• qyron@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You have thousands of kilometres of coast; if you don’t dessalinate it’s because you don’t want to.

    • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      So far, desalination has not been a useful solution to the problem. Companies have been trying to create useful desalination plants for decades. The current process is expensive, inefficient, slow and creates toxic residuals. For these reasons, the current technology does not scale up very well at all.

      • soEZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This a really bad take. Seawater deal with RO is a marvel of efficiency, only 2-3 times above the thermodynamic limit of demixing water from salt. It does not really generate toxic waste like coal fired power plants, but does produce lots of brine with various organics (antiscalants, surfactants etc.) that are not that great. The key issue is water is very cheap from traditional sources (surface water and groundwater) and requires rather crude treatment to be usable, resulting in very low cost. Hence why desal is used in areas where they have no choice. If you don’t have surface/ground water source or brackish water source you are doing seawater deal or leave the area…not many choices. At least RO is electrified so it can use renewables but that does not really solve the much higher cost…or issue of brine generation, with zld have a set of it’s own issues costs…

        • grue@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It does not really generate toxic waste like coal fired power plants

          It generates all the waste associated with the electricity it uses, which is often from coal fired power plants…

          • qyron@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Considering the area a desalination plant requires, fitting it with wind and solar would not pose a challenge.

            • grue@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              By the same argument, replacing the coal fired power plant with wind and solar wouldn’t pose a challenge either.

              The point is, you’ve got to compare apples to apples: either coal power vs. desalinization powered by coal, or renewables vs. desalinization powered by renewables. In every case, the pollution produced by the desalinization process (i.e., the brine etc.) is simply added to the pollution produced by whatever means was used to generate the power for it, which means @soEZ’s attempt to compare desalinization to power generation doesn’t make much sense.

              • qyron@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                A coal burning plant has a comparisable smaller base of implantation; deactivating the coal plant to have it replaced by a solar or a wind (if even possible) would hardly output the same energy.

                By comparison, a desalination plant takes a large area, by the shore, where wind and solar are plentiful, so it can be fitted with such energy source from the start.

                The brines can and should be channeled to harvest the salts in it. The salt is raw matter for chemical industry.

                It’s amazing how quick we are to find problems to a promising solution but the moment extracting water from surface or underground sources becomes impossible or unfeaseable we will resort to those solutions.

                • money_loo@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, you’re just clearly too stupid in history and geology to know that when the groundwater runs out, so does tomorrow. /S

                  • qyron@sopuli.xyz
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Are we resorting to basic insult, now?

                    The situation is dire - for us - but the planet is not going to spontaneously combust with us on the surface.

                    sigh

                    I am fucking fed up with all the fucking doom and gloom every half shit media outlet burps ou, tailored to stirr panic into everyone and their grandmother.

                    Everybody is a genius but nobody really has an answer to actually fucking solve anything. Everybody is acting on a pin’s head trying to discover what is going to happen next and in the meanwhile nobody can be bothered to actually do something proactively to enact change, like perhaps voting!

                    Like it or not, at some point, even for preservation purposes, we will source more of our water from the oceans because it will be that or death.

                    My country has already transitioned into a fully sustainable power grid, using hydroeletric, solar and wind, and plans to implement more sustainable energy sources is under way. We are also converting a refinery to produce green hydrogen and we’ve already phased out coal, with only a couple of fossil gas plants still in operation. Meanwhile, every sane person is trying their best to make their homes more efficient and even trying to be self reliant on energy, through solar and wind.

                    We are facing constant droughts and dry spells and public pressure is being put on the government, regardless of color, to implement desalination plants regardless of cost so we can maintain our country alive.

                    I am fed up with everyone spelling doom and gloom left and right but nobody cares to recognize the small things being done now!

                    Have nice one and piss off!

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        With enough demand, enough money for R&D will show up to improve the technology.

        But regardless the current costs, that did not stop Israel to source all their water from the sea from very early, as well as other countries have for regions where there isn’t enough drinking water available.

        In my country, it’s used to supply our islands territories and even by some hotels for pool water.

        And the problem with the brine has me scratching my head, as I’ve read sources where the process required chemical treatment of the water and others where it’s stated the process is entirely physical.

        • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I am not using any form of AI or other assistance. I am just old and have a lot of experience writing. Have a look at my post history to see the consistency in my writing style, even when I’m ripping a conservative apart.

          I realize I copy/pasted my last line to the beginning instead of cut/paste, so it looks absurd now that I look at it again. I will fix that now.

    • doggle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      America does desalinate in it’s coastal regions. Increasing desalination is prohibitively expensive. Shipping water inland is preposterously expensive. Even if you spend the money, scaling up takes years or even decades.

      There are reasons America, like nearly all other nations, gets a relatively small amount of it’s fresh water from desalination.

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        […] Increasing desalination is prohibitively expensive. Shipping water inland is preposterously expensive. Even if you spend the money, scaling up takes years or even decades.

        Just like oil and natural gas?

