California drought brainstorm

General Discussion
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1

Thoughts incoming. A lot of the world’s food is grown in California, and the drought there is getting intense. It’s a serious problem.

The best solution would seem to be to design and build better desalination plants. There are a lot of clever people in Cali., so if the governor were to make a contest for the best new desal plant design, there is a good chance a breakthrough new design would come forth. My thought is, since water evaporates easily with lower air pressure, I would suggest using windmills to pump out air from above a sealed, clear, domed structure. Solar reflectors on either side to bounce light back and forth across the surface of the water, where the evaporation takes place, to heat and excite the water molecules. A mirror placed 1-2 centimeters below the surface of the water to maximize the photon- surface water layer interaction. The windmills then pump the water vapor to an adjacent insulated structure for condensation. The entire structure floats, so whether the tide is in or out, it is always right at the water’s surface. Low cost fresh water. The thought works in my head anyway.

A different thought would be using boats and giant inflatable containers to catch some of the massive amounts of rain that regularly falls on the Gulf of Mexico and pipelining it west through Texas, New Mexico and Arizona, all of which would appreciate having a large water pipeline. The pipeline would be expensive, but turning all that barren land near the pipeline into something productive should be considered.

A different thought would be cloud manipulation. We have a tiny bit of control of clouds through cloud seeding. We need a lot more. Perhaps we could manipulate the electrical properties of clouds to better control when/where rain/snow falls. A blimp with a series of wires hanging from it to change the charges in the cloud. Rain falls when clouds go up the side of a mountain, so perhaps a plane, pulling a wedge, flying through a cloud could simulate this. To me, cloud manipulation sounds like it would be a good university project.

2

I have often wondered why the western states and Florida did not promote desalinization plants more enthusiastically. We have the experience of Israel, so we do not need to invent the technology from scratch. I guess those rich coastal dwellers do not want to lose their pristine views of the ocean. I also think that politicians need to have the will to do it, and forego a few campaign donations if that is what it takes. I also wonder what role the Federal Government can play to overrule the states when the welfare of an entire region is at stake.

As far as capturing rain into the Gulf of Mexico, if there is that much H20 coming in, then a desalinization/treatment plant should work there too.

Cathy
Central NJ, zone 7a

3

Florida and other places have some desal plants. Basically, they usually push sea water through a membrane at high pressure, it requires a lot of energy, and it’s too expensive to do on a huge scale needed for farming, so I came up with some new thoughts. I’m not an expert on these things, these are just some thoughts on possible less expensive alternatives.

4

I’m afraid that so long as California can steal water from Colorado basically for nothing, we’re not going to see desalination on any large scale. Especially so when people will buy raspberries shipped from China as seen in the recent case of food poisoning in Australia. Globalization means that if it costs too much to grow veggies in CA, they’ll come from some place cheaper without environmental or worker safety regulations. Gresham’s law rules.

I see a couple technical challenges in the proposal to use vacuums and mirrors. It’s really hard to keep something sealed well. Algae and stuff grows on surfaces under water. To condense vapor we need cold, relatively speaking. So maybe heat pumps could shift the balance making the hot hotter and the cold colder, without getting into generating any vacuums at all.Combined wind and solar is appealing. But simple thermodynamics sets a price on water gotten from evaporation. Unless your solar and wind machines are free, that price is too high today. We need to raise the price of Colorado water, and imported vegetables to compete.

5

A very old, low-tech method may be useful in some cases – charcoal dust.

It has long been known that charcoal is able to capture water vapor from the air, where it becomes available to plants. It also happens that charcoal captures more water vapor (along with CO2, ammonia, etc.) at lower temperatures than at higher. Thus, the water captured at night will be available during the heat of the following day.

Butler and Whallon (1852) wrote, “In the midst of the disastrous drouth of the last summer, while crossing a field in Moriah, occupied by Mr. Richmond, in pursuit of some Durham cattle I wished to examine, I observed a lot, with its surface deeply and singularly blackened. Upon inspection, I found it thickly strewn with pulverized charcoal. The field presented a rich verdure, strongly contrasting with the parched and blighted aspect of the adjacent country.”
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/Charcoal/ButlerCharcoal1852.html

A. R. of Lowell (1855) similarly observed, “My faith in the utility of coal dust, for dry lands, has been strengthened also, by using it in setting trees. I have an elevated and sandy place, where I am desirous to grow a ‘belt’ of evergreens, and for two successive years, after my utmost skill in setting, the trees would die out wholly or in part, seemingly from the effects of the hot, dry seasons. Last spring I again set out 50 Norway spruce, fir balsam, white pine, &c., dug large holes, and in part mixed in with the loam two bushels charcoal, bringing a portion of the coal near the roots of the trees. I used equal care in setting, but in the fall almost every tree, where no coal was put, was dead or nearly so, dried up. While every tree to which I applied the dust was alive and vigorous. I have also used charcoal in setting fruit trees, hedges, &c., in dry places, and am satisfied with the result. I am sorry that a more free use of charcoal dust recently, in this vicinity, has advanced the price of the article. Our colliers now charge $5 per cord, but think it will pay even at that price.”
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/Charcoal/ARcharcoal1855.html

The use of charred vegetation in Brazil is thought to go back 4000 years. The value of char has been repeatedly discovered and later neglected.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/Charcoal/CharcoalBiblio.html

6

It has to be charcoal, though. Coal (and coal dust) is a different thing and will not work.

