BajaNomad - Loreto Desalination

Loreto Desalination

Pages: 1 2

oldhippie - 8-10-2007 at 06:12 AM

flyfishingPam,

I've changed my signature to a statement you made and Lencho applauded in a fantastic manner. I hope you don't mind. If so let me know.

Cypress - 8-10-2007 at 06:30 AM

This whole Loreto thing is beginning to sound like one big scam. Is the Mexican govt. helping bankroll the project? :?:

oldhippie - 8-10-2007 at 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
This whole Loreto thing is beginning to sound like one big scam. Is the Mexican govt. helping bankroll the project? :?:

I don't know, but there have been allegations that Loreto Bay has made some Mexican officials very wealthy. The Mexican Government via FONATUR has been and is developing tourism as a way of raising money and the standard of living of citizens. I have no problem with that as long as it is done in a reasonable manner. In addition I would be less likely to get involved even if it was done in an unreasonable manner if it were Mexican corporations (owned by Mexicans) doing the development since I'm not a citizen.

But Loreto Bay is a foreign owned company developing essentially a city for foreigners to live in on the Mexican coastline which is expressly forbidden by the Mexican Constitution.

They are using a loophole, created for foreign INDIVIDUALS to invest in coastal property, to build a city for foreigners to live in. It's totally against the spirit and intent of the law.

[Edited on 8-10-2007 by oldhippie]

[Edited on 8-10-2007 by oldhippie]

oldhippie - 8-10-2007 at 07:58 AM

Seems like a foreign invasion to me. There may not be blood spilled but the sociological implications are similar. I haven't really developed this line of thinking yet but your question is helping me. There are environmental, sociological, and economical implications to consider. All are related and interact.

I need a formula.

In fact I think I may know of one. It's in a book titled "World Dynamics" by Jay Forrester (I think). I read it once maybe 30 years ago and didn't understand it.

[Edited on 8-10-2007 by oldhippie]

wilderone - 8-10-2007 at 09:11 AM

Just one more comment. LB Co. chooses the definition of sustainable development from the United Nations' Brundtland Commission (among many), as "Meeting the needs of the present generation without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." They toss that out there expecting the reader to embrace the idea that the LV Villages is compliant with that concept - ethereal as it is.

The Villages project clearly does not comport with that definition, since (1) the present generation of Loreto citizens does not NEED a half-empty town of idle foreigners in its midst; (2) it threatens the scarce water supply for everyone living in the region now and forever; (3) the present generation includes the new immigrants who have come to build it and their needs are not met in that they there is insufficient housing for them, so much so that they cannot live with their families under one roof, and LB Co. is not taking responsibility for this situation, but passing it on to the contractors, and ignored the lack of housing in the first place; the needs of the present generation which includes the new immigrants are presently met by contracted for cafeteria meals - which certainly does not enable them to meet their own needs in the future (so the most basic shelter and food needs are not met); and the future housing of these new immigrants will only tax the local infrastructure and resources more and more.

The ability of future generations to meet their own needs is an entirely spurious prong to the definition because nobody has ever been able to tell the future. However, in consideration of global warming trends, the balance of the ecology in the Nopolo region (arid desert, undisturbed coastline), and historical development models and demographics in the US and Mexico, why would a developer threaten that balance and the health of the gulf waters which currently provides the basis for economic stability in the region for current and future generations with: pesticides for the nursery and orchard; fertilizers for the nursery, orchard and golf courses; creating an estuary that flows into the gulf which may or may not be a healthy ecocystem, but which in the process of creating it, has wiped off the face of the earth the important flora and protective dunes; creating inflow/outtake pipes into the gulf; discharging desal chemicals into the gulf; introduced an increased amount of sewage, trash and other human-caused pollutants into the region; planning to use up the local resources for producing compressed earth bricks for the next 10 years or more; destroying and disturbing 3 miles of coastline and all that it contains as viable habitat for sensitive desert wildlife; introducing non-native plant species into the area requiring much more water than what was originally native and naturally evolved necessitating water in the future as well; plant a one-acre orchard requiring yet more water; and all without known ecological affects in the future.

LB Co. can attempt to project the benefits of they hope to do, but the reality speaks for itself. Anybody can talk.

Anybody Can Talk.

MrBillM - 8-10-2007 at 09:16 AM

But Money speaks loudest. None of the voices here will be loud enough. Whatever occurs will happen regardless of what any of us think, say or do.

Relax and watch the picture develop.

oldhippie - 8-10-2007 at 09:45 AM

I really enjoy reading what you all write, very thought provoking.

MrBill is right and, perhaps, wrong. Did you see that I qualified my statement MrBill? I was taught not to do that, but I want to be careful not to argue in a confrontational manner. I'm instinctively so.

