Ninth Anniversary of SLB - Musings

Today, 3/16/2017, marks the ninth anniversary of SLB.  Just a short article to mark the occasion. 

The world has certainly changed, in many areas, in the past nine years.   The Obama administration came and went, with all the changes (some good, some not so good) that that brought.  The Trump administration is now in charge, and the results are necessarily not yet in.   The US EPA is certainly in for some changes, as is the US State Department.  Climate change is no longer high on the list of either agency, because the underlying science is too shaky to bet trillions of dollars.  

Nuclear power plants in the US are shutting down and have shut down, almost all for reasons related to economics: their high operating costs and inability to compete.  Natural gas abundance is high and price is low.  More importantly, renewable power from wind turbines is at an all-time low break-even price (4.3 cents per kWh), and solar from PV is not far behind.  Both wind and solar will become even less expensive in the very near future.   The first offshore wind power facility in the US started up just a few months ago.  Future installations will be much more economic.   

 Coal power plants are shutting down in record numbers, primarily because the de-facto environmental exemption they enjoyed for decades was finally brought to an end - Obama did that.   It will be quite interesting to see if President Trump reverses Obama on this, and allows coal plants to keep running.  In any event, the US has only a few years of economically-producible coal in the ground, as SLB articles showed.   Approximately 15-20 years of coal are available at current prices.  

Hawaii, the state, has announced plans to have 100 percent renewable energy within a very few years, which makes great sense for them.  Their conventionally-fired power plants yield a consumer price upwards of 25 cents per kWh.  Renewables with storage can certainly beat that.   Kudos to my Hawaiian associates. 

Grid-scale storage in the mainland US is already a reality, and growing less expensive each year.   Southern California has many MW of battery storage in service, with another 20 MW/80MWh battery under contract from Tesla.  

Climate change science has come under greater and greater scrutiny as the much predicted warming has simply not occurred over the past 20 years.   Some panicked scientists once again change their calculation methods in an attempt to show a warming where none exists.  This refers to the adjusting of sea surface temperature data to try to show a warming trend in the combined air-ocean data.   Meanwhile, the pristine areas where USCRN sites exist show no warming, instead a cooling occurred from 2005 until the 2015-16 El Niño made a temporary warming blip in the data.    The sunspots have virtually disappeared since January 2017, though, which is very early in the sunspot cycle for such to happen.  It will be quite interesting to watch the cooling that is inevitable.   More importantly, it will be quite fun to watch the main-stream climate scientists try to talk (and write) their way out of the box they find themselves in.  

There has been a bit of activity in lawsuits to hold ExxonMobil accountable for some securities violation, in which it is alleged that Exxon knew decades ago that their primary products, petroleum and natural gas, would cause the planet to warm rapidly from the CO2 released in their consumption.   All this is predicated on there actually being a warming that occurred due to CO2 increase from 300 to 400 ppm, parts per million.   SLB has several articles that show the measured warming from 1900 to 1998 is due to at least seven other causes, none of which is CO2.  (increased housing and population density in cities, increased energy use per capita, decreased air pollution, increased local humidity from human activity, changed temperature site conditions from rural to urban, long-term drought, and buildings that create wind-shadows.)

As to water, especially here in the desert Southwest and West, the six-year drought has ended with a big flurry of winter storms - after the El Niño has passed.   The big rains from El Niño fell north of California last year, leaving California mostly dry.  The rains and snow came this year, to the surprise of NOAA scientists.   The present situation in California is a monster snowpack that is ready to melt, and reservoirs full to the brim throughout the state.   Clearly, the state water managers must release huge amounts of precious water into the rivers and the ocean to make room for the meltwater.   Farmers are furious.    I have contended here on SLB that more reservoirs are simply not in the future for California, because more water leads to more population.   California elites want a smaller population, not more people.

My best to all who read SLB, and please remember that every comment is moderated by me.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.

Marina del Rey, California
copyright (c) 2017 by Roger Sowell - all rights reserved

Topics and general links:

Nuclear Power Plants.......here
Climate Change................here  and here
Fresh Water......................here
Engineering......................here  and here
Free Speech.................... here

Renewable Energy...........here 

The California Goal - Us Four And No More

Subtitle: California Dreamers Need A Lesson In Reality

This post is about the long-term goals in California, as a state, as an economic entity, and the public policies (official, and unwritten) that are or will be implemented to achieve those goals.  The opinions here are mine, but the facts are publicly available.  

