National Water Policies

[Max Rockatansky]

If people like living in the desert, they need to like or at least tolerate the results of living in the desert:  no lawns or gardens that require irrigation, no golf courses, no car washing, tightly regulated water use as far as length of showers and size of toilet tanks, possibly widespread use of grey water systems.

Desalinization is not a good idea on this scale.  It takes a huge amount of energy.  Just imagine if all the water you use in your house for all purposes had to be boiled to steam first.  That energy use will be contributing greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

People need to pick places to live that have water already, and state and local governments need to cut off water hookups for new construction in places where more development is unsustainable.

Car washing is a must have in a dusty climate speaking from first hand experience of living in the Sonoran Desert for 13 years.  One average Sonoran Desert dust storm is enough to cause actual problems like clog air filters if a car isn't cleaned properly afterwards.  I'm all for sustainable lawns (grass and high utility bills suck anyways) but a bigger impact would be to restrict farming in desert climates given how much more water intensive they are. 

[bing101]

I'm just amused at this point poor ole Tulare Lake got a mention in this thread.  I do enjoy telling people they are on the bottom of a lake bed when they ask why we have an emergency action plan for flooding.  I'm even more amused when farmers put up signs asking for more dams like there is some great untapped source of water in the Sierra Nevada Mountains not already in use.

Yes I remember in the water debates there was talks that San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California wanted more water via Delta tunnels from the Sacramento River but Sacramento and Solano Counties were against the proposal because it was going into endangered species in the Sacramento Delta area also drought concerns.

[Max Rockatansky]

I'm just amused at this point poor ole Tulare Lake got a mention in this thread.  I do enjoy telling people they are on the bottom of a lake bed when they ask why we have an emergency action plan for flooding.  I'm even more amused when farmers put up signs asking for more dams like there is some great untapped source of water in the Sierra Nevada Mountains not already in use.

Yes I remember in the water debates there was talks that San Joaquin Valley farmers and Southern California wanted more water via Delta tunnels from the Sacramento River but Sacramento and Solano Counties were against the proposal because it was going into endangered species in the Sacramento Delta area also drought concerns.

Even more recently is the whole Temperance Flat Dam debate.  Said proposed dam is on the site of a current reservoir (Kerckhoff) on the San Joaquin River between Millerton Lake and Redinger Lake.  I get it that the Temperance Flat Dam is more intended for "water storage"  over power generation but it isn't tapping a new source that hasn't already been fully exploited by SoCal Edison.  I just don't see what the point of attempting to build another reservoir that will have a nominal impact on the San Joaquin River is.  Most of the Central Valley farmers have borderline descended to delusion with their theories about water usage. 

[kalvado]

Desalinization is not a good idea on this scale.  It takes a huge amount of energy.  Just imagine if all the water you use in your house for all purposes had to be boiled to steam first.  That energy use will be contributing greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere.

Boiling for desalination ended decades ago. Membrane process is the name of the game

To put things in perspective: 1 cubic meter is about 260 gallons. US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person. 

[GaryV]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists. 

[Max Rockatansky]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts. 

[kalvado]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

[Max Rockatansky]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic. 

[SectorZ]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

[Max Rockatansky]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

Plenty of places for a station or two in the coast ranges away from major population centers but close enough to take advantage.

[kalvado]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

Plenty of places for a station or two in the coast ranges away from major population centers but close enough to take advantage.

Pretty much entire CA coast is a seismic zone. And cooling water requirements aren't trivial. So I don't think "pacific coast" and "nuclear power" should really be used  in the same paragraph. 

[Max Rockatansky]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

Plenty of places for a station or two in the coast ranges away from major population centers but close enough to take advantage.

Pretty much entire CA coast is a seismic zone. And cooling water requirements aren't trivial. So I don't think "pacific coast" and "nuclear power" should really be used  in the same paragraph.

It's not too difficult to locate parts of the Diablo Range east of the San Andreas Fault Line on the more stable North American Plate.  Either way, generation capacity isn't likely to be solved by putting more reservoirs on heavily developed rivers.  There is a lot of solar out in the Diablo Range being developed but I don't know the details on how much those stations are generating. 

[kkt]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts. 

And we're probably going to be plugging in a lot more electric and chargeable hybrid vehicles too.

I wonder if I'd make any headway trying to convince the kid to major in electrical engineering instead of art...

[Max Rockatansky]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts. 

And we're probably going to be plugging in a lot more electric and chargeable hybrid vehicles too.

I wonder if I'd make any headway trying to convince the kid to major in electrical engineering instead of art...

That's the rub, you'd think some sort of major infrastructure proposal would be on the table by now if 2035 is the target goal.  If not for the EV car thing then to replace some of the decaying corporate grid infrastructure that keeps spawning summer fires.   

