Mining the oceans for fresh water – and Uranium

From CFACT

By Duggan Flanakin

About 450,000 residents in the Corpus Christi (Texas) metropolitan area are primarily served by fresh water from two severely threatened reservoirs, but the city has become increasingly reliant on water sent via the Mary Rhodes Pipeline from Lake Texana and the Colorado River. The city remains under stage 3 water restrictions despite recent heavy rains. Lake Corpus Christi is only a third full, while the rains raised Choke Canyon Reservoir’s water level to 20% full.

The city has twice voted to delay a final vote to approve the billion-dollar, privately funded, state and federally permitted Inner Harbor desalination plant that when operational would produce 30 million gallons per day of potable water — about a quarter of the city’s water need (including that of its burgeoning industrial sector).

One possible reason for the second delay was the rains that have pushed back the predicted date for imposing a stage 1 water emergency till the end of 2027. Should that emergency kick in, the city would be only 180 days from not being able to meet water demand – and require residents to cut their water usage by 25%. Even if the council approves the Inner Harbor project at its September meeting, the plant will not become fully operational until sometime in 2029.

The Nueces River Authority has already partnered with the Israeli desalination firm IDE Technologies to build the plant – though its request for funding from the Texas Water Development Board was not granted. IDE uses a modular design that allows major plant components to be manufactured and assembled in phases to reduce construction timelines and fast-track the first-delivery date.

Corpus Christi still seems more willing than the state of California to approve desalination projects. While the Doheny Ocean Desalination plant made it through the permitting process and is scheduled to be operational by 2029, the much larger Huntington Beach Desalination plant was formally rejected by the California Coastal Commission after a 20-year fight and opposition by over 100 groups over projected water costs and fears of climate change causing flooding.

Doheny, when operational, will serve about 35,000 people, while the Huntington Beach plant was to supply about 450,000 people in an area severely damaged by recent fires. While Orange County residents may have been happy the plant was voted down, Corpus Christi Mayor Paulette Guajardo believes the city’s ongoing water crisis will be the number one issue in November.

Traditional desalination has involved reverse osmosis, in which salty water is pressed against a membrane hard enough that freshwater squeezes through and the salt stays behind. On land, this requires a bank of high-pressure pumps — and running those pumps runs up the cost of delivery.

To get around that problem, a Bay Area company called OceanWell has already pilot-tested a scheme that involves putting the membrane filters into a sealed pod and placing it 1,300 feet below the surface so that the weight of the water overhead eliminates the need for pumps, potentially cutting costs by up to 40%.

By drawing water in slowly, OceanWell is minimizing damage to sea life. During the trial, cameras showed fish swimming around the screens and a diving bird hunting a school of fish right next to the equipment. The internal prefilters and automated backwash enabled live algae, diatoms, and copepods to avoid being swept into the pod.

The demonstration was run in the Las Virgenes Reservoir at only 50 feet below the surface and reduced dissolved solids levels in the treated drinking water from 320 ppm to just 50 ppm. The three-month trial also yielded more than 150,000 gallons of water at just 7% downtime, all for scheduled maintenance. Now OceanWell is ready to test the pods in Santa Monica Bay this fall.

Chinese scientists, meanwhile, have been developing a new solar-powered desalination technology that uses no electricity at all to produce fresh water — making it especially attractive in water-short areas that are also deficient in electric power generation. The Chinese believe this technology can cut the cost of producing fresh water from seawater to below that of bottled water and can become a low-cost, sustainable solution to water shortages.

The Chinese scientists, drawing inspiration from a shirt button, constructed nanoparticle spheres and threaded them together with polymer just as yarn is pulled through the holes in a button. The resulting structure, consisting of billions of microspheres, proved extremely robust and durable in conditions that simulated a squally coastline.

In an initial trial, the individual spheres reflected light out into each other, boosting the solar-thermal capacity to 90.2% and ensuring that the heat radiating out into the water was hot enough to drive evaporation up to 45.7%. This sunlight-only system produced 5.3 gallons of World Health Organization-grade drinking water each day that was used to irrigate 54 square feet of farmland growing bok choi, beans, and corn throughout a full growth cycle.

The Chinese team has more work to do to improve condensation efficiency and reduce system costs but plans to scale up the technology for use in water-scarce coastal areas, islands, and remote regions.

Ocean mining to many involves giant scoops digging up seabeds. Controversies range from environmental concerns to geopolitical arguments over rights. But Texas-based SuperCritical Materials Corp. intends instead to mine uranium from seawater – and leave the seabed alone.

The company, which just won an exclusive license from the Department of Energy to extract uranium from seawater, intends to ⁠extract uranium from seawater with specially treated acrylic fibers to ​which dissolved uranium ions bind. While seawater contains an average of just 3.3 parts per billion of uranium, SuperCritical’s goal is to capture that uranium, convert it into a gas, enrich it, and fabricate it into fuel for nuclear power plants.