"Whatever occurs will happen regardless of what any of us think, say or do. "

I disagree 100%. What occurs is precisely caused by what "we" think, say, and do.

Larry, thanks for broadening the restricted zone issue.

wilderone asks: "why would a developer threaten that balance and the health of the gulf waters which currently provides the basis for economic stability in the region for current and future generations"

quick money is the answer

But you have articulated the concept of greenwashing exceedingly well which is what originally upped the ante and got me, well, obsessed with Loreto development.

No Desire to be Confrontational

MrBillM - 8-10-2007 at 09:53 AM

At least in this case.

BUT !

What I was trying to say is that a project like this is so big that whatever decides its fate won't be what a handful of foreign residents think, say or do. The size and Dollar values are simply too high and we have too much past history of development in Mexico, some of it VERY recent, to guide us. I know that we feel obligated to bring action to our beliefs so that we feel we've done our best. However, we sometimes have unrealistic expectations of what that action will accomplish.

oldhippie - 8-10-2007 at 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
But Money speaks loudest. None of the voices here will be loud enough. Whatever occurs will happen regardless of what any of us think, say or do.

Relax and watch the picture develop.

In my last post I took your last statement out of its context. Conservationists world wide have been able, on occasion, to prevail over big money. That gives me hope.

I know how to speak loudly because I helped ?? invent the Internet (sorry). I just happened to be in the right place at the right time working on its original purpose. I know everything Internet.

But I may relax and watch the picture develop. The availability of money for discretionary spending is the key, and there seems to be a lot of volatility due to uncertainty in that arena. Maybe I won't have to speak loudly.

[Edited on 8-10-2007 by oldhippie]

flyfishinPam - 8-10-2007 at 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wilderone
Just one more comment. LB Co. chooses the definition of sustainable development from the United Nations' Brundtland Commission (among many), as "Meeting the needs of the present generation without sacrificing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." They toss that out there expecting the reader to embrace the idea that the LV Villages is compliant with that concept - ethereal as it is.

can the United Nations Brundtland Commission be notified of this development that´s taking place and using their standards to market a product that defies these standards?

Cypress - 8-10-2007 at 04:01 PM

We all argue, agree, discuss,etc and they remain silent while counting their money. :tumble:

Al G - 8-10-2007 at 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cypress
We all argue, agree, discuss,etc and they remain silent while counting their money. :tumble:

OOPS...Page seven...and I have not read a word of this thread....it is the first time you have made sence to me.....Damn gotta stop drinking so many Pacifico's... :lol:

oldhippie - 8-11-2007 at 10:40 AM

There is debate about foreign development in the restricted zone.

"Hundreds of complaints exist about the surrender of coastal zones to foreigners, and the government has not defended either the national patrimony or indigenous people, who are not allowed to sell their arts and crafts even after being stripped of their lands," said Senator Heladio Elias Ramirez Lopez, president of the rural legislators' group.

http://www.mexidata.info/id1471.html

oldhippie - 8-13-2007 at 06:49 PM

Back to desalination. I've found time to do a little reading and thought I'd share some links. It's pretty dry scientific stuff. I've posted these links before, thinking that I would eventually find more information. This is about it though.

"Very little information is available on the impacts of desalination plants on the marine environment."

"Desalination plants require significant amounts of energy for their operation. For example, the Santa Barbara RO desalination plant was using about 6,600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot of water produced before the plant shut down operations."

"Discharge constituents monitored include: dissolved oxygen, copper, iron, nickel, pH, temperature, total chlorine residual, toxicity concentration in marine organisms (bioassays), arsenic, cadmium, lead, hexavalient chromium, mercury, silver, zinc, cyanide, suspended solids, particulates, grease and oil, settleable solids, flow rate, and turbidity."

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/desalrpt/dchap3.html

For Loreto:

These experts concluded that disposing of the waste in the Sea of Cortez should not be done.

"Brine disposal – reduction and conjunctive disposal using deep injection wells and land disposal."

http://www.futurosalternativosloreto.org/desalination/009_co...

[Edited on 8-14-2007 by oldhippie]

woody with a view - 8-13-2007 at 06:56 PM

Quote:

"Discharge constituents monitored include: dissolved oxygen, copper, iron, nickel, pH, temperature, total chlorine residual, toxicity concentration in marine organisms (bioassays), arsenic, cadmium, lead, hexavalient chromium, mercury, silver, zinc, cyanide, suspended solids, particulates, grease and oil, settleable solids, flow rate, and turbidity."

