Instead of flushing hundreds of billions of gallons of treated sewage into the Pacific Ocean each year, as they do now, coastal cites can capture that effluent, clean it and convert it to drinking water.
"That water is discharged into the ocean and lost forever," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Assn. of California Water Agencies. "Yet it's probably the single largest source of water supply for California over the next quarter-century."...
"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."
May 25, 2015
"Turning sewage into drinking water gains appeal as drought lingers."
California gets ready for "indirect potable reuse."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
66 comments:
It's just copying the business model of most of the establishment media.
There's nothing wrong with it. We get our drinking water from a lake that birds shit in all day.
The thing is, that it is filtered, and treated. The same as with toilet water.
After you treat it, you can mix it with lake water in the same reservoir. Same with desalinization.
As usual, the biggest problem is what to do with the sludge, or all the salt.
However good a solution it may look on paper, I don't see a lot of enthusiasm for this approach. It's also limited as a conservation tactic in that it cannot add to the amount of water available, it can only stretch what's there.
I know desalination is a tough nut to crack, but that seems to me to be the real answer to the world's drinking water problem.
"Van Nuys activist Donald Schultz."
Yes, it's what they do. Make the public eat and drink shit.
Fortunately, el niño is coming.
We had a headline like that in the Journal some time ago, and an acquaintance shook his head and said he did not know about that; maybe he would invest in a private well.
I asked him what he thought he was drinking now. Most of the City water comes from deep wells, but they have also finally gotten around to take water from the Rio Grande - 50 years after Abiqui Dam was built and partially justified by providing storage for Albuquerque water. I pointed out to him that Santa Fe and Espanola have sewage plants, but otherwise everything from Creede, Co. through Corrales go directly to the river, and of course livestock and wildlife craps in it all the way as they always have.
Stupid. If they stopped supplying agriculture at below market rates, farmers would quit trying to grow almonds and there's be plenty of residential water.
Only 10% of California's water goes to residential uses.
It's silly to talk about expensive solutions when the cheap solution is there: charge market prices for water.
Well, they do have experience turning paradise into a cesspool. Just reverse the process.
Well we have been viewing California sewage for so many years on TV and the big screen, might as well let them start drinking it.
Maybe some karma in there somewhere.
Water is water. There are no nuclear reactions involved, so there is no loss of water. Even what evaporates will fall again as rain somewhere else, and what infiltrates becomes groundwater (but you had better check that out and treat it as necessary before you use it!).
As a California resident I have long wondered why California wastes so much water by not recycling it.
Build new waste treatment plants that use methane and solid sewage to power furnaces that boil the water to drive a turbine and produce power, and is then distilled into drinking water. i bet we could build such systems that would be at least as cost effective as the systems we are paying for now.
Mostly it's turned into coffee.
"I know desalination is a tough nut to crack, but that seems to me to be the real answer to the world's drinking water problem."
At this point, the only real nut to crack on desalination is the usual, insistent opposition of the "environmentalists".
The best option is to build a time machine and go back six years and force the Dumbocrats in the California legislature to pass Governor Schwarzenegger's proposed water infrastructure upgrade legislation.
Today the best option is to start by having the legislators who voted down Schwarzenegger's legislation serve as the pilot user group for "indirect potable reuse." Also registered members of the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and the Environmental Defense Fund. Anybody else?
I don't see how lefties can understand the concept of planning ahead without first teaching them that obdurate inaction has consequences, too.
If it's yellow be mellow .. If it's brown flush it down.
As long as the grey water is flash to steam and condensed, I'd have no issue.
Otherwise, far too many things could go wrong especially in a Union State.
I wonder what's more cost effective. Toilet to tap centralized water treatment. Or tap to toilet in-home grey water recycling systems?
We could conceivably install systems in homes that uses shower and sink water to flush toilets and water the planters.
So Cal's water tastes like shit anyway, so why not? One of the good things about the coastal Northwest is our palatable drinking water.
Guys can help by peeing into a gallon jug until it's full.
