Las Vegas Is Betting It Can Become the Silicon Valley of Water | Hacker News Reader

Las Vegas Is Betting It Can Become the Silicon Valley of Water

politico.com

48 pointstokenadult42 comments

Clickbait headline...

My brother, father and grandfather were (between 1955 and 2006) the principals of what became the largest water well drilling company in Nevada. I worked there during while a teen and between semesters at college.) I was just there last week, for my father's 80th birthday, and dealing with the last dredges of that company (rebuilding a drilling rig that I had to repo, so it can be sold.)

I'm well-acquainted with DRI, or at least what it was during the 80s.

Las Vegas will never be the "Silicon Valley of water".

Politico aspires to a pretty low bar, journalistically. I stopped reading them a year or so ago when it was clear their political articles were just crap, and as you said, often had clickbait headlines.

> Silicon Valley of water

So they are going to invent and continually improve water, and compete primarily via the intellectual work of keeping their water so much more advanced than the water available from competing places that they dominate the worldwide water market, all while manufacturing the water in Japan and later Taiwan and China (Designed by the Municipal Water Authority in Las Vegas)?

Maybe like Fiji they can bottle it up and sell it all over the world, getting a piece of the action in the ridiculously high-carbon footprint water market.

Why can't they be the silicon valley of energy? Instead of trying to put water where it shouldn't, focus on what it's great at - harvesting lots of solar energy with little cloud cover.

Southern Nevada has some very large solar energy projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_Neva...

Problem is, the plants that generate steam need quite a bit of water.

Competing with Hoover Dam's 3.x billion kWhs per year selling for $0.02/per is probably not a winning strategy. It does sound like there's some long term issue with levels at Lake Mead though, so perhaps in the future.

It doesn't have to compete - there is demand that is not covered by Hoover's production. For example, there are geothermal power plants in Utah that transmit power to Los Angeles. Perhaps Vegas could send solar to LA, and that geothermal power from Utah could go to Salt Lake...

Good point. But I think they are banking on necessity being the mother of invention, since they are running out of water.

For what it's worth as a heuristic, this did work with the Dutch who had an abundance of water and learned how to defend against it. Las Vegas has the opposite scenario. Dutch people did die in that learning process though.

Instead of admitting that humans probably shouldn't live in a desert, at the very least not set up a tourist trap monument to waste and excess in a desert, they invest choose to invest billions of dollars in trying to put lipstick on a pig.

The water knife becomes more prophetic every day...

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23209924-the-water-knife

When you think about it, factoring in earthquakes, drought, tornados, hurricanes, sea levels, floods, tsunami, forest / brush fires, landslides, avalanches, and whatever else I'm forgetting, there really isn't anywhere good to set up camp and, rightly or wrongly, once someone does set up camp, they're hesitant to move.

Either way, the situations described in the article, conservation, waste prevention, and innovation seem to be the exact opposite of that described in the Water Knife blurb, and will have the luxury of being applicable to places less arid. While California was having their record droughts, the opposite coast was experiencing flash floods.

If we can improve conservation, and dramatically improve transportation, it becomes easier to get water from places that have a surplus to places that have a deficit, which means we can push flood waters to areas with drought, and move our way up the Kardashev scale.

Edit: Forgot cold weather and volcanic activity. The cold weather sounds like something easy to disqualify, but considering the OP's assertion is that it's a bad idea to try to best nature, it seems that heating falls into that bucket.

First off, it's simply not true in any practical sense that there are no areas of the US that are safe from environmental disasters. The entire northeast and mid-Atlantic down through Appalachia - at the very least - is reasonably safe from natural disaster.

So justifying a decision to live somewhere that is highly prone to one or more types of disasters with a glib assertion that "there really isn't anywhere good to set up camp" is not even wrong.

Second, I'm no historian, but I feel confident in asserting that for the entirety of history, a principal criteria for evaluating the suitability of an area for settlement is its proximity to fresh water. This criteria was intentionally, brazenly ignored in building Las Vegas - as well as much (most?) of the Sun Belt southwest.

Third, your geoengineering "solutions" are not realistic. Are you suggesting that we're going to move flood waters from (to use your own example) the east coast to the west coast? Or even from the Mississippi River to Las Vegas? In a world where our existing infrastructure is drastically, if not catastrophically, underfunded?