7

Don,
Quite right. However, A. R. of Lowell (1855) was writing about charcoal dust. In the first paragraph of his note he wrote, “I will relate one of my experiments, and its results, with charcoal,…” Later, he abbreviated “charcoal dust” to “coal dust”.

8

There are a couple of other things to consider as well.

First, charcoal will decay and oxidize (to CO2) fairly quickly depending on the local conditions in some environments, hot and dry especially, possibly only lasting a few years. The larger the bits the longer it will last.

Second, because of the nature of charcoal it will absorb and sequester a great many things such as nutrients but also herbicides and pesticides rendering them inert until the charcoal decays. Charcoal will vary on exactly what it is capable of sequestering depending on it’s source which dictates the inorganics present .

The ag schools and experiment stations studied charcoal pretty extensively pre-internet and some digging in the old journals will turn up more papers on it.

9

[quote=“cathymess”]politicians need to have the will to do it
Cathy
Central NJ, zone 7a[/quote]

Your stipulation is noted.

10

Don,
Charcoal dust does not decay or oxidize as rapidly as you suggest. As I mentioned, charred vegetation was used to improve soil in Brazil nearly 4000 years ago. The soil remains fertile, with charcoal still present.
“Terra preta owes its name to its very high charcoal content, and was made by adding a mixture of charcoal, bone, and manure to the otherwise relatively infertile Amazonian soil. It is very stable and remains in the soil for thousands of years.”

Others have reported for shorter terms:

“But it should be remembered that charcoal is not simply a transient assistant to the plant, not an annual manure, but perpetual. It acts and reacts. It is still there a dozen years hence, unchanged and unchangeable, performing its brokerage duties systematically and profitably, and retaining no per cent. We need not refer the experienced reader to any data in proof of this fact. We know old coal beds that will produce the best corn or other grain, notwithstanding the constant cropping for thirty years, of any piece of land in the neighborhood. The particles of carbon are still distinct and scarcely diminished in size, except so far as the use of the plow, hoe, or harrow, has worn them. Charcoal is more valuable because of its property to retain and yield up organic matter, than as furnishing carbon for the plant, hence the objection to too thorough pulverization.”
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/Charcoal/PrairieFarmer1859.html

Todd (1868):
“Charcoal is composed almost entirely of pure carbon; and when small fragments are exposed to the influences of the weather, they undergo very little change during a long term of years. Still the roots of growing plants will lay hold of the small pieces of charcoal, and appropriate the substance contained in the coal to the growth and development of the stems, leaves, and seeds of grain, fruit, and vegetables.”
“Every observing farmer who has been accustomed to raise wheat cannot have failed to notice the luxuriant growth of cereal grain round about the places where charcoal has been burned, even more than thirty or forty years ago.”
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/Charcoal/ToddCharcoalWheat1868.html

11

The characteristics of a char that determine its reactivity are myriad. Wet, cold, oxygen depleted swamps will hold it for a long time. Arid, hot places with plenty of oxygen will promote oxidation, as does exposure to sunlight, freeze-thaw cycling, acidity and so forth. Intrinsic properties such as porosity and elemental composition of the char also play a role.

Don’t take my word for it - do the experiment.

FWIW I endorse the use of charcoal as a soil amendment but it has effects of its own and it’s not a forever solution.

12

Some of the apparent discrepancies are no doubt due to differences in terminology. The articles I quoted refer to “charcoal dust”, while others I have linked in the bibliography I noted refer to “charcoal refuse”.

I take it that many of the authors used all the bits that could not be shoveled safely into a furnace. The “particles” mentioned were probably as large as aquarium gravel, or even larger. Certainly these could last 20 or 30 years with no apparent change.

I suspect that char, in its various forms, also aids in the formation of humus.

According to Wikipedia:

Much of the humus in most soils has persisted for more than a hundred years (rather than having been decomposed to CO2), and can be regarded as stable; this is organic matter that has been protected from decomposition by microbial or enzyme action because it is hidden (occluded) inside small aggregates of soil particles or tightly attached (sorbed or complexed) to clays.
Humus - Wikipedia

Particles of char should serve especially well because of their highly complex structure.

Furthermore, “Humus can hold the equivalent of 80–90% of its weight in moisture, and therefore increases the soil’s capacity to withstand drought conditions.” So, even if all the original char is oxidized, the humus it fostered can remain “for millennia or more.”

Charcoal refuse can stabilize sand. It also helps aerate clay. In either case (and others) the effects of charcoal may continue long after the char itself is gone.