. Not everyone wants to, which is fine. But to say we'll run out of water while staring out into the ocean boggles my mind. This is not 1800s. We have all the technology and tools we need to solve this problem...

We don't need to do w/ less, and I don't want to do with less, especially when we/I don't have to.

This is probably true.

And I think nuclear energy will be part of our future for a lot longer than people want to believe. Not the massive facilities we all think of, but small reactors that will be located around the world. This is part of what will power desal plants and I'm pretty sure desal will be a bigger and bigger part of our future. It will also power the plethora of EVs we are about to produce.

I know environmentalists think solar and wind will give us what we need, but somehow I doubt that.

We don't live in a perfect world and the solutions we find won't be perfect either.

Submitted by an on May 18, 2022 - 7:35pm.

barnaby33 wrote:

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Okie dokie.

We don't need to do w/ less, and I don't want to do with less, especially when we/I don't have to.

Now you just sound like one of the scared old people in my HOA who don't want change! We do need to do with less. The whole premise of this thread is that available sources of water are not running out in some distant unknowable future, they're running out now. The investment and infrastructure necessary to rectify that for the present population is decades away, even if funded now.


I love change, so I don't know what you're talking about. I have live through with much less, so I actually experience first hand what you're asking for and I don't want to go back there.

What I'm saying is drastic change from what we're doing today. What you're saying is no change. We're doing exactly what you're saying.

Also, it's not realistic. We're living longer, with advancement in medicine, that number will keep on increasing. We are also reproducing. So, even if we keep our living standard the same, our demand for those resources will increase due to population increase. It's also not fair to expect our average living standard to be the same. I want poor people who someday enjoy the living standard that I do, so, naturally, that will increase the average living standard, which will increase the demand for resources.

So, I don't see how we can lower demand in any meaningful way.

BTW, I reject the premise of this thread. The premise of this thread doesn't make sense as I look at the Pacific Ocean and the desalination plant in Carlsbad and the solar and wind farms popping up everywhere. Not to mention nuclear. So, no, we're not running out of water, not now, not ever.

Submitted by an on May 18, 2022 - 6:53pm.

svelte wrote:
an wrote:

We'll just have to agree to disagree. With global warming and sea level rise, we not only have virtually limitless supply of water, but it's also growing. With the technology we have today, we could solve this problem if we want to. Not everyone wants to, which is fine. But to say we'll run out of water while staring out into the ocean boggles my mind. This is not 1800s. We have all the technology and tools we need to solve this problem...

We don't need to do w/ less, and I don't want to do with less, especially when we/I don't have to.

This is probably true.

And I think nuclear energy will be part of our future for a lot longer than people want to believe. Not the massive facilities we all think of, but small reactors that will be located around the world. This is part of what will power desal plants and I'm pretty sure desal will be a bigger and bigger part of our future. It will also power the plethora of EVs we are about to produce.

I know environmentalists think solar and wind will give us what we need, but somehow I doubt that.

We don't live in a perfect world and the solutions we find won't be perfect either.


100% agree, nuclear is the power source that can give us what we need to go full desalination and EV. We can and should add solar and wind to the mix too.

Submitted by phaster on May 20, 2022 - 12:03pm.

an wrote:

BTW, I reject the premise of this thread. The premise of this thread doesn't make sense as I look at the Pacific Ocean and the desalination plant in Carlsbad and the solar and wind farms popping up everywhere. Not to mention nuclear. So, no, we're not running out of water, not now, not ever.

sigh,... infrastructure to provide potable water can't be ordered up like something from amazon and delivered the next day

the simple truth is infrastructure for potable water takes a very long time to build AND is subject to the whims of no talent ass clown politicians like Todd Gloria and the rest of the 'woke' city council (who seem more interested in social justice issues to appease their political base than building infrastructure),... for example

...yet again seems local politicians have their heads stuck up their ass (given the newspaper headline)

Quote:

East County’s $950M water recycling project could be in jeopardy as San Diego nixes pipeline deal

East County officials fear a $950 million sewage recycling project could get flushed down the drain because of a pipeline deal gone awry.

Leaders spearheading the endeavor blame San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria — who signed off on building an eight-mile “brine line” as recently as last year but has since reneged on that commitment.