But that makes reclamation more difficult. Maybe just pour it on the lawn for urea content.
Incessant, not insistent.
Reminds me of the poop pie from "The Help". Both recipients deserving of the shit they eat.
As long as the grey water is flash to steam and condensed, I'd have no issue.
Otherwise, far too many things could go wrong especially in a Union State.
Or in a Confederate State.
It's a lot easier and cheaper to turn sewerage into water that is safe for irrigation. Then drink the stuff that is now being used to irrigation but is drinkable.
As usual the problem in this isn't the availability of water, it's the distribution.
Before you embrace desalinization, you might want to calculate the energy consumption differential between water from aquifers and rainfall and water from desalination. The Greens will have a 365 day a year hissy fit when them get ahold of this. And probably should.
How about using sewage water to cool down SF govt. offices, water celebrities' lawns? Let the people, the non-govt. type and non-celebrity type drink clean water.
Coupe said...
"There's nothing wrong with it. We get our drinking water from a lake that birds shit in all day.
The thing is, that it is filtered, and treated."
With chemicals.
"Before you embrace desalinization, you might want to calculate the energy consumption differential between water from aquifers and rainfall and water from desalination. The Greens will have a 365 day a year hissy fit when them get ahold of this. And probably should."
But the issue is that the aquifer and rainfall can't keep up with demand. Desalinization plants are being built at reasonable economics; even in California where, due to the inevitable green hissy fit, costs are double where they are elsewhere (e.g. Israel).
The only reason it isn't commonly done is cost. Many manufacturers in our line of work have a waste water pre-treatment system, which basically takes industrial waste water and turns into almost pure H2O.
Now, the contaminates that you take out of the water has to go somewhere.
Converting sewage has to be cheaper that desalinization.
BTW:
"I know desalination is a tough nut to crack"
It is not. It is just expensive and consumes huge amounts of energy. Of course, one could power the desalinization plant with nuclear power, but that would simple make too much sense.
Flashing water to steam and condensing it again takes as much power as desalinization and is not practical at this time.
Removing 100% of pollutants in sewage treatment plants is not cheap either, but quite feasible.
Potable water is going to become more expensive, both due to additional treatment costs and because water-saving measures necessarily will cause per gallon prices to go up as water and sewage facilities costs are largely fixed system costs.
Build windmill gauntlets and solar ovens on the coast to recover potable water from the Pacific Ocean. Not only does this application not require stable energy production, but it can be processed at will, and buffered (e.g. artificial aquifers, reservoirs, freezers) for delayed consumption. The window and solar renewable, but variable, drivers would be well-suited for these tasks.
Instead of building low-value train tracks to exacerbate converged migration and immigration patterns, construct water pipelines for distribution to the places people actually live, work, and play.
California's chickens are coming home to roost. And they are crapping in the well.
The only reason it isn't commonly done is cost. Many manufacturers in our line of work have a waste water pre-treatment system, which basically takes industrial waste water and turns into almost pure H2O.
Now, the contaminates that you take out of the water has to go somewhere.
Converting sewage has to be cheaper that desalinization.
BTW:
"I know desalination is a tough nut to crack"
It is not. It is just expensive and consumes huge amounts of energy. Of course, one could power the desalinization plant with nuclear power, but that would simple make too much sense.
First, they need to understand why California wasn't densely populated originally, it was DRY.
Second, The Cali water boarders have allocated more than 100% of it's resources.
Thirdly. Cali environmentalist canceled all the planned water projects.
Fourth, they fought nuclear power plants. Plants that could be used for desalinizing Pacific sea water.
Fifth, it's california, why bother treating the sewage.
Have these guys ever heard of desalinization? They should go talk to the Israelis about how to do that on an a mass industrial scale.
elkh1 said...With chemicals.
I use the same chemicals to sanitize my beer bottles before a brew.
I think they use Sodium hypochlorite at the water factory, and I use over the counter bleach, or Sodium hypochlorite and sodium hydroxide.
I used to have a pool with chlorine.
