California's Water Crisis. Why?

[F8L]

Originally Posted by carz89

Granted, there aren't any easy solutions to appease everyone's concerns over the environment and energy/water resources, given that every solution is intricately woven between the benefits and pitfalls, the science, politics, cost, and waste, and public perception. But, your statement of "too many pitfalls with nuclear" is both vague and misleading. It is absolutely untrue, especially when compared scientifically to all the other options out there.

Most scientists, including environmental engineers and scientists, acknowledge that the public resistance and media pummeling of nuclear power is due to a fear of the unknown. In many public outreach experiments, employing moderate educational awareness of the pros and cons of nuclear power, and of the science of nuclear power generation (cradle to grave), public opinion has proven to lend positive support to nuclear power electricity generation.

I am not anti-nuclear. I should have placed emphasis on the last portion of that sentence you quoted. I believe nuclear has it's place but to assume we can just easily build a few plants and have unlimited energy and water is even more misleading. Fortunately I think Richard was being facetious so I was being partially argumentative. I admit though, from what I have read the cost to power ratio is very high for nuclear as well as the fact that it utilizes enriched U-235. If you have a great deal of knowledge on the subject would you mind creating a thread much like our oil sticky (located at the top of this forum) and help educate us a bit more on this topic. A lot of what I've read on the subject comes from the World Watch Institute so I may be lacking in nuclear power options. I must say that they provided some great information and they disputed the typical cons that the public associates with nuclear power. The typical concerns were not shared by me because new advances in the field seemed to have overcome those issues.

[FL_Prius_Driver]

Originally Posted by carz89

Most scientists, including environmental engineers and scientists, acknowledge that the public resistance and media pummeling of nuclear power is due to a fear of the unknown. In many public outreach experiments, employing moderate educational awareness of the pros and cons of nuclear power, and of the science of nuclear power generation (cradle to grave), public opinion has proven to lend positive support to nuclear power electricity generation.

Having operated a nuclear plant for four years, I would like to add some counterbalance. Right now, virtually all nuclear plants are storing all there waste (spend fuel rods) locally since the national waste repository is not operating yet. One of the reasons it is not operating is the magnitude of difficulty proving tht it would be a foolproof waste repository. This problem is unsolved. The solution for the past thirty years is to let it pile up. These are some mighty big piles.

The more immediate problem is that nobody (and I mean nobody) wants to invest in a nuclear plant. When they run the ROI and risk numbers, they come up negative. When the same investors look at wind and solar, they see postive numbers. After the WPPSS debacle, it is unlikely that nuclear will see much, if any, resurgence. The money invested in power plants is not available for nuclear plants.

[FL_Prius_Driver]

I would like to point out that a concentrated solar plant providing direct heat for distillation is getting lots of traction. The problem is finding land and companies to pursue it since the established ones are overwhelmed with work.
Specifically,
1) Southern Call has lots of sunshine. More so than even Florida.
2) Distillation does not need to be a 24 hour a day operation.
3) A few days of clouds is not a problem with sufficient storage
4) The process is highly cost effective.

Unfortunately, No plant can overcome wastefulness and the water would be more expensive than what nature could provide (if available).

Florida is experiencing the same problems. The aquifer is being pumped dry so there are discussions of getting water from rivers. (Steal it from the eco-system.) Tampa already has one distillation plant running....but building water plants is never going to overcome ridiculous, wasteful lifestyles (home and business).

[F8L]

Originally Posted by qbee42

It may not be technically a desert, but much of Southern California is effectively desert. Fly over San Diego and look south to Tijuana. You can see a clear line where the irrigation ends. Without massive irrigation San Diego would be dry and brown just like Tijuana.

Why is it that people in dry locations insist on having lush vegetation? Las Vegas is positively fascinated with water. Having a lawn in Las Vegas or San Diego is like me heating my yard in the winter to keep my grass green. I just don't get it.

