MIT Awards Desalination Concept Alternative to Watergrab

Congratulations to Tom Manaugh and Said Majdi for their MIT award for a desalination alternative to the SNWA Watergrab. It's good to see that their concept is very similar to one I have been proposing for years now. Maybe somebody will pay attention now.

In their comments section (on one of the last posts), they suggested that the solar power facility to run the desalination plant be located near Hoover Dam to utilize the Dam's underutilized power lines.

May I suggest a PV solar power facility on Lake Mead. There are two good reasons for doing this: One, the solar facility would shade a part of Lake Mead, thus reducing evaporation losses. And two, no pristine desert valley would have to be bulldozed to accommodate the facility.

The extra costs for building a floating solar facility could be covered by the monies collected from delivering the conserved water.

And some of the power generated could be traded for water from desalination facilities on (or off) the Coast.

SNWA could enter into agreements with Coastal communities whereas; the coastal community would pay for the desalination facility, and SNWA would provide the electrical power to desalinate the ocean water. Consequently; those Coastal communities could deliver water to their customers for far less, and SNWA could trade for more water from the Colorado River for the cost of generating the power to desalinate Coastal water.

Of course, there is one hurdle to cover. The SNWA and the Coastal community would have to pitch in to help desalinate farm runoff waste water for reuse on California farms (who might otherwise lose out in this Colorado River water trade).

...And since the PV solar power facility doesn't have to be solely owned by SNWA, other interested communities (such as Phoenix or Tuscon) could join in to pay for it – and receive a proportional amount of water from the Colorado River.

Don't Be Fooled by the Watergrab Sticker Price

For years, Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) has been telling you that the Watergrab will “only” cost $3,500,000,000. But, when legally bound to tell the truth; SNWA (in writing) told the Nevada State Engineer $15,000,000,000. And even then, SNWA left out cost overruns and the huge cost of energy to pump water across the State of Nevada!

This is what as known as creative accounting. Think of it like buying a car. The true cost of the car is much higher than the sticker price. $3,500,000,000 is the sticker price. $7,500,000,000 is the is the price with all the added features. $15,000,000,000 is the price with finance costs. $20,000,000,000 is the price with cost overruns (typically SNWA projects have had 30% cost overruns). And then, of course; there are still maintenance and fuel costs.

What does this mean to you?

The math is simple: 20 billion dollars spread out over 2 million people (the population of Southern Nevada SNWA customers) equals $10,000 for every man, woman, and child – before we talk about maintenance and operation costs.

For a family of 4 that means $40,000 – spread out in payments over approximately 40 years – about $1,000 a year – or almost $100 a month. Add the electric bill for pumping the water up to 300 miles, and a family of four will probably pay over $100 a month more for the Watergrab for the rest of the adults' lives.

But wait... you already have plenty of water... Just check your tap. Last year the Bureau of Reclamation posted that Nevada only used 237 thousand acre feet of Colorado River water (net). Nevada's allotment is 300 thousand acre feet. Which means, at Southern Nevada's present population, there is plenty of water – even if there were imposed restrictions.

Which means: the Watergrab is for growth.

Now you may still believe in the exponential growth Ponzi scheme, but are you willing to pay $100 dollars a month for water for other people?

And what if Southern Nevada ceases to grow? We saw what happened to Las Vegas when the financial crisis hit. We know that present banking regulations aren't enough to avoid another banking crisis. We know that the price of gas will continue to rise (because deeper water drilling, dirtier tar sands, and more difficult fracking are just getting more expensive). There is a real risk that Las Vegas could grow for a while and then contract – which would leave Southern Nevada residents with a huge bill for a boondoggle.

So, what's Southern Nevada to do? Save Central Nevada's water for when you really need it. Until then, get developers etc. to foot the bill themselves for desalination facilities off the coast of California in exchange for a bigger allotment of the Colorado River.

Don't Believe The (Shock Doctrine) Hype

Here's some more proof that desalination is less costly than the Southern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA) watergrab pipeline:

The Carlsbad Desalination Plant, in Southern California, recently raised 922 million dollars for the construction of the project. They intend to be producing 50million gallons of fresh water (from salt water) a day by 2016. That is the equivalent of 56,000 acre feet per year.  

On the other hand, the SNWA intends to spend 15 billion dollars on a pipeline network to steal water from Rural Nevada – that will acquire them about 160,000 acre feet per year (with the present proposed wells – if the drought ends).

Unfortunately, the numbers aren't as simple as this example. But from this example; it becomes obvious that desalination is well worth seriously considering.