Founder and CEO Alexander Canon Bryan says his long-term goal is to transform the U.S. from a net importer to a net exporter of uranium and nuclear fuels. The company hopes its first plant can produce 1.85 million pounds of uranium annually for at least 40 years – enough to power 4 million households throughout its productive life.

SuperCritical has already raised $4.5 million and has plans to go public later this year. But just to get permission to construct and operate, the firm has to work with 13 state and federal agencies, including the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the Texas Railroad Commission, and the U.S. Coast Guard.

While the firm says it can develop uranium as soon as 2030, it has yet to make a final investment decision to go ahead with the project. But imagine if SuperCritical could integrate uranium recovery with desalination in a manner similar to that proposed for the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant in California.

This article originally appeared at RealClear Energy

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.8 22 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
33 Comments
Tom Halla
August 3, 2026 6:10 am

A curse is “may your project be subject to the California Coastal Commission”

Bryan A
August 3, 2026 6:13 am

California should just tell the desalination opposition that they will operate the facility from Offshore Wind which produces energy that is practically free and would offset rising sea level rise by removing water from the ocean. What tree hugger wouldn’t get excited about using renewable (free) energy to offset rising sea levels and provide drinking water.

Peter Muller
August 3, 2026 6:22 am

Unless they’ve suspended the principle of hydraulic head, regardless of the osmotic pressure at the submarine intake in the diagram, you still have to pump the desalinated water up onto the land surface.

Reply to  Peter Muller
August 3, 2026 8:38 am

True, but there’d be less water to pump to the surface coming out of the RO system and it might not require high pressure pumps to do it.
The the effluent will rise in the lines as it seeks its own level even though the resistance from the RO system won’t let it rise as high. Turbines pumps like those used in deep water wells might be all that is needed.

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  Gunga Din
August 3, 2026 12:53 pm

True, but there’d be less water to pump to the surface coming out of the RO system and it might not require high pressure pumps to do it.

The key issue is that in the case of submarine filters, the hydraulic head only has to be applied to the fresh water side and thus reducing the amount of water that needs to be pumped. Since little energy is needed for supplying the sea water side, more seawater can be used for a given amount of fresh water, lowering the salt concentration of the brine exiting the plant.

Eng_Ian
Reply to  Erik Magnuson
August 3, 2026 2:27 pm

I still wonder how people can see this working. The pressure on the inlet side of the filter is directly proportional to the depth of the filter in the ocean. The SAME pressure is on the other side because the fresh water column has the SAME depth. Ignoring the slight difference for saltwater density of course.

To force water through a filter you need a pressure differential. ONE side has to be low pressure. The scheme mentioned in the article, (using filters deep in the ocean), does NOT produce a pressure differential.

Regardless of the pressure needs, there is now the problem of how to service the filters at the bottom of the ocean. Clearly this idea has not been evaluated by anyone on the water treatment plant operations team. Or maybe they are still laughing so hard that they haven’t submitted their paperwork yet.

hiskorr
Reply to  Eng_Ian
August 3, 2026 8:01 pm

Obviously, the sketch is mislabeled! the flow is from the high-pressure side of the pump, down to the uranium filter, and then back up to the low pressure side of the pump!

Reply to  Peter Muller
August 3, 2026 8:50 am

All of these proposals seem to have suspended the principle of reality.

Trading the principle of creating high pressure on one side of a membrane for creating low pressure on the other.

Uranium is neither rare nor expensive, still under $100/lb.

We currently pump fresh water from sea level (Sacramento – San Joaquin Delta) to around 4,400′ to get it over the Tehachapis, a head pressure of 1,900 psi. When desalination of sea water would require a pressure of only 1,300 psi. Thus, California spends more energy pumping fresh water over 400 miles and 4,400′ high, than if we merely desalinated sea water locally.

Curious George
Reply to  Lil-Mike
August 3, 2026 10:22 am

Sea water is difficult to obtain locally at 4400′ elevation.

sturmudgeon
Reply to  Curious George
August 3, 2026 12:36 pm

than if we merely desalinated sea water locally

Did you not read that part of the sentence?

Curious George
Reply to  sturmudgeon
August 3, 2026 6:16 pm

You’ve got me, stranger. What part of the sentence?

Eng_Ian
Reply to  Curious George
August 3, 2026 6:24 pm

I think he means the last word in the block.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  Peter Muller
August 4, 2026 4:53 am

Exactly, it seems so obvious yet the writer didn’t catch it.

August 3, 2026 6:32 am

If anyone would like to discover what it would be like to live in a totalitarian dictatorship, simply come live in a dwelling that is under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission.

Reply to  isthatright
August 4, 2026 9:22 am

You got that right. Add a historical building sign to that dwelling in the coastal zone and watch the reams of paper flow between government agencies approving paint color and shrub removal. All at the applicable application cost of course.

strativarius
August 3, 2026 7:30 am

If it [desalination] can benefit people then by default the green tentacleocracy will oppose it.

Any form of socialism requires levelling down and rationing. Everybody equally miserable.

