To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
You’re talking about a huge capital outlay and operating costs, for an inconsistent return. That’s not so simple to adjust for. I’m not saying desal doesn’t have a place, but it isn’t as simple as some people think. Things rarely are.
20 posted on
04/06/2015 4:40:19 AM PDT by
Hugin
("Do yourself a favor--first thing, get a firearm!")
To: Hugin
Yeah. California has multiple problems combined into one that can never be solved through a single simple fix.
21 posted on
04/06/2015 4:44:38 AM PDT by
cripplecreek
("For by wise guidance you can wage your war")
To: Hugin
How is water an inconsistent return.
22 posted on
04/06/2015 5:05:19 AM PDT by
VaRepublican
(I would propagate taglines but I don't know how. But bloggers do.)
To: Hugin
each plant costs 300-400 million and provides 50 million gallons per day, join that with reclaiming and reusing water that they don't do now couldn't hurt in the long run. the population of the whole state is 39 million. They are trying to spend 10 billion on high speed rail for a few people, that money would be 25 desalinization plants. They just don't understand dead people don't ride trains. Priorities!!!
23 posted on
04/06/2015 5:27:42 AM PDT by
bdfromlv
(Leavenworth hard time)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson