Standing before a foil-wrapped, fire-proofed monument in Sequoia National Park amid a haze of wildfire smoke, Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday signed a $15 billion climate package for California, the largest such investment in state history.
....Big-ticket items in the package include $5.2 billion for drought response and water resilience; $3.7 billion for issues like extreme heat and sea level rise; $3.9 billion for electric vehicle investment and infrastructure; $1.5 billion for wildfire response and forest resilience, and $1.1 billion for sustainable agriculture.
This makes sense. Fighting climate change is all very well—and California has done plenty of this—but the fact is that there's nothing you can do at the state level that has more than a minuscule effect. Hell, even at a national level it's hard to have much effect on a global problem like climate change.
So it makes sense to assume that temperatures are going to keep increasing and something needs to be done about it. That can be done at a state level, and includes measures to adapt to and protect from higher temperatures. It's not ideal, of course, but it's pragmatic to assume the worst and do what you can to deal with it.
This is why I love living in California. For the most part we believe and science and take actions based on facts, not weird conspiracy theories.
Luckily we have the money available to take reasonable measures to address climate change. I expect OR and WA to follow suit with similar plans if they have the resources to do so.
But not one word about desalination.
Everything they do is meaningless without desalination.
The present-day desalination technology won't support California water consumption at anything like its current form.
It would have to cover the entire coastline. This is what needs to happen.
Desalination technology is improving drastically and a rapid pace and all that needs to be done is to make the effort.
That's,
'. . . at a rapid pace . . .'
For anyone that cares look at NEOM a planned development in Saudi Arabia. What is interesting is the water supply
Totally done by desalinization. NO fossil fuel used. Zero emissions.
Water is pumped from the sea in a glass covered aqueduct. The glass allows the water to start warming. It then enters a glass domes sphere that takes the suns rays and focuses it through magnification into eh cauldron of water. It boiled it and they collect the steam which is then condensed back down to fresh water.It is a stunning project
They are looking at the discharge (hyper salinated or briny water) as a source of minerals for rod construction and or lithium batteries.
This is a very interesting technology that is designed to pollute even less than the typical Desal plant does or the typical reverse osmosis plant does which are the 2 leading technologies.
This would NOT work in Spokane, that has cloud cover most days. But the use of renewable s to generate the water makes it a clear winner.
We, as a country do NOT lead the world in everything. Necessity drives innovation and the middle east NEEDS water.
We would be wise to copy this technology if it works. This entire development is hinged upon it working. If it does work and they supply desal water through renewable energy sources?
We would be caught flat footed.............
For anyone who cares here's a video on the desal aspect of this monstrous development project
https://youtu.be/KdFIHecZDfc
Desalination - a waste of energy. Controlling water usage will be more effective, and if agriculture needs to move, so be it. Climate change will make once-inhospitable areas farmable, and vice versa.
You can't control water usage if there is no water.
California has sufficient water for everything except agriculture. The farmers always want more water, cheap. Desalination is expensive; it's economically feasible for household use, although only rich people can afford to use desalinated water for lawns and such, but it's impossibly expensive for agriculture.
It's not just for California, the entire west won't have a drop of water of its own in a few decades.
Cost is irrelevent, and pumping it from the Great Lakes would cost more in any event.
Meh, I'd put BURYING THE DAMN POWER LINES at the top of the list. This whole "half the country is always on fire" thing is not good.
High power lines are more expensive to fix if underground and with the number of quakes in CA I don't know which is worse.
Smaller DIST and feeder lines yeah, they can and should go underground
You beat me to it. California really should be putting tons of money into desalination research and projects.
Unfortunately, there's nothing that can be done with present technology to avert catastrophe in the next 30 years. The only hope to save humanity in its present form is global carbon capture. Not much that a state or even a country can do to accomplish that, and there isn't the will among the industrialized nations to effect a global Manhattan Project for carbon capture. I tremble for our children and grandchildren.
The California initiative is laudable and ought to be applauded. Period.
Of course, one state (big as it is) can't solve the country's climate issues on its own, and US can't solve the global challenge alone either. But there is a lot of progress being made here and elsewhere, and we need more of it.
But there's no good in makiing a Hobson's choice of it. That is, we can't do enough so we should just get ready for the worst. I don't think that's helpful at all.
To say "it's pragmatic to assume the worst and do what you can to deal with it" is to repeat the argument that fossil fuel companies and some on the right are making.
If you think that's where we are, you need to read more, and probably start the Michael Mann.
