ot. drought

Member logins have been temporarily disabled. Please try again later.
User Forum Topic
Submitted by scaredyclassic on February 11, 2014 - 8:12am

Submitted by The-Shoveler on February 11, 2014 - 8:19am.

I have seen estimates that say As much as 70 percent of all residential water use in LA goes to landscaping.

I am not scared but I fully accept rock and bark landscaping.

OK maybe a few Cacti

Submitted by Coronita on February 11, 2014 - 8:37am.

No, because it will bring opportunities for water desalination companies, albeit water may end up being more expensive....

Plus, I live in a lizard invested suburb with virtually no lawn....

Submitted by spdrun on February 11, 2014 - 8:56am.

Didn't NorCal get some rain and snow in the last week? (finally)

The problem is that something like 85-90% of CA's water supply goes for agriculture, not for residential use.

Submitted by The-Shoveler on February 11, 2014 - 9:18am.

They are shutting down a lot of farms,

I think our snow pack is only about 25% of normal

OK maybe we could go another year or two before they get real drastic, but it cannot continue too long without a lot lot more rain,

IT would have to rain constantly for about 30 days and nights to get back to normal IMO.

Submitted by UCGal on February 11, 2014 - 9:27am.

San Diego county only gets 5% of its water from the California water project (aqueducts from Oroville). So Northern CA rain and snow will help Northern CA - but not So. Cal as much.

Kern and one other county are being cut out of the CA water project this season because there isn't enough water. Farmers are in trouble. (Heard this on KPBS).

We had a person come in from the San Diego Metropolitan Water District a few years ago to talk about drought. She said 60-70% of potable tap water goes to landscaping and pools... not indoor consumption.

We've started our conservation. We have buckets in our showers - so while the water is heating up, we capture the water.... use it to deep water our fruit trees. The old Yellow/Brown rules are in place... which my boys are on the fence about - partially think it's cool, partially think it's gross. We've stopped watering the lawn - just the hedges, fruit trees, etc...

Submitted by scaredyclassic on February 11, 2014 - 10:51am.

Just feels creepy.
So dry....

I don't mind going days without showering. He'll I could happily go a week or two if social views change.

composting toilet.

I am going to need a few glasses of water though.

Submitted by no_such_reality on February 11, 2014 - 11:27am.

You're being played. The OC Register had a graphic a couple weeks ago of the last 60 years of rainfall in California.

We're in a completely TYPICAL cycle. The the current 'drought' is no more severe and duration as 5 previous droughts in the last 60 years. And our ten year rain totals are about 1/2 inch below annual 'normal' for the same period.

Submitted by jeff303 on February 11, 2014 - 11:28am.

I'm just wondering at what point gray water systems start to make sense on a massive scale? Perhaps at the moment the cost/benefit still does not sway in favor of installing them for most people, but surely if current trends continue then this could change?

Submitted by SD Realtor on February 11, 2014 - 12:08pm.

Definitely Jeff... Had a thread on this site about 5 years ago about gray water systems. That should have been well thought out about oh.... 40 or 50 years ago and should have been mandated for builders to install them for residential landscape irrigations.

Also agreed with nsr. In fact regardless of the typical or atypical nature of the weather patterns, fresh water (as it is gathered and distributed now) can be essentially considered a finite resource. So the weather patterns don't really matter. Population growth will exhaust the supply eventually. At that point water supply will come from the ocean.

California is at the front of the line but the entire midwest is not far behind. There is a large aquafir under much of the midwest that is being consumed without adequate replenishment.

Submitted by an on February 11, 2014 - 1:36pm.

If there's all these research put in to produce BEV and FCEV, why aren't there a lot of research being made in desalinating water? After all, the ocean water is abundant. If we can desalinate at a more affordable cost, then all these talk about drought would be moot.

Submitted by livinincali on February 11, 2014 - 2:47pm.

