Submitted by twodollarprophet t3_1270q6o in explainlikeimfive
[removed]
Comments
Antman013 t1_jec8v2b wrote
Aahh, yes . . . the ever popular "capitalism is GREAT as long as we use socialist means to ensure our profits" philosophy.
hphdup92 t1_jebz92y wrote
The very large cost of doing this: desalination is an extremely expensive way to get fresh water. This is less of an concern in the Middle Eastern countries who have oil money to waste.
Any-Growth8158 t1_jec1zi6 wrote
Desalinized water costs between $2.50 and $5 for 1000 gallons (down from closer to $9 a decade ago).
Freshwater costs around $2 for the same amount.
This means your water bill would go up from 25-150% if you switched completely. Even if you don't use that water you'll get charged for the creation of the plants. About $85 of a $150 water bill is for infrastructure and administration (I have to pay this even if I don't use a drop of water). The water I actually use only accounts for less than half my bill.
skiveman t1_jec21qm wrote
The main cost here is the energy cost. It costs a lot of money to power these plants. A secondary concern is what do you do with the various salts that you remove? Dump them back in the water? That would increase the local salinity levels and increase the energy costs needed to remove ever more saltier water.
Solar power could help, but the sheer amount of solar panels and batteries (to power during night) would make it rather expensive - as well as increase the local heat island effect.
Antman013 t1_jec925g wrote
Small, modular, nuclear reactors would be ideal for this, I would think.
​
As to the salts, truck them to locations with "winter" in order to clear roads. Also, aren't the oceans becoming less "salty" due to polar ice cap loss?
skiveman t1_jedwu7d wrote
Small nuclear reactors probably would be perfect for the job. It would also be a good way to improve security around desalination plants in the future.
Although, I think if water security really did begin to get pressing then I would imagine that the government would step in to set up reservoirs and water networks to bring water to where it's needed over a much bigger distance. The US relies on their river networks because (like nearly every country in the world) settlements were built on rivers and next to easily potable water. If climate conditions change and lakes and rivers dry up then I've no doubt that public works (and money) would be fired up to build new infrastructure. With the added benefit that construction jobs would be created.
Antman013 t1_jee1425 wrote
There have been studied. The costs to bring those volumes of water to where it's needed make it nigh on impossible.
skiveman t1_jee6j89 wrote
At present, that is. If the cost of clean water gets high enough then it becomes economical for both desalination plants to create profit but also so that civil construction projects make financial and resource security sense.
Antman013 t1_jegq04b wrote
You also have to consider the volumes of water needed by drought stricken areas like the US southwest.
California uses 1.8 million barrels of oil per day.
California uses about 91 gallons of water per day per person. That translate into 84.5 million barrels a day.
​
The construction costs, and engineering required to moved THAT volume of water across the country make it completely unfeasible.
BoilerButtSlut t1_jecvjmo wrote
The main obstacle is that the water is too expensive for anything except for residential usage, and therefore does very little to solve the water shortage in the southwest.
explainlikeimfive-ModTeam t1_jed8rlc wrote
Please read this entire message
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
- ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting.
Please search before submitting.
This question has already been asked on ELI5 multiple times.
If you need help searching, please refer to the Wiki.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.
Flair_Helper t1_jed8rvu wrote
Please read this entire message
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
- ELI5 requires that you search the ELI5 subreddit for your topic before posting. Users will often either find a thread that meets their needs or find that their question might qualify for an exception to rule 7. Please see this wiki entry for more details (Rule 7).
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the detailed rules first. If you believe this submission was removed erroneously, please use this form and we will review your submission.
Caucasiafro t1_jecbsf6 wrote
So other people have talked about the fact that it's just..expensive. But I want to focus on this statement here.
>Seems like Solar could play a significant role here...
I assume you mean solar power, right? That isn't exactly a solution even if we sidestep all the other issues like building the infrastructure that would be needed.
That solar power used for desalinating water would just be solar power we can't use for something else. Even in a world that is 100% renewable* there's a discussion that needs to be had about where the limited amount of power we have should go and with desalination, you are talking about something that was virtually free for the majority of human history and turning it into something that...isn't.
It's tantamount to saying "I bet spending money on it is the solution" I mean...yeah, but now that money can't be spent somewhere else.
*I mention this specifically because anytime you hear about a new thing that uses 100% renewable energy is still worse than replacing something that didn't use renewables. So like building a new water desalination plant that's 100% solar-powered is a lot worse for the environment than using all that solar power to shut down a few coal plants and not need the desalination plant in the first place.
GoatEatingTroll t1_jebzs77 wrote
Desalination is costly, but when droughts are occurring it can be less expensive than other sources of water. unfortunately they cannot be turned on and off easily. Sydney has government owned systems that they will start powering up and cycling 3-6 months before they can produce significant volumes for use so they start turning them up well before droughts reach that point.
That is the same issue with some of California. There is a project going by the name of Poseidon in Southern California where private investors are trying to get contracted to build desalination facilities, but part of that agreement requires the local communities to purchase minimum amounts of water if they need it or not. The private companies do not want to cycle the plant down and loose their income, so they want to shift that cost onto the taxpayers and local utility company.