What are your thoughts on water-desalination technology?

[ZombieHorde]

Do you think the US Federal Government should fund water-desalination development?

Is it practical for a country like the US?

[Demeter]

1. Yes and Yes

One cannot reach the better future by ignoring it.

[ZombieHorde]

2. Why do you think that?

I don't disagree with you, I am just preparing debate strategies for my college debate team, and I want to see different points of views. My debate team will have to debate both for and against water desalination.

[silverweb]

3. Yes and yes.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]At the rate we're using up and contaminating our fresh water reserves, desalination (using clean energy like solar and wind, of course) will soon enough become a critical necessity.

Instead of oil and gas pipelines crisscrossing the country, we should be investing in water pipelines.

[upaloopa]

4. We had one here in Santa Barbara because of a drought condition.

When the drought was over it was shut down for being too expensive.

[pscot]

5. They use a lot of electricity?

[upaloopa]

6. I don't know much more than it was here you might research it

[octoberlib]

7. From the Ecologist

Creating pure water from saltwater comes at a price, however, and the biggest cost is in terms of energy. Twenty years ago plants used between 5kWh and 10kWh of energy to create one cubic metre (m3) of drinking water – roughly equivalent to the energy used by five to 10 washing machine cycles. Modern plants can do the same with only 2kWh, but even so most of the power demand for desalination is met through the use of fossil fuels.

The second cost is one of pollution. Removal of pure water from a salty source creates a concentrated waste stream called brine. Up to twice as salty as sea water, and often containing process chemicals such as chlorine, anti-scaling and anti-caking agents, this discharge can have a significant effect on marine life

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/269784/desalination_pros_and_cons_of_a_typically_thorny_issue.html

[pscot]

8. There are just way too many of us

No matter where we turn, we're stepping in something.

[octoberlib]

9. I agree. nt

[MH1]

11. ^^^ THIS.

It all comes back to over-population. The sooner we let people voluntarily control their reproduction - easily and cheaply - the less brutal the ultimate 'adjustment' will be.

[ZombieHorde]

17. In debate clubs, over-population is used to turn arguments.

For example:
Claim: Dictator X commits genocide, and therefore he should be removed from power.
Rebuttal: Genocide is good because overpopulation is going to cause even greater suffering, therefore Dictator X needs to remain in power.

[MH1]

19. Crappy argument, IMO, but I never did the debate club thing.

The argument you suggest relies on a strictly utilitarian ethical model. There's a lot more to ethics than utilitarianism. For example, the total quantity of suffering might be reduced by allowing Dictator X to remain in power, but the right of self-determination trumps the cold calculation of utilitarianism. There is the question of "who suffers?" to be considered as well.

The way I worded that probably explains why I'm not a debater, but hopefully someone who is a debater can do a better job of it.

[ZombieHorde]

20. Your wording is fine, and I agree with your position.

However, debate in debate clubs is a game, so the arguments shouldn't be taken seriously. The debate is strictly about arguments and rebuttals. You are not judged on your ethics, only on your ability to craft and attack arguments. Just because a side is declared a winner doesn't mean that side is correct. It's just a game, like chess.

[OnlinePoker]

22. Unfortunately, those who are good at it often become lawyers or politicians

They'll say anything, make any argument, just as long as they keep "winning the game". As a result, it's the rest of us shlemiels that end up voting them into office and becoming the losers in that game.

[pscot]

21. Self determination is a modern concept;

a by-product of romantic notions of individualism that arose qfter the Renaissance. What are the ethical tradeoffs of driving species after species extinct to create lebensraum for more of us murderous, high value, tool using primates? We're one of the youngest species on the planet, less than 200,000 years old, and we're killing off species that have been here for millions and 10's of millions of years. I'd love to hear the ethical justification for that one. And where's the moral high ground if we ourselves go extinct, smothered in our own detritus?

[wtmusic]

14. True

Sometimes problems don't have a solution, but require us to find the smallest pile and step into it.

