The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
The Water Wars Come to the Suburbs
https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-the-southwest/the-water-wars-come-to-the-suburbs
199 comments
> But I can't understand the attitudes of people who are choosing to move to such a place where access to water is such a risk.
Denial is incredibly powerful. Most people can't really comprehend that there isn't enough water in that region (even though it should be obvious). We've lived in a time of plenty for so long the idea that something as fundamental as water could be limited just seems impossible.
You see this everywhere, and only tend to notice the denial when the problems don't impact you. Comments pointing out concerns that impact tech or everyone are frequently downvoted to oblivion here on HN. I saw a comment claiming that democracy in the US has been under threat, something no one who was observing the US from outside would deny, get downvoted to oblivion and decried as pure hyperbole.
We're all living in a constant and escalating state of cognitive dissonance, the world around is collapsing in multiple ways, but locally you aren't allowed to acknowledge this. The "this is fine meme" summarizes our current environment perfectly.
Denial is incredibly powerful. Most people can't really comprehend that there isn't enough water in that region (even though it should be obvious). We've lived in a time of plenty for so long the idea that something as fundamental as water could be limited just seems impossible.
You see this everywhere, and only tend to notice the denial when the problems don't impact you. Comments pointing out concerns that impact tech or everyone are frequently downvoted to oblivion here on HN. I saw a comment claiming that democracy in the US has been under threat, something no one who was observing the US from outside would deny, get downvoted to oblivion and decried as pure hyperbole.
We're all living in a constant and escalating state of cognitive dissonance, the world around is collapsing in multiple ways, but locally you aren't allowed to acknowledge this. The "this is fine meme" summarizes our current environment perfectly.
That may all be true. But we've also had chicken littles screaming about the falling sky since the beginning of time.
Y2k comes to mind. I was in high school at the time, and still remember all the breathless articles. The trains would stop, the water treatment plants would fail, the traffic lights would go haywire. Somewhere within each semi truck, grid sub-station and bank mainframe was a tiny ticking time bomb that would rollover in a few short months to 00 and implode into chaos. For the want of a few bits, the implements of modern life would become useless hunks of scrap. The crusty cobol programmers were working round the clock to stop it but there simply weren't enough of them or the source code was missing or nobody had a compiler anymore. We were doomed.
Turns out, the damned lights didn't even flicker at midnight.
And with rise of click-driven journalism, it's even worse.
Y2k comes to mind. I was in high school at the time, and still remember all the breathless articles. The trains would stop, the water treatment plants would fail, the traffic lights would go haywire. Somewhere within each semi truck, grid sub-station and bank mainframe was a tiny ticking time bomb that would rollover in a few short months to 00 and implode into chaos. For the want of a few bits, the implements of modern life would become useless hunks of scrap. The crusty cobol programmers were working round the clock to stop it but there simply weren't enough of them or the source code was missing or nobody had a compiler anymore. We were doomed.
Turns out, the damned lights didn't even flicker at midnight.
And with rise of click-driven journalism, it's even worse.
Do you think Y2K fixed itself?
It's the real estate agent's duty to inform house buyers that they property they're buying may not have water in the future and what a huge pain point that would be. The only logical conclusion i can come to is that the buyers real estate agents have not been honest in this regard.
Other people just don't care. I know a Mojave desert community far to the east of LA where water delivery happens by truck. It's a very harsh and unforgiving environment, but I really liked it when I worked out there some years ago and have considered moving there because I like solitude and am comfortable with a very frugal/minimal lifestyle.
Last year I ran across an LA Times article about how people were making different life choices due to the pandemic, and and other factors - specifically moving from LA to this place. In contrast to locals who tend to build low houses and choose colors that blend with the desert landscape, these people were painting their houses bright white and, I kid you not, installing swimming pools.
Last year I ran across an LA Times article about how people were making different life choices due to the pandemic, and and other factors - specifically moving from LA to this place. In contrast to locals who tend to build low houses and choose colors that blend with the desert landscape, these people were painting their houses bright white and, I kid you not, installing swimming pools.
Would a white house reflect more height and be cooler inside ?
Are they really duty bound to disclose this? What about fire, flood, earthquake and any other risk. My experience is they don't, other than legally mandated things like asbestos or lead.
I bought a house in California, and the docs include a bunch of details on potential disasters, natural and otherwise. Dam inundation maps are engrossing - there's a dam over San Leandro that could put water on the OAK runways.
That said, I see wiggle room on "if nothing changes there eventually won't be enough water", even if we all know that in practice nothing will change in time, so I don't know how that actually plays out.
That said, I see wiggle room on "if nothing changes there eventually won't be enough water", even if we all know that in practice nothing will change in time, so I don't know how that actually plays out.
>I have no information about this, but I would expect that homeowner's insurance should get much more expensive for these locations as without access to water it's quite hard to have firefighting infrastructure. Without firefighters, homes and humans are at much higher risk. Maybe insurance economics will help to resolve this?
It's pretty normal in rural areas to basically not have a fire department for all practical purposes anyway. Yeah, they often have a volunteer fire department, but when your best case scenario response time is like 30 minutes, you're not gonna save structures anyway. That's not considering the wildfire risk at all.
It's pretty normal in rural areas to basically not have a fire department for all practical purposes anyway. Yeah, they often have a volunteer fire department, but when your best case scenario response time is like 30 minutes, you're not gonna save structures anyway. That's not considering the wildfire risk at all.
Right, but even with a volunteer fire department, at least there's normally water that they can use to save the neighbor houses once they arrive on-scene. If there's no water then there's no way to save anything from a fire.
>Right, but even with a volunteer fire department, at least there's normally water that they can use to save the neighbor houses once they arrive on-scene.
Lol... no. There are so many flawed assumptions here I'm not sure where to start. Basically everything you said was wrong.
First, the "neighbor house" would typically be hundreds of yards away at the absolute closest.
Second, the availability of water for fire fighting purposes in rural areas is commonly dubious normally. It's exceedingly rare that a residence will have any form of pressurized water like "personal hydrant" type of system. At best, they might have a 2,500 gallon polyethylene tank, or a pond they could dip into, IF the volunteer fire department has a pump and hose setup, which is itself kind of rare or slow to arrive.
Third, a lot of the efforts on scene are unlikely to involve water at all. It's more like wild-land fire style where you might try to cut fire lines and stuff to try and prevent igniting surrounding areas, evacuate and render aid to affected people, etc.
Lol... no. There are so many flawed assumptions here I'm not sure where to start. Basically everything you said was wrong.
First, the "neighbor house" would typically be hundreds of yards away at the absolute closest.
Second, the availability of water for fire fighting purposes in rural areas is commonly dubious normally. It's exceedingly rare that a residence will have any form of pressurized water like "personal hydrant" type of system. At best, they might have a 2,500 gallon polyethylene tank, or a pond they could dip into, IF the volunteer fire department has a pump and hose setup, which is itself kind of rare or slow to arrive.
Third, a lot of the efforts on scene are unlikely to involve water at all. It's more like wild-land fire style where you might try to cut fire lines and stuff to try and prevent igniting surrounding areas, evacuate and render aid to affected people, etc.
That's fair, I don't know how to fight fires. But it sounds like a lot of these newer houses in the article are not the normal spread-out rural type spacing but much more like suburb size lots. The article says: “Not only are they building as dense as they can build, they’re scraping everything to the ground,”
If they really are building on multi-acre lots then you're probably right. But if it's more like a suburban style where houses are on 0.25 acre lots and there's only maybe 15-20 feet between houses then I feel my concerns are legit.
If they really are building on multi-acre lots then you're probably right. But if it's more like a suburban style where houses are on 0.25 acre lots and there's only maybe 15-20 feet between houses then I feel my concerns are legit.
Right: They'll have water delivery trucks on standby contracts. The very trucks that deliver water to homes. They'll come to the scene and deploy an instant-pool for firetrucks to draw from.
You could say that having homes that depend on cisterns actually helps in firefighting efforts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i090t5scQ1o&t=220s
You could say that having homes that depend on cisterns actually helps in firefighting efforts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i090t5scQ1o&t=220s
The tenders, as those trucks are known, would be from the fire department themselves. Filling from nearby-as-possible ponds or tanks, a good-sized structure fire will still go through multiple trucks' worth of water.
I volunteer with our rural, island-based fire department. The more populated part has 90% or more of the people, and is part of our coverage area. The larger part is more parks and forest, and sees regional coverage such as chopper- or truck-based crews, helicopters and so on.
Each of the engine trucks carries something like 1000 gallons of water, and is kept full. So are the tenders, which can dump into the "porta-pond" as in that video. The water supply team has a list of available sources of water that they can go to to keep that water flowing, but if there is nothing nearby, the round-trip time will get longer, and firefighters will have to leave the building until there is water available.
Wildfire fighting is very different, and much more focused on containing the edges of the fire by using natural fire breaks or creating new ones. (Think picks and shovels, heli buckets, and heavy equipment where available.) If there is a house or two threatened, maybe some sprinklers can be set up ahead of the fire. If the house is on fire, too bad, efforts are on what's ahead.
I volunteer with our rural, island-based fire department. The more populated part has 90% or more of the people, and is part of our coverage area. The larger part is more parks and forest, and sees regional coverage such as chopper- or truck-based crews, helicopters and so on.
Each of the engine trucks carries something like 1000 gallons of water, and is kept full. So are the tenders, which can dump into the "porta-pond" as in that video. The water supply team has a list of available sources of water that they can go to to keep that water flowing, but if there is nothing nearby, the round-trip time will get longer, and firefighters will have to leave the building until there is water available.
Wildfire fighting is very different, and much more focused on containing the edges of the fire by using natural fire breaks or creating new ones. (Think picks and shovels, heli buckets, and heavy equipment where available.) If there is a house or two threatened, maybe some sprinklers can be set up ahead of the fire. If the house is on fire, too bad, efforts are on what's ahead.
Don't US fire trucks carry water?
yes but they also usually hook up to fire hydrants to have enough time to put fires out. I don't have figures but from what I remember most fire trucks only have enough water on board for the first 5-10 minutes of spraying.
> But I can't understand the attitudes of people who are choosing to move to such a place where access to water is such a risk.
From the article: "They believe that the county is not going to let five hundred homes next to one of the wealthiest cities go without water.”
