• Writein

    I think we are discussing two different things that may tie in together but I was describing coal-fired plants and their usage of water... Nuclear plants use about twice the amount of water but they don't emit carbon.... Diverse forms of energy is the path we are currently on an I am not discounting that, but I was making a point that less water usage should be considered a selling point. Oil does not really fit into this topic...IMO.. I was talking about water consuming energy sources.


    October 26, 2010 at 12:04 p.m.

  • Mike.

    The Israeli desalination plant is the most successful plant. Since Bay City is planning on adding on a new reactor, I believe that a diverse forms of energy to power such a plant. Solar, nuclear, Coal, Oil, trash, and yes even tidal energy should all be considered.

    October 26, 2010 at 11:54 a.m.

  • Writein

    I read your blog and I agreed with most of it except the part about desalination plants.

    Tampa, Florida installed one in 2009 with a cost overrun a $40 nillion and it's unable to produce the 25 million gallons a day that was originally promised. The $158 million cost of the plant is more than the Texas budget you described.... Today those plants consume a lot of energy and it will put a bind on coal- fired plants causing them to produce more CO2..... I think it should be considered along with all the other alternatives.

    Thanks for commenting

    October 26, 2010 at 11:23 a.m.

  • "Unlike the our two elected officials to Austin, I have a solution to the water problem. My solution is lay aside money from the corrupt Texas Department of Transportation, the Texas Youth Commission, and require San Antonio, Austin, Houston, and Corpus Christi to built a system of two or three Desalination Plants to feed their populations. Think of the possibilities of saving and creating jobs in Victoria, Dewitt, Lavaca, Jackson, and other counties in the crossroads."

    October 26, 2010 at 4:36 a.m.

  • Here are my ideas about water.

    October 26, 2010 at 4:32 a.m.

  • Nuclear is the way to go, but as with most industries, nobody wants them in their backyard.

    October 25, 2010 at 10:56 p.m.

  • I'm a little puzzled by coal fired generation using only 480 gal per megawatt-hr and nuclear using 720. I thought these would be about the same since they have about the same thermal efficiency.

    Using natural gas looks like the way to go combined with the tremendous volume of gas that is now recoverable from shale - all we have to do is frack it with a little water. That and electric hybrid cars and we're out of the middle-east and Venezuela - yahoo!

    October 25, 2010 at 6:19 p.m.

  • Thanks for the info Jared

    I remember a few years back, reading about Texas Instruments, creating cold water(ice) after business hours when electricity demand was lower, they stored it and used it business hours to cool buildings and processes and when electricity demand was at its peak.... It saved them a few million dollars a year.

    Just recently, the Ultra-Flush distributing program in Los Angeles gave away free 1.6 gallon Low-Flush toliets in an effort to help them conserve water and save money, while they helped protect Mono Lake by limiting their water consumption. The program was sponsored by the Metropolitan Water District and the Los Angeles Dept of Water and Power. They discontinued the problem after 90% of the toliets were replaced.

    This goes along with their city ordinance.The city has a "retrofit on resale" ordinance requiring ultra-low flush toilets and low-flow shower heads in all residential properties prior to resale.

    Goes to show will we can do.

    October 25, 2010 at 4:17 p.m.

  • I know in my industry, water conservation is also being studied and there are plenty of ways to create mechanisms that would conserve more water. Using local grasses, rain harvesting systems built into a building, and use of grey water for non-drinking, non washing purposes are a few proposals.

    October 25, 2010 at 3:47 p.m.