In The New Climate War, Mann argues that all is not lost. He draws the battle lines between the people and the polluters-fossil fuel companies, right-wing plutocrats, and petrostates. And he outlines a plan for forcing our governments and corporations to wake up and make real change, including:
- A common-sense, attainable approach to carbon pricing- and a revision of the well-intentioned but flawed currently proposed version of the Green New Deal;
- Allowing renewable energy to compete fairly against fossil fuels
- Debunking the false narratives and arguments that have worked their way into the climate debate and driven a wedge between even those who support climate change solutions
- Combatting climate doomism and despair-mongering
https://www.amazon.com/New-Climate-War-Fight-Planet/dp/1541758234/ref=sr_1_1
Joseph Harbin weighs in from before he got double crossed by Harry Lime.
Installing a solar system, energy storage, and having two EVs has illustrated a couple of things.
1. The amount of energy from the Sun is basically unlimited. We have the technology, which will get more efficient. If anyone is wondering why solar is not already providing 95% of our energy the reasons are:
a. it costs as bit more than existing coal or gas. A bit more.
b. unlike coal or gas you have to store it.
2. The battery technology exists. You can power an entire 3,000 sq. ft house with batteries that take up about 1/4 the space of a closet.
Shifting fossil fuel based tech to this tech may take awhile, and it would be nice to figure out something better than batteries (better wind? pumped hydro? hydrogen produced via solar during the day?), but compared to giving up battery storage looks pretty good and it has the advantage of working.
Now, if there was some good carbon capture news it would be the trifecta.
But seriously, until you see how much energy comes from the Sun every day, I mean, not in an intellectual way, but in a "that hits my roof everyday" kind of way, its too easy to be doom and gloom.
The only reason fossil fuels were developed first was that they (fossil fuels) are easily stored. That was fine, but that's it.
We have 1 EV and will be putting in new solar + batteries in the next few months. Sun power is the way to go.
But if we had to wait for every house and building to convert, it would take a long, long time. The quicker way is to make power companies convert to all-renewable asap. We need $ and mandates to make that happen. Likewise, with autos. Conversion is happening, but we need to speed that up.
One common misconception about home solar is that panels on the roof provide the power for the house. In most cases, the roof panels send power to the utility, and the utility sends power back to users. Installing home solar can be economical, and does provide incremental conversion to green energy, but not exactly how some think it does.
This week China announced it won't fund coal overseas anymore. That's good news.
For how long though? Need to be able to cover the better part of a week to deal with times the sun doesn’t shine sufficiently.
The CA mileage standards have had an outsized effect....
I have often wondered why - why we can pump oil and or gasoline for thousands of miles from Texas to NJ through the Colonila pipeline why we cannot pump water from say Noe Orleans to the Colorado river head. Cheyenne to New Orleans is 1360 miles give or take
The colonial pipeline is 1633 miles long from Houston to the port of New Jersey - with other branch lines the Colonial is 5000 miles long - most all of it under ground.
A water line? No hazard if a spill occurs? Able to take flood waters away from Nawlins during times of heavy rains? And at the same time stabilize the Colorado at least by a little bit? I could add in some desalinization water to augment the supply.
Way back when - and I mean way back we did this in hydraulics class in college.
It COULD be done. The colonial has 27 total pumping stations along its path. and from Houston to say Cheyenne, through the flat lands of Texas into the flatlands of eastern CO then turn left in Wyoming? THe only hard part would be some of the "minor" (relatively speaking) mountains in WY itself
It is a relatively flat landscape.
You could also build a DESAL plant in CA and use and above ground pipeline that travels along the existing transcontinental rail line from San Fran to Wyoming. Pump that into the Colorade head water and let nature purity the rest of the DESAL water. Its an interesting thought and with todays technology not a bad idea really.
It would take labor, and time and a lot of money
The short answer for why it's not done is quantity. California uses about 100 cubic km., or 100 billion tonnes, of water per year. That's just less than 300 million tonnes per day. The whole US uses about 20 million barrels, or 3 million tonnes, of oil per day, not all of which is transported long distances by pipeline.
Visually, compare a large diameter pipeline to even a moderate sized river. California needs the water flow of a fairly substantial river to alleviate its shortages. Moving that much water by pipeline would take a HUGE pipeline and enormous, energy sucking pumps. The whole US probably doesn't have enough power available to run the pumps.
Maybe something like the California Aqueduct, which brings water 400 miles from No Cal to So Cal would be a better model?
If you put it all in one pipe it would he huge, but I would picture a lot less large pipes to better distribute it.
Saudi Arabia supplies water to Ryadh(population 7M) and several other cities. from several desalinization plants.
Where SA has oil, we have nuclear power
If you could charge as much or more for a gallon/barrel of water as one of fuel, then indeed we might.