[kristopher]

18. 2kwh = about 8 cents /m^3

Onshore wind built in a good location (like most coastal areas) is producing some very inexpensive electricity.

[OnlinePoker]

10. Perth Australia supplies 17% of their water with desalination

And when I was there a couple of years back, they were working on a second plant. From this Wiki article, it says they use 180 GWh per year to produce 144 megalitres per day, but the electricity is offset by 270 GWh per year produced by a wind farm that was built specifically to power the desalination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perth_Seawater_Desalination_Plant

[hunter]

12. It's stupid if the energy comes from fossil fuels.

Of course everything about fossil fuels is stupid.

You might want to check out "forward osmosis." There's been some interesting developments in this field. This process can use less electricity, replacing some of the energy required with low grade heat sources such as industrial waste heat, solar, or geothermal.

The rational answer is, as always for these sorts of problems, fewer people using less water.

Desalinization is one of the reasons I greatly fear the development of cheap fusion energy. We'd probably turn all the arid coastlines of the world into cities, and the saltier water and other urban wastes would rapidly destroy coastal ecosystems. But then, we're destroying the oceans already. Rising oceans and fiercer storms might make coastal properties less desirable, but there are still plenty of elevated undeveloped arid places near the ocean.

[wtmusic]

13. Yes, and it's one of the best arguments for nuclear energy.

It's going to require a lot of energy. Wind and solar won't be able to help much, and assigning the task to fossils would be a nightmare.

[kristopher]

15. lmao - If that is "one of the best arguments for nuclear" then walk away from nuclear now.

As you can see by Online Poker's post 10 above wind power is very well suited to processing water - both desalination and waste treatment.

Nuclear is one of the worst options - it would be like shooting a fly with a cannon.

[FBaggins]

23. Most environmentalists are in favor of turning waste into something useful.

Both wind and nuclear are ideal candidates for desalination. Wind with reverse osmosis or electrodialysis... nuclear with one of the evaporative processes.

Using dedicated wind alleviates the variability challenge of wind... The difference is that the output of the wind generation represents an additional cost (over the cost of the desalination plant), while nuclear uses waste heat that would just be dumped to the environment if not used.

[kristopher]

24. The same argument you make for nuclear applies to coal

Last edited Sun Mar 3, 2013, 01:01 PM - Edit history (2)

The post I was replying to claimed the need for desalination is "one of the best arguments for nuclear energy. It's going to require a lot of energy. Wind and solar won't be able to help much, and assigning the task to fossils would be a nightmare."

You are wisely abandoning the false claim about wind and solar, instead saying that the efficiency gain obtained from combined cycle is why nuclear should be used. However if that is the basis for selecting a technology then coal or natural gas should also be considered as viable, right?

Obviously we reject fossil fuels because there is more to consider than increasing the efficiency of any given process - be it fossil or nuclear.

And with nuclear it always comes back to the fact that, in comparison to the renewable alternatives, Cost, Safety, Proliferation and Waste issues doom it as a rational choice no matter what application you are promoting it for.

[FBaggins]

25. To some extent, sure.

If there's a comparatively new coal plant sitting along the coast that isn't going to be shut down for decades... then sure, turning waste heat into clean water has some value.

But it doesn't add anywhere near enough to the equation to support new construction. Wind/solar/nuclear provide a much better combination for new builds.

You are wisely abandoning the false claim

Abandoning the claim I never made? How clever of me.

is why nuclear should be used.

Nope. Nuclear should be used simply on the power generation benefits. A cheap supply of heat that would otherwise be waster just improved the argument. With wind you get a little extra leverage (as you offset the high end of the variability problem)... but it's necessarily more expensive than nuclear.

[kristopher]

26. "wind...is necessarily more expensive than nuclear"

No, it isn't even close. Onshore wind is about 4 cents a kwh. If we look at EDF's efforts in the UK where they won't even consider building without a 40 year contract for 15 cents/kwh.