In their mind: "This is America." Meaning they are used to living in the "Land of plenty" never thinking that one day, it could end.
From the article: "They believe that the county is not going to let five hundred homes next to one of the wealthiest cities go without water.”
In their mind: "This is America." Meaning they are used to living in the "Land of plenty" never thinking that one day, it could end.
> Meaning they are used to living in the "Land of plenty" never thinking that one day, it could end.
This was my thought as well. The music is about to stop. Many don't realize it. Some don't believe it. Some actively deny it. But it's happening, and faster than we're ready for.
This was my thought as well. The music is about to stop. Many don't realize it. Some don't believe it. Some actively deny it. But it's happening, and faster than we're ready for.
Many of us do realize it and are just sitting here staring at the screen at work realizing what a horrible mistake it all was, and hoping the fall won't as bad as the movies lead us to believe.
I am frequently reminded these days of a particular New Yorker cartoon [0].
We can still avert most of the predicted catastrophes, but we need to stop letting the people with the money just dictate policy to the rest of us to favor themselves.
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
We can still avert most of the predicted catastrophes, but we need to stop letting the people with the money just dictate policy to the rest of us to favor themselves.
[0] https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
[deleted]
I am sitting here, thinking that it would be an easily solvable problem if people actually cared about the sustainability of their communities.
So much this. Our town is trying. They're trying to educate people about it. They are showing people how much water we're collectively consuming per day, how much lower the water table is than in previous years etc. And it seems that nobody cares. Water consumption numbers are actually going up and I see people running sprinklers. I'm hoping the town will actually soon switch from only allowing sprinklers during the night to disallowing sprinklers altogether and actually enforcing that.
I didn't realize how much water I was using until my bill went way up. Then I started running outside to read my water meter after various activities. Showering is the #1 usage of water: 80-100 gallons per shower!!! I had no idea. Literally, it never crossed my mind because water has always been so cheap.
Many are actively working to bring the disaster into the present! In the book Running Out the author interviews Kansas farmers who are explicitly managing the aquifer so that it runs out within their lifetimes. Not too soon, but not too far into the future, either.
What's the logic here - is it just agribusiness maximizing profit in the short-medium term with the expectation of writing it off and moving production elsewhere once the point of collapse arrives?
You can't just take the planet with you when you die hence you need to consume it in its entirety to minimize "waste" aka earth left for other humans.
“I got mine”
Juxtaposing this with the Flint water crisis -- which occurred in a place with abundant fresh water, albeit no wealthy cities next door -- is really something. They may be right, but this is not a bet I would be comfortable making.
Add in “I’m a nature lover! I’m not the bad guy because I want to live in nature (with air conditioning, easy car access and half hour showers)!”
they said it's because there's no HOA. HOAs really are incredibly awful. And, it's getting harder and harder to find houses that are not in an HOA.
I think the whole concept of having HOAs in many neighborhoods is a very regional thing. I live in upstate NY and pretty much every single-family homes neighborhood around me does not have an HOA. The only neighborhoods which have HOAs are those with large numbers of multi-family homes, like townhomes.
In some ways it's nice to not have an HOA, no one bugs me if my lawn is looking sad. But in other ways it would be nice to have a unified group to take care of some neighborhood things, like unifying garbage pickup since we have private garbage companies here: there's probably 6 different companies who service my neighborhood on all 5 days of the week, it would be nice if we all just had 1 and probably we could all save some money this way too.
In some ways it's nice to not have an HOA, no one bugs me if my lawn is looking sad. But in other ways it would be nice to have a unified group to take care of some neighborhood things, like unifying garbage pickup since we have private garbage companies here: there's probably 6 different companies who service my neighborhood on all 5 days of the week, it would be nice if we all just had 1 and probably we could all save some money this way too.
>>no one bugs me if my lawn is looking sad. But in other ways it would be nice to have a unified group to take care of some neighborhood things, like unifying garbage pickup since we have private garbage companies here:
In many locations neither of those items are purview of the HOA, those would be City ordinances and City Services.
HOA's in my experience fit 2 molds, with some over lap
The first takes care of common property of the community, like playgrounds, community centers, etc.
Then you have rules enforcement, which are beyond the standard city rules like length of grass, in the realm of the type and style of grass you can have, the plants you can have, the color of the home, the type of (or if you can) have a pool, or structure, or Playground, etc etc etc.
These HOA expanded on what would be normal governmental regulations around safety, and go into the realm of "property value" protection, and other ascetics needs of the community
In many locations neither of those items are purview of the HOA, those would be City ordinances and City Services.
HOA's in my experience fit 2 molds, with some over lap
The first takes care of common property of the community, like playgrounds, community centers, etc.
Then you have rules enforcement, which are beyond the standard city rules like length of grass, in the realm of the type and style of grass you can have, the plants you can have, the color of the home, the type of (or if you can) have a pool, or structure, or Playground, etc etc etc.
These HOA expanded on what would be normal governmental regulations around safety, and go into the realm of "property value" protection, and other ascetics needs of the community
My town has no interest in operating garbage service. A few of the area villages do have village-provided garbage service and often the quality and cost is less than the private companies, but it seems garbage service is not a big enough deal for people to try and unite over it.
Pools and structures like decks or sheds are regulated by the building code of the town, but they do not impact your property value for property taxes. Pools specifically also don't seem to impact property value when you sell, a pool is only useful here for 3 months of the year and lots of people don't want to deal with maintaining them. I would happily pay an HOA to take care of a nice neighborhood pool instead of maintaining my own but I've never seen a local single-family home neighborhood with a community pool here.
Pools and structures like decks or sheds are regulated by the building code of the town, but they do not impact your property value for property taxes. Pools specifically also don't seem to impact property value when you sell, a pool is only useful here for 3 months of the year and lots of people don't want to deal with maintaining them. I would happily pay an HOA to take care of a nice neighborhood pool instead of maintaining my own but I've never seen a local single-family home neighborhood with a community pool here.
Well my city has no interest in operating one either, instead they force me to pay a high monthly fee, then find the lowest bid contractor they can to do a shitty job of collecting my trash sometimes... (paying the contractor about 1/4 of the amount the city charges me for the service) while preventing any competing company from offering residential pickup anywhere in the city limits.
That is probably because upstate NY does not have new housing developments. All housing developments built from scratch since the 2000s that I have seen have HOAs. Many from 1980s and 1990s. Once the HOA is in place by the original developer, it is rare to get the votes needed to remove the HOA.
My neighborhood was built starting around 2005-2006. Then during 2008-ish building paused for a bit, then resumed around 2012, then paused again around 2014, then resumed around 2018. It's now complete. There's lots of new single-family home neighborhoods being built in my town, afaict none of them have HOAs.
Where is this? I am familiar with developments in CA/WA/OR/TX/TN/FL.
All the FL/TX ones even come with gates.
All the FL/TX ones even come with gates.
I live in Webster, NY. It's a suburb of Rochester, NY. There's not a TON of new developments but there's a steady stream of new builds around the various suburbs of Rochester, Buffalo, and Syracuse. Mostly it seems like younger families buying these new builds.
what ever money save from garbage pickup will be vastly outdone by the enormous waste an HOA brings. Our HOA costs me 2K per year (that's a whole tesla every 20 years = 40K). And the only thing they do is take care of a couple of benches, blow some leaves off a few bushes, maybe a few sprinklers in a green area and 2 big white fences. Other than that, all the money goes to administration and inspectors that go around citing people for planting trees, etc. Now, our neighborhood does look really great but it's not because of the HOA, it's because we have larger lots and nice housing architecture and people take care of their properties really nicely (HOA doesn't do any of that).
Two unrelated comments:
1) The conspiracy theory is that intentionally pointless HOAs were pushed by small government folks as a way to make people skeptical of tax-for-service organizations.
2) The HOAs point isn’t to regulate the 99% of people who would otherwise maintain their house. It’s for the 1% of people that wouldn’t and in order to avoid housing discrimination charges, you have to regulate everyone equally.
1) The conspiracy theory is that intentionally pointless HOAs were pushed by small government folks as a way to make people skeptical of tax-for-service organizations.
2) The HOAs point isn’t to regulate the 99% of people who would otherwise maintain their house. It’s for the 1% of people that wouldn’t and in order to avoid housing discrimination charges, you have to regulate everyone equally.
Do HOAs even exist outside the US? I don't know of anything similar in Australia other than body corporate organizations for blocks of units but their scope (and cost) is far more limited.
All the other services seemingly provided by HOAs in the US would all be local government provided here. I assumed it was much the same elsewhere in the (developed) world...
HOA's generally exist in places that followed the US's 20th century 'white/wealthy flight' model. Prominent examples include Argentina, South Africa, and Saudi Arabia.
This is representative of the core conflict of American politics that makes it so confusing to outsiders - ideologically, the people in power (often delusionally) identify with Europe, but in practice, they desire power dynamics similar to oligopolies seen in the developing world.
Not to go too far with the metaphor, but if America never established race-based slavery (and instead, racial minorities were primarily the small number of remaining Native Americans), I bet we'd have a similar political system to Australia (where overtly exclusionary practices are more frowned upon).
This is representative of the core conflict of American politics that makes it so confusing to outsiders - ideologically, the people in power (often delusionally) identify with Europe, but in practice, they desire power dynamics similar to oligopolies seen in the developing world.
Not to go too far with the metaphor, but if America never established race-based slavery (and instead, racial minorities were primarily the small number of remaining Native Americans), I bet we'd have a similar political system to Australia (where overtly exclusionary practices are more frowned upon).
We had something pretty close on the sugar plantations in the 19th century. But interestingly it was very much an exclusionary government policy to relocate most of them back to the south sea islands. Australia has plenty to be ashamed of in our treatment of anyone non-white historically.
I'm dubious. HOAs were created to do an end run around Shelley vs Kraemer.
This is a real problem in California and is some how ingrained into the political structure and hard to shake.
The Governor last year: "“There’s something that is truly Californian about the wilderness and the wild and pioneering spirit,” Newsom said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I’m not advocating for no (building).” [1]
AFAIK, lawmakers are actually considering subsidizing insurance costs for exurbs in places that were never meant to host human habitation year round.
[1]: https://apnews.com/article/b17b5c9200a64466b49f3f605f9202fe
The Governor last year: "“There’s something that is truly Californian about the wilderness and the wild and pioneering spirit,” Newsom said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I’m not advocating for no (building).” [1]
AFAIK, lawmakers are actually considering subsidizing insurance costs for exurbs in places that were never meant to host human habitation year round.
