Do folks here understand the expense and energy use associated with desalination plants?

[MADem]

175. Depends on the cost of the system.

Seems to me they need to get the water to the reservoirs, and take it from there. The bottom line is that there's only so much water now, and there's not enough, so adding to the total eases the shortage. It's basic math. You cannot conserve what isn't there.

I just think you're too eager to say "It can't be done" and "It won't be done" and there are a lot of people who just do not agree with you. It can be done--they do it on every ship in every modern navy in the world. They do it all over the Middle East, and in Australia, and elsewhere. If they can lower the energy expenditure costs as they have been doing over the last few decades, they can lower the overall costs to the consumers--and as we've seen upthread, HITACHI has started to grab a handle on that. I'll bet they're not alone.

This is one of those stories where there are more than one side...this article covers the pluses, and the minuses:

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_25859513/nations-largest-ocean-desalination-plant-goes-up-near


Telling me that I "don't understand" and "please study the topic" when I just don't agree with your perspective isn't going to change my mind. I do understand--California is short of water, and this is one way of getting more of it. You don't like that, but that's not making this project go away. We'll just have to see how this goes--if they follow the lead of Israel, and these projects come in at or below expected costs, this is going to become a common way of providing water to citizens in periods of shortage, even if it doesn't please you.

As for agribusiness, which plays a key role in putting California in that "Seventh Largest World Economy" category, if the people aren't using the water, there's more available for them--so I imagine they have an attitude about this effort that doesn't converge with yours.