Well I’ve had a little time to think about the MSSC Desalination Summit in Las Vegas Jan 16-18. I asked the same kinds of questions at this meeting as I did last August at the annual American Membrane Association conference. The effect was almost the same. Almost — but not quite. Patricia Mulroy, General Manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority communicated the urgent need for action over the next 10 years. Also, it seemed a few of the guys at the conference caught a glimmer of what I was getting at.
Also, I had the impression that the Bureau Of Reclamation is moving toward taking a bigger role in water desalination research. I would think that as part of that portfolio some effort was made to kill the capital, maintenance and energy costs of moving water through pipelines. For example, a computer modeling program could be developed to ascertain what shape and properties a pipeline would best have to move water uphill with the least energy. Would some combination of hydrophobic, hydrophilic and variable heat conductivity — as well as maybe a threaded corkscrew pattern on the inner walls of the pipe — screw the water up hill. Maybe not. Maybe an interlocking corkscrew pattern would screw the water in the pipe uphill. Maybe not. Maybe you could alternately widen and narrow the pipe to catch the backwash. Its fun making stuff up. With a computer modeling system you can easily model a lot of different patterns and variables to optimize the pipe for energy efficiency. The numbers would mean something a bit more actionable than words. Maintenance would also be a factor. I wouldn’t be in favor of pipes that pulsed water forward and caught the backwash with valves–because of the maintenance issues. As to capital costs — a really space age application would be software that figured out how to make a long lasting pipe out of whatever material is on hand–so a machine could just suck in dirt on one side and extrude pipe on the other. Luckily I don’t know anything about this stuff so its easy for me to say. That said, here’s a discussion of a 3-D printing machine. This addresses half the problem.
During one of the Q&A’s I mentioned that the Australians had responded to their drought by appropriating 250 million over 7 years to cut the cost of water desalination in half. What I didn’t mention was that their confidence that they could do so — came in part from American research. The announcement that they were going to appropriate 250 million for desalination research came four months after a visit by LLNL scientists to Australia to show how their carbon nanotubes could desalinate water without energy intensive pumps. Fresh water just passed through their membranes. That story was printed in every provincial Australian newspaper. In the USA that story never made it out of the science journals.
Pat Mulroy mentioned the relationship between energy and water. Everyone in desalination knows about this but nobody else does. It would be very helpful if Nevada people especially could be buttonholed to finance three sets of commercials for the Washington DC TV market–that made the link between water and energy. As well, a link should be made between the effects of climate change on the water supplies in the west, the southeast and even in the northeast. As mentioned in the conference even New York City has begun to think of the effects of sea water intrusions into their pristine water supply. The point is that climate change and population growth are not a regional problem. Finally a commercial for the Washington DC market should emphasize that the water solutions of the New Deal are no longer adequate for the growing populations and climate change that characterize the 21st century. The future is not what it used to be. These commercials would run for a year.
As mentioned in the Thursday morning Congressional Video Link Up–Washington staffers and congressmen know precious little about the desalination business. Therefor they don’t understand the link between energy research–for which there is a great deal of money available–and water desalination research–for which there is precious little money available for research. Some commercials establishing the link would make selling the link easier–and thereby ease the task of obtaining R&D funding.
One reason its important to make this link is that the likelihood of multi billion dollar increases in energy related R&D is increasing dramatically. Hillary has stressed the need for a significant increase in green research without being too specific. Sen. Barack Obama has called for “serious leadership to get us started down the path of energy independence.” All the republican candidates have stressed the need for energy independence. Mayor Giuliani said
“that weaning the United States off foreign oil must become a national purpose, that doing it within 10 to 15 years would be a centerpiece of a Giuliani presidency. The federal government must treat energy independence as a matter of national security,” he said, comparing it to the effort in the 1950’s and ’60’s to put men on the moon”
Sen. John McCain has declared, “We need energy independence”
He promised to make the U.S. oil independent within five years.The Senator says he’ll make it happen quickly, with a program like the Manhattan Project. That was the big push the U.S. made to build an atomic bomb before Germany could get one.
Notice the reference to the Manhattan project and the Moon Shot.
In the last couple of weeks, Mitt Romney has put up a dollar number for increasing increasing energy R&D. Romney
advocates increasing federal investments in energy, materials science, automotive technology and fuel technology from $4 billion a year — its current level — to $20 billion a year.
Why the big fuss? And why 5-10 years? ie why are the time frames shortened. Its not just environmental or national security concerns. Now even big oil is buying into the peak oil argument. Shell Oil CEO Jeroen van der Veer this week wrote “Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.” One way or the other a radical rewrite of the energy picture is coming.
The picture of Hoover Dam tells pretty much the same story for water.
Mike Hightower of Sandia Labs mentioned on Thursday that alternative energy over the next couple years would become more economical than traditional energy sources. He said something similar happened to desalinized water 10 years ago.
After the American Membrane Association meeting last August I proposed spending 3 billion over 7-10 years– to research ways to collapse the cost of water desalination and transport so that desert water costs nearly the same as east coast water… And the east and gulf coasts would have a new source of cheap fresh water. In the context of current presidential campaign promises–my numbers now don’t seem so extravagant. (I’ve characterized the water desalination research project as being on the scale of the human genome project in the 1990s. What comes after will scale to something much bigger than the Hoover Dam.)
Its remarkable how water and energy production go hand and hand across several fields. The Hoover Dam produces both power and water. Waste heat from power plants on the coast will be used for desalination.
The same is true for research.
The primary targets for for desalination research: catalysts and semipermeable membranes are the same for hydrogen production.
These are things to consider as the water levels fall behind the Hoover dam. With water levels down officials are also considering the effects of water being so low the electrical generators may have to be shut down.
Looks like there will be a good snow pack this year in the Sierra Nevadas and the Rockies. If all goes well that will add one foot to lake levels. That’s a good year. But not so much when you consider that the lake is down 120 feet. At the conference we learned that current climate models in the southwest call for three in ten years as being good for precipitation. It used to be seven in ten years.
