California plans for desalination plants.

[Erik von Nein]

Apparently spurred on by voters complaining about water shortages California catches up with reality.

Water, Water, Everywhere...
Seeking Fresh Sources, California Turns
To the Salty Pacific, But Desalination Plants
Face Criticism on Environment, Costs
By KATHRYN KRANHOLD
January 17, 2008; Page B1


Water-short California's search to satisfy its thirst is beginning to focus on a controversial source -- the Pacific Ocean.

In November, Connecticut-based Poseidon Resources Corp. won a key regulatory approval to build a $300 million water-desalination plant in Carlsbad, north of San Diego. The facility would be the largest in the Western Hemisphere, producing 50 million gallons of drinking water a day, enough to supply about 100,000 homes.

Taking the salt out of seawater is a common way to produce drinking water in the Middle East and in other arid regions. World-wide, 13,080 desalination plants produce more than 12 billion gallons of water a day, according to the International Desalination Association.
Tampa Bay Water's desalination plant in Florida

But it has been less successful in the U.S. Desalination is more expensive than traditional sources, and critics say it harms the ocean. In 1992, Santa Barbara, Calif., shuttered a small plant after three months when rain replenished the county's main water sources. At a plant near Tampa, Fla., that Poseidon was also involved in, technical glitches increased the water's cost and, when it opened in 2003, initially limited output to less than a third of the projected 25 million gallons a day.

Southern California water officials say conditions have changed. Improved technology has cut the cost of desalination in half in the past decade, making it more competitive. And traditional water supplies, such as the Colorado River and snow-melt runoff, are becoming less reliable because of population growth and environmental restrictions.

"We have to get our water from somewhere, and it's going to be the Pacific Ocean," says Gary Arant, manager of the Valley Center Municipal Water District, which serves farms and homes around San Diego. His district has agreed to buy almost 15% of the Carlsbad plant's output. Poseidon says it has signed 30-year contracts with nine local water districts to sell all the water; about 40% would go to the city of Carlsbad.

The project has attracted big financial partners. In May, General Electric Co. said it had invested in it and would provide filtration technology. In September, Citigroup Inc.'s sustainable-development-investments unit became the lead investor in closely held Poseidon, formed in 1995 by former GE executives and private-equity firm Warburg Pincus. Andrew de Pass, the Citigroup unit's managing director, says the need for long-term water sources drove the investment. He declined to specify how much Citigroup invested.

Poseidon hopes to break ground this year and deliver water no later than 2011, providing it wins approval for its plans to mitigate the plant's impact on marine life and to offset its carbon-dioxide emissions.

The plant would initially take the saltwater discharged from an adjacent power plant that uses it for cooling, and later take water directly from the Pacific. Two sets of filters purify the water. The first set, thin tubes resembling rows of angel-hair pasta, blocks relatively large particles. The seawater is then pumped at very high pressure through dense membranes to remove salt, in a process called reverse osmosis.

This process uses a lot of electricity, contributing to its big price tag. Poseidon plans to sell the water for about $950 per acre-foot. That compares with an average $700 an acre-foot that local agencies now pay for water. (An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons, enough water for four people a year.) The Metropolitan Water District, a wholesale supplier to 18 million Southern Californians, will subsidize the difference as a way to add new water sources to the region. Poseidon President Walter Winrow says Poseidon will raise its price as local agencies pay more for water from other sources.

Peter Gleick, head of environmental think-tank Pacific Institute, says the costs of desalination projects tend to increase from those projected by sponsors, because of energy expenses and environmental requirements. "What people claim is always a little different," says Mr. Gleick.

There are other obstacles. California coastal regulators and some environmentalists say desalination uses too much energy and kills fish when the water is processed. Two environmental groups Monday filed suit to block the plant, on the grounds that it will harm marine life. Peter MacLaggan, who oversees the Carlsbad project for Poseidon, says the plant would kill about two pounds of fish a day, or "less than the daily consumption of one pelican."