[vdeane]

That's the rub, you'd think some sort of major infrastructure proposal would be on the table by now if 2035 is the target goal.  If not for the EV car thing then to replace some of the decaying corporate grid infrastructure that keeps spawning summer fires.   

I believe the plan is "announce we're banning ICE cars and hope the market will figure it out".

[Max Rockatansky]

That's the rub, you'd think some sort of major infrastructure proposal would be on the table by now if 2035 is the target goal.  If not for the EV car thing then to replace some of the decaying corporate grid infrastructure that keeps spawning summer fires.   

I believe the plan is "announce we're banning ICE cars and hope the market will figure it out".

That being the case letting the auto and energy sectors move that way naturally would have been the correct course.  The auto sector clearing was moving in that direction anyways with EVs.  Trouble is in California much of the power grid outside of the biggest cities is owned by companies that aren't in the fiscal shape to reinvest in new infrastructure so quickly.  In the case of PG&E it is likely they will have some financial issues from the current fire season.  Without some sort of public works project push in California I don't see how 2035 is plausible for the elimination of consumer ICE sales.  That's not even getting into this like building enough charging stations to supplement what is available for gas and diesel.

Here is what the California Air Resources Board (CARB) has to say, including the question about grid capacity:

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/governor-newsoms-zero-emission-2035-executive-order-n-79-20

[Plutonic Panda]

^^^ well many people like living in the desert so that logic by itself doesn't hold up.

Well, many of us up here also like living in the Great Lakes region, so what about our feelings?

How will it affect you? The Great Lakes are actually having issues with water level rise.

No, they aren't.  There were a couple high years (2017 and 2019), but otherwise there is no such issue.  In fact, Lake Ontario and the St. Lawrence River have actually been LOW the past couple years, to the point that Dad damaged the prop of the boat going in/out of Chippewa Bay.  Twice.  In one ride.  The second time damaging the engine and causing an oil leak.  And due to parts shortages, the boat is still not fixed, even though it's been over a month now.

Roger. I was under the impression rising levels have been a long term thing so thanks for the correction.

[Plutonic Panda]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

Plenty of places for a station or two in the coast ranges away from major population centers but close enough to take advantage.

Pretty much entire CA coast is a seismic zone. And cooling water requirements aren't trivial. So I don't think "pacific coast" and "nuclear power" should really be used  in the same paragraph.

There plenty of ways to make nuclear power plants safe to withstand earthquakes. Nuclear energy is the only logical way forward for mass energy production, IMO.

[kalvado]

US in-house consumption is 80-100 gallons, so 1 cubic meter a day will cover 3 people - using 2 kWt-h of power a day.
US average residential electric consumption is 11 kWh per person, CA is on a low side with 7 kWt-h daily per person.

So it will be an increase of 9% (7x3 kWh / 2 kWh) for a 3-person household in CA.  Sure, that capacity exists.

Sure doesn't seem like it the last couple of years during the summer time rolling blackouts.

Thing is, it is not an impossible number. Not 2x or 5x of current demand.  Especially if some large storage is used to run more desalination at the times of low consumption and/or high generation. As far as I know, San Diego already has 7% of consumption covered by desalination.
desalination is a big can of worms, sure - but compared to relocation of coastal CA population, this is something worth discussing.

The way I see it if things like a increased hypothetical desalination policy coupled with the 2035 passenger car EV mandate there will be need for increased generation state wide capacity.  Considering there is nothing really large scale on the table at present moment to increase generation capacity is one of the primary reasons I'm skeptical about the latter mandate being realistic.  There is still a ton of issues with companies like PG&E which have deferred maintenance for decades and are now paying the price in lawsuits due to fires originating from their infrastructure.  Expecting everyone inland to flee to already dense and pricy coastal cities where they aren't using their entire generation capacity really isn't really realistic.

The problem is the people that want all the electric cars are afraid of nuclear energy, which would clearly assist with the problem.

Plenty of places for a station or two in the coast ranges away from major population centers but close enough to take advantage.

Pretty much entire CA coast is a seismic zone. And cooling water requirements aren't trivial. So I don't think "pacific coast" and "nuclear power" should really be used  in the same paragraph.

There plenty of ways to make nuclear power plants safe to withstand earthquakes. Nuclear energy is the only logical way forward for mass energy production, IMO.

Yes, it was brought up many times after Chernobyl- boiling water reactors are intrinsically safe... And to learn the lesson in a hard way.
When containment is the only thing that stands between you and high energy trouble, you really don't want to challenge containment more than you have to.
As for logical way forward... My opinion is a bit too involved.

