California Startup Hopes to Harvest Desalinated Drinking Water from the Ocean Floor (yahoo.com) 135
A startup named OceanWell has partnered with southern California's Las Virgenes Municipal Water District "to study the feasibility of harvesting drinking water from desalination pods placed on the ocean floor," reports the Los Angeles Times:
The company says that by combining desalination with off-shore energy technology, it can solve many of the challenges associated with traditional, land-based desalination, including high energy costs and salty byproducts that threaten marine life. The process could produce as much as 10 million gallons of fresh water per day — a significant gain for an inland district almost entirely reliant on imported supplies...
OceanWell says its technology can use up to 40% less energy by harvesting the water in pods placed at depths of about 1,400 feet, where naturally immense water pressure can help power the filtration process... Land-based facilities try to squeeze out as much freshwater as possible to help balance high energy costs, with typical targets of 50% freshwater and 50% brine from every gallon processed. But because OceanWell uses "free" pressure from the ocean, it can operate at a lower recovery rate of 10% to 15%, producing a much less salty byproduct that can be dissolved back into ambient conditions within seconds, she said...
The partnership with Las Virgenes will allow OceanWell to "stress test" the technology's capabilities in the reservoir and collect more data, said Kalyn Simon, OceanWell's director of engagement. The current goal is to be fully operational by 2028, producing an estimated 10 million gallons of freshwater per day.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Bruce66423 for sharing the article.
OceanWell says its technology can use up to 40% less energy by harvesting the water in pods placed at depths of about 1,400 feet, where naturally immense water pressure can help power the filtration process... Land-based facilities try to squeeze out as much freshwater as possible to help balance high energy costs, with typical targets of 50% freshwater and 50% brine from every gallon processed. But because OceanWell uses "free" pressure from the ocean, it can operate at a lower recovery rate of 10% to 15%, producing a much less salty byproduct that can be dissolved back into ambient conditions within seconds, she said...
The partnership with Las Virgenes will allow OceanWell to "stress test" the technology's capabilities in the reservoir and collect more data, said Kalyn Simon, OceanWell's director of engagement. The current goal is to be fully operational by 2028, producing an estimated 10 million gallons of freshwater per day.
Thanks to Slashdot reader Bruce66423 for sharing the article.
Why NOT? (Score:3)
I haven't done the calcs to determine whether 1400 ft of seawater is enough to power the membrane and the freshwater lift but it seems likely. The modules wouldn't need external power but would only be viable if placed in a deep current to carry away the brine. You might be able to power a brine turbine/backwash from the lift.
Re:Why NOT? (Score:5, Funny)
TANSTAAFL. The energy needed to push the pods to depth is no different than the energy needed to pressurize the water at sea level.
10 million gallons is 31 acre-feet. At $70 per acre-foot, that's $2170.
It might be easier to just stop growing subsidized rice in the desert.
Re: (Score:3)
"Push"
Uh... lead and scrap iron ballast to get it to the sea floor is pretty fucking cheap, and they then pipe it out, not raise the pods to the surface every time they want to harvest water.
Re:Why NOT? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Piping it out" will take the same energy as pushing it through a traditional osmotic membrane.
It takes energy to separate salt from water. You can't magic that away.
The pressure drop, and the energy needed, are the same either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Um... no. Just... no. The vast majority of the energy to pump the water out to the surface will come from the weight of the ocean itself, which won't deplete in any meaningful fashion no matter how much water on the scale of human consumption is pumped out.
Re:Why NOT? (Score:4, Informative)
The pressure from the seawater is expended pushing through the osmotic membrane.
Then you need to lift the desalinated water 1400 feet (427 meters).
Pushing the water through a membrane takes 0.833 kwh per tonne.
Lifting water 427 meters takes 427 * 9.91 * 1000 / 3600000 = 1.16 kwh.
There will be some pump inefficiencies in either process, but they are roughly the same.