In short, California has zero appetite for growth, not population growth, nor economic growth.   The title block, "Us Four And No More" refers to my slogan for this phenomenon, but it is adapted from usage long ago.   Each of the "Four" in the California slogan refers to 4 million population, so "Us Four" is then 16 million population.   A quick look at the population history shows that 16 million is almost exactly the California population in 1960.  

Year      Population, millions

1950       10.5
1960       15.7
1970       19.9
1980       23.7
2015       39.1 (estimated)

The California of 1960 is spoken of wistfully by many people, how it was unspoiled, uncrowded, air was clean, water was plentiful, it was an ideal place by many accounts.   Of course, many of the state highways and interstates were not built then (the first interstate highways began construction in the late 1950s). 

In sharp contrast to today, where the population is straining 40 million, air is polluted, freeways are jammed, parking is impossible to find, housing is outrageously expensive, rents are also very high, jobs are scarce, companies are moving away instead of into California, liberal or progressive views dominate every election and almost every elected seat, water is in chronic shortage, crime is bad and getting worse, racial tensions are high and grow worse with each year, illegal immigration is a big and growing problem, schools are scary places for students to attend and little is learned in them, unemployment is high, taxes are high, in short, there is very little to like about modern California.    

Modern California also imports many things that formerly were made in-state, this list includes automobiles, airplanes, oil for refineries, natural gas for all its uses including power generation and heating fuel, even water is imported from the Colorado River.    Importing Colorado River water is perhaps not a fair criticism since the river does border part of California.  However, it is a fact that automobiles are no longer made in California, unless one counts the few electric cars made by Tesla and perhaps a few other small players.   Airplanes were built here once, but no more.  Oil is and has been for many years imported via tanker ships into the state's refineries, although some oil is also produced in-state.  Natural gas is also imported via pipeline, but again a bit of natural gas is produced in-state. 

What the state seems to have in abundance is food.  California has great amounts of farmland, dairies, and beef cattle production.  However, the agriculture is heavily dependent on water availability.  

One can observe the state's long-term intentions of zero growth, or negative growth (back to the Us Four And No More - 16 million population) by simply observing a few basic infrastructure issues.  First, is water.  

Water in California is a perennial topic due to frequent shortages, droughts, and woefully inadequate storage.  In a state with adequate rain and snow, plus a huge and extensive mountain range with hundreds of valleys, one might expect that water storage would not be an issue.  Yet, it is.  The explanation is that state officials may say one or various things, but the reality is that no more storage is being provided.  Instead, state officials insist that citizens must conserve, use less.  There are now fines and penalties if one does not conserve enough water.    It is notable that the state has a token budget for modifying or expanding the water storage, but even the popular Governor Schwarzenegger could not obtain legislative approval for a new major dam and lake.   In my view, it is never going to happen.   More water means more population, and that simply cannot be tolerated by those who run the state. 

State water managers also make the problem worse by wasting perfectly good water, letting the few storage lakes that exist send precious water down the rivers and into the ocean.  This is done, they claim, to provide adequate room in the storage reservoirs for the Spring snow melt and runoff.   The storage lakes perform double-duty in California, as is the case in many other states: the lakes mitigate or prevent catastrophic flooding, and they provide water year-round.   Many of the lakes also have a third purpose, they generate electricity as the water flows through hydraulic turbines.  (update: note that it is also nearly impossible, and quite time-consuming, to obtain all the permits required to desalinate seawater to provide fresh water to California.)

The next issue is transportation fuels.   The California utopia as seen by the Us Four And No More includes no gasoline cars, instead there will be only electric cars.  They also (not being engineers nor physics majors) intend to ban diesel fuel also.  No word yet on a ban on jet fuel.   With the universities having at least a few professors who understand such basics, it is a wonder that someone has not spoken out and explained that electric-powered trucks simply cannot transport the goods without rapidly draining the batteries.  It is also fairly difficult to imagine how jet airplanes will obtain enough power at sufficiently low weight to take off and fly, absent using jet fuel.  (update 1/13/2018:  Tesla has announced in late 2017 a fully-electric, battery-powered heavy truck for production in 2019 or 2020.   Time will tell if this is an economic choice for trucking companies; see link- end update).  

