Earlier quoted context omitted.
That industry led to lots of chemical dumping in the area, so watch out.
I’ve heard people say it makes chilis extra spicy.
Someone should make a YouTube video: Top 5 Heavy-metals cocktails for the spiciest chili.
California is not in drought
211–216 of 216 posts
Re: California is not in drought
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would it be a good idea to log the trees and drop them in a bog, or the equivalent, so that the carbon isn't released into the atmosphere?
not sure we have enough bogs to do that -- it might be an expensive proposition. It would be nice if we could find a way to mass produce petrified wood, though.
Convert it to charcoal, which is almost pure carbon, then dump it in an ocean trench for long-term geological recycling.
Re: California is not in drought
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Snow that melted last year and ran out to sea is simply no longer available to us this year, no matter how much of it there was. There is no economically plausible way to capture enough of the excess in one year to last us through extended dry periods. It's a pretty old technology known as a "reservoir".
Reservoirs are expensive. The commenter you are replying to was careful to use the phrase "economically plausible."
Here's a list of dams and reservoirs in California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in....
You'll note that there was one completed in the 2010s and one in the 2000s. There were 33 completed in the 1920s.
The US produces 30 times as much as it did in 1920, in real terms. It is "economically plausible" for a nation 30 times richer than it used to be to produce some tiny fraction of the infrastructure it used to produce.
Californians might not want to build reservoirs, Californians might be too incompetent to build reservoirs, Californians might prefer blaming a snowpack that melts out slightly earlier to building reservoirs, California might prefer saving snails and slugs to building reservoirs, but California, undeniably, has the money to build reservoirs.
Re: California is not in drought
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
California isn't big on dietary staple agricultural goods. The five biggest ag businesses are dairy, grapes, almonds, cattle, pistachios, and strawberries, none of which we really need to grow here. They're luxury foods generally. There's not that much that's grown here that couldn't be grown elsewhere.
The California central valley is probably the best climate on Earth for growing almonds and that is why about 70% of the world almond production happens there. If we don't really need to grow them here, then one does not really need almonds at all. But what singular food item does the world really need?
I don't think the issue is that people are growing almonds in California or even that growing almonds in California takes a large amount of water. The issue as I understand it is that water rights in California (and everywhere else) are a mess and that there are no incentives that would allow water rights that are being used for relatively unproductive uses to be transferred to people using them for more productive uses.
Re: California is not in drought
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reservoirs are expensive. The commenter you are replying to was careful to use the phrase "economically plausible."
Here's a list of dams and reservoirs in California: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_and_reservoirs_in... . You'll note that there was one completed in the 2010s and one in the 2000s. There were 33 completed in the 1920s. The US produces 30 times as much as it did in 1920, in real terms. It is "economically plausible" for a nation 30 times richer than it used to be to produce some tiny fraction of the infra…
Has it occurred to you that we already built ones where they're geographically and economically feasible, and that's why we've slowed down their construction?
Reservoirs require land with natural geographic boundaries (such as valleys), will displace any human populations in them, and will completely destroy whatever existing flora and fauna exists in there. Perhaps Californians are trying to wrangle with the idea that destroying ecosystems at great financial expense to deal with the problems caused by destroying other ecosystems isn't the right way to approach problem-solving.
Re: California is not in drought
#216> But we legislated and plumbed this state for a different climate pattern, when annual winter rains reliably fell on Sonoma and points north, and a full Sierra snowpack reliably melted through the spring and summer to feed streams and irrigate orchards and farm fields. That era is long gone. The snowpack comes unpredictably, because a warmer climate means water that formerly stayed in the mountains as snow through t…
> It will be good to know what that will be like from a client side perspective, speed, streaming etc. Being born and raised in California and, and having been there until my mid 20s with occasional year long long projects and several trips back to see family I can tell you the winter snowfall are definitely lower. This years crazy January freak me the hell out after having lived in Colorado where it's typical to hav…
FYI the shade balls aren't primarily about conserving water; that's just a side-benefit. There's a Veritasium video about it.
The shade balls are primarily to prevent the water's antibacterial chemicals from interacting with sunlight and becoming poisonous.
This became necessary after some recent upstream changes in the process.