Some opponents are wary of Poseidon because it was originally the co-developer of the troubled Tampa plant. Poseidon and the engineering firm it was working with estimated in 1999 that the plant would cost $110 million to build and produce water costing an average of $677 an acre-foot.

Then two engineering firms involved in the plant ran into financial difficulties, slowing work on the project.

In 2002, Tampa Bay Water, the government agency building the plant, bought out Poseidon and took on plant oversight. Tampa Bay Water ultimately brought in other companies, including units of Spain's Acciona S.A. and Germany's RWE AG, to finish and run the plant.

Last month, years behind schedule, the plant was declared fully operational, producing more than 25 million gallons of drinking water a day. Exceeding the initial estimate, construction came to $158 million, and the desalinated water costs $1,100 an acre-foot. Tom Pankratz, a Houston-based consultant to Tampa Bay Water's lawyers and a spokesman for the IDA, says there was "sloppy work" across the board. Poseidon's president, Mr. Winrow, says the company "would have managed the construction more appropriately" if it had been allowed to finish the project.

Ken Herd, Tampa Bay Water's operations director, says the plant is mostly running smoothly and the region may build more plants. Desalination is "not the cheapest source of supply, but it's drought-proof," he says.

Southern California officials toured the Tampa Bay plant before signing with Poseidon on the Carlsbad plant. Poseidon has brought in Acciona and RWE'S American Water to design and operate it.

Meanwhile, improved membranes and pumping systems have sharply reduced electricity costs. G.G. Pique, chief executive of Energy Recovery Inc., which makes desalination technology for the plant, estimates it will cost the Carlsbad plant $1.10 in electricity to produce 1,000 gallons of water. That is down from $2.10 per 1,000 gallons at the mothballed Santa Barbara plant, which he was also involved in.

The push on the Carlsbad plant comes as the National Academy of Sciences nears completion of a report on the potential role of desalination in meeting U.S. water needs.

Water experts are watching closely. California regulators are mulling as many as 20 proposed seawater projects that could produce 500 million gallons of water a day for the state. Poseidon is planning a second major plant in Huntington Beach, about 60 miles north of Carlsbad. "We're excited about the prospects," says Mike Chrisman, California's Secretary of Water Resources.

Write to Kathryn Kranhold at kathryn.kranhold@wsj.com

[Sea Skimmer]

They’d better start building a nuclear plant to go with each one of them; California has a demand for electrical power that’s growing at an absurd rate. In an ideal world they’d could actually just install a bank of those new totally self contained reactors right on the site of the plant, but that’s not ever going to happen.

[Broomstick]

The only problem with "build nuke plants" is that people are freaky about putting nuclear reactors near major fault lines and California IS part of the Ring of Fire. And well known for earthquakes.

Yes, the weather is lovely but it may not have been the best location for a large population requiring a lot of water and power.

[Adrian Laguna]

The only problem with "build nuke plants" is that people are freaky about putting nuclear reactors near major fault lines and California IS part of the Ring of Fire. And well known for earthquakes.

If people will not recognize that the uncertain risk of a plant cracking open is insignificant compared to the certain risk of the entire state suffering from severe water shortages, then they shouldn't complain when they're all dying of thirst.

Of course even if a plant does crack open, I doubt the effect would be more severe than elevated cancer risk among a few tens of thousands of people. Not like they're going to build the things in the middle of metropolitan areas.

[Broomstick]

Please understand I am taking the Devil's Advocate position on this one - this is not what I believe/understand but what I think will be a knee-jerk reaction by Joe Public or the media:

The only problem with "build nuke plants" is that people are freaky about putting nuclear reactors near major fault lines and California IS part of the Ring of Fire. And well known for earthquakes.

If people will not recognize that the uncertain risk of a plant cracking open is insignificant compared to the certain risk of the entire state suffering from severe water shortages, then they shouldn't complain when they're all dying of thirst.

Of course even if a plant does crack open, I doubt the effect would be more severe than elevated cancer risk among a few tens of thousands of people.

Chernobyl

Not like they're going to build the things in the middle of metropolitan areas.