See also: http://www.democraticunderground.com/112737785#post6

The learning curve for nuclear produces ever more expensive power. The learning curve for renewables keeps lowering the price.

[FBaggins]

27. Onshore wind is about 4 cents / kwh?

Wow! Let's let the british know. They'll be so pleased that they can set their strike price for onshore wind at £27 !

Strange that they actual strike price is expected to be closer to £90 (with nuclear at £95-£100) And, of course, the strike price for offshore wind is much higher.

Nuclear at £95 is quite a bit cheaper than wind at £90, but that isn't the argument here. It's that if you want to use wind to power desalination, you need to build triple the desalination capacity that you need (so that it can run 1/3rd of the time and still produce the requisite amount of water) and that wind capacity isn't also producing electricity for other uses. If you use nuclear waste heat for the desalination, the reactors are still producing electricity for other uses and producing clean water (while saving money on the cost of the desalination plant - since it can run 24/7).

So if you look to Saudi Arabia with an expected need for lots of new generation and lots of new desalination... multiple new reactors producing both electricity and water from waste heat is considerable cheaper than wind farms for the electricity and additional windfarms (and larger water plants) for desalination.

[kristopher]

30. The shore is always a "good" wind site

Wiki covers the averages and of course the "good" sites are going to be below average. 4cents/kwh (sometimes lower) is the current estimate for a good onshore wind site:

A 2011 report from the American Wind Energy Association stated, "Wind's costs have dropped over the past two years, in the range of 5 to 6 cents per kilowatt-hour recently.... about 2 cents cheaper than coal-fired electricity, and more projects were financed through debt arrangements than tax equity structures last year.... winning more mainstream acceptance from Wall Street's banks.... Equipment makers can also deliver products in the same year that they are ordered instead of waiting up to three years as was the case in previous cycles.... 5,600 MW of new installed capacity is under construction in the United States, more than double the number at this point in 2010. Thirty-five percent of all new power generation built in the United States since 2005 has come from wind, more than new gas and coal plants combined, as power providers are increasingly enticed to wind as a convenient hedge against unpredictable commodity price moves."[120]

A British Wind Energy Association report gives an average generation cost of onshore wind power of around 3.2 pence (between US 5 and 6 cents) per kW·h (2005).[121] Cost per unit of energy produced was estimated in 2006 to be comparable to the cost of new generating capacity in the US for coal and natural gas: wind cost was estimated at $55.80 per MW·h, coal at $53.10/MW·h and natural gas at $52.50.[5] Similar comparative results with natural gas were obtained in a governmental study in the UK in 2011.[122] A 2009 study on wind power in Spain by Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of King Juan Carlos University concluded that each installed MW of wind power led to the loss of 4.27 jobs, by raising energy costs and driving away electricity-intensive businesses.[123] The U.S. Department of Energy found the study to be seriously flawed, and the conclusion unsupported.[124] The presence of wind energy, even when subsidised, can reduce costs for consumers (€5 billion/yr in Germany) by reducing the marginal price, by minimising the use of expensive peaking power plants.[125]

In February 2013 Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported that the cost of generating electricity from new wind farms is cheaper than new coal or new baseload gas plants. When including the current Australian federal government carbon pricing scheme their modeling gives costs (in Australian dollars) of $80/MWh for new wind farms, $143/MWh for new coal plants and $116/MWh for new baseload gas plants. The modeling also shows that "even without a carbon price (the most efficient way to reduce economy-wide emissions) wind energy is 14% cheaper than new coal and 18% cheaper than new gas."[126] Part of the higher costs for new coal plants is due to high financial lending costs because of "the reputational damage of emissions-intensive investments". The expense of gas fired plants is partly due to "export market" effects on local prices. Costs of production from coal fired plants built in "the 1970s and 1980s" are cheaper than renewable energy sources because of depreciation.[126]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

New nuclear literally has no upper bound since we haven't seen the actual cost to build the monstrosities yet. The two European projects (in very nuclear friendly regulatory environments) have almost doubled their original cost and time to construct estimates and still aren't close to being complete. Estimates are that the lower bound for all-in new nuclear costs are in the realm of $185/MWh.