[1]: https://apnews.com/article/b17b5c9200a64466b49f3f605f9202fe
This sounds very similar to issues around houses built in known historical flood zones.
Where this has been found to be a very expensive mistake, you are now seeing communities buy out homeowners, demolish, and leave the areas empty. Other efforts can be very expensive, but worthwhile if they're protecting enough.
For example of the latter, the Winnipeg floodway is a huge ditch around Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Built in the late '50s, it diverts the Red River around the city, reconnecting further north. It was seen as a huge boondoggle when being built, but has saved much of the city repeatedly since.
For example of the latter, the Winnipeg floodway is a huge ditch around Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Built in the late '50s, it diverts the Red River around the city, reconnecting further north. It was seen as a huge boondoggle when being built, but has saved much of the city repeatedly since.
[deleted]
> in places that were never meant to host human habitation year round.
and which places on earth were meant for humans exactly?
and which places on earth were meant for humans exactly?
This was an interesting read for me.
I have a cabin on some land near Joshua Tree. There's water in the ground (300-400ft down) but I haven't bothered to put in a well, instead just hauling what little I need from the nearby town's bulk water dispenser.
Unlike AZ apparently, CA doesn't allow any new construction without a secure and sufficient water supply. Installing new cisterns for receiving hauled water is no longer permitted, but existing cisterns are grandfathered in. It seems like they never make any exceptions. A nearby fire station permanently closed when their well water was found to be too toxic and they weren't permitted to install a cistern for hauled water.
It seems like AZ could solve this issue state-wide by adopting a similar permitting requirement, instead of having these parcels-of-5 loopholes enabling entire subdivisions to be built without water.
The problems my area has been dealing with are illegal agriculture (large marijuana grows) depleting the ground water, and there's always some hare-brained commercial plan trying to plow through the red-tape and resell the cheap but finite groundwater in one form or another.
I have a cabin on some land near Joshua Tree. There's water in the ground (300-400ft down) but I haven't bothered to put in a well, instead just hauling what little I need from the nearby town's bulk water dispenser.
Unlike AZ apparently, CA doesn't allow any new construction without a secure and sufficient water supply. Installing new cisterns for receiving hauled water is no longer permitted, but existing cisterns are grandfathered in. It seems like they never make any exceptions. A nearby fire station permanently closed when their well water was found to be too toxic and they weren't permitted to install a cistern for hauled water.
It seems like AZ could solve this issue state-wide by adopting a similar permitting requirement, instead of having these parcels-of-5 loopholes enabling entire subdivisions to be built without water.
The problems my area has been dealing with are illegal agriculture (large marijuana grows) depleting the ground water, and there's always some hare-brained commercial plan trying to plow through the red-tape and resell the cheap but finite groundwater in one form or another.
Yeah, it's dumb: people on cisterns will be far more conscious of their consumption (and possible reuses) than someone on a well or municipal connection. And hauled water will have better quality assurance than what comes out of a well.
But I have similar experience at a cabin without winterized plumbing and an iffy cistern, so over winter we haul in water too and melt more as needed. Probably going to install an incinerating toilet to augment the privy one day. It really makes you think about need vs. want. Lots of great USB-rechargeable pumps for hand-washing and shower head doo-hickeys these days.
But I have similar experience at a cabin without winterized plumbing and an iffy cistern, so over winter we haul in water too and melt more as needed. Probably going to install an incinerating toilet to augment the privy one day. It really makes you think about need vs. want. Lots of great USB-rechargeable pumps for hand-washing and shower head doo-hickeys these days.
> Probably going to install an incinerating toilet
That reminds me of one of my favorite sentences: "Yes, while some of you may think nothing of pooping into a mechanical box of fire, the prospect is a rather new idea for yours truly."
That reminds me of one of my favorite sentences: "Yes, while some of you may think nothing of pooping into a mechanical box of fire, the prospect is a rather new idea for yours truly."
The final quote is chilling:
“We got two great offers in, and neither of them cared about the water situation. They believe that the county is not going to let five hundred homes next to one of the wealthiest cities go without water.”
We'll see what happens in 2023, when Scottsdale no longer sells water to the water haulers.
The Water Knife feels more and more prophetic.
“We got two great offers in, and neither of them cared about the water situation. They believe that the county is not going to let five hundred homes next to one of the wealthiest cities go without water.”
We'll see what happens in 2023, when Scottsdale no longer sells water to the water haulers.
The Water Knife feels more and more prophetic.
Presumably the parent is referring to this novel:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Water_Knife
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Water_Knife
Yup. Paints a compelling, if gritty and dystopian, view of the American Southwest in an era of 'not enough water to go around'.
Exactly my thought... quite freaky to see it unfolding like that.
Eh, it's the same logic when people move to coastal areas that will be impacted by sea level rise. No one can imagine they'll be the ones who get screwed over, and certainly not if they're wealthy.
As such, I'm not sure I would call it chilling so much as entirely predictable.
The real failure is in the states and municipalities that are approving the building in the first place.
As such, I'm not sure I would call it chilling so much as entirely predictable.
The real failure is in the states and municipalities that are approving the building in the first place.
The way it works, or doesn't work, here in California is a combination of endless litigation against the Coastal Commission:
https://www.delmartimes.net/news/story/2021-06-11/seawall-ap...
Or outright defiance, apparently based on contempt for the CC's ability to enforce the law:
https://sandiego.surfrider.org/jack-the-riprapper-followup/
https://www.delmartimes.net/news/story/2021-06-11/seawall-ap...
Or outright defiance, apparently based on contempt for the CC's ability to enforce the law:
https://sandiego.surfrider.org/jack-the-riprapper-followup/
Well in their defense the government has a long history of bailing out politically connected people before they have to pay for their poor choices
Privatize gains, socialize losses!
You’re failing to integrate in that humans are very flexible, nothing is static, and technology often allows us to address problems as they come. Levees are a great example of that.
There are very few, if any, places on earth that don’t come with risks from nature.
There are very few, if any, places on earth that don’t come with risks from nature.
> and certainly not if they're wealthy.
Because they know that politicians will step in and have the government pay their bill. Too rich to fail.
Because they know that politicians will step in and have the government pay their bill. Too rich to fail.
> The real failure is in the states and municipalities that are approving the building in the first place.
They are solving today’s problems. The fact that our lifestyles are not even sustainable even ignoring global warming, but just from an infrastructure perspective is never addressed.
They are solving today’s problems. The fact that our lifestyles are not even sustainable even ignoring global warming, but just from an infrastructure perspective is never addressed.
NOAA has a sea level rise viewer.
https://coast.noaa.gov/slr
In the Bay Area the ocean coast communities aren’t very impacted. The Bay coast is significantly impacted, Foster City is already building a levee.
https://fostercitylevee.org/
https://coast.noaa.gov/slr
In the Bay Area the ocean coast communities aren’t very impacted. The Bay coast is significantly impacted, Foster City is already building a levee.
https://fostercitylevee.org/
Building a levee now is a smart move. They don't make the water disappear, they make the water go somewhere else. Somewhere that doesn't have such a high levee, for example.
In 10-15 years, the lawsuits surrounding construction of a new levee will make them take forever and cost a fortune.
In 10-15 years, the lawsuits surrounding construction of a new levee will make them take forever and cost a fortune.
I can't find it anymore but I read a long form article like this probably 10 years ago on the problem of suburbs public infrastructure.
Basically they ran the numbers and figured out that more than 50% of cities simply cannot afford to maintain the suburb infrastructure no matter what they do with the budget. Even if they did something crazy like tripled taxes tomorrow they still could not afford it. The called them zombie cities or something like that.
Basically they ran the numbers and figured out that more than 50% of cities simply cannot afford to maintain the suburb infrastructure no matter what they do with the budget. Even if they did something crazy like tripled taxes tomorrow they still could not afford it. The called them zombie cities or something like that.
You are probably thinking of The Growth Ponzi Scheme[0], which was adapted into a video series by Not Just Bikes[1].
[0] https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/
[1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6...
[0] https://www.strongtowns.org/the-growth-ponzi-scheme/
[1] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6...
I would take this with a huge grain of salt
- Other countries do have expansive suburbs. They don't look like ours, but they are fundamentally the same. Get outside of any major metropolitan and you will see spaced out houses in subdivisions with lawns.
- The ASCE number is a bit of a joke - this is a marketing number for the purposes of pushing investment in engineering firms. In reality, your city doesn't need to pay to rebuild every suburban road it has when filling potholes is cheap.
- Furthermore, this article does nothing to actually link these liabilities to where the revenues occur. The giant cost of replacing an aging power plant completely dwarfs the cost of suburban power lines. But a new subdivision is a huge tax boon to a community.
- Other countries do have expansive suburbs. They don't look like ours, but they are fundamentally the same. Get outside of any major metropolitan and you will see spaced out houses in subdivisions with lawns.
- The ASCE number is a bit of a joke - this is a marketing number for the purposes of pushing investment in engineering firms. In reality, your city doesn't need to pay to rebuild every suburban road it has when filling potholes is cheap.
- Furthermore, this article does nothing to actually link these liabilities to where the revenues occur. The giant cost of replacing an aging power plant completely dwarfs the cost of suburban power lines. But a new subdivision is a huge tax boon to a community.
> - Other countries do have expansive suburbs. They don't look like ours, but they are fundamentally the same. Get outside of any major metropolitan and you will see spaced out houses in subdivisions with lawns.
At least in my travels, the suburbs I've seen outside the US have only borne a very surface-level similarity to their US counterparts. There are lawns and the houses are detached, but the suburbs themselves tend to be much denser and connected to city centers via rail. These combine to make European suburbs more sustainable than their American counterparts.
(There are other factors as well: most of Continental Europe has much more consistent rainfall than the Continental US, and there's no particular evidence that their suburban constructions are ultimately sustainable either -- they may just be more than our ludicrously unsustainable ones.)
At least in my travels, the suburbs I've seen outside the US have only borne a very surface-level similarity to their US counterparts. There are lawns and the houses are detached, but the suburbs themselves tend to be much denser and connected to city centers via rail. These combine to make European suburbs more sustainable than their American counterparts.
