Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Desal can be problematic for three reasons.

First, it uses a lot of power, and if that power isn't produced sustainably, you've got more emissions, etc.

Second, there are things living in the water that gets sucked into the plant. Much of it gets caught by filters before it gets into the plant. Some things die on, or are injured by, the filters; other things die because they passed by the filter.

Third, the plant discharges large quantities of brine back into the ocean. For every two gallons of seawater taken in, the plant produces one gallon of desalinated water and one gallon of brackish water. That brine changes the salinity near the discharge pipe(s), affecting the local biosphere.

These effects should be compared to the effect of other sources of potable water, such as diverting stream flows, which also have negative consequences. Of course, as with energy conservation, the cheapest and most sustainable gallon of water is the gallon that didn't get used.
 
Desal can be problematic for three reasons.

First, it uses a lot of power, and if that power isn't produced sustainably, you've got more emissions, etc.

Second, there are things living in the water that gets sucked into the plant. Much of it gets caught by filters before it gets into the plant. Some things die on, or are injured by, the filters; other things die because they passed by the filter.

Third, the plant discharges large quantities of brine back into the ocean. For every two gallons of seawater taken in, the plant produces one gallon of desalinated water and one gallon of brackish water. That brine changes the salinity near the discharge pipe(s), affecting the local biosphere.

These effects should be compared to the effect of other sources of potable water, such as diverting stream flows, which also have negative consequences. Of course, as with energy conservation, the cheapest and most sustainable gallon of water is the gallon that didn't get used.

Never knew that. Thanks.
 
I have often times compared TSLA and TWTR because I find it funny that so many talks about TSLAs valuation like its Pets.com, but comparing it to other growth companies, like TWTR, where you don't hear near the same amount of talk about how the valuation is crazy, Tesla is actually valued much cheaper. TWTR was valued higher than TSLA earlier today even though TWTR operates at a significant loss, guided for slightly less growth than Tesla this year and has less than half the revenue.
 
I've been accumulating kythera. It's a biotech, but received approval today for their compound. They have over $100m in cash. With market cap of $1.2B.

The he drug is for reduction of chin fat, so not exactly saving lives. However Botox is a multi-billion dollar drug and I'm of the firm belief that there will be plenty of demand, even if insurance won't cover. Plus this will be a new revenue stream for dermatologists.

Consensus sales estimates are $13m in 2015 and $102 in 2016 growing to $526m in 2020. So lots of upside to the current market cap if sales meet analyst estimates as companies with sales trade between ~5x (pharma) to ~10x (biotech) of sales.

I'm estimating pricing around $750 per patient (about what Botox patients spend) so to meet 100m in sales they would need about 133,000 patients. Which isn't very many in the world of pharma. If you assume ~5,000 docs prescribing then that works out to ~27 patients per doc/ per year, or only a bit more than twice a month.

Of course there are risks. Although FDA approved there could be additional side effects reported when used in more patients. The company could screw up the launch, etc.

But in the end, I'm betting on the American consumer for this one. Currently Botox is selling about $3B worldwide with about half coming from the US.
 
Last edited:
Desal can be problematic for three reasons.

(1) First, it uses a lot of power, and if that power isn't produced sustainably, you've got more emissions, etc.

(2) Second, there are things living in the water that gets sucked into the plant. Much of it gets caught by filters before it gets into the plant. Some things die on, or are injured by, the filters; other things die because they passed by the filter.

(3) Third, the plant discharges large quantities of brine back into the ocean. For every two gallons of seawater taken in, the plant produces one gallon of desalinated water and one gallon of brackish water. That brine changes the salinity near the discharge pipe(s), affecting the local biosphere.

These effects should be compared to the effect of other sources of potable water, such as diverting stream flows, which also have negative consequences. Of course, as with energy conservation, the cheapest and most sustainable gallon of water is the gallon that didn't get used.

I felt like addressing your very good points with obvious thoughts (unnecessary for you since you tend to be so smart and knowledgeable, but maybe something to consider overall for others):

(1) Non-polluting sources are getting better fast (solar PV cells now produce more power than they take to create). Also, peak generation times of nonpolluting farms could be directly put into higher desal production.

(2) From: Key Issues in Seawater Desalination in California: Marine Impacts - Pacific Institute

We do, however, know that there are several operational, design, and technological measures available to reduce the marine impacts of open water intakes. In particular, subsurface intakes can virtually eliminate impingement and entrainment, as they extract seawater from beneath the seafloor or a beach. The sand acts as a natural filter, providing a level of pre-filtration that can reduce plant chemical and energy use and long-term operating costs.

“Subsurface intakes are being used in a growing number of plants around the world, as new drilling technologies – like the directional drilling that has made hydraulic fracturing possible – have made subsurface intakes possible in more locations. Now, even where the site is surrounded by generally unfavorable conditions, it may be possible to find a pocket with the right ones,” said Heather Cooley, co-director of the Pacific Institute Water Program.

(3) Also from: Key Issues in Seawater Desalination in California: Marine Impacts - Pacific Institute

Another major environmental challenge of desalination is the disposal of the highly concentrated salt brine that contains other chemicals used throughout the process. Because all large coastal seawater desalination plants discharge brine into oceans and estuaries, including all of the proposed plants in California, steps must be taken to ensure its safe disposal; at this stage, we know very little about the long-term impacts of brine disposal on the marine environment. Twice as saline as the ocean, the brine is denser than the waters into which it is discharged and tends to sink and slowly spread along the ocean floor, where there is typically little wave energy to mix it. There are several proven methods to disperse concentrated brine, such as multi-port diffusers placed on the discharge pipe to promote mixing. Brine can also be diluted with effluent from a wastewater treatment plant or with cooling water from a power plant or other industrial user, although these approaches have their own drawbacks that must be addressed.

So, (2) and (3) have developing solutions that I think are pretty good; I've read that (2) has seen success in a number of implementations, and I have to keep thinking that pushing (3) further out into the ocean with the proper diffusion with treated sewer and diffusers ought to help. Add in enough energy and money to make it work, and the answer in my humble opinion is to raise the price of water to pay for all of this, in a competitive landscape: once groundwater is depleted (which I keep saying ought to be barred from use whenever there's problems far less bad than we've already passed), people have to select water from private providers and pay whatever they agree to pay in an open marketplace. Regulators currently don't see water as an environmentally regulated marketplace; they incorrectly see it as a communist provisioning system. That's their fault and why this whole thing is such a mess. Once they clamp down on overdrafting ground sources and allow the prices to deliver water in more market-oriented ways with customer choice (without government price controls) using the utility pipes as just a delivery system, then these problems will solve themselves (although not without a bunch of whiny complainers complaining about the lack of communism).

I was out of California during the Davis debacle, so I don't know first hand how the government screwed that one up (electricity prices); I'm sure they did everything backwards and upside down, like the commies usually do. Is there a good place to read an honest accounting of it?

As investment, though, the Sierra Club types are dead-set against desalination, since they think it allows more "advanced civilization" and they always think that's a bad thing. I can't quite put my finger on it, but that's the Sierra Club effect. It's a pity, since we need a pro-human pro-civilization pro-environment movement, which the current political powerhouses are not. Every desal plant considered locally has been deep-sixed as in murdered.