Even TFA doesn't claim magical free energy. Oceanwell claims the savings come from a lower salinity differential. But you could do that on the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you need to lift the desalinated water 1400 feet (427 meters).
Good news, the water pressure will help with that as well! A water pump with a lift 1 foot above the water will use about the same amount of energy for the same amount of water whether the inlet is 1 foot below the water (total 2 feet) or 10 feet(total 11). The deeper one may take a bit more juice from the friction of the increased length of the tube.
pumping head height [creativepumps.com.au]
Note that they measure head from the water's surface, not the pump's location or the inlet location.
That said, reducing pumping cost means
Re:Why NOT? (Score:4, Informative)
Good news, the water pressure will help with that as well!
There is no "water pressure". The pressure is expended going through the membrane against osmosis. So you have freshwater 1400 feet down with no pressure to push it up.
I think you are somehow envisioning a pipe full of fresh water rising to the surface where you can ladle it out with no work. It doesn't work that way.
Reverse osmosis has a static pressure differential of 600 psi. Even more is needed for a reasonable flow rate. That's 40 Atms. Each atm is 10 meters. So 400 meters or about 1400 feet.
That will be the depth of the freshwater's surface. To move it any higher, you need pumps.
The good news is, if you have plenty of freshwater, say from a river entering the ocean, you can run the process in reverse. You can send freshwater down the hole, generate electricity from a 1200-foot drop (twice the head of Hoover Dam), and have the freshwater pass through the membrane at the bottom and into the ocean. You can do even better if the sink is brine instead of seawater, such as the Great Salt Lake or the Dead Sea.
Re: (Score:2)
Reverse osmosis has a static pressure differential of 600 psi. Even more is needed for a reasonable flow rate. That's 40 Atms. Each atm is 10 meters. So 400 meters or about 1400 feet.
That will be the depth of the freshwater's surface. To move it any higher, you need pumps.
Indeed. Yes, you can do the osmosis "without" energy down there (if you already have an empty, cavity for the freshwater to go to), but you need to remove the fresh water up those 400m and hence you pay the full cost there. Well, since you are only pumping fresh water, you can use cheaper and possibly a bit more efficient pumps and you get a tiny advantage because freshwater is a tiny bit lighter. But overall, I just do not see it. I also expect everything you save on saltwater resistant pumps, you pay in m
Re: (Score:2)
First the river has to reach the ocean, like the Colorado doesn't any more for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Oceanwell claims the savings come from a lower salinity differential. But you could do that on the surface.
Indeed. They also claim the brine created will just "dissolve". Unless they make sure there is a permanent water current, that is not going to happen. This whole thing looks like a scam to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Then you need to lift the desalinated water 1400 feet (427 meters).
My guess is that the desalinated drinking water would come to the surface by itself since it has a lower density. I see no need to pump anything up at first glance, it will lift naturally all by itself.
Re: Why NOT? (Score:2)
OMFG you just invented the perpetuum mobile. Just drop something in the water and continuous free energy, why did nobody think of that before.
Problem: thermodynamics, if only we had technology that could circumvent that, weâ(TM)d have free energy forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Fresh water floats.
They're not claiming its energy free. From the summary: "combining desalination with off-shore energy technology."
Re: (Score:2)
The inside of a pipe is a closed system -- there is nothing in the pipe for the freshwater to "float" on. Sure, the whole pipe might float to the surface if allowed, but that kind of defeats the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TFS is poorly written but says the main benefit is a lower salinity differential.
It does not say there is free energy from avoiding pumping (because there isn't). Many Slashdotters read it that way, but TFS didn't say that.
Re: (Score:2)
"By taking the [reverse-osmosis] process to a place in nature where that pressure naturally exists, we don't have to create an artificial pressure gauge on land, as we traditionally do in desalination."
That's a quote from someone at OceanWell, but maybe it's out of context or something. I did make an attempt at figuring out where the energy savings was coming from, but couldn't find a real explanation anywhere.