[FBaggins]

36. The shore is also always expensive real estate.

Wiki covers the averages

Ah yes... a wiki page citing industry claims. Is that an acceptable source to you now? Why do you cite the expected strike price for new nuclear in the UK but ignore the same reference for wind? Studies by the DOE, in the Uk... in France - all show very different results from those industry claims. (a better wiki page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source)

How about answering this one. If the UK set an onshore wind strike price in the 4-5 cent range... do you think that there would be any new wind development in the UK? I can tell you that the wind industry doesn't think so.

New nuclear literally has no upper bound since we haven't seen the actual cost to build the monstrosities yet.

Nonsense. Do none of the recent units count at all? Or just the pilot unit for new designs?

Do try to stick to the subject. The debate was over whether it was cheaper to use waste heat from a plant that already justified it's existence economically (as a generator)... or purpose-build new wind and over-build desalination capacity.

There's only one answer... and it doesn't include wind.

[stuntcat]

16. I'm pretty sure we'll be sorry that we didn't

can't really help with debate ideas, sry! This is just something I'm positive we'll need to do, so the sooner the better.

[happyslug]

28. Why should the East Coast and Mid-west pay for this???

The US has five population "Centers", The East Coast (Maine to DC, westward to the Appalachian mountains), the Mid West (Appalachian mountains to the Great Plains of the Dakota and between the Great Lakes and the Ohio River), the South (South of the Ohio and DC, west to Texas), California, and the North West.

Outside West and South Texas, the South is a water rich area, as is the East Coast and the Mid-West (The Great Plains are an exception, but in many ways the Great Plains is like West Texas, its own center, that overlaps the Western portions of the Mid-West and the South). Thus three of the five centers have no or little problems with water (Except how to get it to flow out to sea, for example the recent problems with the Mississippi River is due to lack of water in the Missouri River, which comes out of the Great Plains and the Rocky mountains, once the Mississippi passes Cairo Illinois, it gets most of its water from the Ohio, which flows from the Appalachian mountains, thus while water is low, it is passable south to New Orleans even with the present drought).

Thus the high population areas of the US, where MOST FEDERAL TAXES COME FROM, are areas without a problem with water (Except for an occasional flood). The areas with severe water problems are the South West (West Texas to Southern California), the Great Basin, and the East Slope of the Cascades and Sierra Madre Mountains. The further north you go, the less problem you face with a lack of water (This has to do with the Flow of the Japanese and Pacific Currents, the Japanese Currents floods the North West with water, then the air currents hit the high mountains of the Cascades and Sierra Madre Mountains, which forces most of these currents to dump their water on the Pacific Slopes of those mountains. The Air Currents then turn West ward, drawing whatever water that exists in the South West, including Southern California, westward pulled by the west ward flow of the Pacific Current, Thus San Francisco is often cold and damp, while Los Angles is hot and dry).

The whole purpose of desalination is to permit further expansion in the economy of the South West, including Southern California, with the East Coast and Mid West PAYING for this ability (California and the South are net Federal funds gainers, the Mid Wet and the East Coast pay more in Federal Taxes then they get from Federal Spending). In simple terms, should the Mid West and East Coast PAY for the expansion of the Southwest? The answer could be Yes, if some how the East Coast and Mid West would benefit, but in most cases the expansion is business and industries moving from the East Coast and Mid West due to lower taxes and other costs, in the South West.

