What? Cover all the land we use to grow your food? Or did you mean to put the solar panels on the hillsides?

Check, "Death Valley" for available space.

Seriously. California is NOT 100% covered with crops, or people.

Oops. Wayneh beat me again.

 

Check, "Death Valley" for available space.

Seriously. California is NOT 100% covered with crops, or people.

I was thinking about the San Joaquin Valley, where the water is needed for irrigation. Granted, Death Valley is suitable for solar panels, but the dust needs to be cleaned off frequently and the electricity needs to be transported for miles. I don't think there will be many employees that will want to work in Death Valley.

 

I was thinking about the San Joaquin Valley, where the water is needed for irrigation. Granted, Death Valley is suitable for solar panels, but the dust needs to be cleaned off frequently and the electricity needs to be transported for miles. I don't think there will be many employees that will want to work in Death Valley.

It's not too far from Nevada. The Valley actually has plenty of water flowing through it but they can't use it because it's allocated for cities on the coast. Eliminate that need and there will be water for ag. A HVDC transmission station connected to the Pacific Intertie from Oregon to LA could be built installed so existing infrastructure could be used for the long haul transmission plus they could use the BPA power (using our water to generate their water) for load leveling at the plants.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/exclusive-william-shatners-30-billion-116672789084.html
Me thinks the Capt. has been drinking too much.

I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned that we do get water from up north. See the California aqueducts. BTW, the Salton Sea in southern California was made in 1905.

 

The Valley actually has plenty of water flowing through it but they can't use it because it's allocated for cities on the coast. Eliminate that need and there will be water for ag.

It's not really that simple. Overpumping affects the ecology of the river.

I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned that we do get water from up north.

I discussed that back on post #25.

 

It's not really that simple. Overpumping affects the ecology of the river.

Yes, it's a viscous cycle that's just about to totally collapse.

 

It begs the question, though. If they can run municipal wastewater through it and get pure water out, why can't they run seawater through it? They make it sound like there are no limits on what can be used as input, but clearly there are.

Reverse osmosis is not a workable option because it requires a lot of power to run the pumps. Unless there is a large source of oil or gas like in the Mid East, desal isn't affordable.

 

Reverse osmosis is not a workable option because it requires a lot of power to run the pumps. Unless there is a large source of oil or gas like in the Mid East, desal isn't affordable.

Its workable with dirty water at the level most city sewage treatment plants handle. Electrical power is not a limiting factor in SOCAL with solar based thermal and PV generation at very large scales if you don't need base-load backup. It would be a very expensive long term project but well within current technology and compared with the cost of doing nothing pretty cheap. If they have a few years of good rains the system could then allow for some of the the ground water to be restored by banking water underground.

 

Its workable with dirty water at the level most city sewage treatment plants handle. Electrical power is not a limiting factor in SOCAL with solar based thermal and PV generation at very large scales if you don't need base-load backup. It would be a very expensive long term project but well within current technology and compared with the cost of doing nothing pretty cheap. If they have a few years of good rains the system could then allow for some of the the ground water to be restored by banking water underground.

But, of course, they will have to empty the underground aquifers if they ever suspect that someone has pissed on the ground anywhere that might seep into the water (I'm referring, of course, to the instance when they drained and cleaned an entire fresh water reservoir because one person peed into it -- and then wonder why they don't have any water).

 

But, of course, they will have to empty the underground aquifers if they ever suspect that someone has pissed on the ground anywhere that might seep into the water (I'm referring, of course, to the instance when they drained and cleaned an entire fresh water reservoir because one person peed into it -- and then wonder why they don't have any water).

That happened in Portland but there's not a shortage of water here to replace it.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/04/water_bureau_mt_tabor_reservoi.html

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/29784

The river drains into two reservoirs, where more than 17 billion gallons are stored.

 

Oh, I was thinking that was California. But that's definitely the story I was thinking of. Thanks.

 

But, of course, they will have to empty the underground aquifers if they ever suspect that someone has pissed on the ground anywhere that might seep into the water (I'm referring, of course, to the instance when they drained and cleaned an entire fresh water reservoir because one person peed into it -- and then wonder why they don't have any water).

W.C. Fields said,
"I never drink water because of the disgusting things that fish do in it."

I think animals living upstream would have a larger influence on the water quality than even a dozen people would.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-toilet-to-tap-20150525-story.html#page=1

"You know, toilet to tap might be the only answer at this point," said Van Nuys activist Donald Schultz. "I don't support it, but we're running out of options. In fact, we may have already run out of options."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c6f998-0e39-11e5-9726-49d6fa26a8c6_story.html

Residents who exceed their allotment could see their already sky-high water bills triple. And for ultra-wealthy customers undeterred by financial penalties, the district reserves the right to install flow restrictors — quarter-size disks that make it difficult to, say, shower and do a load of laundry at the same time.

In extreme cases, the district could shut off the tap altogether.

Ouch! If the ultra-rich can pay for the water at sky-high prices I say let them and use the money to pay for the recycling water.

 

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-toilet-to-tap-20150525-story.html#page=1

I just have never understood the persistent knee-jerk opposition to this. For instance, this biology professor that says that he would never drink such water but would use it for other purposes. He has absolutely no problem drinking water that was discharged by the wastewater treatment plants of any of the dozens or hundreds of cities upstream from him, some of which are probably within a dozen miles or so.

Perhaps what these cities should do is simply quietly change the location of where their wastewater treatment plants discharge their effluent to a point upriver from the city. If they are close enough, they could pump it up to the same point that the next municipality discharges their water. It's a sad waste of resources to pump that much water uphill, but some of that effort has to happen anyway to make use of the wastewater in the same city anyway.