Where are these areas of surplus fresh water of which you speak? Lake Mead, Vegas's primary source of water, is 80 feet below historical levels. The rest of the Colorado River, serving seven states, is similarly depleted. Aquifers throughout California are near tapped out.

The bottom line is that vast areas of arid land were foolishly (over)developed for the banal reason that somebody was able to make a buck on it. People with money were able to buy government that allowed them to do what they wanted to make that buck.

I'm no doomsdayer, but the water wars have already begun, albeit at low intensity. One day, the demand is going to outstrip the supply and it's going to get very, very ugly, at least from a financial perspective, if not outright violence.

>> "The entire northeast ... is reasonably safe from natural disaster"

Hurricane Sandy hit parts of NYC pretty hard.

WRT the East Coast and environmental disasters, fracking and shale development along major water channels in upstate NY and along the Delaware River Basin (among others) have been very hot topics locally. There is great fear that fracking in NY could destroy major water access for millions of people from NY to DC. The states, governors, authority coalitions, corporations, and activist groups have been doing heavy battle. It looks like for now, fracking has been prevented, but potential environmental disaster on the East Coast isn't as far fetched as you think.

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/12/18/what-new...

But hey, don't think it's over.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/albany/2015/07/8572876...

Fair enough. I was referring only to natural disasters, as that was what OP used as examples.

Man-made disasters are self-inflicted. Which is exactly what we have with the water issues in the southwest.

The one natural disaster that the east coast is frequently subjected to is hurricanes. But the damages are very localized, and wouldn't exist if we didn't insist on building on shorelines.

Got it. You said "environmental disasters" which I take to mean "man made."

Not sure why my comment is getting down-voted, though.

That is true for a lot the U.S. but not everywhere. Take Germany, Austria or France, only a very small percentage of the land there is affected by earthquakes, drought, tornados, hurricanes, sea levels, floods, tsunami, brush fires, landslides, or avalanches.

Seattle-Tacoma area, around Lake Washington, from east of I-5 out to the mountains, about to hwy 203. That's inland enough for when the big one hits again, great climate, good farming; its a good place to live. Just be sure to live at least 100 feet above sea level.

The Piedmont area of Maryland, Virginia, North & South Carolina. Good climate, good farming, minimal natural disasters.

The Hudson River Valley of New York is similar, although a bit colder.

I've heard good things about the Portland, Oregon area, but I haven't been there. I suggest living east of I-5, again, though.

The rest of the United States has interesting weather.

I'm assuming your source was the new yorker article since you mention the "I-5 line". You should read the reddit AMA from earthquake experts responding to the article as it is quite over-exaggerated [1].

Here's a quote from it "The 100ft waves are even rare in great earthquakes, more often the waves are 10 to 30 feet, and they will not be nearly as big in the Puget Sound. So shaking, not waves, are the threat to the Puget Sound from coastal earthquakes. - John"

[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3da1mh/we_are_earthqu...

Don't ignore the majority of New England, there really is no significant threats to most of Connecticut, Massachusetts, or Rhode Island, the northern half of New England might be a bit cold but it's not bad.

Similarly most of the eastern seaboard is fine, and the intermountain west is similarly inhabitable with minimal meteorological issues.

I don't know where this trope that there are so many issues everywhere comes from.

I've lived in the Inter-mountain West. I enjoyed the weather, but it is brutal, and right now they're having the sixteen-year drought the article mentions. That's bad weather.

New England doesn't have hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, or massive forest fires. But the cold is serious. So many people move to the Sun Belt because of it.

All of the places I mentioned have substantial population growth because of their weather. In the Carolinas there are lots of Northerners who move down to Florida, discover how much the Summers suck here, then move back up as far as there. They call them Halfbacks.

Most of the eastern seaboard is vulnerable to serious hurricanes and winter storms like Sandy.

Not unless your at sea level or would have flooding issues otherwise. Area I grew up in had regular flooding on the property with both a river and large stream on it, but the house was 200+ years old and never had water get anywhere near it. It's kind of a simple rule don't put your house within 20' of the water level in the highest flood anyone knows about.

In terms of snow that's a simple trade-off do you want an actual winter Y/N. It kills off a lot of pests which IMO makes it worth a lot, plus you get out of the monotony of dry vs wet that most tropical areas fall into. Some people like going further north so rivers / ponds freeze ect but again trade-off.