It is true that the ports in Los Angeles now have some electric-battery powered drayage trucks.   These exist only due to government mandates, not an economic improvement over existing diesel-powered trucks.   It is also true that a battery and solar-cell powered airplane flew in a much publicized trip last year, however, it failed in the round-the-world journey and stopped, exhausted and broken, in Hawaii.  

It seems that the California dreamers equate these things to events in the previous centuries, where if we can just prove it works, the thing will become commonplace.   The Wright brothers and the first airplane flight led to our aviation industry, they point out.   What is apparently lost on these dreamers is that a huge airplane, powered by batteries and solar cells, was able to barely keep itself aloft with one person, the pilot.   Filling a plane like that with 100 people as passengers, and the food and drink they will expect, and a bathroom, and soft chairs with cushioned seats, and various electronics to entertain them in the air, plus any luggage they will insist on bringing along, is simply out of the question for electric powered flight.   Any competent engineer or physics major can and should explain this to the California dreamers. 

Now, to the heavy industries and especially the oil refineries in California.   The dreamers want those shut down and permanently gone.  The goal is, as stated above, only electric vehicles.  One supposes that the state tax revenue that presently flows into the treasury from gasoline taxes will no longer be needed.  It is also somewhat unclear where the lubricating oils and greases will be manufactured to keep the electric vehicles operating and the wheels spinning.     More than this, it is certainly not clear how any construction work will be done, or maintenance of existing infrastructure, without diesel-powered heavy equipment such as cranes, bulldozers, and motor graders.  

Recently, I posted an article on SLB about the ExxonMobil refinery explosion in Torrance in February, 2015  see link.   One of the outcomes of investigations into that explosion is an increased call with greater fervor for yet more regulations on oil refineries.   There was an earlier fire in the Chevron refinery at Richmond, in the San Francisco Bay Area.   With their zealous desire to get rid of oil refineries, the legislature now is considering more stifling regulations (see link to Interagency Refinery Task Force, led by the California Department of Industrial Relations. )

There are of course other regulations in place in California, including climate-change prevention rules under California law AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.  These regulations also impact refineries in a negative manner, but refineries are not alone.  Cement plants, that provide the binder for making concrete used in construction, are also impacted. 

UPDATE 1:   Other future industries in California will include the shipping ports with their unloading and transporting containers across the country.  However, even there the Us Four And No More club made a valiant effort to shut down the ports: they required massive upgrades to the facilities, and forced visiting ships to use a lower-sulfur fuel.  The result, predictably, is a huge and modern port is now under construction in Mexico, where rail will take the containers full of cargo and send them north into the US.  

Airports will also likely continue, because all but the largest aircraft cannot fly much farther than the West Coast when making the trans-Pacific routes from Asia.    However, if and when technological improvements give aircraft longer range, it is already anticipated that many flights will fly over California on their way to destinations such as Dallas, Houston, Denver, and Chicago.   Such improvements already exist with the lighter construction, greater fuel efficiency and longer range as demonstrated by the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

Finally, clean industries such as computer technology from Silicon Valley, and the entertainment industries such as tv and film will continue.    

-- End update 1. 

Conclusion

The California dreamers in the Us Four And No More club have a dream: 16 million people, zero industry, and only tourism to bring in money.  Apparently, they think that California is actually Hawaii-East, and tourists will flock to the coastal areas, spend their money and live it up.   Having lived here for 30 years and seen this all at work first-hand, it is now obvious how the game is played and what the end result is.    

It is of course an impossible dream, but the California dreamers have never let that give them pause.   

UPDATE 2: 1-17-2016 -  A bit more on the water issues in California.  Knowing that fresh water is a critical prerequisite to increased population, a state has only a very few choices.  

One, each person and business can consume less water, i.e. conservation.   This is what California has now mandated.  

Two, the state can manage its existing water supplies better, i.e. send less down the rivers into the oceans where it becomes unfit to drink (even for California elites).  This is what California refuses to do, manage the existing resources better.   As stated above, the locations exist for future dams and reservoirs but California refuses to build those. 