(There are other factors as well: most of Continental Europe has much more consistent rainfall than the Continental US, and there's no particular evidence that their suburban constructions are ultimately sustainable either -- they may just be more than our ludicrously unsustainable ones.)
There are suburbs in, not outside my city and they look nothing like American suburbs. The mixed zoning alone makes up a huge difference. The plot sizes are much smaller and the density is higher.
All of this is true, but you’ve missed the biggest issue with the above argument, which is implying that we cannot afford to replace what our much poorer ancestors afforded to build.
Those poorer ancestors built denser housing and commercial real estate. What they built back in the day is often illegal today and has been grandfathered in while outperforming modern real estate in property taxes. Old "blighted" buildings can pay more taxes than fancy new commercial real estate that is designed for car dependency and suburbia.
No, I mean the suburbia. The entire shtick of Strongtowns is that suburbia is unsustainable, because it requires infrastructure that we cannot now afford to replace, despite being able to afford to build it in the first place.
The Growth Ponzi Scheme is the thing that explains this.
The cost of building out infrastructure the first time is covered by the sale of the newly constructed properties (and sometimes state or federal grant money) which is all one-time income.
Taxes are supposed to cover the eventual replacement cost, but they can’t because the level of taxation required to actually do this would make suburbs unaffordable. Instead, they primarily use debt and tax revenue from newer properties that are supposed to be paying for their own eventual infrastructure replacement to make up the deficit.
This is why Strong Towns calls it the growth ponzi scheme: the city can only outrun the cost of infrastructure replacement by taking money from new properties to pay for old ones until they run out of land to build or assets to leverage for debt, at which point the whole scheme fails.
The cost of building out infrastructure the first time is covered by the sale of the newly constructed properties (and sometimes state or federal grant money) which is all one-time income.
Taxes are supposed to cover the eventual replacement cost, but they can’t because the level of taxation required to actually do this would make suburbs unaffordable. Instead, they primarily use debt and tax revenue from newer properties that are supposed to be paying for their own eventual infrastructure replacement to make up the deficit.
This is why Strong Towns calls it the growth ponzi scheme: the city can only outrun the cost of infrastructure replacement by taking money from new properties to pay for old ones until they run out of land to build or assets to leverage for debt, at which point the whole scheme fails.
Strong Towns starts with the conclusion and then creates arguments to support it. It's interesting writing, but I wouldn't take it too seriously.
Normally we call that "forming and substantiating a hypothesis." Is there a specific reason why we shouldn't take it seriously?
The current implementation of market economy i.e. capitalism is growth dependent. It is entirely plausible that cities follow the same growth dependence strategy the rest of the economy follows.
I too want to find this article (I'm certain it was linked from HN). It isn't a strong towns article, but it had some great diagrams showing how the city centers are the only economically viable places for utilities because of density. The suburbs were just not cost effective and thus were going to go bankrupt because of the lack of efficiency. I've tried to find this article in the past and it has been long enough that I'm not really sure what to google for at this point.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/1/10/poor-neighborh... ?
> What is obvious here is that the poor neighborhoods are profitable while the affluent neighborhoods are not. Throughout the poor neighborhoods, the city is -- TODAY -- bringing in more revenue than they will spend to maintain the neighborhood, and that's assuming they actually invest the money to maintain the neighborhood (which they have not been). If they fail to maintain the neighborhood, the profit margins will be even higher.
> This might strike some of you as surprising, yet it is important to understand that it is a consistent feature we see revealed in city after city after city all over North America. Poor neighborhoods subsidize the affluent; it is a ubiquitous condition of the American development pattern.
> What is obvious here is that the poor neighborhoods are profitable while the affluent neighborhoods are not. Throughout the poor neighborhoods, the city is -- TODAY -- bringing in more revenue than they will spend to maintain the neighborhood, and that's assuming they actually invest the money to maintain the neighborhood (which they have not been). If they fail to maintain the neighborhood, the profit margins will be even higher.
> This might strike some of you as surprising, yet it is important to understand that it is a consistent feature we see revealed in city after city after city all over North America. Poor neighborhoods subsidize the affluent; it is a ubiquitous condition of the American development pattern.
This is the article I was thinking of, thanks for finding it!
I have strong suspicions that the data doesn't hold up if examined closely, because "suburbs" are just low density towns, and small towns continue to exist nearly everywhere.
Sure maintenance comes around, but it always seems to work out, somehow.
Sure maintenance comes around, but it always seems to work out, somehow.
There are lots of small towns across the US where it has not worked out.
I spent a couple years in Macomb, IL when I was a kid. Take a look at that place on Street View.
Overall population growth is mostly what has allowed for things to “work out” previously, but as the rate of growth slows down or even goes negative for the first time in recent history, the necessary conditions may not hold anymore for things to “work out”.
I spent a couple years in Macomb, IL when I was a kid. Take a look at that place on Street View.
Overall population growth is mostly what has allowed for things to “work out” previously, but as the rate of growth slows down or even goes negative for the first time in recent history, the necessary conditions may not hold anymore for things to “work out”.
Urban centers don't survive well under declining population either, so it's kind of an orthogonal question.
No, (North American) suburbs are fundamentally different to small towns. They don't have their own retail or small businesses, they're just places where people live and commute into the city.
Well a counterpoint would be the northern suburbs of Dallas like Plano, Richardson, and Frisco. They have so much economic activity that I would not be surprised if more people commuted from Dallas to those suburbs for work than vice versa. Also, I bet the people living in the far north exurbs are commuting to the suburbs and not all the way to Dallas proper.
I’m not sure that “true suburbs” actually exist anywhere - because if there’s large swathes of houses, you’ll find at least some retail in the area.
However if it’s more than a mile it may not be walkable but that’s not the same thing as unsustainable.
However if it’s more than a mile it may not be walkable but that’s not the same thing as unsustainable.
They're not small towns. Suburban homes very often have no commercial activity in close proximity. You have to drive somewhere else to do just about anything.
Small towns haven't historically been built like that.
Small towns haven't historically been built like that.
I have read something similar somewhere in the sphere of StrongTowns, I believe. Basically the story goes that infrastructure was paid for by expansion, which required more infrastructure; and so the pyramid scheme was made. The people got these godawful strip malls, "stroads", and suburban sprawl. The towns kicked the problem down the road but once the expansion has to stop, the whole thing comes apart.
It is similar to avoiding the problem of pensions by keeping the population young through population growth. As more people are being born, the population may even get younger if the growth rate is fast enough. It looks like the pension problem has been solved but once population growth stops there is nothing you can do.
I'll voice an unpopular opinion: people should live in these dry areas.
Deserts have wildlife, yes, but they have much less biomass than the other places humans live. A person living in Arizona or Nevada is displacing much less natural wildlife than a person like me, living in Seattle.
So I say let's embrace people living in water-starved areas like the Southwest. We can enable it by smart water usage, like you see in Vegas, combined with things like smart water diversion and desalinization.
Deserts have wildlife, yes, but they have much less biomass than the other places humans live. A person living in Arizona or Nevada is displacing much less natural wildlife than a person like me, living in Seattle.
So I say let's embrace people living in water-starved areas like the Southwest. We can enable it by smart water usage, like you see in Vegas, combined with things like smart water diversion and desalinization.
What natural wildlife is someone on the 10th floor of a century-old apartment building displacing?
Last time I checked, Vegas also gets the majority of its water from the Colorado River, including via Lake Mead. No amount of smart water usage is going to change the macro climate patterns here.
Last time I checked, Vegas also gets the majority of its water from the Colorado River, including via Lake Mead. No amount of smart water usage is going to change the macro climate patterns here.
The majority of Seattle's land use is single family houses, not unlike cities in the Southwest.
Besides, apartment buildings exist in desert cities too. The question wasn't about density, it was about building in deserts or not. Building in deserts is better for the environment.
Besides, apartment buildings exist in desert cities too. The question wasn't about density, it was about building in deserts or not. Building in deserts is better for the environment.
Sure, but it's all about proportions, both for existing and new residential construction.
I would be very surprised if Arizona either has or is building high-density apartment housing at the rate that Seattle or any other dense coastal state is. There's simply less incentive to.
I would be very surprised if Arizona either has or is building high-density apartment housing at the rate that Seattle or any other dense coastal state is. There's simply less incentive to.
People who live in cities have far smaller environmental footprints than people living in suburbs or rural areas.
I read that as being harshly sarcastic but I'm now thinking it might be unintentional the way they make these people out to be obviously the source of their own issues.
It seems like the suburbs who actually pay taxes to provide the water are being prioritised for water access and the people who intentionally built were there were no rules are upset that other people aren't following the rules.
It seems like the suburbs who actually pay taxes to provide the water are being prioritised for water access and the people who intentionally built were there were no rules are upset that other people aren't following the rules.
"Government for thee, not for me" is the prevailing sentiment for these types. The article even mentions it - the "fuck you, I got mine" attitude is a core cultural identity to Americans and this is exactly how it manifests.
That is absolutely NOT a core cultural identity to Americans. There is a tendency to want to solve things at a local or regional level that frustrates larger issues like water management. There is also a western do it yourself individualism that puts common resources in contention, but Americans aren't all some John Galt/John Wayne hybrid.
> There is also a western do it yourself individualism that puts common resources in contention
This is exactly the John Galt/John Wayne hybrid cultural identity that you're saying doesn't exist manifesting itself. That same "individualism" is why we can't come together long enough to build water infrastructure for people who belong to that same community. It's genuine insanity. Americans deserve every bit of pain we're about to experience over water rights in the coming decades because we won't acknowledge that mentality is the problem.
This is exactly the John Galt/John Wayne hybrid cultural identity that you're saying doesn't exist manifesting itself. That same "individualism" is why we can't come together long enough to build water infrastructure for people who belong to that same community. It's genuine insanity. Americans deserve every bit of pain we're about to experience over water rights in the coming decades because we won't acknowledge that mentality is the problem.
> The pro-DWID faction grew frustrated that their neighbors, many of whom had wells, were blocking their ability to secure water for themselves. “It’s the haves and the have-nots,” Nabity said. “Literally, some neighbors were like, ‘Screw you guys. You bought a property that doesn’t have water. That’s not my issue.’ ”
> Residents who didn’t like the idea of a utility formed by their neighbors found the idea of a private water provider more palatable. “I trust them,” Jackman told me. “I think they’re smart. This is what they do.”
