Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by tweakmonkey, Mar 30, 2015.
Watch this one - crazy.
Only short term thinkers believe that water is an infinite resource. We've been under (voluntary) water austerity measures for three years now.
There is no snow pack to replenish the aquifers. Rain just runs right back to the sea and not much makes it back into the underground reservoirs.
It's a real concern. Last year the creek went dry and I had to pull out of the underground supply for my garden. I pulled at night and ran a drip system so as to not compete with the
need of the forest. as soon as the sun comes up, the trees and vegetation drop what water is visible on the surface down to nothing. The evaporation that plants do is
extreme. This goes for crops too. I have to commend those that let their lawns dry up last year. I do wonder what took so long for people to be willing to put their egos
aside enough to make a common sense move though. We've been letting our lawn go for three years now. I guess it's just another one of those beliefs where a thing doesn't exist if it can't be seen.
Another thing about ground water depletion, is that as the hydrostatic pressure drops in the ground water and water tables near the coast, sea water seeps into the areas that once were full of
fresh drinking water. Areas like the Bay Area will run out of drinking water as well as every major metropolitan area close to the sea. This is not theory, it is fact and it's not a future calamity, it's happening now. Still, I see so much water wasted it makes me sick.
fuck it! who needs water desalination plants? lets spend money on our high speed rail! who needs the most fertile ground in the world producing food?!
Nuke plants + desalination. We still need a new New Deal to rebuild this country.
Do they think they've solved the newkyular waste issue? Can we store it between your mattress and box-spring? How 'bout the tsunami/earthquake issue? Fukushima was only 3-4 yrs. ago.
There should be solar arrays in space beaming energies down to the Earthlings. We need outfrastructure.
Cost and scale, nukes are cheap, easy & safe if you don't use 1960s tech a la Fukishima.
The first defense should be 'sustainability'.
Water shortage is as with government spending, cut out the waste and a good portion of the problems go away.
People won't change in a "me first" civilization.
Welcome to 'Dune'
Don't disagree however there are short term demands and industries that will collapse without it. Not to mention, the population is not going to decrease.
In the long term, the short term won't matter.
The wars over water will dwarf the one's we presently have over oil.
As you've pointed out, we're damned if we do, and we're damned if we don't.
We've gotten ourselves into a pickle. The best we can hope for is that this climate conundrum
is a short cyclical thing and all gets back to the normal as the industries and politicians are trying to tell us.
It's about preservation. I used to live in socal and I know how much water people waste to make their lawns look nice and green. It's fucking stupid if you spend any amount of time in any other state, it's a drastic contrast in awareness. It's a huge waste of water. Fix the thinking as it applies to water usage and its conservation and CA might have a fighting chance.
Utah has low water. (according to USGS)
Southern Utah is a desert.
Arizona is a desert.
Nevada is a desert.
Central Cali is a desert.
So cal has green grass and palm trees!
San diego looks like paradise!
Tijuana is a fucking desert.
Rosarito is a desert...
Somebody is doing something wrong here....
The California aqueduct that was supplying lots of the needed H2O from the North, is no longer reliable as there is no snow pack to supply it.
Northern California and Southern Oregon are already having big water battles and water rights are being compromised big time. For the first time I can remember,
Mt. Shasta had absolutely no ski season and the aquifers that supply the aqueduct are going dry.\
I raised just as many veggies to preserve last year as I've ever done. It was the type of veggy grown that was different. I had to adjust to what I could grow,
rather than what I wanted to grow.
I raise high yield, low water consuming items. Irrigated with a drip system. A side benefit? No weeds because I was only putting water to the actual crop.
1/3 of my garden went fallow last year and I still got enough to last between growing seasons.
It's not just a California problem. With the exception of possibly cattle derived items, the rest of the ten top money makers in it's ag biz are all luxury items, not
items designed to deter starvation or supply highly nutritious foodstuff.
They are not "needs", they are "wants". People need their wants so the ag biz grows those crops. Biz follows the cash....always. We don't get to vilify industry,
it's just doing what industry does.
