Slashdot Mirror
Massachusetts Considering Desalination Plants
Iphtashu Fitz writes "Despite a reservoir system containing some 412 billion gallons of water for Boston and surrounding communities, some eastern Massachusetts towns are facing water shortages and are now considering water desalination plants as a new source of fresh drinking water. The city of Brockton, 20 miles south of Boston, has plans in the works to build a $40 million plant and could begin construction as soon as this September. Currently there are fewer than 100 desalination plants in the US and most of them are in smaller communities, but that seems to be changing. The largest desalination plant in the country is located in Tampa, FL, which expects it to provide 10% of the citys drinking water by 2008. California also has at least 10 large scale plants on the drawing board. Some environmental organizations like the Conservation Law Foundation dispute the need for desalination plants however. They argue that many water shortages could simply be solved by better conservation of existing supplies."
what harm is there from desalinaiton plants? sea level dropping? why are environmental groups protesting it?
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Conservation only works when people contribute to the effort. These days people use water for household uses, lawns, washing cars, etc. Once we are used to having it on demand, it's kinda hard to think about conserving. Ususally it's too late when a shortage occurs. Might as well start building the plants now, by the time they are finished being built, they will be needed.
--
Retail Retreat
I seem to recall a story from the western U.S. where the city instituted rigid conservation controls. The result was that they were successful.
Well, sort of. The subsequent drop in water usage also resulted in a drop in water revenue and sewer revenue (water usage was metered). The city ended up losing so much money due to not keeping up with fixed costs, that they tossed the measures out the window. They needed the money more than the conservation.
Desalination on a large scale is absolutely necessary for humanity's survival over the next 100 years.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
Because ocean water is so plentiful, there is absolutely no danger in reducing sea level (the very idea is absurd), and the only enviromental issue is the huge amount of power needed to get the salt out of the water.
"City officials dismiss worries about water privatization, saying that a 20-year contract ensures affordable water rates and that the desalinated water will only supplement more traditional supplies."
Is twenty years really all that long when talking about public utilities? Also, what's the projected growth rate for this place over the next twenty years? Is the supplementary nature of the desalinated water the plan for the long term or just initially?
Water is a hell of a commodity to control; even if you have to wait twenty years to actually control it.
I support the use of desalinization as a source for water, it is better ecologically and economically, than taking your water in from other places, just look at Mono Lake. I'm suprised that our technology in desalinization isn't better considering the largest Desalination plant in the country hopes to provide only 10% of it's city's water supply by 2008!
To save 400 billion gallons, Boston and outlying areas would need to replace 10 million urinals, and while it's doubtful they have that many (that'd be about 1-2 per capita
just a thought.
They argue that many water shortages could simply be solved by better conservation of existing supplies.
Well DUH. The people aren't trying to solve a 'water shortage' problem. They are trying to solve a "demand exceeds supply" problem. They don't have a reason to deny people the water they want to use if the people are willing to pay a higher cost. Eventually they hit a price point where people will naturally conserve water.
Water is a reusable natural resource. It's not easy to come up with a reason to conserve it, since they are already conserving it with water treatment plants.
Think of the water system as a closed system. The only unaccounted for openings are evaporation, and letting it go into the water table (ground, streams, ocean, etc). Otherwise the water is contained entirely in storage, pipes, and treatment plants. To offset evaporation and adding to the water table a system must have a certian amount of intake from wells or another water source. A water shortage doesn't necessarily mean that not enough water is being produced, it means that the system has reached its capacity --> the treatement plants are supplying less water per day than people are consuming, and they are draining (slowly) their reserves of treated water. Alternately more and more water is being stored in additional piping added by new neighborhoods/buildings or evaporated/drained into the environment by new lawns and pools and not enough used water is getting back to the treatment plants. The wells and other 'new water' sources are too stressed.
There are two ways of combating this - either take in more water from the environment, or increase the efficiency of the treatment system (more plants, better plants, etc) Obviously the second problem can only be solved by getting more 'new water' into the system. In many cities it makes more sense to place a new well than to upgrade the treatement plant, especially if the treatement plant isn't at capacity. In many cases a well cannot be placed because it puts too much strain on the water table, so a desalination plant makes very good sense.
The environmental people are not complaining so much because they feel we are destroying the planet as they are complaining because it's a symptom of our consumerism which they fundamentally oppose on principle. If they can get everyone else to 'think green' in general then they hope that other problems which do directly affect the environment will also abate.
Oh, and yes, desalination does stress the water source. If they do not process the salt into other forms then the source many become too salty near the plant. If they do not replace the salt then it may not be salty enough. Either way, a desalination plant affects the water source. Whether that's bad or good is subjective.
-Adam
They argue that many water shortages could simply be solved by better conservation of existing supplies.
...Showing their real aim is not conserving resources, but controling people.
Unfortunately, the majority of water policy in the U.S. (and elsewhere) has more to do with politics and business than with science or common sense. For an excellent intro to the history of water-related politics in the U.S., you should read the book Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water. Can't recommend it highly enough.
Lawn watering, toilets, and such typically represent well over half the water use in a house.
A not-huge 3500 gal container can hold rainwater, reasonable drain water (shower/bath), etc.
"slow sand filtration" seems to be the common way to cleanse it. It need not be potable, just "clean enough". A minute on google for "grey water sand filteration" find this link and others.
Boston gets rain year 'round. Roofs conveniently shed their rain down just a couple gutters.
For lawns, it's easy. For house use - well we don't plumb houses to have multiple water sources. Yet.
Or you could just ban golf courses in boston and save billions of gallons and cleanup the fertilizer laden runnoff from unnaturally short, unhealthy golf greens.
I dunno. Ask California. California, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico really aren't fit for human consumption, nevertheless, the gov't dammed up most of the rivers out west to make it hospitible.
I read somewhere that 80% of the water use in California was for agricultural irrigation - so it seems to me that if environmentalists wish to preach about conservation, they've got bigger priorities than the average consumer.
Quoted from article: They argue that many water shortages could simply be solved by better conservation of existing supplies.
I agree. Couple of things - in coastal areas, do you really need to shower in fresh water? With most new construction around here using plastic hoses instead of copper piping, the biggest residential cost would be an incremental one to install a second (stainless steel) hot water heater. Besides, salt water showers and baths are really nice - or maybe salt water is just a novelty to me because I live inland. Installing the head-end pumping stations, water mains, etc would be a horrendous task, but many cities are already faced with the task of digging up their streets and replacing century-old water mains.
I see the primary uses of this water being the shower/tub and refilling the toilet.
Of course, if you're handy and want to save a few bucks, *anyone* can install a gray-water system like mine. Reusing the washing machine's water saves me $200/year and gives satisfying soapsuds when I'm doing Number One.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
I haven't done any research on this, but it seems a bit tough to believe. Even if desal. were supplying all of Boston's water, the volume of pure water taken out should be miniscule compared to the local ocean. I realize that water currents determine how problematic this is, but unless you build it in a harbor or something (and it won't go in Boston harbor), I can't imagine that would be a real problem.