I'm not sure I entirely believe you when you say Americans as a whole have a desire to solve things as a community. That can be true of some, and maybe even the majority, but I firmly believe there's enough of a general "Fuck you, I got mine" attitude to screw over a large number of people.
> Residents who didn’t like the idea of a utility formed by their neighbors found the idea of a private water provider more palatable. “I trust them,” Jackman told me. “I think they’re smart. This is what they do.”
I'm not sure I entirely believe you when you say Americans as a whole have a desire to solve things as a community. That can be true of some, and maybe even the majority, but I firmly believe there's enough of a general "Fuck you, I got mine" attitude to screw over a large number of people.
On a planet that is 2/3 water, I think we can find a solution. Desalination comes to mind. We built an interstate highway system. We can build an interstate water distribution system for desalinated Pacific Ocean water.
Okay, I'll bite. So the proposition is to truck water 364 miles (from the next largest city center I could find, San Diego). I think you might be suggesting a pipeline, but let's be real, there won't be water in Scottsdale in 5 years (and a pipeline won't be done anytime before that). People already find water brought in from _Phoenix_ which is _13_ miles away to be too expensive.
So what exactly is the solution?
So what exactly is the solution?
> People already find water brought in from _Phoenix_ which is _13_ miles away to be too expensive.
Too expensive for what? Too expensive is a continuum.
Too expensive for what? Too expensive is a continuum.
For this particular situation, that's a lot of money to spend just to serve already-well-off people willingly choosing to live in the desert in a drought.
Almost any significant technological innovation was expensive to provide to the public in its infancy but as the time went on, it became more accessible to the public. Right off the bat, i could name airplane transportation as a fine example.
Only some airplane transportation. Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago. Inter-city rail travel is much less accessible now than 80 years ago.
More to the point, you've assuming the conclusion. If we could distill and pump water from the Pacific Ocean to Arizona at cost-effective rates then yes, it would be a significant technological innovation.
But knowing that it would be a significant technological innovation doesn't make it happen. We don't have many flying cars, even though the technology has been around for decades. Yet cheap flying cars would be a significant technological innovation, yes?
We already have the ability to transport Pacific water from the Carlsbad Desalination Plant in San Diego to Arizona, via the road system. If your argument has merit, then we should be seeing the existing price getting lower, right?
What isn't the price going down fast enough to meet the obvious demand?
More to the point, you've assuming the conclusion. If we could distill and pump water from the Pacific Ocean to Arizona at cost-effective rates then yes, it would be a significant technological innovation.
But knowing that it would be a significant technological innovation doesn't make it happen. We don't have many flying cars, even though the technology has been around for decades. Yet cheap flying cars would be a significant technological innovation, yes?
We already have the ability to transport Pacific water from the Carlsbad Desalination Plant in San Diego to Arizona, via the road system. If your argument has merit, then we should be seeing the existing price getting lower, right?
What isn't the price going down fast enough to meet the obvious demand?
"Supersonic commercial air travel is less accessible now than it was 50 years ago..." gee, there should be a reason for that, can't put my finger on it...hmm...could it be the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable supersonic aircraft in comparison to "other air travel options"?
"We don't have many flying cars..." because of reasons that are completely out of the scope of this discussion. The airspace has a different set of rules and "vehicle operator" requirements in comparison to...the ground. Considering that many have trouble operating ground vehicles in a safe manner, i doubt that we're ever going to have manually controlled "flying cars" being a viable transportation option. And no, they wouldn't be as significant as the shift from ground travel to AIR, as we already have air travel options.
I didn't say that there is "an obvious demand", in fact i said quite the opposite, that not many people are going to want to live in the desert. When you're talking about the costs, do you mean the costs of desalination, transportation or both?
"We don't have many flying cars..." because of reasons that are completely out of the scope of this discussion. The airspace has a different set of rules and "vehicle operator" requirements in comparison to...the ground. Considering that many have trouble operating ground vehicles in a safe manner, i doubt that we're ever going to have manually controlled "flying cars" being a viable transportation option. And no, they wouldn't be as significant as the shift from ground travel to AIR, as we already have air travel options.
I didn't say that there is "an obvious demand", in fact i said quite the opposite, that not many people are going to want to live in the desert. When you're talking about the costs, do you mean the costs of desalination, transportation or both?
I refer to "the complexity and the challenges of constructing a reliable and economically viable" "interstate water distribution system for desalinated Pacific Ocean water", quoting direct parents.
The cost of desalination, the costs to build and maintain the tunnel/aqueduct system, the cost pumping water from sea level to 1,000 feet (elevation for Phoenix - likely more as the traversed part of the San Joaquin Valley is below sea level.)
To say nothing of the political and ecological costs - look at how well the Colorado River Compact has turned out, and the effect on the Colorado River Delta.
Water flows uphill towards money, certainly, but that's going to need a lot of money.
Speaking of the San Joaquin Valley, I would expect this water distribution system to irrigate California farmland first.
The cost of desalination, the costs to build and maintain the tunnel/aqueduct system, the cost pumping water from sea level to 1,000 feet (elevation for Phoenix - likely more as the traversed part of the San Joaquin Valley is below sea level.)
To say nothing of the political and ecological costs - look at how well the Colorado River Compact has turned out, and the effect on the Colorado River Delta.
Water flows uphill towards money, certainly, but that's going to need a lot of money.
Speaking of the San Joaquin Valley, I would expect this water distribution system to irrigate California farmland first.
Alright, i'll admit that i were a bit quick to judge the development and the presumed decrease in costs of what are essentially large scale complex industrial plants while comparing them to airplanes (not large scale complex industrial plants). I've just realized that not only it's a bit far fetched, but the logistical/ecological impact is in a completely different ballpark, meaning that any sort of a comparison between two completely different industries is meaningless. However, i still can't understand what your point is. Are those projects unnecessary? Should the governments, researchers and companies involved stop working on these projects? Or are you trying to say that i was way too quick to be like "oh yeah, the costs are going to be low and we're all going to drink desalinated water", because if so, i've already admitted that the initial comparison was bad, albeit i still think that eventually (and eventually is the keyword) the costs are going to be low enough to resolve the water supply issues in countries such as Australia for example.
If you have an issue with my suggestion that perhaps more well-off communities could encourage the developments in the water technology, then i'd like to say that i don't mean that farmers needs should be ignored in favour of some "weirdos living in a desert".
If you have an issue with my suggestion that perhaps more well-off communities could encourage the developments in the water technology, then i'd like to say that i don't mean that farmers needs should be ignored in favour of some "weirdos living in a desert".
I'm saying your comment to crooked-v didn't make sense. The economics don't work, and your argument that things get cheaper wasn't sound.
> Are those projects unnecessary?
joshuaheard's hypothetical interstate water transport project? Yes, unnecessary.
There are other lower-cost solutions. It'll be cheaper to provide free Earthships / passive homes / etc. to everyone in the desert southwest and ban outdoor watering. It'll be cheaper to build a New Cleveland and relocate the entire population of AZ to Ohio.
If you want to live in the desert, stop pretending you live in the English countryside. Every well sucking up irreplaceable water is a temporary facade against reality, and that facade is now crumbling.
> to resolve the water supply issues in countries such as Australia for example
That's to provide for coastal cities, not to provide water to Alice Springs.
> perhaps more well-off communities could encourage the developments in the water technology
Don't you understand? They did. The story mentions wells drilled down nine hundred feet to find water, and transporting water from different watersheds. That's all based on improved methods for drilling, pumping, and transporting.
Before about 80 years ago, we didn't have pumps able to drain the Ogallala. Now parts of that aquifer are 300 feet lower. Improve the technology? Lower the level. Until it's bone dry. And then what?
Sometimes the only way to win is to play a different game.
> Are those projects unnecessary?
joshuaheard's hypothetical interstate water transport project? Yes, unnecessary.
There are other lower-cost solutions. It'll be cheaper to provide free Earthships / passive homes / etc. to everyone in the desert southwest and ban outdoor watering. It'll be cheaper to build a New Cleveland and relocate the entire population of AZ to Ohio.
If you want to live in the desert, stop pretending you live in the English countryside. Every well sucking up irreplaceable water is a temporary facade against reality, and that facade is now crumbling.
> to resolve the water supply issues in countries such as Australia for example
That's to provide for coastal cities, not to provide water to Alice Springs.
> perhaps more well-off communities could encourage the developments in the water technology
Don't you understand? They did. The story mentions wells drilled down nine hundred feet to find water, and transporting water from different watersheds. That's all based on improved methods for drilling, pumping, and transporting.
Before about 80 years ago, we didn't have pumps able to drain the Ogallala. Now parts of that aquifer are 300 feet lower. Improve the technology? Lower the level. Until it's bone dry. And then what?
Sometimes the only way to win is to play a different game.
I agree on that and i didn't take a whole lot of things into account. In fact, i'll add up another aspect: making a communuty dependent solely on a desalinated water transported either by pipe or vehicles of any kind from far away, while in theory resolves one problem, introduces several extra dependencies on the operators of the supply chain and potential risks associated with fuel prices, waste containment, prices of chemicals used, etc.
"That's to provide for coastal cities..." which is closer to actual viable application, provided that those cities have a backbone to rely on in case the supply chain slows down for whatever reason.
"...Improve the technology? Lower the level. Until it's bone dry. And then what?" Yeah, sounds pointless, i understand your point now.
"That's to provide for coastal cities..." which is closer to actual viable application, provided that those cities have a backbone to rely on in case the supply chain slows down for whatever reason.
"...Improve the technology? Lower the level. Until it's bone dry. And then what?" Yeah, sounds pointless, i understand your point now.
The flaw in this reasoning is that it requires corresponding demand among the non-wealthy. It was true for airlines (everybody likes to go on vacation); is there a particular reason to believe that the average American wants to live in a desert, particularly as the resource limitations become more obvious?
Perhaps it was true for airlines, but mind you that airlines were a substantial upgrade over railways in terms of travel speed, so it's not just about vacations.
"...is there a particular reason to believe that the average American wants to live in a desert..." yes and no. With the rise of "alternative lifestyles", i wouldn't be surprised if people would begin exploring the cheaper to purchase lands for development. And while, obviously, most people aren't going to live in the desert, the technology that would be developed and used could benefit in areas other than "supplying those desert weirdos with water".