Three Mile Island

First working nuclear reactor was built in the middle of Chicago.

[Erik von Nein]

Why argue for a position so blantantly wrong that you don't even agree with it, anyway? It's not as if Chernobyl or Three Mile Island haven't been done to death around here, anyway. Besides, even if they haven't they're easy enough to counter if someone knows the slightest bit about what happened.

We all know a lot of people irrationally fear nuclear power because of those two incidents, along with nuclear weapons in general and scare mongering from environuts for decades. Giving a devils advocate positon is pointless.

[Tsyroc]

I was going to mention all the NIMBYs and Envirowackos/human haters who are going to crawl out of the California woodwork just to protest the desalination plants without any of the plants also being nuclear.

You just know that people are going to bitch about where they put the things. Whether it ruins their view or it's going to be built on the site of the endangered ass scratching see slug or some other bullshit. I just see the cost of these pants and the hassle just being horrendous. They already need these things and I imagine that even the process of getting them designed and approved is going to be a nightmare.

There are other obstacles. California coastal regulators and some environmentalists say desalination uses too much energy and kills fish when the water is processed. Two environmental groups Monday filed suit to block the plant, on the grounds that it will harm marine life. Peter MacLaggan, who oversees the Carlsbad project for Poseidon, says the plant would kill about two pounds of fish a day, or "less than the daily consumption of one pelican."

It wouldn't be too much energy if they were also nuclear power stations you jackholes.

I'm surprised no one hasn't complained about the long term dangers of drinking water with all of the minerals taken out of it, or what water like that will do to the environement if it's dumped in large quantities. Maybe those will come later if California ever starts using very large quantities of desalinated water.

Most of California needs to realize it's a desert and start landscaping that way and using water that way but if places like Phoenix and Las Vegas can keep on doing stupid ass shit that wastes ridiculous amounts of water there's no reason to think that California is going to get anywhere pushing for water restrictions.

At least California uses a lot of it's water in agriculture instead of for some of the bs that Phoenix and Las Vegas use if for. They could probably find a few less water intensive ways to do the same things but they probably need a push or incentive to do so.

[Broomstick]

Why argue for a position so blantantly wrong that you don't even agree with it, anyway?

I'm not arguing for or against it. Whether we like it or not the majority of people are ignorant jackasses when it comes to science and technology, not to mention risk management and trade-offs.

Anyone who seriously proposes building such things had better have a response for the NIMBY's, BANANA's, and other whackos and ignorants who will come out of the cracks.

[Broomstick]

I'm surprised no one hasn't complained about the long term dangers of drinking water with all of the minerals taken out of it

Me, too - I know people who seriously think that drinking even one glass of distilled water is deadly. (I also know someone who has been drinking distilled water only for years, ever since it was a pregnancy craving, so there's proof it's not poison)

At least California uses a lot of it's water in agriculture instead of for some of the bs that Phoenix and Las Vegas use if for. They could probably find a few less water intensive ways to do the same things but they probably need a push or incentive to do so.

In defense of Phoenix, a lot of the water in the area is also used for agriculture and has been for centuries. I must, however, protest the golf courses and the idiot neighborhoods that require grass yards. (I have friends with natural landscaping - I love it, pick the litter up a couple times a year, otherwise the rocks take care of themselves and you never need to mow the cactus. It's beyond me why anyone would want anything else in that area.)

[Adrian Laguna]

Please understand I am taking the Devil's Advocate position on this one - this is not what I believe/understand but what I think will be a knee-jerk reaction by Joe Public or the media:

I know. I was just outlining why the public's reaction is stupid. Even if a plant cracks open and kills hundreds, or even thousands, of people, that's still an acceptable risk compared to an energy crunch + global warming leaving anywhere between hundreds of thousands and millions of people without water. The average person sees radiation as something far scarier than water scarcity, which is quite irrational.

Absolutely all of the complaints brought up can be brushed aside, as you are aware no doubt. Though I doubt logic would be unable to stand-up to the media re-running Chernobyl footage day after day.

