Posted by:
[|]
(
)
Date: June 14, 2022 04:07AM
First, the ASARCO site was 67 acres (~0.1 sq.mi.). The exposed bed of the GSL is currently ~1500 sq.mi. or 4 orders of magnitude larger. The area contaminated by emissions from ASARCO is estimated to be ~1000 sq. mi., but has not all been remediated
https://sites.uw.edu/uwtacomalibrary/2019/05/08/tchp-tacoma-smelter/"To this day, arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals are still in the soil as a result of this pollution."
The area affected by dust from GSL is certainly larger.
Second, the biggest problem with your suggestion is this:
"Evaporation works great!
Catch the vapor and turn it back into liquid. Store it in snow in mountains, then people would have plenty to drink."
What you are proposing actually happens in the winter - it is known as lake effect snow. The amount produced is not enough to keep the GSL from shrinking. The amount of evaporation in winter is low because of low temperatures. Most evaporation from the GSL occurs in summer.
Regarding doing this artificially in the summer, consider the following questions
Just how do you propose to "catch the vapor" over an area of approximately 1000 sq. mi. to an altitude of several thousands of feet?
If you manage to do so, to turn it back into liquid would require cooling that large mass of air down until it becomes saturated. As noted, most evaporation from GSL occurs in summer when the temperature is 80-100 degrees, and relative humidity is 10-30%.
How much energy will be required to refrigerate that volume of air down to the dew point? How much will that cost? To store it as snow requires lowering the temperature of the produced water to below freezing. How much more energy will that take, and how much will that cost?
Trying to store it as snow in the mountains during summer won't work as the temperature is mostly above freezing then - and you would have to transport it there.
This plan is less practical that the one proposed by several Utahns to build a pipeline from the Pacific Ocean to the GSL.