Reply to  strativarius
August 4, 2026 12:14 am

Everybody equally miserable.

Not so. The Communist elites live in luxury.

Keitho
Editor
Reply to  Graemethecat
August 4, 2026 4:55 am

Well that makes us miserable.

August 3, 2026 7:31 am

“putting the membrane filters into a sealed pod and placing it 1,300 feet below the surface so that the weight of the water overhead eliminates the need for pumps”

Brilliant!

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
August 3, 2026 8:51 am

You think there’s a free lunch?

Reply to  Lil-Mike
August 3, 2026 3:32 pm

Don’t challenge me, challenge the author. It’s not for me to prove it’ll work- I don’t know- ask the author if he can demonstrate it.

MarkW
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
August 3, 2026 9:35 am

The energy needed to pump the fresh water back to the surface will be the same as it would have taken to pressurize the sea water to whatever pressure would be present at 1300 feet.

Reply to  MarkW
August 3, 2026 10:10 am

Same energy? Yes. But does Man have to supply all of or will Nature supply some of it?
I said this above.
“True, but there’d be less water to pump to the surface coming out of the RO system and it might not require high pressure pumps to do it.
The the effluent will rise in the lines as it seeks its own level even though the resistance from the RO system won’t let it rise as high. Turbines pumps like those used in deep water wells might be all that is needed.”

I’ll add that the effluent water from the RO system should rise in the pipe as it does in an artesian well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artesian_well
(An artesian aquafer that breaks the surface is often called a “spring”.)

PS I don’t know if this will work as designed or deliver as designed, but the potential is there, more potential than windmills and solar panels!

MarkW
Reply to  Gunga Din
August 3, 2026 3:33 pm

There is no energy for nature to provide.
The only way for there to be a pressure diffeerence is for the fresh water side to be pumped out.

It’s no different than having the filter at the surface and then pumping the sea water 1300 feet into the sky, and then filling a pipe that runs down to the filter.

Reply to  MarkW
August 3, 2026 12:38 pm

It’s not an idealised energy-in->energy-out equation, though. Sea water is denser and more corrosive, so you have to engineer your pumps appropriately. If you’re only pumping fresh water from the bottom of the system, you can use a less massive pump, which means you need to expend less energy within the pump itself. A larger, more robust pump requires more energy to run due to the greater spinning mass. Lighter pump with lower maintenance requirements means lower running costs. You still have to extract the waste material, but you can use a smaller pump for that as well, because you’re dealing with a smaller volume. Energy spent in the entire system may be marginally lower if you’re lucky, but you save a fortune on ongoing maintenance.

Eng_Ian
Reply to  Archer
August 3, 2026 2:33 pm

A pump at the bottom of the ocean, (sealed against high pressure salt water ingress), is going to be a lot dearer than a saltwater pump sitting in a dry well.

This solution path, (desal plant at bottom of the ocean), should have been published on the 1st of April. Surely it’s a joke.

hiskorr
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
August 3, 2026 8:13 pm

Gibberish! The flow through the membrane filter is obviously from the high-pressure side of the pump to the low-pressure side! Ignorant slide artist (DEI hire?).

hiskorr
Reply to  hiskorr
August 3, 2026 8:30 pm

The editor (another DEI hire!) did not understand that it was the flush water, not the uranium water, that was sufficiently above sea level so that a discharge pump would not be necessary.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
August 3, 2026 7:35 am

The problem with denying the building of a desalination plant in Huntington Beach has less to do with the Coastal Commission and more to do with the residents. HB doesn’t need desalinated water as it draws from robust aquifers partly replenished by reclaimed water injected from sewage treatment in HB. The projected cost of the plant would raise the water rates for HB residents and the upkeep and infrastructure costs (new pipelines) would be born by the city. The ocean and wetland marine life would be impacted by the added salinity. The desal water would be sent inland with no advantage to HB since they don’t need it. So it’s more about not wanting prime ocean front property blighted by industry that wouldn’t benefit the residents, added cost for water they already have access to, additional city infrastructure upkeep, and marine life conservation. NIMBY for good reasons.

Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
August 3, 2026 7:52 am

From post:”…reclaimed water…”

The Fremen having nothing on the citizens of HB.

August 3, 2026 5:05 pm

Deep water desal Still need a lot of blow on-one side of diaphragm or suck on the other. Now the African rift lakes could. Suck water by outgassing methane. So find a place with lots of dissolved seabed methane concentration or even buried methane hydrate which could-be destabilised by sucking Once it starts outgassing, natural gas drive takes over.Remember the volcanic lake in Cameroon that gassed a valley with CO2

August 4, 2026 3:38 am

As described , the demonstration project took freshwater and turned it into deionized water. Seawater is >100x that concentration. We should wait and see how that works out.

August 5, 2026 9:40 am

To reduce the cost of the desalination process, the salt could be used for the production of Sodium-ion batteries which might become the dominant battery technology in the future. (I wonder how many down-votes I’ll get… wink).