The pipeline would prevent concentrated waste generated by the East County project’s reverse osmosis filtration system from entering into the city’s own $5 billion Pure Water sewage recycling project now under construction. Instead the byproduct would be routed into the city’s larger wastewater system.

San Diego still wants the pipeline to be built, but now it’s calling on the East County Advanced Water Purification Program to foot the roughly $35 million bill.

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new...

for those interested about 1990,... when I was an undergrad @UCSD took a PoliSci seminar class where researchers from SIO and UCSD would give presentations on various topics they were working on

anyway one of the presentations was about water issues specifically about the waste treatment plant at Point Loma and the scientific/economic idiocy of secondary water treatment for water that was going to be dumped into the ocean

basically Revelle (the guy instrumental in founding UCSD) and some other researchers three decades ago mentioned if politicians were smart they would instead somehow build an upgraded water treatment plant AND pipe line to the San Vicente reservoir (so the water could be re-used and increase the supply)

http://www.sandiego.gov/reservoirs-lakes...

meanwhile (back to the present),... political leadership at the state level like local elected officials seem to also have their head where the sun does not shine (because),...

Quote:

Big Water Abusers Ignored as California Drought Persists

In response to the drought, Governor Newsom has largely ignored these large corporate water sources. Instead, he has taken small measures aimed at the most wasteful of urban water uses, asked for voluntary conservation

https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2022/0...

FYI military troops (especially pilots) are trained to have 'situational awareness' because it is the difference between life or death

given what I know,... the end result of all this short-sighted obliviousness toward the drought in the region is an increased probability of a famine (of biblical proportions) or perhaps something worst (i.e. the extinction of homo-sapients)

Quote:

The school’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography published a paper that said there is a 5 percent chance of catastrophic change within roughly three decades, and a smaller chance that it would broadly wipe out human life.

www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/scienc...

(as a reminder) the water levels that millions of people depend on are alarmingly dropping

http://mead.uslakes.info/Level/

(for Colorado River 'situational awareness' context)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68h_DXpN-A0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKT3R5n4_3M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJLMgCnYyG4

PS FWIW found the following 'woke' online petition sorta a hopeful sign,...

Quote:

California is running out of water fast. While corporate interests guzzle up our precious, finite water resources, more than 1 million Californians lack access to safe drinking water.

Our elected leaders have failed to hold corporate interests accountable for their egregious water abuses. We need Governor Newsom to step up to the challenge and use his broad executive authority to rebalance California’s water allocation.

Add your name to tell Governor Newsom to put people over corporate profits and protect the human right to water NOW.

https://secure.foodandwaterwatch.org/act...

Submitted by barnaby33 on May 20, 2022 - 11:48am.

BTW, I reject the premise of this thread. The premise of this thread doesn't make sense as I look at the Pacific Ocean and the desalination plant in Carlsbad and the solar and wind farms popping up everywhere. Not to mention nuclear. So, no, we're not running out of water, not now, not ever.

You are totally engaging in Sophistry and a weird form of mis/re-direction. If you'd started your first post with "I totally reject the premise," then worked into details, basically descended the paradigm, I'd buy what you're saying. I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd buy it.

Infrastructure, whether it's for water, oil, moving cars, what-have-you, takes time to build; even if funded now. What we have is western water law which is 150 years old and is basically setup to induce maximum consumption. It doesn't take a genius to say that's not a great idea long term in a desert. It's just that where we appear to be today is in the grip of long term shortage state/region wide. Leaving the emotional histrionics out of it, there just isn't enough to go around at a price people are willing to pay. Otherwise those magical desalination plants would already exist. Pumping water is insanely expensive, so is desalination. Maybe with fusion the cost will drop enough that you can have your acre green lawn and 20 minute showers along with fresh fruit and veg from half a state away. I am terrible at predicting the future. I have however studied water somewhat, having grown up on a failed apple farm in Valley Center.

What you want and what the universe can reasonably provide are often very different. Did you know AN that the majority of water consumed in the central valley for irrigation is pumped up from the ground? That's not water income, that's water inheritance and it is running out FAST! How hurt will your feelings be when the regional water authority tells you you only get to water your lawn 2 times a week or even a month? Will your wants be satisfied be imposed restrictions because it just isn't there and we collectively didn't take steps to stop what we reasonably see coming? How does that make you feel? Do you need a hug? I give great hugs!