First working nuclear reactor was built in the middle of Chicago.

"The pile", named such by Enrico Fermi because his command of English wasn't strong enough to provide something more clever or descriptive. I'm aware of it, Chicago is not known for its geological activity. Regardless, if they do build near a metropolitan area, it'll be because the plant was built to withstand the most severe earthquakes the area will be receiving over the next several centuries.

[Erik von Nein]

Why argue for a position so blantantly wrong that you don't even agree with it, anyway?

I'm not arguing for or against it. Whether we like it or not the majority of people are ignorant jackasses when it comes to science and technology, not to mention risk management and trade-offs.

I know that, seeing as how I live near one of the old nuclear power plants in the country. But why bring it up here? It's like in other threads people start spouting off fundie lines we've either all heard hundreds of times that have easy counters. It's pointless. If you found some group that had some major opposition to the projects and either couldn't respond yourself, needed some help responding or just needed more people to put pressure on them then that would make more sense.

Anyone who seriously proposes building such things had better have a response for the NIMBY's, BANANA's, and other whackos and ignorants who will come out of the cracks.

Of course they will but just spouting off Chernobyl or Three Mile Island without anything else or any kind of evidence from a group or from people in general that serious opposes these seems just so pointless, especially when you don't actually believe it.

Maybe it's just that I've always felt "devil's advocate" arguing was stupid.

[Adrian Laguna]

I doubt logic would be unable to stand-up to the media re-running Chernobyl footage day after day.

That would be "able to withstand". If I doubted logic's inability to withstand bullshit appeals to emotion, then I would be showing far more faith in the average human than I have.

[Broomstick]

Maybe it's just that I've always felt "devil's advocate" arguing was stupid.

Are you aware of the origin of the term "devil's advocate"? It does shed some light on its usefulness.

[Tsyroc]

Me, too - I know people who seriously think that drinking even one glass of distilled water is deadly. (I also know someone who has been drinking distilled water only for years, ever since it was a pregnancy craving, so there's proof it's not poison)

I drank it for years in the Navy. It tastes great, presuming no one has managed to dump JP5 through the lines.

I also used to change the water in my fish bowl every week to week and a half with distilled water. That fish lived as long as expected and probably two years longer than the same type of fish some friends of mine got a the same time.

In defense of Phoenix, a lot of the water in the area is also used for agriculture and has been for centuries. I must, however, protest the golf courses and the idiot neighborhoods that require grass yards. (I have friends with natural landscaping - I love it, pick the litter up a couple times a year, otherwise the rocks take care of themselves and you never need to mow the cactus. It's beyond me why anyone would want anything else in that area.)

I use "Phoenix" in the broadest terms when I should probably say the Maricopa County Metro area, or the Phoenix Metro Area, because it's some of the surrounding 'burbs that are the big offenders up there. There have been more than a couple big developments which have manufactured large artificial lakes big enough to sail boats on.

My aunt and uncle used to live in Fountain Hills, where there's this big pond in which a fountain shoots water a hundred feet or so into the air every night. Meanwhile, here in Tucson you can get fined if your sprinklers get too much water on the sidewalk or if you are caught wasting water in some other way.

I also get a little touchy about water because the states which the Colorado River goes through and borders are all competing for their share of water from the river. California is especially greedy in this regard and hasn't done much to curtail water usage or develope alternative sources when it actually has options. There aren't a lot of other options for Nevada, Colorado, Arizona and to some extent Utah.

[Darth Fanboy]

I used to use nothing but Distilled water when changing the water in my fish tanks, and the stuff wasn't bad to drink either.

[Drewcifer]

They’d better start building a nuclear plant to go with each one of them....

The anonymous power plant mentioned in the article...

The plant would initially take the saltwater discharged from an adjacent power plant that uses it for cooling....

...is the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.
Google Maps link

[Drewcifer]

Strike that, I was wrong.

The desal plant is being built next to the Encina Power Station.

http://www.carlsbad-desal.com/project_overview.asp

San Onofre is just a few miles up the 5, though.