Three, the state can obtain additional water supplies from outside the state.  This also is what California refuses to do, with the minor and token exception of one or two very small seawater desalination plants.   Many opportunities exist to import fresh water, including my own idea of NEWTAP, as described here on SLB a few years ago.  see link.   Essentially, a canal or pipeline would be established from the Missouri River to northern New Mexico, where gravity would bring the water through existing rivers into the Colorado River for storage in the existing Lake Mead and Lake Powell.    There are other ways to import water, some are easier to accomplish than others; a pipeline from Canadian rivers to Los Angeles is one idea.  

Four, the state can recycle waste water back into clean water, i.e. treat the effluent water from wastewater treatment plants until it is sufficiently clean for human consumption.  This is another of the things California does.  One can only hope that not too many people become sick or die from drinking improperly purified water from the wastewater treatment plants.   

--  end update 2

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

copyright (c) 2016 by Roger Sowell, all rights reserved. 

California Water Restrictions - 2014

Subtitle: Drought Welcome, Brings Population Decrease

[Update: 7-15-2014, the State Water Resources Control Board approved the new measures, as outlined below. -- end update.]

California is in one of its periodic droughts.  Snow in the Sierras has been below average for the past three years.  Rainfall also has been below average.   Water reservoirs are getting low. (see Lake Shasta photo below)  Farmers are not receiving enough water for irrigation.   The State writes: 

"More than 400,000 acres of farmland are expected to be fallowed, thousands of people

Lake Shasta, California showing low level from drought 2014
source: USGS

may be out of work, communities risk running out of drinking water and fish and wildlife species are in  jeopardy. Many communities are down to 50 gallons a day or less per person for basic sanitation needs. With our inability to predict the effect of the next rainy season, water saved today can improve a region’s water security and add flexibility to systems that may need to withstand another year or more with precipitation below average."

Tomorrow, July 15, 2014, the state Water Board will vote on additional measures to conserve water. ( it passed)  These restrictions apply to outdoor water used in cities and towns.  The restrictions are expected to pass, probably unanimously.   They include:

"1)  The direct application of water to any hard surface for washing. 
2) Watering of outdoor landscapes that cause runoff to adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, private and public walkways, roadways, parking lots or structures. 
3) Using a hose to wash an automobile, unless the hose is fitted with a shut-off nozzle. 
4)  Using potable water in a fountain or decorative water feature, unless the water is recirculated. 

Violations of prohibited activities are considered infractions and are punishable by fines of $500 for each day in which the violation occurs."

This is the type of issue that is very controversial in California.  Some, including myself, believe that the lack of water is a primary means to discourage growth.   In fact, nothing would please the establishment more than to see the population shrink to pre-1960 levels.  If less water is available, people will eventually leave the state.  Perhaps this explains the foot-dragging and roadblocks in the way of any serious water projects.  Whether proposals involve new dams, desalination, or ceasing water-intensive agriculture e.g. rice farming, all are met with fierce opposition.

California has come a long, long way from the days of diverting the Owens River high in the Sierras through an aqueduct into Los Angeles (in 1913).   Yet another river was partially diverted to Southern California, the mighty Colorado River of Grand Canyon fame.   Those days brought surplus water and millions of people.  No more. 

The fact is, though, that only four or five years ago there was a surplus of snow, and water from reservoirs was intentionally sent down-river into the oceans.  This was done to make room for the coming snowmelt and runoff.   To go from a surplus where water is wasted in that fashion, to extreme drought only four year later is a clear sign of incompetence or worse, deliberate imposition of water shortages.  

If, and it is a big if, the snows are below average again this winter (2014-2015), California will experience water rationing as it has seldom seen, if ever.   The ENSO predictions are still 70 percent for an El Niño this winter as per NOAA.   Only time will tell.  

For the Fact Sheet from California State Water Board, see link. 


Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

A Milestone - Post Number 200

This post marks the 200th article published on SLB.   It is certainly not a record in the world of on-line publishing, yet it serves as another small bit of evidence that this little blog continues to exceed my expectations, indeed, even to amaze me.   I started out in blogging a mere 5 years ago in March of 2009, expecting I would write one article per month, for two years at the most.   The evidence shows that many more articles than those original 25 have come forth.   

The topics covered here have ranged from government regulations such as AB 32, regulation of CO2 at the state and federal level, automobile mileage standards, climate science, peak oil and energy, nuclear power, wind, solar, and other forms of renewable energy, fresh water shortages, legal liability of scientists and engineers, and a few others.  