DELICIOSAS!

oldhippie - 8-13-2007 at 10:02 PM

Good point, and thanks for telling me softly that I didn't comprehend the first sentence. I didn't catch the significance of "monitored" (looked for?). I suppose these metals are especially, in some way, toxic hence the monitoring.

That's the problem, I couldn't find any results of real measurements. I ran into some subscription ($$) websites that looked like they may have data.

The water engineer that posted in this thread offered the most info. The engineering company's recommendation of well injection and land disposal implies they think disposal in the Sea of Cortez is not a good idea.

It will be interesting to see what the approved plans are in regards to plant capacity and waste disposal method.

Also interesting is this conversion factor: 6,600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot of water produced. 1.0 acre foot = 325,851 gallons.

Pescador - 8-14-2007 at 06:22 AM

These possible contaminants are directly related to what EPA requires for monitoring of any water production discharge. In the United States any discharge requires a permit and is licensed to operate under certain rules and regulations. Obviously, we have a problem with Loreto in that they probably will not be subject to the same regulations and restrictions. Pam indicated that she can not even find where the drinking water is tested or chlorinated so I suspect that the monitoring of discharge is even more loosely controlled.

PS, hipster, great article and good stuff.

oldhippie - 8-14-2007 at 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pescador
These possible contaminants are directly related to what EPA requires for monitoring of any water production discharge. In the United States any discharge requires a permit and is licensed to operate under certain rules and regulations. Obviously, we have a problem with Loreto in that they probably will not be subject to the same regulations and restrictions. Pam indicated that she can not even find where the drinking water is tested or chlorinated so I suspect that the monitoring of discharge is even more loosely controlled.

PS, hipster, great article and good stuff.

Glad you liked the info.

I don't think anybody, except possibly the poorest people, in Mexico drinks tap water. When I moved here my tap water drinking dogs had diarrhea for the first couple of months.

They were fat anyway.

Maybe I have new diet to sell. The Mexican tap water diet. Drink a quart a day and watch the pounds flush away.

oldhippie - 8-14-2007 at 11:08 AM

I never lamented about not being able to buy into LB. I like houses with some land around them that are reasonably priced. Gee, I even want to park my car at the house.

I lamented about the high prices due to developments like LB.

mtgoat666 - 8-14-2007 at 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie
It will be interesting to see what the approved plans are in regards to plant capacity and waste disposal method.

Also interesting is this conversion factor: 6,600 kWh of electricity per acre-foot of water produced. 1.0 acre foot = 325,851 gallons.

Energy usage sounds high. I have seen an 2007 FS for an RO desal project in Dana Pt that would produce 15 MGD for energy usage of 3,800 kwh/af, and have water cost of $1,290/af. By the way, you can put that $1,290/af cost in perspective if you consider that imported water in so cal costs about 600/af, and well water costs about $200/af. (costs do not include treatment/final distribution)

Desal water can be returned to ocean quite safely if discharge is diffused - such is planned for Encina desal project. Undergound injection is feasible too, but more expensive.

You wanna live in the desert and have a city, you gotta go with desal and suck up the cost.

Without growth, communities stagnate. Stagnant populations may be nice for retirees that already got theirs, but you can't build a business or career in a no-growth town.

jerry - 8-14-2007 at 08:37 PM

seems like the anti development been blaming Lb for green washing.
well this thread proves that the anti LB are definatly black washing unfoundedly what ever LB might come up with
pure speculational
the scientific studys are based on the you cant trust anyone as so well proclamed by the old hippie lol

Pescador - 8-15-2007 at 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie

I don't think anybody, except possibly the poorest people, in Mexico drinks tap water. When I moved here my tap water drinking dogs had diarrhea for the first couple of months.

Maybe I have new diet to sell. The Mexican tap water diet. Drink a quart a day and watch the pounds flush away.

When we moved to San Lucas cove, south of Santa Rosalia, they had water which was pumped from the deep wells at Palo Verde and was headed for Santa Rosalia. Except for some minerals, the water was actually pretty good and we drank it for the whole winter with no problems. Then I finagled a tour of the well plants and asked about the chlorinator that I saw and the guy said, "oh yeah, that has been broken for a year or more, but we have the parts on order".
In our small system in the mountains of Colorado, we are required by law to monitor continously and if we fall below a certain level we have to shut down the system.
So that 8 pesos per bottle for treated water started looking pretty good.