[Scott5114]

There plenty of ways to make nuclear power plants safe to withstand earthquakes. Nuclear energy is the only logical way forward for mass energy production, IMO.

Solar is far more likely in my opinion. Solar prices are already coming down to the point that it's affordable to put them on the roofs of homes. And if you have the space and resources, and your local laws require the electric company to play ball with you, you can even put in excess panels on the ground to make a mini power plant and make some extra money selling excess power back to the grid. If enough people do that, it could add some serious power capacity.

[Max Rockatansky]

There plenty of ways to make nuclear power plants safe to withstand earthquakes. Nuclear energy is the only logical way forward for mass energy production, IMO.

Solar is far more likely in my opinion. Solar prices are already coming down to the point that it's affordable to put them on the roofs of homes. And if you have the space and resources, and your local laws require the electric company to play ball with you, you can even put in excess panels on the ground to make a mini power plant and make some extra money selling excess power back to the grid. If enough people do that, it could add some serious power capacity.

FWIW that's largely what is being pushed in California.  The trouble is the home solar market still has an unsavory reputation from all the predatory lease practices on panels that was once the norm.  There are some large new solar generation stations near me but I don't know enough about them really go into detail.

[kalvado]

There plenty of ways to make nuclear power plants safe to withstand earthquakes. Nuclear energy is the only logical way forward for mass energy production, IMO.

Solar is far more likely in my opinion. Solar prices are already coming down to the point that it's affordable to put them on the roofs of homes. And if you have the space and resources, and your local laws require the electric company to play ball with you, you can even put in excess panels on the ground to make a mini power plant and make some extra money selling excess power back to the grid. If enough people do that, it could add some serious power capacity.

My impression is that the solar market has a lot of cavalier attitudes from the government. If anything, this is very similar to what TX had to their grid, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the result on the same page.

[Plutonic Panda]

There plenty of ways to make nuclear power plants safe to withstand earthquakes. Nuclear energy is the only logical way forward for mass energy production, IMO.

Solar is far more likely in my opinion. Solar prices are already coming down to the point that it's affordable to put them on the roofs of homes. And if you have the space and resources, and your local laws require the electric company to play ball with you, you can even put in excess panels on the ground to make a mini power plant and make some extra money selling excess power back to the grid. If enough people do that, it could add some serious power capacity.

I'm all for putting solar on the roof tops that go unused but as far as large solar farms I can't think of something that I dislike more in terms of energy production maybe the ugly windmills litter the Oklahoma landscape.

[Scott5114]

There plenty of ways to make nuclear power plants safe to withstand earthquakes. Nuclear energy is the only logical way forward for mass energy production, IMO.

Solar is far more likely in my opinion. Solar prices are already coming down to the point that it's affordable to put them on the roofs of homes. And if you have the space and resources, and your local laws require the electric company to play ball with you, you can even put in excess panels on the ground to make a mini power plant and make some extra money selling excess power back to the grid. If enough people do that, it could add some serious power capacity.

My impression is that the solar market has a lot of cavalier attitudes from the government. If anything, this is very similar to what TX had to their grid, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the result on the same page.

I don't follow the comparison. Texas's power grid failed in February because they didn't properly insulate their natural gas lines, and the Texas grid wasn't linked to the rest of the national grid, so there was no way to bring power in when the gas lines froze up. A snow or ice storm could cause solar panels to be covered, but the property would still be linked to the power grid and could bring in power from places not affected by snow/ice.

Of note is that Oklahoma was hit by the same snowstorm that hit Texas, but because our grid was properly winterized and connected to the national grid, power failures were localized to places where trees brought down power lines and things like that. (The October ice storm ended up being a much bigger deal than the February snowstorm, and even for that, we were only without power for about eight to twelve hours or so.)

[Scott5114]

I'm all for putting solar on the roof tops that go unused but as far as large solar farms I can't think of something that I dislike more in terms of energy production maybe the ugly windmills litter the Oklahoma landscape.

Can't have infrastructure without the ugly parts. People say the same thing about freeways. I don't mind windmills. I like them a lot more than hundred-degree days and conflict in the Middle East, and having them means we can hopefully have fewer of both in the future.

As for solar, I feel like it's a lot lower-profile than windmills or even coal-fired plants are. OEC has a small solar farm near the I-35/Flood interchange in Norman, and if they didn't have a sign identifying it as such, I probably wouldn't have even noticed it was there. You can put small solar facilities in places like that you could never put a traditional power plant. I'd like to see solar farms in places like the inside of cloverleaf ramps and other areas like that which are currently just dead space (of course protected by guardrails or something for the rare cases when someone goes off the road). My business partners own a 45-acre lot out in the country. They could have a solar farm on the property somewhere and nobody would ever know.