All safer than sex.
Albuquerque has a partial "grey-water" system to water City parks, etc., but this is not cheap either.
Watermains do not magically extend themselves under existing city streets.
And then there are the environmentalists.
There is a whole coterie of lawyers in Santa Fe who specialize in filing lawsuits on behalf of "the environment." They don't get rich, but can set their own hours, and it's a great way to meet women.
They insist on maintaining flow in the Rio Grande to protect the Rio Grande minnow, which they have managed to get "experts" to testify is somehow different from the minnows in the tributaries or other sections of the Rio Grande and needs to be protected as an "endangered species."
And the flow needs to be in the Rio Grande itself - it is no fair to send it downstream by way of the acequias and drains, though this saves a lot of water in the hot months, and the minnows thrived just fine there in the past.
BTW, "sewerage" is the system the sewage flows through.
The guy who ran against Gov Moonbeam said CA had to work on its water issues before they spent any more $ on the train to nowhere. Of course, he got defeated b/c we need to have trains more than water.
Ever since Flushing Meadows went under, Fecal Valley Farms will have to do.
That 'Montezuma's Own' stuff they sell at the gas station. No way, Jose.
This is such bullshit.
There is plenty of water for every Californian. They will have to cut off residential watering (Yes, even for Babs) and then agricultural uses (This is the biggest water usage in the state) and then industrial usage. I wonder if people drinking water is prioritized above the delta smelt for these folks.
No activist wants to talk about hard choices and who is going to pay the price for the impact on actual people of massive water releases for a three inch fish.
California desalination obstacles
In the West, all fights are ultimately water fights.
Coupe: "As usual, the biggest problem is what to do with the sludge, or all the salt."
I don't see that salt is a problem. It's already in the ocean and not hurting anything. You desalinate some seawater. Then you drink the water or shower with it or wash your dishes with it. Then it runs back in the ocean with the salt. Nothing has changed. The salinity of the sea water is unchanged.
It's my understanding they barge the "removed salt" out to sea and dump it in one spot every week.
If they spread it over many miles this would be good, but time and weather dictates you dump that crap and get back to the dock.
Wherever they dump 100 tons of salt is going to have an imbalance for a long time (many weeks I would assume).
"Water in California is shared across three main sectors.
Statewide, average water use is roughly 50% environmental, 40% agricultural, and 10% urban."
: California Department of Water Resources (water use and crop acreage data; all numbers are for 1998–2010), U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (gross state product).
Crope, the desalination plans I've seen mix the salt with seawater and then pump the mixture out to sea in a large pipe. If the outfalls are far enough away and the concentrated salt water is mixed with enough seawater first it is hard to see how it would damage anything. The bigger problem with desalination it seems to me is the energy cost.
I don't know what the problem with this is. It seems like a practical solution along with nuclear powered desalination and some common sense water usage restrictions. Its insane to have desert areas waste water by letting it flow to the sea when its not necessary to do so.
Let them eat urinal cake.
I am Laslo.
Paul Ciotti said...
The bigger problem with desalination it seems to me is the energy cost.
particularly in a state that refuses to build any icky power plants but doesn't mind a very long extension cord to Navajo Coal plants...
But they do mind the 4-corners plant and are trying what they can to get it shut down.
Someday the Navajos will get rich from all that coal, but not as long as these people can stave it off.
Give a damn!
Build a dam!
I haven't looked at it, but desalinization ought not to take as much energy as it seems. You can recover the heating by using the exiting steam to heat incoming water.
The uphill battle is against entropy, which you have to lower by separating out salts.
I don't know the energy constraints on that.
It's my understanding they barge the "removed salt" out to sea and dump it in one spot every week.
If they spread it over many miles this would be good, but time and weather dictates you dump that crap and get back to the dock.
Wherever they dump 100 tons of salt is going to have an imbalance for a long time (many weeks I would assume).
You have no idea of the size or movement in the ocean.
I live in Sacramento, CA. This just shortens the "water cycle" by a few steps.
