| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
..
7 |
capt. mike
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8085
Registered: 11-26-2002
Location: Bat Cave
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sling time!
|
|
had a few minutes to WASTE waiting on a mtg so thot i'd pop back here this am to see what gems of folly were being propagated..........very funny
stuff here.
doesn't the SOC flush itself fully every 3 days or so? thot i read that once.
i don't know it and cannot cite a source as a foot "in mouth" note so just asking.
formerly Ordained in Rev. Ewing\'s Church by Mail - busted on tax fraud.......
Now joined L. Ron Hoover\'s church of Appliantology
\"Remember there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over....\"
www.facebook.com/michael.l.goering |
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by islandmusicteach
Developers see desal as the golden goose - it used to be that limited water resources was the reason projects wouldn't get approved. Now desal always
comes up... |
yup
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by capt. mike
had a few minutes to WASTE waiting on a mtg so thot i'd pop back here this am to see what gems of folly were being propagated..........very funny
stuff here.
doesn't the SOC flush itself fully every 3 days or so? thot i read that once.
i don't know it and cannot cite a source as a foot "in mouth" note so just asking. |
please stop wasting your time.
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by lencho
Interesting read, thanks. Something that confused me was comparing the results in the energy use table (where I was surprised to see distillation
quite a bit cheaper energywise than RO) with the statement "RO plants usually have lower energy requirements" in the paragraph on comparison of
technologies. This make sense to you?
--Larry |
I haven't read the website closely yet. But seeing that it is a Government study............
|
|
|
capt. mike
Elite Nomad
Posts: 8085
Registered: 11-26-2002
Location: Bat Cave
Member Is Offline
Mood: Sling time!
|
|
"please stop wasting your time"
ha! so typical of the social lefty controlanistas...........they want to tell me how to manage MY time!
if allowed they'd want to exert control over ALL of my life.............for the good of the WHOLE no doubt.............  
formerly Ordained in Rev. Ewing\'s Church by Mail - busted on tax fraud.......
Now joined L. Ron Hoover\'s church of Appliantology
\"Remember there is a big difference between kneeling down and bending over....\"
www.facebook.com/michael.l.goering |
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by capt. mike
doesn't the SOC flush itself fully every 3 days or so? thot i read that once.
i don't know it and cannot cite a source as a foot "in mouth" note so just asking. |
Hmmmm, perhaps we should rename the Sea of Cortez to the Toilet of Cortez.
That's getting back to the old "the solution to pollution is dilution" practice, which has some merit. But not much.
|
|
|
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
I agree with Mike that the market is going to ultimately determine what happens in the final determination of whether or not Loreto Bay works.
And even though the Hipster and I probably sit on different sides of the political spectrum, I do have to agree with the concerns on Desal. I am a
certified water operator in Colorado and have looked into this desal thing thouroughly and there is a serious problem. When you have small plants
like the one operating at San Marcos Island, things go pretty well and they put the saline in the water and it gets flushed out with the changing of
the tides and currents, but when you get something on the lines they are talking about with Loreto Bay you have a new problem. First of all the salt
content in the Sea of Cortez is higher than it is across the peninsula in the Pacific Ocean. When you remove the salt from the water, most of the
newer processes used by General Electric and Memcor or Us Filter, are using a modified Reverse Osmosis or Nano-filtration. In order to make sure that
the salt molecules are fat enough to be correctly filtered out, they generally add some type of coagulant or flocculant to facilitate that. Now this
has the tendency to clog the filters quite quickly so they have to be backwashed frequently which gives us a briney solution that is very saline but
also has the other chemicals present in a high concentration that becomes a backwash sludge. Now to make it even worse, we get a scaling or filter
pollution problem that has to be chemically scrubbed every so often and they have to use corrosive type chemicals like acids and chloramines to scrub
the filter every so often (like 500 to 1000 hours) of operation. These are the most damaging polutants. So now you have this wonderful chemical
sludge and they want to pump this stuff into the ground.
So most of us assume that they just seperate the salt from the water and we could use the salt on our vegetables, but that is hardly the case.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
The desalination of seawater requires electricity. Isn't that something else that's in short supply?   All this for a golf course? That's gonna be
some expensive golf.
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
Thanks for the information Pescador. I have a question. How much of the chemicals used to clean the system end up in the drinking water? It seems to
me that to clean the system you need to run the chemicals through the same plumbing that produces the drinking water. But I don't know.
Cypress, you're catching on. This is where the need vs. want issue comes in.
|
|
|
wilderone
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3814
Registered: 2-9-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
Experts speak:
And don't forget - LB's intake would be in MARINE PRESERVE.
"Weighing in at the Monterey conference on how desalination would impact marine life was Dr. Pete Raimondi of UCSC's Center for Ocean Health. Drawing
on data collected at intake systems such as the Moss Landing Power Plant, Raimondi said desal operations kill everything from fish, sea turtles and
sea lions to eggs, larvae and spores.
