Aqueducts or Desalination?

[Aquaman2]

Anyone know what is more economical? Many areas of the world are flooded, but many are experiencing extreme drought. Can you move enough water from one to another? Is it cheaper to transport dirty fresh water by aqueducts to drought areas, then purify the water? Or is it cheaper to desalinate local sea water? The Romans built aqueducts in ancient times the hard way. Today we have earth moving equipment. Why not build aqueducts to transport fresh (but dirty) water hundreds of miles?

 

[hammies]

For coastal areas desal is the way to go. Uses a lot of electricity but so does moving water uphill.

 

[Aquaman2]

For coastal areas desal is the way to go. Uses a lot of electricity but so does moving water uphill.

Every situation may be different. As you say, better to desal near the coast, but in rain-flooded regions it may be possible to move freshwater hundreds of miles, if you get any gravity assist along the way. The water flows mostly downhill, but it will take power to pump water over humps in the landscape. New construction should factor in water storage to soak up rainwater like a sponge.

 

[hammies]

The amount of water necessary to impact western drought conditions is enormous. For example, the CA water project moves about 4 million acre-feet per year, or around 4 billion gallons a day. You would need to move several times that amount from east of the Mississippi to west of the Rockies to really make the drought go away, let's say 30 billion gallons a day. The Rockies and Sierras are a couple of really formidable obstacles. I don't see it happening in my or my kids' lifetimes.

 

[CCKeith]

aqueduct, from canada

 

[npsp]

Ocean and brackish water desal along with potable reuse near the coast makes the most sense. There's also a lot of PFAS contaminated ground water that can now be treated to potable quality.
As Hammies noted above, it does not make sense to convey hundreds of billions of gallons across the country. Even if the power was there to move water over the mountains, just the land, easements and right of ways will take $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ and decades to secure. Then the permitting, that adds another couple of decades before the first shovel hits the dirt.

 

[Aquaman2]

This Youtube is about repurposing oil and gas (does this mean LGN, liquified natural gas?) pipelines. If you are not using the pipelines for oil and gas transport, you can clean the pipes and pump water thru them. Water has much lower viscosity than oil or gas. You can transport a thousand times as much water as oil or gas. The cost of transporting water OUT from areas about to get soaked with rain, INTO drought areas is less than the economic damage flooding and drought cause. This will depend on very accurate weather forecasts which seems likely soon using AI. Areas about to be flooded, pump out their fresh water from their reservoirs, which will get filled again after the rain. There is more in this Youtube which I hope to comment on later, after I watch it again. Anyone see any errors in this video?

 

[Ifallalot]

Anyone know what is more economical? Many areas of the world are flooded, but many are experiencing extreme drought. Can you move enough water from one to another? Is it cheaper to transport dirty fresh water by aqueducts to drought areas, then purify the water? Or is it cheaper to desalinate local sea water? The Romans built aqueducts in ancient times the hard way. Today we have earth moving equipment. Why not build aqueducts to transport fresh (but dirty) water hundreds of miles?

Been saying this for years

Romans had it figured out 2000 years ago

 

[plasticbertrand]

Been saying this for years

Romans had it figured out 2000 years ago

Naive and childish thinking.

Also, Europe is not the desert.

 

[npsp]

This Youtube is about repurposing oil and gas (does this mean LGN, liquified natural gas?) pipelines. If you are not using the pipelines for oil and gas transport, you can clean the pipes and pump water thru them. Water has much lower viscosity than oil or gas. You can transport a thousand times as much water as oil or gas. The cost of transporting water OUT from areas about to get soaked with rain, INTO drought areas is less than the economic damage flooding and drought cause. This will depend on very accurate weather forecasts which seems likely soon using AI. Areas about to be flooded, pump out their fresh water from their reservoirs, which will get filled again after the rain. There is more in this Youtube which I hope to comment on later, after I watch it again. Anyone see any errors in this video?

I'll have to watch the video to comment but this has been kicked around for years. Unfortunately, you could repurpose all of the east west running O&G pipelines in the US to convey water and they would not deliver the needed quantity to slake our thirst.
The main issue is that weather is variable. Areas that are now flood prone also experience drought cycles too.
The best bet is better management and development of our local water resources.

 

[kidfury]

perhaps we could put a water pipeline on top of Trump's wall

 

[hammies]

Let's say the West needs a billion gallons an hour, 24/7/365.

You need to build an aqueduct 100 feet wide and 50 feet deep and pump the water at 5 miles per hour. From the Mississippi to CA is about 2,000 miles. Crossing the Rockies and Sierras. Doable but it would prob cost several $Trillion, and operating costs would be ginormous. Plus you would need multiple power plants along the way just to power the pumps.

Ain't gonna happen.

 

[kidfury]

Let's say the West needs a billion gallons an hour, 24/7/365.

You need to build an aqueduct 100 feet wide and 50 feet deep and pump the water at 5 miles per hour. From the Mississippi to CA is about 2,000 miles. Crossing the Rockies and Sierras. Doable but it would prob cost several $Trillion, and operating costs would be ginormous. Plus you would need multiple power plants along the way just to power the pumps.

Ain't gonna happen.

helicopters

 

[SurfFuerteventura]

I like when Tesla's ideas come to fruition.

Every home should have a unit that produces water and electricity for free, from the air in the home or just outside.

 

[Kento]

Let's say the West needs a billion gallons an hour, 24/7/365.

You need to build an aqueduct 100 feet wide and 50 feet deep and pump the water at 5 miles per hour. From the Mississippi to CA is about 2,000 miles. Crossing the Rockies and Sierras. Doable but it would prob cost several $Trillion, and operating costs would be ginormous. Plus you would need multiple power plants along the way just to power the pumps.

Ain't gonna happen.

Wouldn't it be more cost-friendly to haul icebergs from Greenland, Alaska, Antarctica, etc.?

 

[npsp]

Wouldn't it be more cost-friendly to haul icebergs from Greenland, Alaska, Antarctica, etc.?

Ha!
I'm in a couple of water resources LinkedIn groups where there are a couple of folks that are all in on towing icebergs and/or repurposing oil tankers to haul water and ice to drought prone areas. These schemes are always rendered impractical due to the volume of water required to make a difference.

 

[Kento]

Ha!
I'm in a couple of water resources LinkedIn groups where there are a couple of folks that are all in on towing icebergs and/or repurposing oil tankers to haul water and ice to drought prone areas. These schemes are always rendered impractical due to the volume of water required to make a difference.

It would be like a larger version of Baldy/Big Bear tourists filling their truck beds with snow to bring home. Snowballs on the radio antenna are a good touch too.

You would definitely need a bigger, faster boat and a lot of them too. But still better for the time being than bringing Europa back here (shut up Hal).

 

[Aquaman2]

Wouldn't it be more cost-friendly to haul icebergs from Greenland, Alaska, Antarctica, etc.?

"A single iceberg would hold the equivalent water capacity of several hundred tanker ships... towing an iceberg into a bay, where it could melt and be broken up to provide enough potable water for several weeks to several months."
Transporting Potable Water by Sea (maritime-executive.com)

 

[Mr Doof]

Q. Aqueducts or Desalination?


A. I would choose desalination, mainly because places where there is a lot of water actually have natural and man-made systems built for that environment and depend on that order of things.

 

[ElOgro]

Q. Aqueducts or Desalination?


A. I would choose desalination, mainly because places where there is a lot of water actually have natural and man-made systems built for that environment and depend on that order of things.

B. What he said.

A cross country aqueduct is pie in the sky. California should have been building desalination plants from back when they should have building more nukes. Like 20 years ago. They should start building both right now.