The "water cycle", for those of you who don't remember it from 5th grade science, goes as follows:
1. The Sun heats the oceans and evaporates water.
2. Clouds form, holding the water.
3. Storms carry the clouds inland over the mountains.
4. The water falls in the mountains and valleys as snow or rain.
5. The snows melt, and the rain water runs into streams which run into rivers.
5a. Some of the water runs through hydroelectric dams and turbines, producing electricity.
6. We take water out of the river and filter and purify the water, and send it into our water systems.
7. We drink the water, then urinate it back out, and use it to flush/wash/cook.
8. The waste water is filtered and treated, and released back into the river.
(Repeat steps 6 through 8 several times, depending on the length of the river. Remember the old saying "Never drink downstream of the bear.")
9. The river eventually flows back into the ocean.
Repeat from step 1.
Jerry Brown (in what may be the first intelligent thing he's said in 50 years) wants to add several more iterations of steps 6 though 8, which is probably an OK idea.
We get our drinking water from a lake that birds shit in all day.
Plus, the fish fuck in it all day.
"That water is discharged into the ocean and lost forever," said Tim Quinn, executive director of the Assn. of California Water Agencies.
Please fire this bozo and hire Ken Mitchell.
Laslo,
Been meaning to say...
If you're going to mis-spend your youth, you could do worse than fucking a Nazi chick up the ass.
Just saying.
They will do ANYTHING other than desalinate.
If anything will turn the Democrats out of office, it is this.
Removing 100% of pollutants in sewage treatment plants is not cheap either, but quite feasible.
We get our water from wells and from the Fox River.The problem they're having here, because the EPA has demanded an unrealistic level of ecoli bacteria in the effluent to an extent that the effluent has no ecoli in it, is the amount of female hormones in the drinking water.
Removing 100% of pollutants in sewage treatment plants is not cheap either, but quite feasible.
We get our water from wells and from the Fox River.The problem they're having here, because the EPA has demanded an unrealistic level of ecoli bacteria in the effluent to an extent that the effluent has no ecoli in it, is the amount of female hormones in the drinking water.
The yuck factor: that's what happened when the astronauts on the Mars expedition realized where their drinking water came from ...
Of course, water discharged into the ocean is not "lost forever" as Tim Quinn, executive director of the Assn. of California Water Agencies, claims. Where does he think fresh water comes from?
The author of Ecclesiastes had a better understanding of this than Tim Quinn: "All the rivers run into the sea, Yet the sea is not full; To the place from which the rivers come, There they return again."
Recycling is a reductive process. Unless they address resource limitation in the context of population growth, especially policies that promote converged migration and immigration, then this effort only delays realizing the solution. Ironically, they would rather recycle sewage, than recovery potable water from the ocean, because deployment of low-density "green" energy production, windmills and photovoltaic panels in mass/farms, in the relevant locations (i.e. beaches) would overwhelmingly disturb the aesthetics and natives.
Beat on the poor water guy all you want, but it's quite clear that the fresh water that is let go will no longer be available for CA consumption, except of course inasmuch as it goes back into the ocean gets evaporated rained etc. However, you could skip the loop and run that water directly into folks' sinks and crops. I guess he wasn't trying to be philosophical.
Meanwhile isn't that good water to use on environmental and agricultural and industrial applications? Am I wrong or are we really only concerned about the fine points of the water that we drink? Will recycled water harm crops? I bet the grass grows just as green and the machines run just as quickly.
Singapore launched recycled and purified water for human consumption in 2002. They called it NEWater. I'm watching closely for the arrival of NuFood. When it arrives, I'm heading the other direction.
I'd long understood that water in the DC/NoVa area was largely recycled. No? Not great water but not Hanoi or Tijuana septic.
I don't see an issue with this at all, in fact I'd rather do this rather than run out of water. If we use that technique and figure out the best way to desalinize the ocean water we could really have water for ages. Let's hope we figure out something soon otherwise we might run out of water! http://www.lavendersedm.com
Post a Comment