Re: Why NOT? (Score:2)
Re: Why NOT? (Score:2)
You give too much credit to VCs, startup business reporters and the editors here.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The static pressure differential across an osmotic membrane with fresh water on one side and sea water on the other is 600 psi.
That is a height difference of about 1300 feet of water.
If you put an osmotic membrane on an empty pipe and push it down into the ocean, no water will flow into it until you reach 1300 feet. As you push lower, the level of the freshwater will not rise above 1300 feet below sea level.
If you want to move the freshwater to sea level, you need to pump it up 1300 feet. Or 1400 feet for a
Re: (Score:2)
Does this create a violation of thermodynamics? No. The universe is left in a
Re: (Score:2)
In theory, that would work.
But nowhere is the ocean 50,000 feet deep, and that is not what Oceanwell is doing. At 1400 feet, the density difference will only give about a 3% saving.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter because as soon as any water flows across the membrane, the pressure differential is gone. Sure, the freshwater column in the pipe will naturally end up being marginally higher than sea level without any pumping, but then you have to remove that water to create a differential again.
Just ignore the membrane for a minute, and consider a U pipe. If you very carefully fill one side with freshwater, and the other with saltwater, and they magically don't mix, then the freshwater side will be m
Re: (Score:2)
1400 ft is OBVIOUSLY correct. (Score:2)
I haven't done the calcs to determine whether 1400 ft of seawater is enough to power the membrane and the freshwater lift but it seems likely.
Every 33 feet of seawater is one atmosphere of pressure. So 1400ft is 42.4242... atmosphere of pressure. This value is obviously correct on face value.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Results of poor physics education (Score:2)
Except that now this pump is at 1400ft down in the water. Good luck servicing it.
Re: (Score:2)
But the 'poor physics education' problem is real. There is no fundamental benefit to doing this at the bottom of the ocean. Traditional RO systems have a high pressure side with energy consuming pumps and high pressure plumbing. Doing it at the bottom of the ocean simply reverses the situation so now you have pumps that consume the same energy pumping the permeate up to the surface and high pressure plumbing on the permeate side. Some marketing people who don't understand plumbing probably claim somethi
Re: (Score:2)
The primary problem is "ocean floor". That makes everything massively more expensive and exceptionally hard to maintain and repair. Incidentally, you get nothing for free here. The requirement to lift completely eliminates any advantage the pressure down there may have energetically. You only get a pressure differential when you pump one side out. Seawater is only a small bit heavier than freshwater. Apparently these people do not understand basic Physics.
Makes sense for large quantity (Score:3)
So they can save on energy by putting their pressure differential as decompressing the freshwater, rather than compressing the salt water. Same pressure differential over a smaller volume, and the brine's compression is free so they can use as much as they like.
Re: (Score:2)
They lose all that again, because they need to pump the freshwater up over 400m. Incidentally, water has almost no compressibility.
Huh? (Score:3)
I don’t get it. Where does the differential pressure come from? Is it just the density difference between fresh and brine? Ie column of freshwater is more buoyant so if you have 1km tube of fresh water in the ocean, it naturally wants to rise, and if you suck in more fresh water at the 1km deep inlet, you have a kind of perpetual option machine?
Re: (Score:2)
The hose back to the surface is one option. I had an idea a long time ago for an "artesian desalination" system that would essentially be a long pipe with a membrane in the last few meters. Your pump energy just needs to overcome the membrane pressure drop less the pressure from the density difference between the salt and fresh water. This sounds vaguely similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me see if I can explain what is going on here. I might be wrong but I'm sure someone will correct me.
When filtering salt out of ocean water most of the energy is used to force the water through the membranes. What they are doing is sinking pods with the membranes exposed to the ocean down to 1400 meters. All the pressure from the weight of the water will force the water through the membranes eliminating energy use for this. All you have to have is negative pressure of type on the other side of
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone go down there? Build your equipment to be only slightly heavier than water and then bring it up to work on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is the "magic" used to separate the gullible from their money! It makes all these irrelevant problems disappear!
