https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8ni29GipkU

Oh, no?
We don't have Global warming?
Lakes are drying up because they like to be dry!

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 3:18:37 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8ni29GipkU
>
> Oh, no?
> We don't have Global warming?
> Lakes are drying up because they like to be dry!

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/kb8xrqNvGk-Pi000LGbnCP5lxSo=/1400x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/7411681/Screen_Shot_2016_11_04_at_6.55.29_PM.png

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 5:06:46 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 July 2022 at 18:18:37 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8ni29GipkU
> >
> > Oh, no?
> > We don't have Global warming?
> > Lakes are drying up because they like to be dry!
> Ever see the Robert Redford movie, "The Candidate?" It's from 1970 or something.
> They WARNED about water tables and wildfires in California THEN. Morons did nothing.
> California burns through more water than any other state and their ONLY hope are 7-10 large,
> nuclear-powered desalination plants. I'm afraid solar panels and windmills just will not cut it.

2/3 of CA's economy is farming, fish farming, so it needs a lot of water.
Farmers always fight over water rights.
CA gets a lot of water from the north, Oregon and Washington through an aqueduct.
Back in the 70s, the state all most split into two, because of the water.

On Wednesday, July 20, 2022 at 8:44:23 PM UTC-7, StarDust wrote:

> 2/3 of CA's economy is farming, fish farming, so it needs a lot of water.

Well, California's agriculture produces $47.1 billion in produce...

https://norcalwater.org/2017/08/04/california-agriculture-a-state-of-abundance/

.... whereas California's "aquaculture" (fish farming) produced $102 million in product...

https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/our-work/discover-california-seafood/aquaculture-california

.... so I think your claim that 2/3rd of California economy is from fish farming is a little bit suspect...

> Farmers always fight over water rights.
> CA gets a lot of water from the north, Oregon and Washington through an aqueduct.

I can find no evidence that this claim is true. This article...

https://www.cadizwaterproject.com/where-does-californias-water-come-from/

.... does not mention either Oregon or Washington even once. I would sure like to see where you got this information. According to this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_interstate_water_pipelines_to_California#:~:text=As%20of%202013%2C%20there%20were%20no%20interstate%20water%20pipelines%20to%20California.

"As of 2013, there were no interstate water pipelines to California."

> Back in the 70s, the state all most split into two, because of the water.

I remember the chatter then...

On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 17:06:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wednesday, 20 July 2022 at 18:18:37 UTC-4, StarDust wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8ni29GipkU
>>
>> Oh, no?
>> We don't have Global warming?
>> Lakes are drying up because they like to be dry!
>
>Ever see the Robert Redford movie, "The Candidate?" It's from 1970 or something.
>They WARNED about water tables and wildfires in California THEN. Morons did nothing.
>California burns through more water than any other state and their ONLY hope are 7-10 large,
>nuclear-powered desalination plants. I'm afraid solar panels and windmills just will not cut it.

Rubbish. Solar is perfect for desalination. Massively better than
nuclear and a fraction of the cost.

On 21/07/2022 00.45, Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 17:06:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>> Ever see the Robert Redford movie, "The Candidate?" It's from 1970 or something.
>> They WARNED about water tables and wildfires in California THEN. Morons did nothing.
>> California burns through more water than any other state and their ONLY hope are 7-10 large,
>> nuclear-powered desalination plants. I'm afraid solar panels and windmills just will not cut it.
>
> Rubbish. Solar is perfect for desalination. Massively better than
> nuclear and a fraction of the cost.

For one very significant point, nukes need a lot of water for
cooling; solar doesn't.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Deuteronomy 24:17

On Sun, 24 Jul 2022 14:13:20 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 21/07/2022 00.45, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 17:06:45 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3128@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>
>>> Ever see the Robert Redford movie, "The Candidate?" It's from 1970 or something.
>>> They WARNED about water tables and wildfires in California THEN. Morons did nothing.
>>> California burns through more water than any other state and their ONLY hope are 7-10 large,
>>> nuclear-powered desalination plants. I'm afraid solar panels and windmills just will not cut it.
>>
>> Rubbish. Solar is perfect for desalination. Massively better than
>> nuclear and a fraction of the cost.
>
>For one very significant point, nukes need a lot of water for
>cooling; solar doesn't.

The biggest issue is economic. Nuclear is some of the most expensive
power there is, with huge regulatory costs, immensely complex
generation systems, and serious environmental issues with both
obtaining fuel and disposing of waste. Solar for desalination, which
doesn't even require electrical storage, is almost free energy.