...For a number of years, SNWA has been telling us that the watergrab pipeline would only cost 3 to 3.5 billion dollars. But, when required by law to tell the truth; SNWA reported to the Nevada State Engineer that the watergrab would actually cost 15 billion dollars. (That's actually only twice what they had been telling us because the 15 billion dollar fee also includes finance charges.)

The Carlsbad Desalination Plant costs likely do not include finance charges either. So, we could assume that since finance charges approximately doubled the watergrab construction costs, the Carlsbad Desalination Plant will likely cost in the neighborhood of 2 billion dollars.

OK... to get approximately the same amount of water from desalination using Carlsbad Desalination Plant technology would cost about 6 billion dollars.

6 billion dollars vs. 15 billion dollars

This information infers that watergrab water will cost between two and three times what desalination costs. And the price of desalination just keeps getting cheaper.

The projected cost of the water from the Carlsbad Desalination Plant is between $2,014 and $2,257 per acre foot. I have never seen an estimate for water cost from the watergrab. Personally, I don't think SNWA wants us to know this. Because of the SNWA history of not quite telling the whole truth, (remember the 3.5 billion dollar cost story from a couple of paragraphs ago) I wouldn't bother to trust their numbers anyway. But we can guesstimate.

For an example; SNWA has paid as high as $9,865 an acre foot from water from Virgin Valley Water District! There is no way SNWA will sell that water for $2,000 an acre foot. My warning to Las Vegans; expect very very high water bills.

Now of course; energy costs are high for desalination. But SNWA never mentions the cost of pumping water half way across the 7^th largest State in the Nation. Oh, you thought that $15,000,000,000 was all Southern Nevadans would have to pay? No. The energy costs will be horrendous. And SNWA has a record of about 30% cost overruns on their construction projects. Which means a city will be burdened with more like 20 billion dollars plus billions in energy costs.

Oh, and by the way; the people of Las Vegas already have enough water for their present population. The people of Las Vegas are being conned into paying for water for growth – that mean's Las Vegans will be paying for the rest of their lives for water for someone else!

If SNWA were to pay for desalination facilities on the Pacific Coast in exchange for more water from the Colorado River, not only would the water be much cheaper, but no pipeline would be necessary.

Don't believe the “Shock Doctrine” hype. The Colorado River won't dry up. Even with less flow, there is still plenty of water to bargain for. And if the Colorado River were to dry up, the water in the Great Basin would be a critical contingency safeguard. My advice to Las Vegas; save the underground water for when you really need it. Make more fresh water. Obviously, then there will be more water.

And if SNWA were to pay for desalination facilities off the coast of California, environmental damage to the Coast would be negligible.

With the cost savings of desalination, SNWA could offer California more water at no expense to Californians.

With desalination done right; for less money, everyone could have more water.

Personally, I think there should be a National policy to encourage desalination to benefit all communities along our waterways.

Water May Soon Become A Federal Issue

If the States can't come to sensible water agreements soon, the Federal Government may get involved. 

It only makes sense that if inland States pay for desalination facilities off the coast, they should get more water from the rivers that lead to the coast. And coastal communities should support this because they too will get more water.

But how much more water? 1%? 5%? 20%? 50%? Negotiations for how much more water coastal communities get than upriver communities could lead to standoffs that could last for years, if not decades. If the States can't agree to providing more water for everybody, the Federal Government may step in to set guidelines.

But then again, there may be other reasons the Federal Government may get involved.

Developing a new technology is expensive. Developing renewable energy powered offshore desalination is no exception. 

 

Coastal military bases, such as Camp Pendleton, are considering desalination. Herein lies an opportunity for the use of Defense monies to develop renewable energy powered offshore desalination facilities.

Also; Federal subsidies for desalination would be a sensible use of taxpayer monies. 

And if that doesn't work, Nevada still can sue to get the Federal Government to pick up at least part of the bill. Nuclear Tests polluted a vast amount of underground water under the Nevada Test Site. Nevadans didn't ask to be the sacrificial nuclear test site area. Which means that the Federal Government owes Nevada for the water they polluted. 

Either way, Southern Nevadans could save 15 to 20 billion dollars on the watergrab pipeline and get significant Federal financial help designing/developing/building desalination facilities off the coast. Moreover, SNWA would only have to pay for desalination facilities as needed. Which means far less money up front from people in Nevada who won't really benefit from these water projects.

The people who already live in Las Vegas already have enough water. This water is for growth. The people of Las Vegas are being told they have to foot the bill for water someone else. At the present population, that amounts to almost $10,000 for every man, woman, and child in the Las Vegas Valley. When the watergrab pipeline bills start to come in, they aren't going to be happy. But if smaller desalination projects can be built, as needed, new residents can pay the bills for their own water. We shouldn't have to ask the Federal Government to force SNWA to be more fair. But apparently, it has come down to that.