There is also a difference in scale. The average American consumes 50 or more gallons of water a day for purposes various. She doesn’t consume 50 or more gallons of gasoline.
The #2 vote-getter in the replacement governor scenario was Kevin Paffrath, who proposed a pipeline to bring water to California.
I have no idea what the costs or engineering hurdles would be, but it's probably worth a look.
from where would the water be brought, and what are the environmental impacts of taking the water? if there's one thing we should have learned by now, it's that there are no free lunches, environmentally speaking.
MJ-
I don't think we could ADD to the supply but we could temper the loss of supply. Logistically speaking moving water is easy its' only hazard is a flood. When we looked at this we immediately saw the Mississippi and almost level land from the Miss to Cheyenne
We could tap into the Mississippi and other rivers especially where several rivers merge. I'm thinking 3 rivers in Pittsburgh and just below where the Ohio and Miss rivers meet. Add to that Desal plants along both the Gulf coast AND northern CA that would be piped along the transcontinental rail line
Saudi Arabia desalinates more water than any other country and they were (as of Oct 2020) supposed to file patents to remove minerals from the water making the waste stream much less toxic.
Again, we looked at it just from a hydraulic standpoint. Moving liquid is fairly easy and given the topography of the midsection of the United States I could see something like this happening. These DESAL plants do use a LOT of power - my suggestion would be to build several Nuclear power plants to supply power to the project and add capacity to the grid. The briney waste could be brought to the Salt Flats (another consideration)
But with todays technology? I think it could be done. And I like the idea of several smaller lines as opposed to one big one.
It could be done
Can the waste product be compacted into blocks as a building material for seawalls and coastline reinforcement?
Don't know about all that
But the brine contains a lost of stuff the Saudi Arabians believe is worth while extracting
whether we have the technology to do it isn't the point. rather my point is the consequences ecologically of doing it. in other words, the impact on the particular watersheds of removing large volumes of h2o. there is a certain hubris to the idea that we can engineer ourselves out of any problem. i live in florida. it's cost us billions of dollars over the last 20 years trying to undo the mess that's been made of the natural hydrology of the everglades watershed over the last century-plus. we pump huge amounts of water east-west into the atlantic and into the gulf instead of the north-south flow into florida bay. it's killing the everglades and it's poisoning our water.
Mud
Agree which is why I suggested a combo pack of desalinization water along with river water. When we studied this the drought conditions were not near as bad as they are today which makes this a worthwhile study
Keep in mind that the Colonial is not just one big pipe going from Houston to NJ. The branch lines account for most of its's 5000 mile length.
But as for where we take it from could also be from smaller more flood prone rivers as well that tap into the same line that goes to Cheyenne. I also used Cheyenne for a specific reason its close to the headwaters of the Colorado. By allowing the river/Desal water to flow into an existing river. hundreds of miles it would have time to settle out any sediment that got pumped.
Is it risky? Yes. But given the HUGE agricultural needs of this country - I think protecting the water supply of the south west is probably a worthwhile project. Besides - why should all that fresh water flow from the Great Lakes to the sea by way of the St Lawrence river? The water flows from Superior, to Michigan to Huron to Erie to Ontario going from highest elevation to lowest. Take 10% there, another 10% from 3 rivers and Mississippi when conditions permit. Blend in desal water and pump it into the headwaters of the colorado.
World wide there are 108 Nuclear reactors sitting at the ocean's edge - Fukishima being the most well known. Why not 25 to 30 Desal plants along the CA coast? Or for that matter pumping stations and put the DeSal plants near the salt flats where their effluent (briney water) could be allowed to add to those salt flats?
The water shortage that we are experiencing could lead to some severe food shortages down the road.
No food to eat OR water to drink would tend to make me grumpy (or grumpier than normal)
Spent 25 years in federal service trying to help manage water development in California. It makes me wonder what "drought response and water resilience" really means. The only way I could ever figure how to increase "water resilience" is to not use so much water, but that option has never been on the table.
Not that there's anything wrong with it, but doesn't the boss here live next to an artificial amenity lake? Is it filled with resilient water or just the normal kind?
Only about a 3rd of this spending was climate change driven. All warm dry states are running into these ecological issues. As I tell stupid peckers from West Virginia, there are no free lunches.
the "stupid peckers" from west virginia don't have a water shortage. the "stupid peckers" from the warm, dry states do. the "stupid peckers" from the warm, dry states need to look in the mirror, because they're as much at fault for this mess as any one else. los angeles county alone has five times the population of the entire state of west virginia and it gets almost all of its water from other areas at an ecological cost.