| Pages:
1
..
5
6
7 |
jerry
Super Nomad
Posts: 1354
Registered: 10-10-2003
Location: loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
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
jerry and judi
|
|
|
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
| 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
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8813
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Mulege BCS on the BAY
Member Is Offline
Mood: Full Time Residents
|
|
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
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by mtgoat666
| 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.
|
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
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
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
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
| 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 canīt 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 isnīt 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 iīll read those articles on desal further.
[Edited on 8-15-2007 by flyfishinPam]
|
|
|
flyfishinPam
Super Nomad
Posts: 1727
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Loreto, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: gone fishin'
|
|
OK copied and will take home to read in the hammock. From what I skimmed through thereīs 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
..
5
6
7 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