"If something big hits the intake screen, it's typically deposited into a trash bin and put into a landfill; smaller things go through, but everything
that comes in is assumed to die," says Raimondi.
But while he can tell you that 526 million fish larvae and 13.5 million crab larvae are lost annually inside the Morro Bay plant, Raimondi says it's
harder to calculate the ecological impact of such plants.
"You can look at lost productivity of females, the adult equivalent loss, or the proportional mortality of total larvae source. Thousands and billions
of larvae enter the plant. How many adult fish would these individuals have resulted in? We can't come up with that number," he says. "How fecund
would the surviving females have been? We don't know. So, we look at proportional mortality."
Raimondi says 13 percent to 28 percent of the total larvae source was lost at the Moss Landing Power Plant, which is where CalAmerican is proposing to
"collocate" a desal plant, meaning the desal addition would use the same energy and intake and outfall infrastructures as the already existing power
plant.
Another iffy aspect of desal, some experts say, is the brine discharge, which is water that contains a high concentration of salt.
Mike Armstrong, general manager of the Marina Water District, which operates the only desal plant on the California coast currently producing drinking
water, says brine disposal has been a challenge.
"Someone could make a lot of money if they came up with an environmentally safe way to dispose of brine," he says.
As it happens, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation already allocates $1 million to $3 million a year to research and develop ways to inject brine into oil
fields to bring out more oil and to sell salt-related byproducts--an investment that the Bureau's Michelle Chapman finds a tad ironic. "
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
Also, let's keep politics out of this. This is science. The off-topic threads are for politics.
|
|
|
jerry
Super Nomad
Posts: 1354
Registered: 10-10-2003
Location: loreto
Member Is Offline
|
|
lets see 7500 desalt plants working world wide but it wont work for loreto??
dulute the discharge brine with sewer plant effluent witch is similar to fresh water that needs to be delt with and the discharge will be similar to
the seawater.
there is a fast tide in that area and the dulution would be very good.
i believe that if one want to make something work and puts his mine to it he will find a way
some people spend there whole life in a negative mode
by engineers specks a bumbel bee and a humming bird cant fly but try to convince them that they cant fly
jerry and judi
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
Man, thanks wilderone. The chemistry and biology is fascinating, even to a physicist.
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
Jerry, I'm not negative, I'm a scientist, I'm skeptical.
[Edited on 8-6-2007 by oldhippie]
|
|
|
wilderone
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3814
Registered: 2-9-2004
Member Is Offline
|
|
More expert opinion.
Again - it's a MARINE PRESERVE
Jerry, you've got all the answers. Are you an expert?
"Intake water design and operation have environmental and ecologica implications. As described above, coastal plants typically take in large volumes
of seawater during operation. In a recent report on power plant cooling-water intake structures, the California Energy Commission notes that “seawater
… is not just water. It is habitat and contains an entire ecosystem of phytoplankton, fishes, and invertebrates” (York and Foster2005). Large marine
organisms, such as adult fish, invertebrates, birds, and even mammals, are killed on the intake screen (impingement); organisms small enough to pass
through the intake screens, such as plankton, eggs, larvae, and some fish, are killed during processing of the salt water(entrainment). The impinged
and entrained organisms are then disposed of in the marine environment. Decomposition of these organisms can reduce the oxygen content of the water
near the discharge point, creating additional stress on the marine environment. Impingement and entrainment introduce a new source of mortality to the
marine environment, with potentially broad implications for local fish and invertebrate populations. More specifically, impingement and entrainment
“may adversely affect recruitment of juvenile fish and invertebrates to parent or resident populations or may reduce breeding stocks of economically
valuable fishes below their compensation point resulting in reduced production and yield” (Brining et al. 1981). The magnitude and intensity of these
effects depend upon a number of factors, including the percent mortality of the vulnerable species, the mortality rate of the organism relative to the
natural mortality rate, and the standing stock in the area of interest (Edinger and Kolluru 2000).The effects of impingement and entrainment are
species- and site-specific, and only limited research on the impacts of desalination facilities on the marine environment has been done. A recent
overview of desalination seawater intakes, however, asserts that “[e]nvironmental impacts associated with concentrate discharge have historically been
considered the greatest single ecological impediment when siting a seawater desalination facility. However, recent analyses have noted that marine
life impingement and entrainment associated with intake designs were greater, harder to-quantify concerns and may represent the most significant
direct adverse environmental impact of seawater desalination” (Pankratz 2004)."
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by wilderone
More expert opinion.
Again - it's a MARINE PRESERVE
"The effects of impingement and entrainment are species- and site-specific, and only limited research on the impacts of desalination facilities on the
marine environment has been done.
