[Greenbuilding] Desert water

Fri Mar 27 21:50:53 CDT 2009

here's an interesting link about "peak water"
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-05/ff_peakwater?currentPage=all

Seems amazing that industries (like nuclear power and silicone chip
manufacture) which require so much water would set up operations in
places like Phoenix.
Ben

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Bob Korves <bkorves at winfirst.com> wrote:
> And no one yet has mentioned spent nuclear fuel, which will continue to be a
> problem, essentially "forever."  We can't even agree to a place to store the
> stuff with a limited degree of safety on a short term basis.  The only thing
> we seem to be able to agree to is to let the next hundred (or thousand,
> should we survive that long!) generations deal with it.
>
> I have also read there there is only enough fissionable fuel in known
> reserves world wide to last approximately 50 years _at current usage
> levels_.  What do those who want to double the number of nuclear plants plan
> to do after 25 years pass?
>
> I remember as a boy listening in school (ahem, in the '60's) to the
> propaganda of "clean, safe, everlasting nuclear power, so cheap it might be
> given away."
>
> We in Sacramento have been there, done that.  The voters within SMUD
> (Sacramento Municipal Utility District) voted to close down our Rancho Seco
> nuclear plant
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rancho_Seco_Nuclear_Generating_Station
> after only 14 years of operation, achieving only 39% of capacity during that
> time, down for maintenance much of the time, and regardless that it's
> license was valid until October 2008.  It was a huge hole to put money into,
> a giant boondoggle.  SMUD was dying during the Rancho Seco days, now it is
> thriving and is a green, efficient, and caring provider.
>
> When big business and big government come around again sweet talking nuclear
> just before cramming it down our throats, they had better not stop in
> Sacramento.  We have some long poles, some roofing tar, and some old feather
> pillows waiting for them here...
>
> Notice I did not talk about safety of plant operation, although many others
> might, especially if they lived around Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.
> Nuclear is a loser in so many other areas that talking about safety becomes
> an emotional stance that, while appropriate, is not even needed.  I will
> note that Rancho Seco had a steam generator dryout, a very dangerous
> precursor to nuclear disaster.  Nonetheless I never lost a minute of sleep
> living about 25 miles from the plant -- there are already far too many other
> 'out of my control' ways to die in modern society.
> -Bob Korves
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Don Eyermann" <zeroenergy at cox.net>
> To: "'Racheli Gai'" <racheli at sonoracohousing.com>; "'GB REPP'"
> <greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Desert water
>
>
> YES! The ever ongoing talk of more Nuclear power plants, which if you
> remember was one of John McCain's campaign points....more generating plants
> was his solution...as opposed to more efficient housing. Nuclear plants use
> a horrific amount of fresh water. Here's the story on Palo Verde:
>
> Due to its location in the Arizona desert, Palo Verde is the only nuclear
> generating facility in the world that is not located adjacent to a large
> body of water. Instead, it uses treated sewage from several nearby
> municipalities to meet its cooling water needs, recycling 20 billion US
> gallons (76,000,000 m³) of wastewater each year. At the nuclear plant site,
> the wastewater is further treated and stored in an 80 acre (324,000 m²)
> reservoir for use in the plant's cooling towers.
>
> The nuclear steam supply for each unit was designed and supplied by
> Combustion Engineering, designated the System 80 standard design - a
> predecessor of the newer standard System 80+ design. Each primary system
> originally supplied 3.817 GW of thermal power to the secondary (steam) side
> of each plant. The design is a so-called 2 × 4, with each of four main
> reactor coolant pumps circulating more than 111,000 gallons per minute of
> primary-side water through 2 large steam generators.
>
> The main turbine generators were supplied by General Electric and when
> installed were the largest in the world, capable of generating 1.447 GW of
> electricity each. They remain the largest out of 60 Hz turbine generators.
>
> It supplies electricity at a production cost (including fuel, maintenance
> and operation) of 1.33 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour.[7] This is cheaper than
> coal (2.26 cents/kWh) or natural gas (4.54 cents/kWh) in the region at the
> same time (2002), but more expensive than hydro (0.63 cents/kWh). Assuming a
> 60-year plant life and 5% long-term cost of capital, the depreciation and
> capital costs not included in the previous marginal cost for Palo Verde are
> approximately another 1.4 cents per kilowatt-hour. 1.33+1.4= 2.73/kWh total.
> In 2002, the wholesale value of the electricity produced was 2.5 cents/kWh.
> By 2007, the wholesale value of electricity at the Palo Verde hub was 6.33
> cents/kWh.[8] Nuclear power generators are very profitable when fossil fuel
> prices are high. ref:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station
>
> My Comment: But they didn't compare it to the cost per KW of solar plants.
>
> NREL, working through SunLab, supports the U.S. Department of Energy's goal
> to install 1,000 megawatts (MW) of new concentrating solar power systems in
> the southwestern United States by 2010. This level of deployment, combined
> with research and development to reduce technology component costs, could
> help reduce concentrating solar power
> electricity costs to $0.07/kilowatt-hour. At this cost, concentrating solar
> power can compete effectively in the Southwest's energy markets.
> ref: http://www.nrel.gov/csp/1000mw_initiative.html
>
> My Comment: The 7.0 cents/kWh seems high to me being as it doesn't need
> refueling nor burn any fuel.??
>
> Don
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org
> [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at listserv.repp.org] On Behalf Of Racheli Gai
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 7:36 AM
> To: 'GB REPP'
> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] Desert water
>
> Hi Bob,
> It's not illegal to harvest rainwater in Arizona.