AN wrote:
If there's all these research put in to produce BEV and FCEV, why aren't there a lot of research being made in desalinating water? After all, the ocean water is abundant. If we can desalinate at a more affordable cost, then all these talk about drought would be moot.

Yeah, but we might kill a fish.

Submitted by no_such_reality on February 11, 2014 - 2:55pm.

Courtesy of JPL

That minus 2 and minus 4 are quite large given the anemic nature of our rainfall in Southern CA, but overall, Cali and the west coast are getting wetter.

Submitted by paramount on February 11, 2014 - 10:52pm.

You may want to hold off in cutting back on water use until it is mandatory..

(I'm not suggesting wasting water however)

Submitted by CA renter on February 12, 2014 - 1:09am.

SD Realtor wrote:
Definitely Jeff... Had a thread on this site about 5 years ago about gray water systems. That should have been well thought out about oh.... 40 or 50 years ago and should have been mandated for builders to install them for residential landscape irrigations.

Could not agree more. I also have a problem with using potable water for toilets. Not sure about you guys in SD, but my DH and I remember well the drought in the 80s up in LA. One has to wonder why haven't we done anything about it in the past 30+ years? It's not like we've ever had abundant water supplies here.

Same goes for solar, too. All recent developments should have had solar installed on the roofs, IMHO.

Submitted by an on February 12, 2014 - 9:47am.

CA renter wrote:
Could not agree more. I also have a problem with using potable water for toilets. Not sure about you guys in SD, but my DH and I remember well the drought in the 80s up in LA. One has to wonder why haven't we done anything about it in the past 30+ years? It's not like we've ever had abundant water supplies here.

Same goes for solar, too. All recent developments should have had solar installed on the roofs, IMHO.

I agree about the water part, but solar, I totally disagree. It's totally a personal choice and how you use it. Why increase tens of thousands of $ to the cost of the house if it doesn't help everybody. Some people don't use enough for solar to make sense right now. So, why force them to buy something they don't need. The builder got it, which is why they haven't done it on a wide scale.

Submitted by spdrun on February 12, 2014 - 10:07am.

Even if solar power isn't used in situ, it can be resold to the grid. And excess grid power can be used to run desalination plants (which are largely independent of time-of-day). So there!

Submitted by an on February 12, 2014 - 10:29am.

spdrun wrote:
Even if solar power isn't used in situ, it can be resold to the grid. And excess grid power can be used to run desalination plants (which are largely independent of time-of-day). So there!
Uh... no. Do your research. You'd be stupid to pay for solar to sell it back to the grid ATM.

Submitted by spdrun on February 12, 2014 - 12:05pm.

^^^

We're talking about an ideal world where it's required in new developments. Perhaps power firms would also be required to accept power at reasonable rates in this universe.

Submitted by an on February 12, 2014 - 12:54pm.

spdrun wrote:
^^^

We're talking about an ideal world where it's required in new developments. Perhaps power firms would also be required to accept power at reasonable rates in this universe.

What's the point in talking about fantasy land? I'm not talking about fantasy land. I'm talking about reality.

Submitted by spdrun on February 12, 2014 - 1:10pm.

Your response was to a hypothetical, so we're talking hypothetical scenarios :)

Submitted by an on February 12, 2014 - 1:20pm.

spdrun wrote:
Your response was to a hypothetical, so we're talking hypothetical scenarios :)
Last I check, "should" is not a word you use to talk about hypothetical. It's when you want something done in real life that isn't done. Such as, "I should go to sleep" or "You should learn what hypothetical means".

Submitted by spdrun on February 12, 2014 - 1:33pm.

I said "perhaps [they] would." The original poster said "should have" and was discussing a scenario as if what should have happened according to him did actually happen.

Are you just arguing to argue? It's cool if you are, I'm an argumentative sort myself and the temptation is always there.

Submitted by an on February 12, 2014 - 2:29pm.

spdrun wrote:
I said "perhaps [they] would." The original poster said "should have" and was discussing a scenario as if what should have happened according to him did actually happen.
Last I check, "perhaps ... would" isn't really used for talking about hypothetical either. Kind of like... "Perhaps, you would like to look up when to use the word would" or "Perhaps, I would be better off sleeping instead of responding to this post".