        There are reasons America, like nearly all other nations, gets a relatively small amount of it’s fresh water from desalination.

        The way desertification is advancing in California (there must be other places facing the same problem) there will be a tipping point where mass scale desalination will be implemented.

        • 2nsfw2furious@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Just like oil and natural gas?

          Yes, which both cost many orders of magnitude more than water right now. If water was dollars per gallon like fuel is, we’d be in an extremely bad spot for livability.

        • Chaotic Entropy@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Orrr… a tipping point where the human population becomes wholly unsustainable and starts to tear itself apart in “The Water Wars”, as they’ll be called.

      • Wogi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not that hard.

        It isn’t profitable. And so nestle won’t do it until it is.

      • jcit878@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Desal itself isnt really that hard, its very similar tech to regular wastewater treatment. What it is though is energy intensive, because the desalinated water starts its life at the lowest altitude and must be pumped up network to be gravity fed like regular water sources. very energy intensive

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Here is the rationale:

        a) factories create wealth

        b) [in order to create wealth] factories create jobs

        c) jobs return taxes

        d) taxes return money

        e) money can be returned to factories to hold it in place

        For water extraction, we only need to add a line where we state water is replenishable, another stating that is easy and cheap to extract and a third where we expand on how water is a good in constant demand, thus, easily marketable.

        Desalination is not a question of “if” it should be established but a “when” one.

    • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Like everything in life, it’s not that simple.

      One thing that is simple, however, is googling the answer to this question before making an uninformed response.

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        There is a limit for how much water consumption can be reduced, how much water can be reused and how much preserved untouched.

        It is actually a subject I actually find interesting. All the criticism put towards the technology could be as easily applied to the internal combustion engine: its inefficient, produces larges amounts of residues and is expensive to run.

        There are several large scale operations already in place (Israel sources its water from the sea, as well as several other nations where drinking water is scarce) and even hotels use it to source water for swimming pools.

        There is, of course, the problem of distribution but we’ve already invented pipelines, haven’t we? And a water pipeline bursting could cause floods but no great concern lasting environmental damage, unlike oil or liquified natural gas.

        • PetDinosaurs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          so you agree with me? it’s not simple. it’s not just because “you don’t want to”. desalinization is extremely technically challenging.

          • qyron@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            All the criticism put towards the technology could be as easily applied to the internal combustion engine: its inefficient, produces larges amounts of residues and is expensive to run.

            This was an attempt at being sarcastic.

            If we’re running a technology by all means obsolete (internal combustion engine) and do it overlooking its drawbacks running current technology for dessalination can very well follow the same reasoning.

            I read a good deal of criticism towards dessalination regarding the disposal of the brine. That is a fair point but those brines could very well be reprocessed for minerals harvesting including lithium, which has great demand. Even by just harvesting the salt, we’d be getting an important resource.

            There is, of course, the problem of distribution but we’ve already invented pipelines, haven’t we?

            This is true and we already do it. Fresh water is distributed over huge distances using high pressure and volume. The infrastructure already exists.

            And a water pipeline bursting could cause floods but no great concern lasting environmental damage, unlike oil or liquified natural gas.

            I’ve lived where this happened once and it was not pretty. A low point of high density residencial area got flooded. Water reached somewhere around 80cm high. Damage to cars and ground stories, water distribution interrupted for 3 days. But no lasting damage.

      • reallynotnick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m going to be dense as I have no knowledge in this area, but can you just put it back in the ocean? I assume with sea levels rising the ocean is getting less salty so it wouldn’t be harmful as long as we spread it out/did it slowly?

        • Cethin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, but how it’s done is hard and expensive. If you just pump it into one spot you kill everything around with high salt concentrations. You can pump it far out to sea and disperse it over a large area, but that requires pipes going out to sea. The pipes would probably be made of metal, which salt water and metal don’t mix well, not to mention the brine in the pipe. You also need pumping stations along the pipe because it can’t perpetually slope down, and if it goes below sea level it needs to be pumped out.

          Basically, it’s complicated and expensive and not as easy as just dumping it into the ocean.

          • qyron@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Reprocess it for minerals harvesting, like lithium, or just evaporate it and keep the salt, which by itself is a resource for chemical industry.

            • Cethin
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              If it were that easy then it wouldn’t be an issue.

              • qyron@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I made that same observation some time back and the answer I got was: money.

                Why spend the money to develop a technology to harvest a mineral from the sea with probably minimal to no impact to the environment when you can simply use already existing tech and just open a hole in the ground?

    • Smoogs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Desalination produces a massive pull on using more fossil fuels. It’s an emergency procedure. Not an end goal. Read a book.

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well, put me in a red dress and pony tails and call me Shirley…

        Haven’t we discovered other ways to harvest energy besides fossil fuels? Perhaps wind a solar might be an answer to that problem?

        My own country is in the process of converting a former refinery into a green hydrogen plant and part of the conversion goes into installing a few gigawatts of power in solar and wind.

        Couldn’t this same solution be used for desalination?