> I want to mention that an obvious way to save water would be to
> disallow various current uses:
> Private swimming pools come to mind as a prime example...
> Growing high water use crops is another.
> If water wasn't so heavily subsidized, with the money going instead to
> helping people build cisterns
> and creating the kind of earthworks necessary to keep water in place,
> we could make a difference.
>
> BTW - I went to a panel discussion about the folly of nuclear energy,
> and an interesting bit
> mentioned by one of the speakers was that Palo Verde nuclear reactor's
> use of water equals
> something like 40% of Tucson's water use.  One more reason to close
> this damn place!
>
> Racheli.
>
> On Mar 27, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Bob Korves wrote:
>
>> In Colorado (one example) it is illegal to harvest the rainwater that
>> falls on your property, including your roof, because that water
>> already belongs to someone downstream.  Water rights are similar in
>> other Southwest US states. We were looking for property in the
>> Southwest, but walked away mainly because of water (and water rights)
>> issues.  In the Southwest, if you want to understand water, follow the
>> money.  If you want to understand money, follow the water...
>>
>> Climate change and an increasing population only exacerbates water
>> problems. It will get worse.
>>
>> We have a slightly different water problem here in Sacramento,
>> California where we live, in addition to increasing demand and
>> decreasing supply.  We essentially live in a desert, and it typically
>> doesn't rain at all from April through October.  Water is harvested
>> from melting snow in the Sierra Nevada mountains to supply cities and
>> agriculture in Northern California. We get our rain and snow in a few
>> large scale events, mostly in December-February.  Then the issue is
>> flooding.  Our house is in a flood plain, and the rivers are
>> constrained less and less by spreading out on the flood plains, and
>> more and more by being constrained by higher and higher levees.  What
>> used to be flood plain is now covered with buildings.
>>
>> The annual floods of older times were tempered by the flood plains and
>> also annually deposited new nutrients that built the soil.  Now we
>> only deplete that soil, adding mega amounts of fertilizers and other
>> chemicals to support unsustainable agricultural practices.  And now,
>> if one of our levees breaks or overflows during a high water event,
>> our house (and many thousands more) will be looking at an immediate
>> 15+ feet of water.
>>
>> When the Sacramento valley finally has a catastrophic flood -- and it
>> will -- Katrina will thereafter be looked at as a relatively minor
>> event. Can you see why we are looking to move, despite very good jobs
>> and a wonderful climate?
>> -Bob Korves
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "noci" <nochi at gmx.net>
>> To: <greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org>
>> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 2:18 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] McMansion WAS waste materials and grey
>> water
>>
>>
>>> about the issue of collecting rain water - I was under the impression
>>> (gleaned from a Landscape Architecture discussion list these past few
>>> weeks) that in certain southern US states it is considered a public
>>> resource and mustn't be wholly retained on site- why? perhaps if
>>> everyone did that, the aquifers wouldn't properly recharge (?)
>>>
>>> Max
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Greenbuilding email list
>>    Environmentally-preferable design, construction, building elements
>> List info:
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
>> List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
>> Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
>>     publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec
>> Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
>> To get on the list:
>>
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
>>  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe
>> To get off the list:
>>
>> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/
>> greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
>>  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding email list
>    Environmentally-preferable design, construction, building elements
> List info:
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
> List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
> Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
>     publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec
> Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
> To get on the list:
>  http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
>  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe
> To get off the list:
>  http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
>  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding email list
>    Environmentally-preferable design, construction, building elements
> List info:
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
> List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
> Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
>     publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec
> Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
> To get on the list:
>  http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
>  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe
> To get off the list:
>  http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
>  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Greenbuilding email list
>    Environmentally-preferable design, construction, building elements
> List info:
> http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
> List email: Greenbuilding at listserv.repp.org
> Managed by BuildingGreen, Inc. http://www.buildinggreen.com
>     publisher of Environmental Building News and GreenSpec
> Hosted and archived by REPP / CREST http://www.crest.org
> To get on the list:
>  http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
>  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe
> To get off the list:
>  http://listserv.repp.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_listserv.repp.org
>  or mailto:greenbuilding-request at listserv.repp.org?subject=unsubscribe
>

-- 
Benjamin G. Pratt
Professor, Design
The University of Wisconsin-Stout