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 12, 2014 - 2:39pm.

You have not experienced high water and utility rates until you look at Hawaii.

One argument is that people would save and retrofit to more efficient systems once the higher rates force them. But that is not that case because retrofitting is a very inefficient, slow, one by one process. It's much better to build the infrastructure at the onset.

New house prices are set by a combination of factors but mostly by what buyers can afford monthly payment wise. If the costs are lower, the builders just pocket the extra profit margins. When costs are higher, they may try to pass on some costs of solar of water reclamation systems, but certainly not 100%.

Submitted by all on February 12, 2014 - 3:31pm.

livinincali wrote:
AN wrote:
If there's all these research put in to produce BEV and FCEV, why aren't there a lot of research being made in desalinating water? After all, the ocean water is abundant. If we can desalinate at a more affordable cost, then all these talk about drought would be moot.

Yeah, but we might kill a fish.

Which is why the technology will likely be developed, or at least scaled up in another country. Maybe Mexico. Then we can build a pipeline.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on February 12, 2014 - 4:07pm.

Fish or nimby? Let's put the plant in la jolla or del mar.

Submitted by spdrun on February 12, 2014 - 4:17pm.

Even better -- isn't the county planning to build the plant smack on the Carlsbad cost, near the Encina power station?

Submitted by no_such_reality on February 12, 2014 - 5:03pm.

CA renter wrote:
SD Realtor wrote:
Definitely Jeff... Had a thread on this site about 5 years ago about gray water systems. That should have been well thought out about oh.... 40 or 50 years ago and should have been mandated for builders to install them for residential landscape irrigations.

Could not agree more. I also have a problem with using potable water for toilets. Not sure about you guys in SD, but my DH and I remember well the drought in the 80s up in LA. One has to wonder why haven't we done anything about it in the past 30+ years? It's not like we've ever had abundant water supplies here.

Same goes for solar, too. All recent developments should have had solar installed on the roofs, IMHO.

According to US Department of Energy, Solar is 60% more expensive in total than coal. 40% more expensive than advanced coal cleaning technologies and more than DOUBLE the total cost of Natural Gas in a conventional plant. And these aren't dirty plants, these are plants going into production in 2018, so they have the current environmental cleaning factors.

The report is Levelized Cost in New Energy Production

So, new advanced combined cycle natural gas plants produce for 6.6 cents/KwH, and Solar production with photo-cells comes in at $14.4 cents/KwH.

Individual house installation are even more inefficient and expensive with real production cost coming in the 20-30 cents/KwH range.

Submitted by spdrun on February 12, 2014 - 5:17pm.

Advanced coal still has the problem of environmental destruction from mining (ever seen a strip-mine?), plus CO2 emissions, even if sulfur dioxide and particulates are scrubbed.

Solar is also getting cheaper, and will CONTINUE to get cheaper as economies of scale from widespread adoption come into play. Besides, even at say 50% more expensive, there's room for conservation of energy. Better lights, more efficient equipment, etc. If you go to many other countries, you see hotel and apt building hallway lights either on a motion sensor or a timer with a momentary contact switch outside of every door. Not so in the USA...

Lastly, assuming we end up with large-scale adoption of electric vehicles, a lot of the power will be consumed near the point of production. Think office parking lots with solar carport shades for charging...

PS - SPWR stock has been on an angry wildebeest style tear since late 2012...

Submitted by no_such_reality on February 12, 2014 - 5:18pm.

spdrun wrote:
Advanced coal still has the problem of environmental destruction from mining (ever seen a strip-mine?), plus CO2 emissions, even if sulfur dioxide and particulates are scrubbed.

Ever see the windmill farms or a big thermal Solarvoltaic installation?

Little difference, IMHO.

Also, those environmental costs are reflected in the variable costs of the operation.

Comment viewing options

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