Now, one time constructions I have less problem with, in many ways such one time constructions will involve industries from the East Coast and Mid West and thus both will benefit (The Hoover Dam is an example of this), but if you are talking about OPERATING Costs, then those costs must be local and thus no benefit to other areas of the Country. With desalination, the primary costs will be operating costs NOT setting up the system. I would prefer to pay to dig an extension of the Sea of Cortes to Death Valley, and watch the water evaporate in the heat of death valley (and the resulting increase rain fall) and the natural filtering of such water as it creeps through the ground (Generally rule, 100 feet of sand will filter out most salt so it become drinkable) in addition to the electricity that can be generated due to the differences between the two areas (Death Valley is BELOW sea level, thus a generator can be used to produce electricity). This would require assistance from Mexico, but since it is a one time constructing program, it would benefit more areas then just the local area.

Thus I have few problems with Federal Funds to build any project in any area of the country, but operating costs are another situation all together. How could such operating costs benefit the country as a whole? The answer is almost no NATIONWIDE benefit.

Thus if the South west wants this, leave THEM PAY FOR IT, they will get the benefit, and those should pay the costs.

[FBaggins]

29. Because we aren't five "centers" - We're one country.

Why is Idaho paying to rebuild infrastructure in New Orleans? Why is Texas helping to rebuild NYC from Sandy (or 9/11)? Same answer.

Why is the Corp of Engineers responsible all up and down the Mississippi?

Any large infrastructure project that impacts multiple states is a federal issue. If certain states don't feel that the national benefit is high enough (or the cost to their state is too high), then their representatives can vote against it.

[happyslug]

35. And that has been the case with most Representatives from the Mid West

Last edited Tue Mar 5, 2013, 11:29 PM - Edit history (3)

You see this is the various proposals to pump the Great Lakes to the South West, the Mid West oppose it, it is talked about but nothing is done for the Mid West opposes it. Till that change it is NOT going to happen, for the same reason the Mid West will NOT pay for water desalination, how does that benefit the Mid-West?

As I said, when it comes to capital improvement no one has a problem with paying for Capital improvements, be it a dam, river improvement, highway etc. The problem is ONGOING EXPENSES. On the national level that will NOT happen, the mid west has no problem helping to pay to build desalination plants, but such constructions are a small cost compared to the energy needed to operate them.

The big expense is the ongoing expense to operate these plants that people will object to paying for on a national level. A good example is Federal highway funds. Federal Highway funds can be used for new construction, improvements but NOT maintenance of highways or other transportation items. I see the same rule for anything else the Federal Government pays for, the Federal Government will pay for capital expenses BUT not operating costs, and when it comes to desalination plants the big expense is the OPERATING COSTS, not the Capital costs to set them up. Thus the Federal Government will NOT pay for operating costs of such plants, and without federal funds, they is no money for these plants.

You also use the term "Country", now the terms "Nation", "State" and "Country" are often used interchangeability among Americans, but each means something slightly different. In the US we tend to use the term "State" to mean our local State, but the US actually consists of 51 states, the 50 states and the STATE OF THE UNITED STATES, for "State" means a legal entity, such as the US, Canada, Germany, France, Minnesota etc. A State is something that by its own legal right exists, it is NOT the creation of another legal entity (Such as a "County" or a "City" which exist for they were created by their state). Now technically the Federal Government is NOT a State, it is a Federation, but the states that make up the United States have given the Federal Government to operate as their representative to foreign governments, thus the United States is also a "State".

A "Nation" is a group of people who think as themselves as one people. This can be diverse as a small group of people, such as the Apaches who view themselves as one people, in this example the Apaches. Often nation is a group of people who share a blood line, such as the Germans, the French, The British, The Scots, the Irish etc. Since the 1600s and the raise of the modern Nation-State, they has been a tendency to form States along such view. In most of the world it is language or bloodlines (often both) but can be a just a view that one is a member of one people (As is the concept of Americans, common language in most situations, but not the same nationality or bloodlines).