Sure, but the vast majority of the population on the US's eastern seaboard is living within a few feet of sea level -- the whole point of those cities being there is there proximity to sea trade routes.

Less than you might think. DC for example is on average 150 feet above sea level. Even NYC is on average 33 feet above sea level. They mostly have to deal with bacements and the subway flooding in major storms.

In general flooding is just expencive to deal with so people build there last. This is also why Katerina mostly flooded poor areas.

Have you forgotten the October Snowstorms? Or the fact that we had snow in April?

The cold sucks here, guy. The summers are great but the fall, winter, and sometimes even spring can be pretty bad.

Seattle's fine until Mount Rainier next erupts.

http://geology.com/usgs/rainier/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone

Most of Virgina area has no issues with any of that. You get all 4 seasons in reasonable levels which may be a good or bad thing. But, winter really cuts down on many pests which is a major bonus and summers are tolerable even without AC most of the time.

Summers are definitely not tolerable without AC. The humidity in VA is brutal.

The point isn't of the danger but the available resources. Disasters aren't a problem if you don't even have the resources to live

It was set up there precisely because there was a lot of water available... it used to be an oasis.

Las Vegas is probably way better at water management than say the Bay Area, which most people don't criticize for this, even though we ship water from a billion miles away (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy).

Uhm.

1) Hetch Hetchy brings water to San Francisco from 167 miles away.

2) The Colorado River supplies 90% of Las Vegas's water and brings it from up to a 1,000 miles away.

3) Per person water use in SF for residential customers is 45.7 gallons.

4) Per person water use in Las Vegas for residential customers is 74 gallons.

So. No, Las Vegas isn't even close to being better at water use than the Bay Area.

While Las Vegas translates as "The Meadows", it was never "an oasis".

There were artesian springs which served as a watering stop for wagon trains, and later the railroad.

But most of the valley is dry to the point of being parched.

They already reuse 40% of their indoor water and go to great lengths to limit outdoor water, and outside this drought, haven't needed to increase their allotment of water from the Colorado River.

What do you suggest they do with their water supply instead of powering their economy? Use it for farming? Give it to Los Angeles? Keep it for a non rainy day?

Nevada is only allocated 4% of the flow from the river. The other 96% is allocated downstream. I don't think Las Vegas is the problem here.

It may seem unfair that California gets a larger percentage of water from the river than Nevada does, but remember that not only is California over a dozen times larger, California also grows much of the food Nevada (and the rest of the country) eats.

I think what matter is the "footprint" per person, rather than where people live. "In some ways people living in a desert might be preferred over their living in fertile land and basically wasting the fertility of the land. Now, it's entirely possible the per person footprint (all things considered) is higher in a desert like Las Vegas over a place like say the Santa Clara valley in CA.

Perhaps this is a little off-topic, but I'm convinced we can save a lot of water by replacing showering with steaming (followed by super short shower to rinse). I recently bought a facial steamer for allergy issues. 50ml of water get's me more steam than I can bother to use. I'm usually done with 20ml.

I can't help but imagine that 1L of water would produce plenty of steam to clean us off. If we then have a quick shower, say 30 sec. Not only are we saving water, but probably also time, and you get a much cleaner, fresher feeling.

We use about 35L of water to shower per person each day (I know I use more), and assuming we have 1 shower a day (I generally have 2), then we are roughly saving 30L/p/day.

We use about 120L/p/day so saving 30L is a 25% saving. Now that is pretty big.

I'm not pretending I know how to get everyone to steam instead of shower - perhaps Las Vegas hotels could include steamers, and encourage people to steam followed by a super short shower. But just saying if we wanted to make our water last longer, we do have a way that doesn't involve loosing anything of real value (I'm assuming everyone agrees that a quick steam is equivalent to a shower).

* Daily water use per person http://www.melbournewater.com.au/waterdata/wateruse/pages/de...

* Water use for shower, http://www.yvw.com.au/home/inyourhome/understandingyourwater... ~ 7L/m * 5min = 35L/shower

I think it's a fine idea, and I would actually like to try it osmetime. However in the grand schema of water usage it's not going to move the needle. This is especially try in places like California where the lion's share of water is used to grow food.

Thanks, it was too easy to be a big solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com