Thus far, the most-viewed postings are

1.  a lengthy article on my journey from being a believer in man-made global warming to my conversion as a skeptic, see link  (this article was translated into German and posted on a German-language climate skeptic blog; I was quite pleased about that)

2.  the transcript of my speech on why climate warmists are wrong, and deep global cooling is coming, see link 
(side note: this article was translated into German and posted on a German-language climate skeptic blog; I was quite pleased about that)  (correction:  the above article My Journey... was translated into German and posted on a blog, not this speech -- Roger 4/5/2014)

3.  a chemical engineer uses principles of process control to rebut the concept of CO2 causing global warming, see link

4.  the transcript of my speech at Tulane Law School on Peak Oil and US Energy Policy, see link, and

5.  the NPRA sues the California Air Resources Board over Biofuels, see link.

About a month ago, I started a series of articles on the Truth About Nuclear Power.  Planned to have about 30 articles total, with 8 of those already published, this series puts forth the many arguments and the evidence on modern commercial nuclear power plants and why they should never be built.  The articles discuss economics, impacts on customers, safety, environmental impacts, unproven technologies that are in development, motivations for countries to install nuclear reactors, why France has so many reactors but medium-sized islands have none, and what lessons we should have learned from our existing history with nuclear power.   

These articles draw on my deep experience in engineering, my university classroom studies of nuclear engineering, decades as a practicing process engineer, justifying then designing and implementing a private power plant to prevent rising power prices from shutting down my company's chemical plant, and understanding the legal requirements for utilities and nuclear plants.  I also had the privilege of a comprehensive guided tour of the Perry Nuclear Plant in Ohio, conducted by the plant manager, when the plant was completed but had not yet had the first load of fuel installed.  Many friends and colleagues encouraged me to write these articles on nuclear power, since it appears I may be one of the few who has the combination of training and experience in these matters. 

The SLB audience also amazes me, as there are more than 32,000 unique visitors from 142 countries.  Most, by far, are from the USA, with second place to UK, third to Australia, then Canada then Germany.  

People ask me if I have a favorite post.  That is difficult to say, but perhaps the post on Climate Science is Not Settled (that was quite fun to write), and another is a guest post by my smart cousin Charley Sowell, on why the Ice Age Is Nigh.  Charley is an interesting character.  

I am also asked if any articles were a surprise, in the number of views or comments.  Two such articles surprised me.  First, the number of views on the article that shows the long-term temperature records for 87 cities in the US.  see link  While it is not in the top 5, it certainly has seemed very popular.  The temperature records show that CO2 is not warming the planet.   

Second, an article on Tire Inflation Rule Causes Liability surprised me with its popularity.  This article illustrates the idiocy of government regulations.  The government meant well, but proposed a rule that could cause dangerous over-inflation, or dangerous under-inflation of automobile tires.  One wonders if they ever talk to an engineer before issuing such idiotic rules.   
There are many, many more articles to write and publish on SLB, and I look forward to the next 5 years, however many articles that will entail. 

As always, thank you for reading.  Leave a comment if you like.  All comments are moderated by me.  

Roger E. Sowell, Esq., BS Chemical Engineering
Marina del Rey, California

NEWTAP - Revisiting Water for the West

The just-completed Orange County Water Summit, held in Anaheim, California, was quite interesting for a number of reasons.   As background, fresh water in California, and other dry Western states, is a critical issue due to scarcity.  Water in California is from several sources: Colorado River brought in by an aqueduct system, snowmelt from the Sierra Mountains, some groundwater via wells, and a tiny amount from sea water desalination plants.

Within California, excess water from the northern part of the state is pumped to the southern part.  A famous (or infamous) aqueduct also diverts river water from high in the southern Sierras into Los Angeles.

What intrigued me was the areas of focus by the conference organizers, and in particular, what they left out.  The focus areas included waste water recycling, reductions in water use, and desalination.   What was omitted is the large transfer of fresh water from the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers, via a new canal and pumping system.

I asked two or three people I met if they had heard of such a proposal, and none had.  I directed them to this blog and my article on NEWTAP, my proposal for a National Excess Water Transfer Aqueduct Project.  

Briefly, NEWTAP would transfer river water from the Missouri River at Kansas City to the continental divide in New Mexico, just south of Interstate Highway 40.  A new canal and pumps would transfer as much water as needed for the West.  From the continental divide, the water would gravity-flow into the Colorado River, and be stored in Lake Powell and Lake Mead.  When needed, the water would be released and generate power in the existing hydroelectric power plants.