A recent overview of desalination seawater intakes, however, asserts that “[e]nvironmental impacts associated with concentrate discharge have
historically been considered the greatest single ecological impediment when siting a seawater desalination facility.
However, recent analyses have noted that marine life impingement and entrainment associated with intake designs were greater, harder to-quantify
concerns and may represent the most significant direct adverse environmental impact of seawater desalination” (Pankratz 2004)."
|
I shortened the post to get to the bottom line and added paragraph breaks to assist my feeble mind.
Keep it coming Mr. Wilderone.
|
|
|
Loboron
Junior Nomad
Posts: 76
Registered: 4-21-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldhippie
Thanks for the information Pescador. I have a question. How much of the chemicals used to clean the system end up in the drinking water? It seems to
me that to clean the system you need to run the chemicals through the same plumbing that produces the drinking water. But I don't know.
Cypress, you're catching on. This is where the need vs. want issue comes in. |
When the system goes into the cleaning mode or cycle. It no longer produces fresh water. It goes into a "Back Flush" mode. When it's in this mode,
cleaning, the chemicals and the waste, or salt is discharged back into the sea as the brine is during normal operation.
These larger systems work just like the ones we have on the yachts. No chemicals are ever entered into the fresh water during the cleaning process.
|
|
|
oldhippie
Banned
Posts: 742
Registered: 6-25-2006
Member Is Offline
Mood: muted
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by Loboron
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldhippie
Thanks for the information Pescador. I have a question. How much of the chemicals used to clean the system end up in the drinking water? It seems to
me that to clean the system you need to run the chemicals through the same plumbing that produces the drinking water. But I don't know.
Cypress, you're catching on. This is where the need vs. want issue comes in. |
When the system goes into the cleaning mode or cycle. It no longer produces fresh water. It goes into a "Back Flush" mode. When it's in this mode,
cleaning, the chemicals and the waste, or salt is discharged back into the sea as the brine is during normal operation.
These larger systems work just like the ones we have on the yachts. No chemicals are ever entered into the fresh water during the cleaning process.
|
Good to know. Thanks.
|
|
|
Pescador
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3587
Registered: 10-17-2002
Location: Baja California Sur
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldhippie
| Quote: | Originally posted by Loboron
| Quote: | Originally posted by oldhippie
Thanks for the information Pescador. I have a question. How much of the chemicals used to clean the system end up in the drinking water? It seems to
me that to clean the system you need to run the chemicals through the same plumbing that produces the drinking water. But I don't know.
|
When the system goes into the cleaning mode or cycle. It no longer produces fresh water. It goes into a "Back Flush" mode. When it's in this mode,
cleaning, the chemicals and the waste, or salt is discharged back into the sea as the brine is during normal operation.
These larger systems work just like the ones we have on the yachts. No chemicals are ever entered into the fresh water during the cleaning process.
|
Good to know. Thanks. |
Well, we are close to the answer here. It depends on the size of the molecules. In the case of coagulant and flocculant, there is obviously some
intrusion into the filtered product. The EPA recognizes this and gives us some parameters of how much is acceptable. This has caused some concern in
the EPA as of late since most floc's are of an aluminum base and there is some worry in the scientific community that any ingestion of aluminum
(especially in the chlorhydrate families) of contributing to Alzheimer's. The brine produced by an onboard desal on a sailboat is considered minimal
and uses more salt water for flushing and backwashing than would be feasible on a larger plant.
Jerry is sort of right about the salt being washed away but recent studies in the Saudi Arabian area suggest that the salt levels are a very
balanced situation and there have been some suggestions that a few of the die offs of marine life in the area can be directly attributed to raising of
the salt level. The complication to this issue is that raising above the 300-400 ppm which is the current saline level in the Sea of Cortez will
surely cause a real alteration to marine life.
The issue of killing egg larvae and small fish is usually not any kind of a problem with desal plants as they take in a much smaller amount of water
than do power plants and there have been cases where they have spread the intakes over a larger area, so this issue does not really have much of an
impact. If we have 5,000 units in Loreto Bay and we use 3,000 gallons per month (which is a little high) we are talking only 15 million gallons per
month which is 500,000 gallons per day, which is 21 thousand gallons per hour, which is about 350 gallons per minute.
Now the real issue arises. If we are doing 15 million gallons per month and we have about a 30% brine production, we are talking approximately 4.5
million gallons of toxic brine solution every month. Now that is something that can not be put back in the sea water SAFELY.
|
|
|
Cypress
Elite Nomad
Posts: 7641
Registered: 3-12-2006
Location: on the bayou
Member Is Offline
Mood: undecided
|
|
Pescador, Thanks. You've done the research and have the facts.You can't really argue with facts, unless you've got an agenda which could
well be out of touch with reality. 
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
..
7 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