Perpetuum mobile? (Score:2)
Okay I can kind of see it, the pure water is lighter so it wants to rise up, needs to be refilled and pulls water through the membrane ... yet it feels somehow wrong, a free lunch. Does that really work?
Re: (Score:3)
They will have to pump up the fresh water, but there is much less fresh water than salt water.
Where a regular RO has to pressurize everything, this rig lets ocean do the work and you only have to pump out (depressurize) maybe 10% of the water, or what ever the fresh fraction is.
So drop it in ocean like a big crab pot, pump out fresh water, then pull it up when the membranes foul which is always the problem with RO. As a bonus the waiter down there should be cleaner so the membranes should last longer.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, that makes more sense.
Re: (Score:2)
As a bonus the waiter down there should be cleaner ...
Yes, but he'll be very grumpy from all the pressure he's under. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
autocorrect strikes again.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. You are on to something there. The conventional plant pumps in seawater and then pumps out brine and freshwater. This one just pumps out freshwater. Nope, still do not see it. They have to maintain these pods and that will likely eat more than all savings they could have. Oh, and there is another problem: The membranes used have a lifetime that strongly depends on the water being filtered. On land, you can filter, monitor, pre-condition, etc. Down at the ocean floor, the membrane just has to take it.
Re: Perpetuum mobile? (Score:2)
It doesnâ(TM)t matter how much fresh water there is in the differential, you still have to get it from 1400m or whatever it is down the ocean + the amount of energy necessary to create and maintain a pressure differential across the membrane for it to do work. Whether it works at 1400m or 5m doesnâ(TM)t matter, the communicating vessels work under the same principle. Just sticking an open ended pipe down the water doesnâ(TM)t make a fountain, which is what the claim here is.
Re: (Score:2)
It does when you hook up a pump powered by a wind turbine to it. That's the actual claim. Is all this perpetual motion / free energy nonsense the result of nobody bothering to read to the second paragraph?
Re: (Score:2)
But how is that using "40% less energy"? Are they only counting energy drawn from the grid? That seems disingenuous, but if so, why not use bigger turbines and claim it doesn't use any energy at all?
Oh oh (Score:2)
Sounds like a great idea, it really does. BUT, whenever a startup says something is 5 years away .. it usually means there's some fundamental flaws that they haven't figured out.
Sierra Club is a joke (Score:3, Informative)
In the fine article they got statements from the Sierra Club on what they thought. I can't take them seriously on global warming or environmental protection so long as they continue to opposed nuclear fission as an energy source. Just so I was getting the latest on their stance on nuclear power I double checked my memories on where they stand I visited their website, and I found out they opposed nuclear fusion for energy as well.
Considering nuclear fusion is still theoretical at this point I find it odd they felt a need to comment at all, and odder still to be opposed to even investigating the options.
California needs freshwater, and by having access to the sea makes desalination of water something to investigate. No matter which process they use to separate the salt from the water it will take energy. Nothing is as safe, abundant, or reliable as nuclear fission for producing energy. Any issues California may have with nuclear power are far easier to solve than getting "zero carbon" energy in the quantities needed from any other source. If earthquakes, tsunami, or storms off the sea are a concern for coastal nuclear power plants then put the power plant inland somewhere and run wires to the desalination plants.
I saw an interesting interview with Neil deGrasse Tyson where he spells out quite clearly that the problem with freshwater is one of cost, and a large part of that cost is energy. Dr. Tyson also points out another big part of that cost is supply/demand dynamics. If the water supply issue gets bad enough then it becomes cheaper to put the energy into desalination than to ship freshwater in from other states. Where should California get this energy while protecting the environment and lowering CO2 emissions? The IPCC says we need energy from nuclear fission or we will fail to meet CO2 emission reduction goals. The Sierra Club is an unserious anti-scientific organization by continuing their policy of opposing nuclear power in any form.