The term Country, is more a geographical term. Often it reflects people who interact together and trade together. Given that most people (prior to the invention of the Steam engine) used rivers and to a more limited degree seas to ship goods, rivers tend to united people. Thus Russians are those Slavs (a common blood line) that traded along the Volga, Don and Northern Dvina rivers. Their fellow Slavs, the Ukrainians traded along the Dnieper River, and a third group of Slavs, the Poles, traded along the Vistula. France has two main rivers, the Rhone and the Seine, and then shares a border with Germany with the Rhine (But the Rhine is more a German River, with German being the main language on its borders even on that River bank that is in France). China is centered on its two rivers, the Huang He (Yellow) River and the Yangtze rivers. Japan and Britain are islands, and uses the sea to connect various parts of the country with others. Italy and Spain are peninsula and thus tend to use the sea like those Islands of Japan and Britain. Many people have called Egypt the Nile (and Brazil the Amazon). The Rio De La Plat holds together Argentina, but since Argentina shares it with Brazil, you end up with two border countries (much like the Rhine) and a good bit of local trade even when the two nations who share the river do not like each other. The Congo, could be like the Amazon and the Nile, but it has rapids close to its exit into the sea AND has been a fought over mess since the Rush to Africa of the 1880s.

As you can see, the terms "State", "Nation" and "Country" overlap but are different. The United States is a "State" (in that it is a legal entity) and a "Nation" (for we see each other as one people), but its is made of several "Countries". What are the countries of the US has been debated for at least 50 years, but my position it is as follows:

1. New France (Lack of a better name since it is the closest Legal entity to cover all of this Country). New France is literally that part of the North American Continent which has the easiest means of transportation, which even in Colonial Days meant the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River Drainage area. An argument can be made you can extend this to the MacKenzie and Yukon River basins of Canada, for like the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River basin, it is generally less then 20 miles between waters of these water systems AND it is over flat land (The Glaciers forced rivers to flow south from the Glaciers, the Mississippi and its tributaries throughout the mid -west, and when the Glaciers retreated a new series of lakes and rivers were produced that drained into the Atlantic, now called the Great Lakes and St Lawrence Seaway). This is huge and dominating, it unites the rest of the Nation for the rest of the Nation is drawn to it due to its size.

Please note New France includes areas that flows into the Gulf of Mexico close to St Louis, such as West Texas, Alabama, Tennessee and parts of Georgia.

2. The Rio Grand River and its surrounding lands (including the Mexican lands that drain into the Rio Grand from Mexico).

3. The Colorado River, including the Gila river and its surrounding lands (and the Cortes Sea, and the Mexican states on both sides of the Sea of Cortes)

4. The Columbian and Snake Rivers and its surrounding lands

5. Puget Sound and the surround lands till you hit the Cascades.

6. Florida. Orlando on South.

7. South Carolina and its port (in a Geographical point this includes Georgia and North Carolina)

8. Chesapeake bay, including parts of North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland and the Susquehanna river system of Pennsylvania.

9. The Delaware River System, including South New Jersey

10, The Hudson River system, including Northern New Jersey, Long Island and most of of Connect.

11. The Massachusetts bay area, including Maine and Nova Scotia and Prince Edwards Islands

12. NewFoundland and the surrounding lands.


There are some overlaps especially where you have no mountains in between. For example the following:

a. North Carolina it can look to Charleston AND the Chesapeake river system

b. The Susquehanna River system has a good bit of overlap between the Chesapeake and Delaware Systems.

c. Rhode Island is not in the Massachusetts Bay system nor the Hudson River/ New York City System. It is in many ways to small to be on its own, but in many ways is its own "Country", thus why it existed in Colonial times and survives to this day, what to so with it?

d. Upper New York State and Vermont is both in the Hudson River system AND the St Lawrence River system (and thus part of New France).

e. Georgia is another problem, its Black Belt wants to be with Alabama and Mississippi, its southern part is in many ways like coastal Alabama and Mississippi (as is Northern Florida), but its northern part are drawn to Charleston. On the other hand Georgia, outside of Atlanta area, is relatively flat and easy to get around, thus all of it could be with Southern Florida, New France or Charleston, another area where drawing a line is hard and always arbitrary.

f. Florida is another mess, Jacksonville and Tallahassee to far from the Mississippi River, to far from Charleston, to far from South Florida, but also to close to each of them to be they own geographical center. Lines has to be drawn but given the area (low flat lands) and line will be arbitrary and capricious like present state lines.

