Live data from Hacker News

Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

desertsun.com

311–320 of 347 posts

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Takes about 4000 kwh to desalinate an acre foot of water. Would take about 2GW of solar to desalinate a million acre feet of water. Los Angles takes 1.2 million acre feet of water from the Colorado. Replace that with desalinization, no heep big canal needed.

For the record, California has an estimated 5.8 GW of wind turbine generation, and in the year 2019 alone, California ADDED 3.1 GW of solar generation capacity. This doesn't require a Nuclear plant or crazy economics or giant nationwide plan. The actual building, machinery, and pipework for desalinating would be a larger infrastructure project than the extra power generation to power it. The only thing this requires…

I think the problem is that desalinating water (ignoring the environmental impact of the resulting brine) will produce water that costs at a minimum many hundreds of dollars per acre-foot. This is fine for urban use, but makes many of the current agricultural uses uneconomical. Nobody will pay $5,000/acre for water so they can sell their crop for $1,000/acre. All of these discussions dance around the fact that irrigation farmers are largely turning X dollars of water into 0.25X worth of crops, and the taxpayers are making up the difference. This is true of farmers in pretty much every state that uses colorado river water - if we erased 'water rights' and allowed the water to be competitively bid on, many farmers would either leave their land fallow or switch to less water intensive crops. We're basically giving away extremely valuable water at way below market rates, we're practically guaranteed to have a 'shortage.' It doesn't make sense to add enormously expensive infrastructure just so we can turn around and keep giving the water away.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want to live an hour outside the city and drive everywhere, you can rent a 3-bedroom detached house of a similar size as a US house reasonably easily, for about the same price. Nonesense. I just checked on rightmove for a three bed in Wallingford (a tiny town in central England a km across that consists entirely of suburbs and is an hour's drive from the edge of London). It's about 30% smaller than the avera…

I recently visited Denver for work - I have never felt so entirely trapped in my life. That's not better off to me - not having the freedom to walk, to take the bus, because you're surrounded by what I would call a "motorway" and they call a "street" is something I don't understand. Imagine trying to raise your kids to be independent human beings when they can't walk to the shops, can't visit their friends without mu…

> Anyway, try not looking around London, it's not the only city in the UK, believe it or not.

Ramsey is in North England.

> Nobody in my social circle can buy in either the US or the UK.

I could afford to buy a decent place in over 90% of the USA. Not here though (budget of £300k).

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently visited Denver for work - I have never felt so entirely trapped in my life. That's not better off to me - not having the freedom to walk, to take the bus, because you're surrounded by what I would call a "motorway" and they call a "street" is something I don't understand. Imagine trying to raise your kids to be independent human beings when they can't walk to the shops, can't visit their friends without mu…

> Anyway, try not looking around London, it's not the only city in the UK, believe it or not. Ramsey is in North England. > Nobody in my social circle can buy in either the US or the UK. I could afford to buy a decent place in over 90% of the USA. Not here though (budget of £300k).

Ramsey, Cambridgeshire, is most certainly not in Northern England. Anyone who suggests so probably has suspect knowledge.

However you both have points. But I expect that the houses you’re looking at on rightmove are not affordable, new builds, which typically are not clustered around the kinds of places you used as examples.

And a lot of USA houses are built so very cheaply. You don’t get many thatched houses stateside, right?

Not to say that English new-builds in the last 20 years are stellar examples of construction, but you do generally get a lot more house for your money.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

72% of water used in Arizona is used by Agriculture.. https://www.arizonawaterfacts.com/water-your-facts

Is this essential agriculture that can't take place in another state? Is this water frugal agriculture appropriate for the climate and actual supply, or is it water exuberant agriculture (avocados, sugar beets, applies, apricots, walnuts, cherries, peaches, nectarines, pears, plums, prunes, figs, kiwis, etc)? Percentages alone don't tell the whole story.

People like fresh fruit and vegetables year around and most of the U.S. is too cold to grow these in winter. Arizona is an exception.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks! This tracks my experience, good to hear it somewhat justified with data.

I wouldn't describe 4/5ths the size of a house as a cupboard. 50sqm sounds small to me. Does that mean that Germans and Americans live in cupboards? Or does it mean that that people prioritise different things?

50 m2 per person. Presumably single person households are a bit larger, and families a bit smaller than 50 m2 per member, but that's just an educated guess.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#316

Sad that not reading the article before commenting has so obviously come to hacker news. So many comments on here moaning about harming the east to give to a greedy west when what something like this would almost certainly do is help the east flood less while helping the west at least partly solve a water shortage. The concerns about contamination are real but probably manageable though.

Perhaps HN should ban paywalled articles? I cannot read this article.

Just open it it a private window with your browser.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We could also start mandating the use of reclaimed water in more residential settings. Seems most places if they do it only water some planters and medians. Needs to be code to run reclaimed water to new construction so it’s a least an option in the future. A lot of cleaned water is just dumped right to sea. So wasteful.

As numerous other commenters have mentioned here, even a total ban on residential water use would not make a difference to the water issue in the American West. There simply is not enough residential usage to matter.

I realize that but telling people they have to let their grass die while also dumping perfectly clean reclaimed water to the ocean is a bit silly.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#318
post #159

Most water use is for agriculture. Most agricultural water use is for meat. Beef is by far the least efficient way to turn water (and other stuff) into protein. I propose we tax meat nationwide according to its water use, instead of dreaming up unrealistic and unnecessary megaprojects.

I know you said protein, but calories are really the metric we want to use here. TL;DR: 2.1 calories/gallon for almonds, 5.3 c/g for tofu, 1,558 c/g for beef. Almonds consume 3.2 gallons of water each for just shy of 7 calories. 2.18 calories per gallon. Cows consume ~3,200 gallons of water from birth to slaughter, where they produce about 6 million calories. 1,875 calories per gallon. An additional 50 bales of hay t…

What are your sources for the cow info? I'm getting more like 30 kcal/gallon.

A cow drinks 9-12 gallons per day [1] (assuming not lactating, which takes a lot more water; let's just say these are cows being raised purely for slaughter). Call it 10 gallons/day on average.

Cows raised for slaughter live 4-6 years [2]. Call it 5 years on average.

10 gallons/day * 355 days/year * 5 years/cow ≈ 17750 gallons/cow.

Finally, the amount of energy in a cow as sold in retail stores is about 500,000 kcal [3]. That works out to about 30 kcal/gallon.

[1] https://www.amelicor.com/blog/how-much-water-should-a-cow-dr...

[2] https://thehumaneleague.org/article/dairy-cows

[3] https://old.reddit.com/r/theydidthemonstermath/comments/a8ha...

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#319
post #199
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is causing this? Is it mostly watering the lawn and gardening? Or do Americans just take longer showers? Are our toilets bigger?

Mostly watering the lawn and gardening if you follow the data

The epa link shows that 24% is toilet, 20% shower, and 19% faucet. I expected clothes washers (17%) to be far higher, frankly.

Re: Time for Army Corps of Engineers to investigate moving water West?

#320
post #119

I understand that this is mostly for agriculture, but maybe let's stop building and expanding big cities in the desert. Golf courses in Phoenix, for example, seem like an irresponsible use of water.

Golf courses in Phoenix mostly use reclaimed water so their net impact is very low.

Do you have any sources for that? Growing golf course greens is very water intensive.
Post reply on HN