The Sierra Club opposes desalination because the brine it creates could harm marine life? What about the harms to human life if there's a shortage of water to drink? They are a joke, nobody should be listening to them until they start showing some basic understanding of science and concern for human life.
Re: (Score:2)
No matter which process they use to separate the salt from the water it will take energy. Nothing is as safe, abundant, or reliable as nuclear fission for producing energy.
A nuke a day keeps Nestle at bay. Just setting off nukes underwater will produce all the vapor-distilled water you could possibly need. What could go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
Decades ago I contacted the Sierra Club about a local deforestation issue and they had zero interest.
I was upset because I believed what people claimed back then. Now it's just an obvious scam organization.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure "decades ago" counts as "now" but regardless, what is the scam?
Re: (Score:2)
The IPCC says we need energy from nuclear fission or we will fail to meet CO2 emission reduction goals.
We are already failing to meet CO2 emission reduction goals, because the anti-nuclear lobbies sponsored by the fossil fuels industry successfully sabotaged nuclear development in the western world.
Fortunately, less and less countries listen to them, and are turning toward a mix of both nuclear and renewables. Unfortunately, humanity will have to suffer more consequences from climate change than what was truly necessary. Most of the deaths will be in poor countries, while rich countries will just;.. be sligh
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can take your credentials as an environmentalist seriously if you oppose an environmental organization simply because they don't agree with nuclear. Most don't.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, has been writing reports for years showing that global targets on CO2 emissions reductions will not be met without greater utilization of nuclear fission as an energy source. There's other reports from a number of subject matter experts that agree. What credentials do the members of the Sierra Club have to claim that nuclear power should not be considered as a part of our future energy needs?
Scientific studies tell us that if we don't increase our ut
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps they did in the past -- I honestly don't know -- but they don't anymore (2022 summary) [www.ipcc.ch]. They mention nuclear as an option on pg 38, but it clearly has a lower cost/benefit than wind and solar.
On page 67 of the technical summary [www.ipcc.ch], they write
Re: (Score:2)
No matter which process they use to separate the salt from the water it will take energy. Nothing is as safe, abundant, or reliable as nuclear fission for producing energy.
Penetration of rooftop solar PV is causing negative energy prices during the day in my state, and that's not counting storage backed commercial solar plants. Batteries aside, we need other energy sinks to use this excess energy. We're seeing hydrogen production as one, and now I'm wondering if desal could be another.
Re: (Score:2)
Penetration of rooftop solar PV is causing negative energy prices during the day in my state, and that's not counting storage backed commercial solar plants.
Negative electricity prices through the day are not a good thing, that shows that the government is throwing so much money in subsidies that it is profitable to pay people to take electricity that they normally would not want. If I'm paid to burn electricity then I'd be tempted to open up my windows and crank up the air conditioner. You want me to believe such wasteful uses of electricity don't take place with negative electricity pricing?
Batteries aside, we need other energy sinks to use this excess energy. We're seeing hydrogen production as one, and now I'm wondering if desal could be another.
Once there is electricity storage on the grid then any power plant
Pressure and depth (Score:2)
are roughly one and the same.
Whatever you save on not having to make high pressure on the surface you lose right back having to pump up your product from the ocean floor.
Serving the RO membranes in those pods? Well, let's just pretend we won't need to do that, and by the time our investors realize they've sunk their money, we'll be living it up in a pineapple under the sea...
Re: Pressure and depth (Score:2)
From what I'm seeing, instead of pumping up the freshwater, they're banking on the brine being more dense than the newly-processed freshwater, and having the freshwater naturally rise up because of that.
Re: Pressure and depth (Score:2)
Doesn't matter. It either takes work to pump it up or it takes work to evacuate the chamber where this Rube Goldberg contraption will magically use brine to purge freshwater without contaminating it.
Re: (Score:2)
are roughly one and the same.