Alternative ways to obtain quality water to me are just like what airplane travel was in comparison to railways.
take a look at arizona real estate prices over the past couple years
people want to live where it’s sunny and warm
people want to live where it’s sunny and warm
I'm not denying that there are people who want to live there. It's obvious there are (and that there are growth trends, particularly as snowbirds seem to be discarding Florida as their first choice).
The dispute is about scale: a couple of million retirees equal a lot of speculative housing value, but they don't justify a megaproject to deliver water to the middle of the desert. That would require population migration on a scale not seen in over a century in the US.
The dispute is about scale: a couple of million retirees equal a lot of speculative housing value, but they don't justify a megaproject to deliver water to the middle of the desert. That would require population migration on a scale not seen in over a century in the US.
The problem isn't a lack of technology. Even if there was a magic technology it is unlikely to be adopted.
Anyone who recommends desalination and pipelines hasn't looked at how cheap the water on a municipal water bill is, let alone agricultural users: Approx a dollar or two per cubic meter supplied to my doorstep, depending what my consumption rate is. Other cities would be similar range. That's in the range of 0.1 cents per litre
That, and I expect we'll see growing demand for geoengineering solutions to bring more rainfall.
Entrenched money interests won't just accept the situation, they'll fight with every plausible tool, for better or worse.
Entrenched money interests won't just accept the situation, they'll fight with every plausible tool, for better or worse.
I don't want to be defeatist, but it seems like we can't build magaprojects in the US anymore.
Desalination requires energy and the ocean is far away for a lot of people.
>We can build an interstate water distribution system
Canals are a well-known technology. Humanity has several thousand years of experience with them.
Desalination is the real problem.
Canals are a well-known technology. Humanity has several thousand years of experience with them.
Desalination is the real problem.
[deleted]
I'll be a resident contrarian and argue that building more houses in the SW is a good thing.
- The desert is probably the best place to build sprawling metropolises with the lowest ecological impact (overall)
- Cooling is more energy efficient than heating.
- Houses in places like AZ are implicitly less wasteful (no lawns, better insulated, etc).
- People like it
But the question is how to get water to these places? Especially knowing now that the Colorado River Compact was designed when rainfall was at historic highs. But I don't think there is any long term solution that doesn't involve California giving up on taking other state's water to grow high-intensity agriculture.
- The desert is probably the best place to build sprawling metropolises with the lowest ecological impact (overall)
- Cooling is more energy efficient than heating.
- Houses in places like AZ are implicitly less wasteful (no lawns, better insulated, etc).
- People like it
But the question is how to get water to these places? Especially knowing now that the Colorado River Compact was designed when rainfall was at historic highs. But I don't think there is any long term solution that doesn't involve California giving up on taking other state's water to grow high-intensity agriculture.
>> Cooling is more energy efficient than heating.
How is that?
First thing ofcourse is everything we do as human, including our body is generating heat, for my cooling my home is FAR FAR FAR more expensive (thus i would assume more energy intensive) than heating my home.
>>Houses in places like AZ are implicitly less wasteful (no lawns, better insulated, etc).
This is largely government zoning or HOA's here, people outside of AZ could allow for less lawns as well. This would require a cultural shift. I would love to replace my lawn with something I did not have to mow, but my local government prevents that
>- People like it
Some people like, some people (like me) like cold climates, or places with seasonal changes. I would never in a million years live in the south west US, I prefer places that snow.
How is that?
First thing ofcourse is everything we do as human, including our body is generating heat, for my cooling my home is FAR FAR FAR more expensive (thus i would assume more energy intensive) than heating my home.
>>Houses in places like AZ are implicitly less wasteful (no lawns, better insulated, etc).
This is largely government zoning or HOA's here, people outside of AZ could allow for less lawns as well. This would require a cultural shift. I would love to replace my lawn with something I did not have to mow, but my local government prevents that
>- People like it
Some people like, some people (like me) like cold climates, or places with seasonal changes. I would never in a million years live in the south west US, I prefer places that snow.
I think what the other poster meant is that “cooling in a warm client is less energy intensive than heating in a cool climate” which is generally true.
This is partially because the temperature deltas are smaller. If you are aiming for 70 inside and you have 95 outside, you are fighting a 25-degree delta. But if you want 70 inside and have 25 outside, that’s a 45-degree delta the system has to overcome.
This is partially because the temperature deltas are smaller. If you are aiming for 70 inside and you have 95 outside, you are fighting a 25-degree delta. But if you want 70 inside and have 25 outside, that’s a 45-degree delta the system has to overcome.
As the other commenter posted you have solar effects, and as I stated you have other things that are putting off excess heat.
For me even when it is 25 outside occupied my home will settle at about 40-50 or so with no heat, due to just cooking, lighting, compters, TV etc that are all outputing heat...
so the delta I am attempting to heat is not really 25 to 70, but more like 50 to 70 due to the waste heat and solar heating effect
For cooling I am not not only battling the outside delta, but also all of that waste heat and solar heating effects
For me even when it is 25 outside occupied my home will settle at about 40-50 or so with no heat, due to just cooking, lighting, compters, TV etc that are all outputing heat...
so the delta I am attempting to heat is not really 25 to 70, but more like 50 to 70 due to the waste heat and solar heating effect
For cooling I am not not only battling the outside delta, but also all of that waste heat and solar heating effects
Delta is one thing, but you're also fighting solar gain when trying to cool. Sure you can mitigate, but when heating, the sun is working in your favour. Winds are another variable.
That’s true, although solar heating in warm climates can be mitigated in some ways (roof color, attic structure/ventilation) and solar heating in cold climates is tough with a layer of snow on the roof. Bottom line is that there are many variables but a big delta tends to be energy intensive to overcome.
> cold climates is tough with a layer of snow on the roof
Snow is actually helpful by insulating. The sun is closer to the horizon over winter, so it's your vertical windows doing the heating anyway.
An obvious issue is how much sunlight you get over winter. Not just in hours, but in N. Europe, you might have continuous cloudcover and not see the sun for weeks at a time.
Snow is actually helpful by insulating. The sun is closer to the horizon over winter, so it's your vertical windows doing the heating anyway.
An obvious issue is how much sunlight you get over winter. Not just in hours, but in N. Europe, you might have continuous cloudcover and not see the sun for weeks at a time.
Snow is not helpful for solar heating, as I said, and if your roof has a big r-value to begin with the snow is not adding a ton of insulation.
oh yeah, and snow reflects light off the ground. It's much brighter outside after coverage by snowfall.
If you are in a weird climate that gives you cold temperatures but consistent sunlight maybe?
But you are also dealing with angle of declination. Solar gain will be diminishing the further north you go even if you get sunlight.
But you are also dealing with angle of declination. Solar gain will be diminishing the further north you go even if you get sunlight.
High elevation can do that, but cloudcover is a lot heavier than much of Europe over winter than in much of North America.
Passive houses are much easier to build in cold climates than warm. Your analysis left out that the occupants and their machines generate heat.
"Together with the comprehensive energy conservation measures taken, this means that a conventional central heating system is not necessary, although they are sometimes installed due to client skepticism." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#Space_heating . See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_heating_building .
"Together with the comprehensive energy conservation measures taken, this means that a conventional central heating system is not necessary, although they are sometimes installed due to client skepticism." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#Space_heating . See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_heating_building .
Neither of your links say that passive houses are easier in cold climates.
Under the section "Tropical climate needs" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_house#Tropical_climate...
> Passive cooling, solar air conditioning, and other solutions in passive solar building design need to be studied to adapt the Passive house concept for use in more regions of the world.
> There is a certified Passive House in the hot and humid climate of Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, which uses energy recovery ventilation and an efficient one ton air-conditioner to provide cooling and dehumidification.
Earlier, "In August 2010, there were approximately 25,000 such certified structures of all types in Europe. The vast majority of passive structures have been built in German-speaking countries and Scandinavia."
> Passive cooling, solar air conditioning, and other solutions in passive solar building design need to be studied to adapt the Passive house concept for use in more regions of the world.
> There is a certified Passive House in the hot and humid climate of Lafayette, Louisiana, USA, which uses energy recovery ventilation and an efficient one ton air-conditioner to provide cooling and dehumidification.
Earlier, "In August 2010, there were approximately 25,000 such certified structures of all types in Europe. The vast majority of passive structures have been built in German-speaking countries and Scandinavia."
I saw that, nothing there says that cold climates are easier.
I see "easier" as meaning different things.
1) it's easier in the Scandinavian and German-speaking countries because passive house building materials are easier and cheaper to acquire ("other countries may spend 8% more on constructing Passive Houses than conventional buildings because the Passive House components may not be readily available" - "Examing the Prospective of Implementing Passive House Standards in Providing Sustainable Schools", https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5031991?casa_tok...)
2) it's easier in cooler areas because there's more experience in how to build for those climates (as Wikipedia points out).
3) it's easier in cooler areas because the energy saved is higher, and so easier to justify economically. "Passive Houses for different climate zones" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037877881... shows "Energy demands of the Reference Passive Houses in the different locations" in Table 3, with:
(Sorry, I can't find TCO.)
4) From my understanding, it's easier to well-insulate and let body heat and appliances provide the heat, using the cool exterior to regulate temperature, than it is to deal with cooling and humidity issues in warmer climates to bring the internal temperature to the "inner comfort range" specified by the Passivhaus Institute, Fig. 8 of the link in 3).
1) it's easier in the Scandinavian and German-speaking countries because passive house building materials are easier and cheaper to acquire ("other countries may spend 8% more on constructing Passive Houses than conventional buildings because the Passive House components may not be readily available" - "Examing the Prospective of Implementing Passive House Standards in Providing Sustainable Schools", https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.5031991?casa_tok...)
2) it's easier in cooler areas because there's more experience in how to build for those climates (as Wikipedia points out).
3) it's easier in cooler areas because the energy saved is higher, and so easier to justify economically. "Passive Houses for different climate zones" at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037877881... shows "Energy demands of the Reference Passive Houses in the different locations" in Table 3, with:
Yekaterinburg Tokyo Shanghai Las Vegas Singapore Abu Dhabi
Total saving 96% 90% 87% 86% 79% 77%
(Sorry, I can't find TCO.)