Top 10 Reasons Why Offshore Desalination Is Better

1. No ugly desalination plants to look at on the coast.

2. No huge releases of brackish water in shallow coastal waters.

3. No angry hordes of environmentalists protesting on the beach.

4. Because offshore desalination facilities would be smaller:

      a. they would be less expensive and could be built as needed

      b. distributed facilities would mean greater reliability (loss of one facility of

          many wouldn't matter as much)

      c. consequently, they would be less susceptible to terrorism

      d. they would release much smaller amounts of brackish water – into deep waters

      e. they would require less power per facility

      f. they would be easier to relocate

5. Barges could be moved away from red tides

6. Offshore facilities would be unharmed by tsunamis

7. Offshore facilities would be unharmed by earthquakes

8. Offshore facilities would be unharmed by floods

9. Offshore facilities would be unaffected by sea level rise

10. There is room offshore to install renewable energy generation

My Presentation to Utah's Gov. Herbert

Utah's Governor Herbert came to the West Desert to hear public input about the two state agreement between Utah and Nevada (or actually Utah and SNWA). The agreement essentially divides remaining water in Snake Valley between Utah and Southern Nevada. Apparently Governor Herbert has been pressured to sign the agreement within the next few weeks (by whom, he never told us, but most likely SNWA). In addition to information I will be publishing on this blog soon, this was my presentation: 

I would like to state that I am against signing this Interstate Agreement now. But not for the usual reasons.

I am convinced that Utah would be forfeiting an opportunity to get more water. And I'm not talking about drilling or piping more water you already have. I'm talking about Utah literally getting more water!

New technology sometimes has a way of opening up new opportunities. And new desalination technology is a game changer. As recently as five years ago, desalination looked prohibitively expensive. But more recently, a number of far less expensive new desalination processes have been invented, and one is already on the market. Moreover; offshore desalination promises to bypass almost all of the environmental concerns – and make desalination much more reliable.

A new company called Oasys is already desalinating water far cheaper than traditional reverse osmosis in Gibraltar and Oman. Their process is called forward osmosis – and they are reporting 90% savings in energy costs. There are also a number of other good designs coming out of labs – including a reverse osmosis membrane that is 100 times more permeable than present designs and a nano-material that could be used to desalinate water with sunlight (not concentrated sunlight – just sunlight).

Presently, reverse osmosis desalination costs about $2,000 an acre/foot. I've heard an estimate that this watergrab water will cost about $4,000 an acre/foot. Desalination is already cheaper. And with new less expensive desalination processes, desalination should be even cheaper – even if it is done offshore with solar, wind or wave energy.

So, why hasn't SNWA jumped on the idea? Because politically it would be very embarrassing. They have already spent hundreds of millions of dollars on this watergrab. And even though nobody knew the price of desalination would drop this precipitously, SNWA management would look like idiots if they admitted they made such an expensive mistake. Apparently, they would rather waste billions of dollars on a bad idea than face the consequences of admitting they wasted hundreds of millions.

I have an idea instead.

Las Vegas could build offshore desalination plants on barges 15 to 20 miles off the coast of California. And they could provide this desalinated water to communities on the coast – in exchange for more water from the Colorado River... and so can Utah.

Hopefully, somewhere in the near future, water agreements (on every American river that runs to the ocean) could be renegotiated.

Presently, due to lack of organization; the only desalination option realistically considered in America is for communities on the coast to build desalination plants that only benefit themselves. However, Dana Point, a community on the California coast, has already approached Nevada with the desire to arrange a trade. The incentive is obvious; more water. If California communities can get more water, of course they'd be willing to give up some of the allocation to the Colorado River.

Desalination provides abundance. Done right, it means more water for everyone. SNWA needs to realize the obvious; this watergrab is in no way creating long-term abundance for Nevada or Utah. Trying to take water from the desert is just fighting over the scraps.

There now is an opportunity for Utah that would be lost by signing this agreement. If SNWA commits 15 to 20 billion dollars to this watergrab pipeline, it may be decades before they can afford to commit to desalination. Whatever influence Utah has on Nevada to change their mind and make the right decision would be lost on signing this agreement.

Southern Nevada has the opportunity to pioneer a new way of thinking about water that could change the whole outlook for the West. Utah still has the opportunity to influence Nevada's decision. Signing this agreement now reduces Utah's influence on Nevada to pursue a process that would ultimately lead to more water for Utah.