Bob and Susan - 8-15-2007 at 06:06 AM

in mulege ... thursday before 2pm the purified water is 2 for one...
50 gallons of purified water was $6.60 US last week

we don't drink that much water but the "boys" do...
we've been freezing water in plastic trays for the decanter base
the "boys" love cold water

there also is a clorinator at the "bulk" pump in mulege and it makes noise like it's working

i don't know too much about water treatment but the thing looks like it's "spittin" something in

oldhippie - 8-15-2007 at 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgoat666

Quote:

Thanks for the numbers, they are hard to come by. Looks like your numbers say desal is a little more than 6 times expensive than well water. Is that before or after the MWD subsidy I read about somewhere?

The engineers that studied the Loreto application concluded that disposal should be achieved on land and using injection wells. The implication being that the dilution factor needed can't be achieved in that area of the Sea of Cortez. Therefore, due to the injection wells, the cost will be higher in Loreto.

I just read that the cost per gallon increases as the plant size decreases. Economies of scale are lost on small plants. I image the Dana Point plant will be quite a bit larger than the Loreto plant. So the Loreto water will be more expensive again.

It also seems that because all of this is so relatively new, the engineers haven't decided upon a uniform set of physical units to use when describing the desal process, which makes it difficult to make sense of anything. acre-feet vs. kilogallons is an example. Also, cost is measured differently between plants. This is fundamental stuff that needs to be determined.

Is Loreto Bay going to power this plant with its yet to be built wind turbines on the other side of the peninsula? Hope so, because between 30% and 50% of the cost is due to electricity (evil fossil fuel) consumption. If not evil, difficult to predict in terms of how much more it's going to cost as time goes on.

Considering the high cost of output water due to inefficient small plants, like what I would guess the Loreto plant will be, and the requirement to use the most expensive disposal methods, maybe a gallon of water that now costs 10 pesos will cost 100 pesos.

But the craziest thing is, nobody seems to really know.

This looks like a good read, I started at page 39 and read maybe 10 pages. It's 100 pages.

http://www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination/desalination_rep...

oldhippie - 8-15-2007 at 08:30 AM

The high cost of fossil fuel derived energy and the carbon pollution problem associated with it's conversion to electricity is a problem without desal. So let's throw in the vital, massively used, and problematic resource of water and burn more fossil fuels to get it. Sounds dumb to me.

Also, the rational that is being used, at least in California, is the scarcity of water and the disruption in its supply that could occur after an earthquake, due to aqueduct damage I guess. But, many analysts think that if more water is made available via desal, more people will come, and we'll be right back to where we were.

I still stand by my initial statement in the first post of this thread. Desalination should not be done unless it is needed; that is, there are thirsty people around. Loreto Bay is doing it to bring more people into the area. That doesn't make sense.

This reminds me of the early 50s when nuclear power was being advertised as too cheap to meter. Yeah, right.

Drinking water from the ocean, what could be better? Yeah, right.

[Edited on 8-15-2007 by oldhippie]

flyfishinPam - 8-15-2007 at 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie
The engineers that studied the Loreto application concluded that disposal should be achieved on land and using injection wells. The implication being that the dilution factor needed can't be achieved in that area of the Sea of Cortez. Therefore, due to the injection wells, the cost will be higher in Loreto.

I was at the meeting in mid March where the engineering company stated that disposal of the waste should not be done off Loreto into the sea. They did discuss the lack of current necessary to dispurse of the concentrated waste properly and the fact that this is a Marine Park off our shores. The head of the Loreto Marine Park also stated at that meeting that according to the rules of the Park the disposal of waste into the Park is unlawful.

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie
I just read that the cost per gallon increases as the plant size decreases. Economies of scale are lost on small plants. I image the Dana Point plant will be quite a bit larger than the Loreto plant. So the Loreto water will be more expensive again.

also keep in mind that the Sea of Cortez has a higher salt content than the Pacific Ocean and other oceanic bodies of water so we can´t expect the yield of product (pure water) to be 50% of starting material (salt water), we must expect it to be lower thus increasing the final cost of the product even further.

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie
I still stand by my initial statement in the first post of this thread. Desalination should not be done unless it is needed; that is, there are thirsty people around. Loreto Bay is doing it to bring more people into the area. That doesn't make sense.

No this does not make any sense at all, does it! There isn´t enough known economically, socially, environmentally to move forward with this proposal. Even the proposals are incomplete and resemble sales pitches instead of sound scientific information.

Now i´ll read those articles on desal further.

[Edited on 8-15-2007 by flyfishinPam]

flyfishinPam - 8-15-2007 at 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by oldhippie

This looks like a good read, I started at page 39 and read maybe 10 pages. It's 100 pages.

http://www.pacinst.org/reports/desalination/desalination_rep...

OK copied and will take home to read in the hammock. From what I skimmed through there´s a LOT of useful information here. the other report on seawater desal in California is a great source too. Thanks for posting these links!

Pages: 1 2