Josh

Submitted by sdrealtor on May 20, 2022 - 12:01pm.

After last Saturday night I reject the premise that you give great hugs

Submitted by an on May 20, 2022 - 12:12pm.

barnaby33 wrote:

Infrastructure, whether it's for water, oil, moving cars, what-have-you, takes time to build; even if funded now.

If we don't start, we will never finish.

barnaby33 wrote:
there just isn't enough to go around at a price people are willing to pay.

What you're willing to pay and what I'm willing to pay could and probably is totally different.

barnaby33 wrote:
Otherwise those magical desalination plants would already exist.

Wrong, those plants doesn't exist because environmentalist prevent them from being built. Just look at the Huntington Beach proposal as a prime example of what's happening now.

barnaby33 wrote:
Pumping water is insanely expensive, so is desalination. Maybe with fusion the cost will drop enough that you can have your acre green lawn and 20 minute showers along with fresh fruit and veg from half a state away. I am terrible at predicting the future. I have however studied water somewhat, having grown up on a failed apple farm in Valley Center.
Again, your definition of expensive is different than mine.

barnaby33 wrote:
Did you know AN that the majority of water consumed in the central valley for irrigation is pumped up from the ground?

Yes, I do know that. If you say, lets ban farmers from pumping water from the ground, then I can understand where you want to go w/ the solution. I don't agree with it, but I would understand.

barnaby33 wrote:
That's not water income, that's water inheritance and it is running out FAST! How hurt will your feelings be when the regional water authority tells you you only get to water your lawn 2 times a week or even a month?
Nothing new, LA is already doing it and SD did it before. I won't be hurt. I don't agree with it, but there are many things I don't agree with, but that's life. I fully expect CA government will do it in the future. We have no appetite to increase supply, so I fully expect rationing in the future. It's not a matter of "if", but it's a matter of "when". When that happened, I'll convert to artificial turf. Not going to lose sleep over it. Life moves on. No sweat off my back. I'm adaptable. I don't stress about things that I can't control.

barnaby33 wrote:
Will your wants be satisfied be imposed restrictions because it just isn't there and we collectively didn't take steps to stop what we reasonably see coming?

If we don't take steps to increase supply, then we reap what we sow.

Submitted by phaster on May 22, 2022 - 8:59am.

an wrote:
we reap what we sow.

yup,... we reap what we sow

people should realize, humanity currently is experiencing the knock on effects of living way beyond the Earth's natural systems supply ability

said another way, people should not be too surprised at all the problems humanity is causing itself

let's ponder the "self inflected" drought wound in the south western USA by specifically looking at (for example) what is happening in the imperial valley from a birds eye view

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Va...

it should not take a genius to recognize that verdant green fields is unnatural,... AND the only reason there are wide swaths of unnatural green all over the south western USA region is because humans withdrew ground water from aquifers (which took eons to form)

basically using ground water from aquifers is akin to an irresponsible person having access to credit cards to live it up over the short run AND not having any means whatsoever of making enough money to pay back the "principal borrowed" along the "interest payment" charged by the bank

bottom line, the party is ending AND people have to wake up to the fact that 'infinite economic growth on a finite planet is impossible' because of depletion of natural resources

since most don't have a multidisciplinary scientific understanding (or have the inclination to actually read the scientific texts to understand the graph),... here is the issue in a nutshell

an wrote:
barnaby33 wrote:
Pumping water is insanely expensive, so is desalination. Maybe with fusion the cost will drop enough that you can have your acre green lawn and 20 minute showers along with fresh fruit and veg from half a state away. I am terrible at predicting the future. I have however studied water somewhat, having grown up on a failed apple farm in Valley Center.
Again, your definition of expensive is different than mine.

sigh,... fusion

seems people have no clue about nuclear power plant technology (or knock on effects costs),... when I was in school fusion was 30 years away,... well 30 years has passed (and fusion is still 30 years away)

BTW ever wonder about the millions of pounds of spent fuel left on the beach at San Onofre (basically spent fuel is left on the beach simply because democratic politicians ignored the science)

long story short,... back in the 1980's yucca mountain was designated to be the nations official designated site to contain spent fuel BUT what ended up happening is Democratic Party politics killed off funding for the project AND the unintended consequences of de-funding yucca mountain is there was no repository where to specifically store spent nuclear fuel assemblies,... so the spent fuel assemblies from the decommissioned San Onofre reactors were essentially abandoned right by the shoreline

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpAv9fIjrbo

anyway here is an interesting fact,... the spent fuel left on the beach at San Onofre can be an asset (if one thinks like a nuclear physicist),... this is because high level spent fuel can be used as nuclear kindling in a reactor designed to burn thorium

http://interestingengineering.com/video/...

