Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4. <br /> <br />5. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />! <br />[ <br />[ <br />I <br />I <br />[ <br />[ <br />[ <br />[ <br />[ <br />[ <br />[ <br />[ <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />effective ($290,000 to $570rOOO per mg/l). Stock <br />pond lining and on-farm management is the most <br />cost-effective combination of improvements. The <br />actual reduction of salinity at Imperial Dam is <br />5 to 8 mg/l. <br /> <br />3. <br /> <br />Drainwater for Cooling. All three options con- <br />sidered for using drainwater in a binary cooling <br />tower for a possible power plant near Wellington <br />would be cost effective. The most cost-effective <br />option ($289,000 per mg/l) would be to collect <br />and store enough drainwater in a reservoir at <br />Desert Seep Wash to provide cooling for two <br />400-MW units (12,000 acre-feet/year). The impact <br />on salinity would be a reduction of 5.8 mg/l TDS <br />at Imperial Dam. There are several major hur- <br />dles, however, to clear before this alternative <br />could be implemented. First, binary cooling is <br />an emerging technology and has not been totally <br />proven to the utilities industry. Also, there is <br />need to arrive at an appropriate cost-share for- <br />mula between industry and the Federal government. <br />Even with Federal funding, the project could not <br />be on-line before about 1995. In addition, the <br />alternative described in this report assumes that <br />there would be no mitigation costs. In spite of <br />all of these caveats, the alternative is attrac- <br />tive and should be pursued. <br /> <br />Drainwater Treatment or Disposal. None of the <br />options considered under this alternative are <br />cost effective. <br /> <br />Drainwater for Industrial Uses. Using drainwater <br />for feedwater to a coal slurry pipeline to <br /> <br />11-2 <br /> <br />-, ,'" t'*, ( -'1 <br />UlJl'...~ <br />