Maybe if Californians paid what water was actually with there, then there would be mute for the people who actually need it, and less for the people wasting it?
A good article on the artificial prices on such s scarce resource:
Marketplace had a good piece on the last time Los Angeles had a severe water crisis, and Mulholland's answer at that time.
Nuclear power is actually much less harmful to the environment than any other method when compared to the power output. Nuclear reactors throughout the US are designed to be inherently stable. That means that as long as there is pressurized water on the plant, it will essentially try to shut itself down unless operators force it to remain critical. As for the nuclear waste, it isn't as harmful as the media would like you to believe. Yes, it does emit radiation. But, that radiation can be completely shielded with just 6 feet of water. Drop it into the ocean, and you will never have any threat. Also, there is far more naturally occurring radioactive elements throughout the ocean floors when compared to anything we can dump. Us dumping radioactive waste into the ocean is essentially like placing a drop of food coloring into an Olympic sized swimming pool. Yes, it's still there but you would never know it.
Now, compare the effects of safely operated nuclear power plants to the waste from coal fired power plants. Coal actually has small amounts of thorium and uranium entrapped in it. Burning coal will concentrate the thorium and uranium, meaning fly ash is actually far more radioactive than any form of nuclear waste. Then you also need to consider solar power. The production of solar panels actually uses many very toxic chemicals. Those chemicals are dangerous to just dump in a landfill at the end of their life, so the resulting pollution from the panels is actually horrible when compared to the energy they provide. Geothermal power is actually pretty promising (in my opinion), but the cost is so substantial that most people could never afford to do it. Air power is also a great way to get energy, but the generation of energy is very sporadic and unpredictable.
So, I personally would much rather use nuclear power when compared to the alternate options. It just has to be done safely, and the plant can not be pushed beyond the limits which it was designed to operate.
Drinking water and electric lighting? (huh?)
Infrastructure like the aqueduct solution is all fine and dandy, but doesn't solve anything. It just takes from somewhere else.
People continue to waste as before. Brown is encouraging water districts to raise rates. "encouraging" WTF? There should be mandatory
rate increases and not small ones. People buying water take the stuff for granted when it should be viewed as a precious resource.
The price of water for everyone should be as volatile as the price of gold or even more so. We can live without gold, but can we live without water?
Until Godzilla comes and wrecks the world's collective anus.
Not that it's likely or anything, but dumping incredibly dense things things into the Marianas trench would pretty much ensure that whatever went down would not come back up.
It would honestly be fine. Unless you are within a foot of the waste, you wouldn't even know it's there. The steel of a submarine would shield even more of the radiation.
~Will Courtier ~
... and I don't even like almonds all that much!
Look at the price....the growers do like almonds. I remember, as a kid living in Durham Ca. all the almond orchards. They were everywhere.
Our house was surrounded by them. The sprinklers went 24/7. The farmers called them "gold" because they made so much money growing them.
harvest time everyone was flush. It was the best job for a kid. Now the rich can and do pay the price for almonds, So cali grows almonds and not
less water intensive crops. Yah-yah.....I know it's economics. The rich will pay the price in dollars, we pay the price in water so the rich can pay the
price in gold. It's kind of a backwards way of thinking. When the hunger games start.........I'm headed for the Yukon.
I was thinking about this as I was debating picking up some almond milk. Water saturated almonds strained through more water!
I've solved it-- we can shield our nuclear waste with pistachio shells!
The way economics work - something's only worth doing for money if it makes money. So when the huge water supply is gone and most of California's a desert (again)- the fake oasis and the almond trees will all die. And places like Fresno and Bakersfield will turn back to dust (sadly, I have some good friends there). They'll move on.
I just hope the Bay Area's still awesome.
Get rid of grass, ban it
I bet in about 2 years nobody will even be talking about this, there will be tons of snow on the mountains and all the reservoirs will be filled back up. And it'll all gloss over like Y2K.