Tom

Tom, the area you speak of is considered the lower section of the South Coast Region (semi-arid warm steppe climate or Koppen BSh) and the Colorado Desert Region (hot arid or Koppen BWh) as the Dept. of Fish & Game classifies them. They are considered dry to be surebut should not be confused with the Central Valley which is characterized by it's mediterranean climate although some think of it as desert. I make an annual trip to SD and then drive to Baja to stay with family friends down there. Green lawns in the middle of summer are quite rediculous I agree. Vegas kills me! Everytime I go there I cringe when we walk passed the Bellagio fountain display. It is a blatant display of waste in terms of energy and water resources. Then again, have you ever looked into the amount of food wasted in Vegas? I need to find those number again. lol

I realize my post came out as a rant. Which is how I felt at the time, and still do, but the main reason i posted it is to help bring a bit of awarness to the situation and how both government agencies, business and environmental organizations are taking this issue very seriously and it seems most people around me are clueless when I ask them about their thoughts on the subject. Besides, I always end up learning something when I post up a rant.

[carz89]

Originally Posted by F8L

...would you mind creating a thread much like our oil sticky (located at the top of this forum) and help educate us a bit more on this topic [of nuclear power]...

Maybe someday, but I think that there are already many well-written and well-organized sources of information on the web.

Try this one:
World Nuclear Association

A great website with short scientific presentations on a gazillion different nuclear energy subjects.

For example - their discussion on "Radioactive Wastes - Myths and Realities"
World Nuclear Association

[Godiva]

Originally Posted by mingoglia

This is a pet peeve of mine as well. There's so many angry, hateful, partisan folks on this forum it's sickening. Very quick to always throw the political bomb whenever the opportunity arises. There's one thing to sarcastically throw out a jab every now and then.... the ones I have a problem with are the ones that truly come across as hateful in tone. These jabs solve nothing and only drive more of a wedge between Americans.

San Diego has had a string of Republican Mayors (and City Council people) who got us where we are by following party doctrine. Mayor and City council is supposed to be non-partisan but that is NOT how it works in real life. The pension debacle is only one farce. The selling out of NTC for pennies on the dollar is another. Where's the public space? I don't need another Mall to shop at and the majority of that prime land is private houseing development, not a public park. The "redevelopment" of the downtown bayfront is going to be the same thing. The most the citizens of San Diego will get is a sidewalk. It isn't the Dems in the pockets of the redevelopers.

When the Mayor starts acting non-partisan I'll cease to refer to him as our Republican Mayor.

And he doesn't need to perpetuate the mental picture by continueing to refer to it as "toilet to tap". He chooses to because he's against it.

I notice his police and firemen buddies are exempt from the deal he cut to keep the pension mess off the ballot. Why keep it off the ballot? What's wrong with getting the voter's input?

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by richard schumacher

Build combination nuclear power/desalination plants and everyone can have all the water and electricity they want at tolerable prices (roughly $0.15 per kiloWatt-hour and $0.01 per gallon). But I expect it will take a real water crisis or two (something on the order of the failure of central valley agriculture and bathroom water rationing, much more than the present annoyance) and about ten years before people realize this.

Richard - we agree for once! Cheers.

Tim

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Godiva

I suspect the farmers and ranchers that are fighting over the water probably aren't paying their fair share when compared to the residents. I also suspect they could institute some conservation of water use of their own.

I agree. Plus, it makes no sense to me that we are growing crops - particularly water intensive ones like rice - in the CA desert. In doing so, the residents of CA are effectively subsidizing food for the rest of the country.

[TimBikes]

Originally Posted by Godiva

San Diego has had a string of Republican Mayors (and City Council people) who got us where we are by following party doctrine.

What party is the San Diego City Council? I believe it is dominated by Dems. I think the problem there is more one of stupidity, rather than party affiliation.

[Godiva]

Today the Mayor announced he wants us to cut back water use even more.

And....there's a plan to build yet another sports stadium in Downtown.

Priorities....priorities.....