Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
by vinceguidry on Wednesday April 26, 2017 @09:56PM
(#14208614)
That's a horrible solution. Water is even less portable than energy, even the driest desert can't afford to import water. You're trading a highly liquid but hard to transport commodity for a highly illiquid and hard to transport commodity.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Fusion reactors: Not what they’re cracked up to be
by logfromblammo on Thursday April 27, 2017 @09:26AM
(#14211268)
Scenario 1: Your solar power is used near the site of the power installation. In this case, there must be people living near the site in order to use all that power. Those people require freshwater. Therefore, there will be a means to transport water to the site.
Scenario 2: Your solar power is used elsewhere. In this case, there must be a means to transmit power to the people who will use it. Those people are likely to live near seawater. The closest such people are also likely to have a limited supply of freshwater.
You are already either transporting water to the solar site, or transporting power away from it to somewhere else. So the idle capacity of the solar plant will be usable for desalination and/or wastewater reclamation. And I think aqueducts, particularly seawater aqueducts, are cheaper than you realize. The majority of energy required is in increasing the elevation of the water, and that can be done with surplus power, too.