Thus any lines between these "Countries" are at best arbitrary but that is why wars were fought in the past along similar disputed over lapping lands throughout the war (and why the US Supreme Court gets to make decisions as to state lines, if a dispute ever occurs).

Thus this is more a Comment on the Concept of "Country". In many ways the US is to large to be one "Country", but at the same time what I call "New France" is so huge it will draw most of the other smaller "Countries" to want to belong to it. In many ways that is the US, the US did not really have a Center till we moved into the Mid West between the Revolution and the War of 1812. Once we moved in and replaced the Native Americans, what is now the United States came into being (Canada even "Joined" in the 1840s when it adopted the Dollar instead of the Pound as its currency).

Mexico objected to the creation of America, for it lost lands to the United States, for the Mexican Valley is much like "New France" a huge geographical entity and draws smaller entities to it. Thus the Rio Grand and Colorado River (along with California) were drawn to Mexico as long as "New France" was held by disunited Native Americans. Once the US took over "New France", its draw, along with Mexico weakness with its internal struggle after its war of independence, drew to "New France, not only the Rio Grand and Colorado River Systems but also California.

At the time of the War with Mexico, there were probably more Americans in the areas taken from Mexico then Mexicans, through Native Americans out numbered both of them. The areas taken in the war with Mexico with the highest number of Mexican populations at that time were the Rio Grand Valley itself AND Southern California, The Navajos and Apaches had kept most of the Mexicans out of Arizona and New Mexico, the Comanches did the same in what is today Texas and the Russians controlled northern California. The Russians were interested in furs so when the US moved in, the Russians left selling the Mill they had built to an American named called John Sutter (of Sutter's Mill fame, yes it was a RUSSIAN mill where the first gold was found)..

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Have a look where the majority of the fucking coal plants are.

Exporting the carbon to parts unknown. Thanks for the drought.

[happyslug]

32. I live in Coal Country, Exporting carbon is our gift to mankind

n/t

[NickB79]

33. Because we'll be looking at massive migrations otherwise

If we don't have reliable water supplies for the populations now living in areas that are seeing more and more pressure on their water resources, those areas become unlivable. When that happens, those millions upon millions of people move to areas that still have water. That kind of abrupt migration will overwhelm the infrastructure of the population centers you listed that don't need desalination.

I live in Minnesota, Land of 10,000 Lakes. We feel pretty good about our water resources for the time being. However, if we suddenly saw an influx of a few million destitute climate refugees in the next decade or two, we'd be royally fucked.

[happyslug]

34. The Mid West has been losing population, often to the areas that have water shortages

Thus a population movement BACK to the midwest would NOT be a problem, the area can TAKE such population gain with ease. The US population gain has been on the East Coast, the South and the West Coast NOT the Mid-West.

My hometown of Johnstown has lost 10% of its population in each decade since the 1960s, and that is true of most of the older smaller cities of the American Mid West. Even the larger cities of the Mid-West (Chicago, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St Paul, Minneapolis) have lost population. Many of these larger cities have retain or have a slight increase in their metro population, but no where near what has happened elsewhere in the US (Smaller isolates Cities like Johnstown has seen their metro population drop). This can be seen in the rents, high in area on the coast (like Philadelphia), lower in large mid western cities (Pittsburgh Minneapolis-St Paul) even lower in older smaller cities like Johnstown PA. Thus the mid west CAN take any population movement caused by lack of water in the Southwest or even the Great plains. Thus such a population movement would NOT be a severe problem for the Mid-West.