2008 program
AlwaysOn GoingGreen 2008
2007 archives
AlwaysOn GoingGreen 2007
Programs by EcoWorld
Send an
Electronic
Postcard
by George Antro... on 09/05/08
Anyone who thinks animals
belching is something we
somehow have to worry abo...
by PoCA on 09/05/08
50% renewables by 2025 is
possible . . . to think this
cost will not be past do...
by Dodzi Dzidzo... on 09/05/08
we are farming company based
in Ghana, Africa and have
thousands of acres of la...
by Bob Downs on 09/05/08
Why don't we just let
economic forces of all this
just work things out witho...
by Laddie on 09/04/08
I am inclined to express a
negative opinion on
Proposition 7, because...
by Ekesh Kumar on 09/04/08
I am a B.E. ;Electronics
last year student at Delhi
college of Engineering...
by Ed Ring on 09/04/08
Shutterbug - nobody is
saying there isn't a benefit
to unions. But even unions...
EcoWorld Commentary
Ed Ring,
Editor-in-Chief
Daniela Muhawi,
Editor-at-Large
Contributing Editors
(comments are welcome)

Maps & Information




Today is Friday September 05, 2008
Editor's Commentary

Revisiting Desalinization

Posted on: April 6th, 2007 by Ed Ring

Much of the water in Southern California comes from the north, and to get into the Los Angeles basin must be pumped over the Tehachapi Mountains.  This is the biggest water lift in the world, about 2,000 feet (ref. NRDC). 

When looking at alternatives to transporting huge quantities of water that might be better left where it is, desalinization is not getting sufficient attention.  It turns out that 2,000 feet of lift is about the point where the energy necessary to desalinate seawater is actually slightly less than the energy required to pump water over a 2,000 foot mountain.

In our features “India’s Water Future” as well as “Arctic to Aral,” we have reported on the energy requirements to pump water.  Using the same formulas, it turns out that the energy required to lift a cubic kilometer of water 2,000 feet is 248 megawatt-years.

What if that water were desalinated in plants located on the Pacific Coast, perhaps using land within Camp Pendleton between Los Angeles and San Diego?  As we reported in “Photovoltaic Desalinization,” desalinization plants able to process 1.0 cubic kilometers per year are being designed today, at an estimated cost of $2.0 billion dollars.  At an operating energy requirement of 2.0 kilowatt-hours per cubic meter, it would take 2.0 billion kilowatt-hours to desalinate one cubic kilometer of seawater.  That’s only 228 megawatt-years, LESS energy than is used to pump the same amount of water into Los Angeles from the north.

According to the Los Angeles County Dept. of Water and Power, the average residential household in LA County uses 500 gallons of water per day (ref. LADPW).  That equates to 690 cubic meters per year, which means that 1.0 cubic kilometers of water would supply nearly 1.5 million households with water - well over five million people.

For every gallon of usable water extracted from seawater, seven gallons of slightly more salinated seawater must be returned to the ocean.  The costs for a system to distribute this water in a sufficiently dispersed stream certainly wouldn’t cost more than the desalinization plant itself.  Assume a cost of $5.0 billion for a desalinization plant that would supply water to 5.0 million people.  Amortized over 50 years, this capital cost would only amount to about $20 per person per year - adjusting for present value of money, certainly no more than $50 per person per year - not much.

What water crisis?  What water shortage?

This entry was posted on Friday, April 6th, 2007 at 12:10 am and is filed under Energy, Politics, Water. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “Revisiting Desalinization”

  1. Gal Josefsberg Says:

    I wasn’t aware of the additional cost of distributing the saltier water back. How much of an impact does that water have on the environment if not dispersed? As in, what happens if you just pump it back in one location? How would you disperse that kind of volume?

    By the way, I’m for desalinization. I think it’s a great idea and something we need to build now, not when water is in short supply. I’m just curious about this aspect of the problem that I was unaware of before.

    GJ
    http://www.60in3.com

Leave a Comment

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word

Search

Recent Posts


Categories


Archives

September 2008 (1)
August 2008 (6)
July 2008 (10)
June 2008 (7)
May 2008 (12)
April 2008 (10)
March 2008 (23)
February 2008 (11)
January 2008 (12)
December 2007 (17)
November 2007 (12)
October 2007 (18)
2008 (92)
2007 (127)
2006 (102)

Links

AUTO SHIPPING
New Hybrid Cars
Toyota Prius
Cheap Gas Prices
Latest Hybrid Cars
GreenBuzz Newsletter
Tree Bank
Profitable Reforesting
Treelink.org
Sustainable Land Development Today