India FYI has lots of thorium but very little uranium,... so for 70 years india had to first construct uranium reactors in order to build up a stockpile of 'nuclear kindling'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTFOzHsbvAE

just sayin for a brighter future w/ jobs and stable energy in the USA, the best long term investment (in the nuclear power plant space) Americans should seriously throw resources at,... is molten salt thorium reactors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt...

fusion (as I read the tea leaves) is just too far a technical leap

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power

sadly stable nuclear power is viewed by scientifically illiterate 'woke' liberals (AND their political leadership) as something to be feared,... so FWIW here is a BBC podcast about nuclear power AND includes a segment about an environmental activist who started off protesting nuclear power, but eventually was awakened to the fact that nuclear power is a carbon free "base line" source of electrical energy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w3ct3khw

Submitted by barnaby33 on May 22, 2022 - 2:20pm.

AN I suppose we can't talk about water without talking about energy, but you've done a couple of 180s so I'm not even sure what we're debating about. Fusion is code word for clean cheap energy, regardless of how many years out it is. Nuclear is neither clean nor cheap. I'd be all for Nuclear if the communities that consumed it were then responsible for it's waste management in their own community. Yucca Mtn is geologically stable as far as we know, but it's also I believe exporting the waste to poor brown people, also known as Indians. I'm totally not in favor of doing that anymore.

So back to the water. You advocate finding more sources, I advocate learning to live within our means, because as I see it technology cannot save us from this. It's just techno narcist fantasy to believe we can grow forever and that is assuming we could even agree on what is growth. The drought is and has been here for a while, more funding won't solve the problem, more sources for water will only temporarily alleviate it, whereas learning to live with what we can locally/regionally get actually is a solution.

Josh

Submitted by an on May 22, 2022 - 7:20pm.

From my very first reply

an wrote:
Considering the desalination plant in Carlsbad cost us $1b and can give us 8% of our water usage, we just need to build 12 more and we're set. Considering global warming and sea level rise, that supply of water is only increasing. Maybe we can just do what OC did w/ their freeway and build 20 desalination plants, go bankrupt, and we'll be set w/ water for a very long time.

I was quite clear, I see no problem here that we can't solve with current technology. You obviously disagree and that's fine. We'll just agree to disagree.

Submitted by scaredyclassic on May 22, 2022 - 8:30pm.

I see no technology that a problem can't solve. Maybe Ted k. Was not entirely nuts. True, bombing people is bad, but the manifesto has aged pretty well, from it's opening declaration onward...

"The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation."

Submitted by barnaby33 on May 24, 2022 - 8:40am.

and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation."

Weirdly I agree with scaredy and phaster (mostly weird that I'm agreeing with scaredy)

AN specifically for you, I'm linking my favorite essay. I know it's a bit of a read, maybe 30 minutes, but I re-read it every few years. This nails it!

Phaster, I make no sure and certain claim when fusion, or if fusion is our energy future. I just see no viable path forward without it. You and I seem to agree on water, it's just that water is a subset of energy availability. Currently oil still has the best EROEI, but has nasty long tail costs. In fact all current energy sources except geothermal have those costs, especially nuclear. My biggest fear about nuclear power is that it dovetails so cleanly with human capacity for short term thinking at the cost of long term environmental health.

Back to water. My preference would be a combination of restrictions on usage, raising of prices and outright banning of growing certain crops. Almonds for export are the poster child, but in CA rice and cotton should never be grown either. Market forces by themselves will not stabilize or assure food availability or the survival of civilization in a desert.
Josh

Submitted by barnaby33 on May 24, 2022 - 8:47am.

...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.