Whatever you save on not having to make high pressure on the surface you lose right back having to pump up your product from the ocean floor.
Serving the RO membranes in those pods? Well, let's just pretend we won't need to do that, and by the time our investors realize they've sunk their money, we'll be living it up in a pineapple under the sea...
Very spot on. Which to me suggests that is we want to use "natural pressure" We would pump seawater into holding ponds at a higher altitude, then release them similarly to the way we use hydraulic storage for power generation.
Pump the seawater, then release it. For those who are worried about solar after dark, you just pump it during the day. Don't even need the power grid. Then you release it as needed into nice osmotic desalinators. The pumps and desalinators are all on the surface, eliminating a maint
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pressure and depth (Score:2)
Considering I have to pump that 10 liters of seawater 10 meters up versus 300+ for that one liter of freshwater, I think the math speaks for itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pressure and depth (Score:2)
Again, doesn't matter: even 1400 ft down, you have to purge the brine somehow. And if that somehow means pumping it out of your lower pressure pod into high-pressure ocean depths, you've got the exact same problem of moving the same flow at the same pressure that you would at the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
You have 10 litres of Saltwater from which you get 1 liter of fresh water. These guys are proposing pumping up 1 liter of fresh water. You are proposing pumping up 10 liters of salt water. Does the reduced maintenance cost justify a 10 times more pumping cost? As a bonus no Sierra Club activists to come along and destroy your desalination equipment on the surface.
What do you think the pumping cost is? If you have a pump at all, it hardly costs anything more to pump those 10 litres of seawater than that 1 liter of pure desalinated water.
And your Sierra Club fantasy is just that - weird. Even if your enemy was planning on destroying the pumped seawater they'd be quite able to destroy the pure fresh water as well.
Looking forward to your cost analysis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pumping cost is proportional to volume. It costs more to pump more. Even a kindergardner knows that. Why are you on slashdot?
To make fools of people like you, who can't even supply the facts to back up your specious claim.
Yes, it will take a minuscule amount more electricity to run a pump longer. But you need to tell us exactly how that relates to the maintenance of Osmotic desalinators and pumps on the ocean floor. Meanwhile with a surface based system using hydraulic storage for pressure, the only thing in the saltwater environment is the piping, which now has no need to be at the bottom of the ocean.
You made the claim ghou
Re: (Score:2)
Always some gimmick instead of the obvious. (Score:2)
Las Virgenes is not a city in California (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's the pressure gradient across the membrane tha (Score:2)
Putting your desalination plan in the bottom of the ocean increases the pressure on both sides of the membrane. The only difference is that the pump at the bottom of the ocean costs a lot more and needs much longer cables.
This is another pseudoscience investor scam.
Besides everybody knows the only way to separate randomly moving particles with zero energy input is Maxwell's demon.
An eco-disaster in making? (Score:2)
Where are they going to put the brine/excess salt? Back into the ocean? ... That would be a really bad idea. How about saving and preserving water first? ... Or are they going to store it on land, in huge piles of salt? Then what's going to happen with the next flood?
I hope authorities tripple-check this project before they greenlight it.
No pics of any actual devices on website (Score:2)
tap to drain (Score:2)
Very clever. Tap the water district to send money down the drain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If we want to know what someone like you "thinks" about an environmental technology, we'll just go to the source and watch Fox News for five minutes. Or 4chan or Qanon. Or just hold our breaths long enough to simulate your brain damage.
Re: (Score:2)
*suit
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just hear to see the comments from the smooth-brain liberals who think this will have some sort of impact on the ocean.... Math isn't their strong suite.
Neither is it yours, well actually math nor science. It's not the impact on the ocean as a total, its about a local effect. 10m from discharge, 100m from discharge, etc.