4) From my understanding, it's easier to well-insulate and let body heat and appliances provide the heat, using the cool exterior to regulate temperature, than it is to deal with cooling and humidity issues in warmer climates to bring the internal temperature to the "inner comfort range" specified by the Passivhaus Institute, Fig. 8 of the link in 3).
Yep, and it’s why building codes are usually more rigorous in northern states. The approach to homebuilding in the south is to assemble our flimsy, leaky boxes as quickly as possible and slap an oversized AC on it.
Houses in AZ use less energy on average than other states: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/sta...
And in aggregate, cities in warm climates are more sustainable than in cold: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014...
>> This would require a cultural shift.
Agreed. Or people can move to places like AZ or NV where lawns are the exception.
>> I would never in a million years live in the south west US
Agreed. I like the PNW too much to move. But my argument here is just letting people do what they want (move to warm deserts) is a net benefit to society.
And in aggregate, cities in warm climates are more sustainable than in cold: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014...
>> This would require a cultural shift.
Agreed. Or people can move to places like AZ or NV where lawns are the exception.
>> I would never in a million years live in the south west US
Agreed. I like the PNW too much to move. But my argument here is just letting people do what they want (move to warm deserts) is a net benefit to society.
>Houses in AZ use less energy on average than other states
hmm, looks like energy expenditures are the same, they note that energy costs are higher in AZ
So the question would be is the reduction due to budgets, meaning given the option the people in AZ would set their AC lower, and be more comfortable if they could afford too and the high cost prevents that
Or is it actually more efficient as the claim was?
hmm, looks like energy expenditures are the same, they note that energy costs are higher in AZ
So the question would be is the reduction due to budgets, meaning given the option the people in AZ would set their AC lower, and be more comfortable if they could afford too and the high cost prevents that
Or is it actually more efficient as the claim was?
> but my local government prevents that
They mandate you have a grass lawn?
They mandate you have a grass lawn?
Yes, unfortunately, this is very common. I'm in South Texas (for a few more weeks before I move) and my municipal ordinance requires homes to have a grass lawn and for it to be maintained. No HOA here (main reason I bought this house). I pay a lawn service company monthly to manage it for me, because it's a huge pain otherwise due to the climate.
Are you sure? Most places I have lived, the wording of the local ordinance says "IF you have a grass lawn, it must be maintained". I don't think many places would have issue with a nice xeriscaped native garden or even a cinder lawn.
Even in cities that do not call out grass, combination of ordinances make grass the easiest and most economical, one could not replace it with say concrete.
These are set in a variety of zoning, building, and maintenance ordinances
For your "native garden" depending on your meaning could be banned because the city classifies all "unmaintained plants" to be weeds in violation of the ordinance.
Various zoning and building codes outline ground coverings for run off, and flood control purposes.
Then you have separate regulations about shrubs and trees,
All of these combined make grass the easiest way to comply with the government even if the government does to implicitly require grass
These are set in a variety of zoning, building, and maintenance ordinances
For your "native garden" depending on your meaning could be banned because the city classifies all "unmaintained plants" to be weeds in violation of the ordinance.
Various zoning and building codes outline ground coverings for run off, and flood control purposes.
Then you have separate regulations about shrubs and trees,
All of these combined make grass the easiest way to comply with the government even if the government does to implicitly require grass
Okay, but there's a difference in saying something is banned vs saying it is expensive/too much work.
I disgree, at some point you have a functional ban even if you have not come right out and banned a thing
If you put enough roadblocks, hurtles, etc in front of something it becomes a functional ban
Case in point see the 2 most controversial subjects of today Abortion and Gun Rights, with each political side attempting functional bans with out actually "banning" the thing out right
If you put enough roadblocks, hurtles, etc in front of something it becomes a functional ban
Case in point see the 2 most controversial subjects of today Abortion and Gun Rights, with each political side attempting functional bans with out actually "banning" the thing out right
Depends on the place, for sure. Where I currently reside, the town is named after a particular species of tree, and it was required when all the homes were built that each property had one of this species of tree on the property. You are obligated to both maintain that tree (or replace it if it dies) and to have a lawn, this is actually the ordinance here.
I agree it's kind of ridiculous, but I also live in an area known for its onerous HOAs, and these ordinances are basically just a subset of that writ large, but without the worst of it. I'll still take this over living in an HOA.
I agree it's kind of ridiculous, but I also live in an area known for its onerous HOAs, and these ordinances are basically just a subset of that writ large, but without the worst of it. I'll still take this over living in an HOA.
> The desert is probably the best place to build sprawling metropolises with the lowest ecological impact (overall)
Ecological impact includes draining aquifers and diverting rivers.
Human civilizations, particularly dense ones, have preferred oceans and rivers near temperate rainforests (like the entire Northeast) for this reason. The marginal advantages of less heating aren't outweighed by the resource and economic advantages of living near large bodies of water in areas where the geology and ecology actually supports it.
Ecological impact includes draining aquifers and diverting rivers.
Human civilizations, particularly dense ones, have preferred oceans and rivers near temperate rainforests (like the entire Northeast) for this reason. The marginal advantages of less heating aren't outweighed by the resource and economic advantages of living near large bodies of water in areas where the geology and ecology actually supports it.
That doesn't mean it has to be the case.
Israel is a good model for how you can invest heavily in desalination and irrigation efficiency and support profitable agriculture, even in wasteland spaces.
Israel is a good model for how you can invest heavily in desalination and irrigation efficiency and support profitable agriculture, even in wasteland spaces.
Sure. It's all a manner of economic and political pressures and weights. We can also colonize the Moon or fill in the New York Harbor, but there are much cheaper and more realistic alternatives.
Israel is an unusual case: it's a state that exists more or less by religious mandate, meaning that its residents have gone above and beyond ordinary economic and political forces to make it livable. Lots of individual outcomes there can be applied elsewhere (like drip irrigation), but much is also politically infeasible in the US (like Israel's central authority that progressively taxes commercial water use.) Ecological variables also differ: the majority of people in Israel live in the Northern half of the country, which is wetter and greener than the American Southwest. That's also where agriculture is concentrated.
Israel is an unusual case: it's a state that exists more or less by religious mandate, meaning that its residents have gone above and beyond ordinary economic and political forces to make it livable. Lots of individual outcomes there can be applied elsewhere (like drip irrigation), but much is also politically infeasible in the US (like Israel's central authority that progressively taxes commercial water use.) Ecological variables also differ: the majority of people in Israel live in the Northern half of the country, which is wetter and greener than the American Southwest. That's also where agriculture is concentrated.
Point 3 - the article explicitly mentioned lawn sprinklers, a pool for bathing horses, and some other things that most definitely DO waste water. And are they required to be better insulated?
Sure, but on average less than northern cities.
At the end of the day, I don't actually care about moralizing what's wasteful or not if the owner is being charged the proper cost to acquire. If that's $1 a gallon for solar and desalination/recycled water, enjoy that lawn.
(Pedantic person side note: pools are not actually that wasteful. If they are properly covered when not in use, evaporative loss is actually pretty minimal).
At the end of the day, I don't actually care about moralizing what's wasteful or not if the owner is being charged the proper cost to acquire. If that's $1 a gallon for solar and desalination/recycled water, enjoy that lawn.
(Pedantic person side note: pools are not actually that wasteful. If they are properly covered when not in use, evaporative loss is actually pretty minimal).
> Sure, but on average less than northern cities.
This isn't true. Compare NYC's average of 117 GPD[1] to TMWA's 165 GPD[2]. That's 40% more water use, per individual. The last year that NYC's residents came close to using that much water was 1996.
[1]: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/history-of-drought-water...
[2]: https://www.nevadatomorrow.org/indicators/index/view?indicat...
This isn't true. Compare NYC's average of 117 GPD[1] to TMWA's 165 GPD[2]. That's 40% more water use, per individual. The last year that NYC's residents came close to using that much water was 1996.
[1]: https://www1.nyc.gov/site/dep/water/history-of-drought-water...
[2]: https://www.nevadatomorrow.org/indicators/index/view?indicat...
Swamp/evaporative coolers might be a big part of that difference.
Water in the Southwest has never been charged "the proper cost to acquire."
It's being pumped out faster than it can be replenished. Rivers are drained dry.
People have built for decades on the belief that water will never be its true cost.
Now it's the end of that day.
The "proper cost to acquire" isn't enough. Who pays the cost of repairing the damage done, like groundwater-related subsidence? Of restoring ecosystems?
It's being pumped out faster than it can be replenished. Rivers are drained dry.
People have built for decades on the belief that water will never be its true cost.
Now it's the end of that day.
The "proper cost to acquire" isn't enough. Who pays the cost of repairing the damage done, like groundwater-related subsidence? Of restoring ecosystems?
I don't actually care about moralizing what's wasteful or not if the owner is being charged the proper cost to acquire.
In theory, I feel the same way. However, I'm not sure anybody is paying anywhere near the proper cost with externalities included.
In theory, I feel the same way. However, I'm not sure anybody is paying anywhere near the proper cost with externalities included.
> People like it
This one doesn't hold water (no pun intended). Over the next few generations, people in the US are going to have to give up a whole lot of things they like.
This one doesn't hold water (no pun intended). Over the next few generations, people in the US are going to have to give up a whole lot of things they like.
[deleted]
> - The desert is probably the best place to build sprawling metropolises with the lowest ecological impact (overall)
The only problem is then these metropolises are in the desert, and you have to ship all agricultural products to them. That's fine most of the time when times are good and supply chains work, but it's fragile, if anything goes wrong enough in the worldwide food markets. A desert metropolis is like an island nation that must import all its food.
A precarious position if times ever get tough. I believe currently the USA is a net exporter of food products, but if you started building and growing enough desert cities that might stop being the case
The only problem is then these metropolises are in the desert, and you have to ship all agricultural products to them. That's fine most of the time when times are good and supply chains work, but it's fragile, if anything goes wrong enough in the worldwide food markets. A desert metropolis is like an island nation that must import all its food.
A precarious position if times ever get tough. I believe currently the USA is a net exporter of food products, but if you started building and growing enough desert cities that might stop being the case
You are going to need to provide a source for your claim that cooling is less efficient than heating. AFAIK from my days as a mechanical engineer, heating from an electric source is ~95% efficient and cooling is ~30% efficient...
Heat pumps have COP of 2-4, so in either heating or cooling mode, they generate more heating/cooling than electricity used.