Power for the canal's pumps could be provided by wind-turbines, since the canal would cross an area with excellent wind.

An improvement on NEWTAP would be branch canals, such as a canal to bring fresh water to West Texas.

California is contemplating a state water bond of approximately $10 to $15 billion dollars.  This is a stopgap measure at best, and will not solve the long-term problem of water.

It is time, I believe, for NEWTAP to be considered as a national construction project.   The Erie Canal was built in only 8 years, and was completed almost 200 years ago in 1825.   NEWTAP would be about twice the distance.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Marina del Rey, California

Saudis to Build Nuclear Plants at $7 Billion Each

"[T]he kingdom [of Saudi Arabia] will build 16 nuclear reactors by 2030 at a cost of around $7 billion each." - source.


In an ever-growing list of countries that either are building, or plan to build, nuclear-powered electric power plants, none are building at an affordable cost.  The USA, Finland, China, now Saudi Arabia all publish numbers that indicate a new, 1,000 MW reactor costs anywhere from $7 to $11 billion.  China is building a six-reactor plant for $66 billion, or $11 billion apiece.   The recently-cancelled South Texas Nuclear Project Expansion in the USA was to cost $17 billion, but that was just a dream; no shovel had been turned and no delays had yet started, with the inevitable increase in financing costs.  Fully costed, the STNP expansion would be at least $22 billion, more likely $25 billion.  


At these price levels, electricity must be sold for at least 35 cents per kWh, just to pay for the investment and provide a reasonable return.  


The Saudis indicated that their growing economy requires a 7 percent per year increase in electric power production.  They don't want to burn oil for making power, they would rather sell the oil.  Thus, the need for nuclear power plants.  The Saudis are smart, as I've written before, but they are mistaken on this one.  No economy grows, nor can it grow, at much above 3 percent per year for very long.  A temporary growth spurt might occur of 7 or 8 percent for a year or two, but this is not sustainable.  


Thus, there is no need for the nuclear power plants. The Saudis should, instead, do what the rest of the world does where economics are important: build combined-cycle gas turbine power plants (CCGT).  The Saudis have access to natural gas in the Middle East, and could easily purchase what they don't self-produce.  These CCGT power plants are much more efficient than conventional steam-based power plants, at 59 percent compared to approximately 35 percent.  They also do not use nearly as much water, which is a huge consideration for nuclear power plants.  Where, and how, will the Saudis obtain sufficient cooling water for 16 nuclear power plants?  Nuclear plants require at least twice as much water for cooling, compared to the CCGT plants.  Of course, the nuclear power plants could be built on the coast and use seawater.  This greatly increases the cost of the plant because seawater is more corrosive than fresh water. 


Perhaps the Saudis have another motive, from watching what the Iranians have done in the past several years with their nuclear "power" program.  Perhaps, just perhaps, the Saudis are in a race for parity and do not want the Iranians to have the upper hand, even in nuclear power plants. 


Roger E. Sowell, Esq. 
Marina del Rey, California

Solution to Water in the West

It is becoming more and more apparent that the U.S. must transfer some of the excess water that floods the Mid-Western states to the dry Western states. My colleagues and I have been researching this for several years, and have some ideas. We conclude that it is in the national interest to do, and should be a no-brainer. The figure below shows the status of river flooding in the U.S. as of March 20, 2010.

Ancient civilizations realized the critical need for water, and did what it took to move the water to where it was needed. The Romans of course built their famous aqueducts, and the ancient Chinese routed water also. Many others did, too.

While the current Presidential administration is passing out money as if it grew on Sequoia trees, this is a project that should be on the list.

California has an extensive history with water projects, with routing water from the Sacramento River south to Los Angeles, from the Owens Lake area to Los Angeles, and more recently the Colorado River to Los Angeles and San Diego. However, none of these is adequate given the growing California population, droughts, and decreased snow in the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

An amazing fact is that water pumps consume approximately 10 percent of all the power sold in California. Some of that is recovered as hydroelectric power. The recovery of power from water factors in this.

One possibility on the national level is a water transfer system from the Missouri River at Kansas City, that runs approximately 800 miles southwest to the continental divide in New Mexico, just south of Interstate 40. From there the water would flow into tributaries of the Colorado River. The hydroelectric plants are already in place on Hoover Dam and Glen Canyon Dam. Therefore, some of the power expended to pump the water uphill and 800 miles would be recovered. The elevation change is on the order of 6,000 feet.