Obama of the 2010s would get canceled today (Score:2)
it ain't the Obama years anymore and lib jokes don't hit hard anymore, not when they come from the mouths of abject cowards
Oh, they hit harder than ever before since "libs" have gotten far more ridiculous since the Obama days. Hence the popularity of Libs of TikTok. Obama of the 2010s would get canceled today.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. It's just the "conservatives" of today would hang literally any American other than Bull Connor from a light post, so everyone from the past except the worst monsters of all time look like wacky hippies to them.
Yep, you libs have gotten ridiculously funny with your beliefs. Keep telling yourself the above while more people of color leave the party. Pretend those folks are white supremacists too. LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most Immigrants have conservative social values they grew up with so are natural Republicans. What turns them off is the White supremacy.
Unless you subscribe to the liberal ideology that math, correct answers, meritocracy, etc are white supremacy there is little white supremacy in the US.
Most socioeconomic problems are founded in absolutely f*cked up K-12 schools. And those are a domain where liberals have pretty much total control over.
If the Republican party stopped pandering to a racist white fringe , ...
You are confusing fabricated democratic party talking points with reality
Re: (Score:2)
Most immigrants believe in hard work. They literally come to the country with nothing and pull themselves up through hard work and hustling. They have no time for 57 different genders and new math. But they do not want
Re: (Score:2)
There are white people with machine guns ...
And there goes you credibility. You are woefully ignorant on these events.
... on the steps of Govt buildings protesting and the cops tell them to move along politely while a black kid with a toy gun in a park gets shot by the cops as the cop "feared for their life". Dont try to pretend there is "no white supremacy" in the US.
False equivalency. These were extremely different circumstances. There were protests with black militia openly carrying AR and AK and police did nothing there either.
Most immigrants believe in hard work. They literally come to the country with nothing and pull themselves up through hard work and hustling ...
Yes, that is the American dream story. And that was once what both republicans and democrats believed in. But now liberals tell us that such things as working hard to get a head, to succeed through merit, is white supremacy.
But they do not want to hear on how Brown immigrants should go back to their country ...
A quite rare opinion. What most conservatives w
Re: Obama of the 2010s would get canceled today (Score:2)
Immigrants (legal or illegal) canâ(TM)t vote without committing some serious identity theft, so their vote would only happen where there are no ID checks.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Mexico [wikipedia.org]
Racism is all the rage no matter where you go. They're OK with lighter skin supremacy, as long as they're on top
That has nothing to do with what's being discussed. The presence of racism elsewhere in the world doesnt mean that racism doesnt exist in the US.
There's plenty of good reasons to dislike both parties but white supremacy is hardly a rounding error for a reason to dislike republicans. The other party, which doesn't have much to go on, loves to portray anyone who's not 100% inclusive as some kind of 'ISM. If you're a minority, you can have all the 'ISMs you want.
You can pretend all you want that "the other side" is just as bad on this topic but the fact is that immigrants who are in fact typically socially conservative have clearly shown which party they feel welcome in despite the Democrats not catering to their socially conservative beliefs.
Re: (Score:2)
You hate this country, and this country hears your message loud and clear. Our answer is No.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure your party ...
My party. I've been registered independent since age 18. I vote for candidates not parties. Some D, some R, some L over the years.
If you want to call "I", my party then my party is growing more at the expense of the "D" than the "R" because the "D" are going to ridiculous extremes.
keeps changing the laws to hold power with fewer and fewer votes because you have more support than before. Remind me the last year a majority of American voters chose one of your psycho Presidential candidates?
The only reason Trump won, and the only reason he even has a chance today, is because of that ridiculous positions the Democratic Party has adopted. Moderate democrats and independents put Trump into office that first time, and
Re: (Score:2)
Medium to Large scale SWRO plants use can use a turbine which uses the pressure differential on the output streams to help compress the input, recovering much of the energy used - which also happens to save up to 40% of the energy needed for pressurisation compared to not using an energy recovery device.
It is also possible to use forward osmosis to recover energy from the concentrated brine stream diluting back into the same concentration as the feed stream, which has the potential to recover more energy -