But the reason cooling is cheaper is the temperature differential. AZ might get to, say, 110°F peak (and far cooler at night), for a temp delta of 35°F while the Midwest will stay below 20°F for months, and even colder at night, for a temp differential no better than 50°F during the day and 60°F at night.
But the reason cooling is cheaper is the temperature differential. AZ might get to, say, 110°F peak (and far cooler at night), for a temp delta of 35°F while the Midwest will stay below 20°F for months, and even colder at night, for a temp differential no better than 50°F during the day and 60°F at night.
And heat pump efficiency takes a dump when it has to go through defrost cycles in heating mode at near/below freezing temps.
In cooling mode they provide a source of fresh-distilled water! It always bothered me when air conditioners just dump that water down the sanitary drain instead of pumping it in a garden or misting it on the outside coils.
In cooling mode they provide a source of fresh-distilled water! It always bothered me when air conditioners just dump that water down the sanitary drain instead of pumping it in a garden or misting it on the outside coils.
Yeah, air source has problems at cold temperatures, especially if they cheap out on ice detection.
Fresh is not the word I would use for condensate. Try drinking some of you disagree :). It's corrosive for metal,{EDIT: maybe I just have that confused, see replies} which is why it usually doesn't find a purpose, but you could run it to plants. I have a window A/C which uses it for cooling the outside coils though.
Fresh is not the word I would use for condensate. Try drinking some of you disagree :). It's corrosive for metal,{EDIT: maybe I just have that confused, see replies} which is why it usually doesn't find a purpose, but you could run it to plants. I have a window A/C which uses it for cooling the outside coils though.
Still wouldn't drink it unless I'm desperate, but I don't see why it would be corrosive. Maybe slightly basic from being in contact with metals, but it couldn't be much unless your coils and fins are disappearing before your eyes.
Legionella is a concern though.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/01/air-conditioning...
Legionella is a concern though.
https://www.environmentalleader.com/2013/01/air-conditioning...
I think it's the lack of minerals? But it obviously forms on metal coils to begin with. Maybe I'm confusing it with condensate from condensing natural gas burners.
> "...they generate more heating/cooling than electricity used."
that's thermodynamically impossible. @dktoao, being a mechanical engineer, surely understands this, and made a statement that is different, and more plausible.
COP is a ratio of change in energy (e.g., temperature) produced against a common benchmark (running electricity through a resistive element, for example). that's how it can be greater than 100%. absolute efficiency (what @dktoao offered) compares against a 100% conversion of energy from one form (or place) to another. in this case, you cannot beat 100% (or generally get super close) due to the 2nd law of thermo.
that's thermodynamically impossible. @dktoao, being a mechanical engineer, surely understands this, and made a statement that is different, and more plausible.
COP is a ratio of change in energy (e.g., temperature) produced against a common benchmark (running electricity through a resistive element, for example). that's how it can be greater than 100%. absolute efficiency (what @dktoao offered) compares against a 100% conversion of energy from one form (or place) to another. in this case, you cannot beat 100% (or generally get super close) due to the 2nd law of thermo.
Basically no common A/C is 30% efficient in any sense of the word. There's a scenario where you can argue it can get as low as 50%, but no common A/C I have ever heard of is using moving less than 2x heat power as electricity power used. 30% is wrong no matter how you cut it.
And, "efficiency" doesn't matter. COP does. COP is what is reflected on your electrical bills.
And, "efficiency" doesn't matter. COP does. COP is what is reflected on your electrical bills.
it's basic thermodynamics. you mixed the two, as i explained previously, and now you're leaning into the misconception, rather than acknowledging the difference.
In no way is anything you said in either post of use to anyone.
If I am in my house, use 1000 W of electricity, get 3000 W of heating, that is what is important. No shit the extra heat comes from the environment. It doesn't matter unless you live within a house completely located inside an artificial climate-controlled area, which applies to... none. No houses.
If I am in my house, use 1000 W of electricity, get 3000 W of heating, that is what is important. No shit the extra heat comes from the environment. It doesn't matter unless you live within a house completely located inside an artificial climate-controlled area, which applies to... none. No houses.
It is two different modalities of heating though. Electrical heating is 95% efficient at dumping energy from the grid into your house, but a heat pump is using energy from the grid to concentrate and move heat from outside the house to the inside (which is itself unintuitive to people when it is already much colder outside the house than inside). So how do you develop a fair comparison of the two in total energy expended to keep the building at the desired temperature?
Probably heatpumps, depending on the climate. Heatpump effectiveness drops off rapidly as you head below 0C.
Considering the temperature extremes that southern US versus northern US housing experiences over the entire year, it's probably easier to keep the southern house around 21C than the northern one.
Considering the temperature extremes that southern US versus northern US housing experiences over the entire year, it's probably easier to keep the southern house around 21C than the northern one.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/014...
https://zeroenergyproject.org/warmer-climate-construction-de...
https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/sta...
Sure, but in a cool climate you need much less cooling to be comfortable than you need heating in even a neutral climate.
https://zeroenergyproject.org/warmer-climate-construction-de...
https://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/reports/2009/sta...
Sure, but in a cool climate you need much less cooling to be comfortable than you need heating in even a neutral climate.
Swamp coolers can be several hundred percent efficient.
These desert ecosystems are much more sensitive though.
If you disturb prairie it comes back after a couple of years of rain. Not so the desert.
If you disturb prairie it comes back after a couple of years of rain. Not so the desert.
I wonder how much this situation is being affected by large-scale deep agricultural wells? I think Arizona is a big foreign exporter (Saudi and China) of alfalfa for animal feed. Kinda wild to drain aquifers for export...
I highly recommend anyone interested in solutions to read “Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond” by Brad Lancaster. Link below. Also, he has a great video on YouTube with some of the concepts at a high level (from a TEDx) - don’t let his enthusiasm at the beginning detract from the seriousness of his message!
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49338099
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49338099
> “Like, a scrambling-for-your-toilet-water-every-month kind of thing.”
A few years ago I saw this coming and invented the Waterless Toilet. It's like a kitty litter box but for people who live in areas like those discussed in the article. Why scramble for toilet water when you can just use the Waterless Toilet?
I've been trying to get funding for this so please reach out if interested.
A few years ago I saw this coming and invented the Waterless Toilet. It's like a kitty litter box but for people who live in areas like those discussed in the article. Why scramble for toilet water when you can just use the Waterless Toilet?
I've been trying to get funding for this so please reach out if interested.
I wish you the best, but having looked into these topics when I was interested in RVs a few years ago, I think there's no market for your proposal because the market is already well served by (at the higher end) composting and incinerating toilets, which are clearly more palatable, and, at the lower end, just putting kitty litter in a bucket with an optional toilet cover, which you can already do for nearly free. I think most people who really wanted a waterless toilet would already fall into one of those two camps (cheap and crummy or expensive and fancy) leaving little room for your product, which would be both more expensive than just putting kitty litter in a bucket, yet not really all that much more palatable, since you still have to dispose of the used material, which is really the essential "annoying" part that would make one want a fancier option.
You are forced to figure out how to deliver enough value to be clearly better than shitting in a bucket, yet not much more expensive, to avoid competing with composting or incinerating toilets. I wonder if you actually might do better starting from a composting design and trying to improve it to make it more cost effective.
Sorry for the pessimism, just some things to think about! Maybe there is a path through, wish you the best.
You are forced to figure out how to deliver enough value to be clearly better than shitting in a bucket, yet not much more expensive, to avoid competing with composting or incinerating toilets. I wonder if you actually might do better starting from a composting design and trying to improve it to make it more cost effective.
Sorry for the pessimism, just some things to think about! Maybe there is a path through, wish you the best.
There's many designs that are used all over. I like my cabin's privy and going to do some upgrades to make it odourless: solar powered exhaust fan.
In the desert where the water table is hundreds of feet below you (and getting lower!), groundwater contamination isn't exactly an issue.
But there's also composting toilets and incinerating toilets that exist. A fancy incinerating toilet costs like $5k (Cinderalla toilet, I'm looking at you!), but I'm sure they'll cost a fraction of that in time. But there is an electricity cost to each 'flush' then.
In the desert where the water table is hundreds of feet below you (and getting lower!), groundwater contamination isn't exactly an issue.
But there's also composting toilets and incinerating toilets that exist. A fancy incinerating toilet costs like $5k (Cinderalla toilet, I'm looking at you!), but I'm sure they'll cost a fraction of that in time. But there is an electricity cost to each 'flush' then.
The Litter Bot people might beat you to it. They have a semi-automatic solution that works for cats, and they can probably reuse a lot of their existing patents to build a human-compatible device.
Maybe it would still be usable by cats, too?
Maybe it would still be usable by cats, too?
Buckminster Fuller made a few designs for this, as well.
this isn’t really the suburbs. it’s a more rural area with water wells and not hooked up to the main water service
new suburb developments in az are required to prove they have a 100 year water supply
new suburb developments in az are required to prove they have a 100 year water supply
Yeah that's covered in the article, but only applies to subdivisions of more than 5 houses. So the builders build larger anyway with ownership hidden in a shell game of LLCs to get around the regulation and build without that 100 year water supply.
California refuses to desalinate, which would solve all the problems.
I thought they were smart, instead they're political. They'd rather kill off the southwest. Assholes.
Desalinated water is $1000+ per acre-foot, while water from existing water infrastructure is heavily subsidized and sold for a few dollars per acre-foot to farmers. There are many reasonable arguments as to why we should not be building new infrastructure that produces water at 100x the cost it is currently sold at. Nearly all water projects in the west in the last hundred years are “political”, not economic.
OP sounds like someone not from 'the west'. Water has always been political in the western US and will always be. Like, there is this little Rep.-Dem. divide out here, but when push comes to shove, the real divide is water rights. Hell Chinatown was all about water. California's water wars [0] go back a long ways, and those struggles are emblematic of all western US states to some degree.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_water_wars
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_water_wars
You'd think someone would solve that problem, I guess all those techies in California really are stupid.
The Carlsbad, CA desal plant is 20m from me and currently produces 50 million gallons/day. What do you mean by "California refuses to desalinate"?
I have no information about this, but I would expect that homeowner's insurance should get much more expensive for these locations as without access to water it's quite hard to have firefighting infrastructure. Without firefighters, homes and humans are at much higher risk. Maybe insurance economics will help to resolve this?