The water route will be through the U.S.' great wind corridor, so it is conceivable to use windmills to provide energy to the pumps. How the water is transferred is of course an engineering problem, one solution is to use a buried pipeline, or build a series of open canals with a slight downward slope to the southwest, and install water lift (pumping) stations at regular intervals. Something of the same magnitude was done by the construction of the Erie Canal in New York, which runs approximately 365 miles, and 600 feet uphill. It took 8 years to build and was finished in 1825.

This is the type of project that has enormous benefits for almost all Americans, and would certainly be less expensive than building and operating desalination plants using reverse osmosis. The existing lakes Mead and Powell could store the water as necessary. One benefit is an assured supply of agricultural products from the fertile but arid California farmlands and dairies. California supplies a large part of the nation's foods, when there is adequate water.

An advantage of the buried pipeline alternative is no water loss due to evaporation, but a disadvantage is higher initial cost, and higher pumping costs due to friction as the water flows through the pipe.

An advantage of the open canal design is lower pumping cost, but a disadvantage is slight water losses due to evaporation.

The amount of power required to pump the water is tremendous, at roughly 800,000 HP for a flow of 1,000 cubic feet per second.

Given a simple design of 800 miles broken up into 10 mile sections of canal, with a pump at each section, would require 80 pumping stations at 10,000 HP each. The 10,000 HP is roughly 7.5 MW of energy. Of course, an actual design would follow the contour of the land and have pumps sized appropriately for each section. Even if all 80 pumping stations are built, the amount of power required is approximately 600 MW.

The Missouri River flow varies of course, but is somewhat regulated by a series of flood-control dams upstream. The USGS shows the typical flow is about 4,000 to 5,000 cubic feet per second. Therefore, diverting 1,000 cubic feet per second would not likely be a problem. Diverting twice that amount, or three times that amount, could conceivably cause problems.

This would be a job for the Army Corps of Engineers, and is a worthy challenge to their expertise.

My proposed National Excess Water Transport Aqueduct Project (NEWTAP) as described above will go a long way to solving a couple of problems. First, and obviously, is the chronic water shortage in California and other western states, and flooding along the Missouri. Second, what to do with wind power in the Plains when the power demand is in the big cities (the lack of transmission lines problem).

A further improvement on this plan is to also divert a portion of the upper Mississippi River west and into the National Excess Water Transport Aqueduct Project. One possibility is a 150-mile canal due west along US route 36 from Hannibal to St. Joseph. This would allow a water flow of approximately 2,000 cubic feet per second, or more.

The water transfer to the Colorado River would eliminate the need for power transmission lines, because power would be generated at Glen Canyon Dam and Hoover Dam, then sent to Southern California or elsewhere through existing transmission lines. Thus, there would be some savings by not having to build power transmission lines to connect the wind-generators to cities.

A useful means of storing excess wind-generated power is to pump water uphill for later use in hydroelectric plants when the power is needed. This trans-continental, uphill waterway would do exactly that, storing the water in Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

I see no technical reasons why this would not work. Crossing existing creeks, rivers, highways, railroads, and hills, can all be done. However, on the legal and environmental side, there are more difficulties. There is a water-rights legal issue of transferring water from one water basin into another. This plan would transfer water from the Missouri water basin across a couple of other basins and into the Colorado water basin. Then there are the eminent domain issues to acquire the right-of-way. This is not a problem, if the governments decree the project is in the public interest. In practice, though, such decrees at times generate public hostility. Finally, the environmental issues are rather large. One can envision the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for an 800-mile canal crossing several states!

Still, such a project would be of ultimate good. The money spent would provide employment for thousands, and for many years. The energy generated by the windmills would be recovered (at least in part), which is in line with the “Generate Green” movement. That is far better than building a few nuclear power plants. And the water would go to good use, irrigating farms to feed the U.S. and the world.

Note: this is a copy of two articles I wrote in February 2009, when the Spring flooding began (as usual) on the upper sections of the Mississippi, Missouri, and the Red River in the Dakotas. The flooding has started again this year, and practical solutions such as the ones suggested here should be put in place.

Roger E. Sowell, Esq.