142
Colorado River basin has lost nearly the equivalent of an underground Lake Mead
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
142 points (97.3% liked)
News
37817 readers
1433 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
https://livetoplant.com/the-cost-of-desalinated-water-is-it-worth-the-investment/
So you run up the water costs by factor 5. But it only starts there. While the lower end of the basin is close to the Gulf of California, the upper end is some 800 miles away from the sea. Also the upper basin is at an elevation of about 1,500 m.
So for every cubic meter you get up there you need at least 4 kWh of energy purely to cover the elevation. more realistically you are looking at double that amount as you also need to cover the distance.
Furthermore you need to build the appropriate pipes and pumping stations. Those need to be kept up and manned, further driving the costs up.
So you end up with maybe $5-10 per cubic meter of water.
Cost isn't relevant - this is something we must choose to do as a society instead of emptying out the aquafiers.
If near-coastal water needs are solved using desalination you can keep a lot more water at higher elevations.
Cost is absolutely relevant. Resources are limited. As i have said the wasteful use by industry and agriculture needs to stop. I don't understand why you are arguing against that and then claim that cost wouldn't be relevant. Unless you want your taxes to be ramped up so some private business can waste subsidized water and make profits off it.
The solutions are reducing water usage by using more efficient processes or shutting down wasteful industries. Crops need to be switched to less water consuming crops. Meat consumption and animal farming need to be reduced. Natural structures that help retain water need to be reestablished. Fields need to be downsized with hedges in between to protect against winds eroding and drying out the soil.
These are the choices we need to make as society. Not throwing even more resources at a wasteful system that has no right to remain wasteful.
With enough energy resources aren't limited. Solar is that energy, since for desalination we can perform it purely during daytime and won't need to build out batteries etc as for other energy consuming industries.
I am sorry, but now it is getting ridiculous. You need solar panels. You need distribution lines. You need the desalination plants. If you run a reverse osmosis plant you need to regularly renew the membranes. You need the pipes and the pumps to transport the water for hundreds of kilometres. All of these need finite resources.
Claiming resources are unlimited is techbro nonsense.