4 ms·

Article states their entire operation uses 400,000 acre-feet of water a year. That’s 645,332,372 cubic-yards. Israel today produces 785 million cubic yards of w

Article states their entire operation uses 400,000 acre-feet of water a year. That’s 645,332,372 cubic-yards. Israel today produces 785 million cubic yards of water per year, using it for agriculture, among other things. [1] From the same article: “Desalination used to be an expensive energy hog, but the kind of advanced technologies being employed at Sorek have been a game changer. Water produced by desalination costs just a third of what it did in the 1990s. Sorek can produce a thousand liters of drinking water for 58 cents. Israeli households pay about US$30 a month for their water — similar to households in most U.S. cities, and far less than Las Vegas (US$47) or Los Angeles (US$58).” At the $0.58 per 1000 liters, that farming operation would require $286 million to pay for the water needed. The article quoted profitability scratching a billion, so it seems that it is both within technological means and economically viable. For sure not as profitable as free water, but still viable. No magic required either. [1]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the-desalination-era-is-here/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/israel-proves-the...

dredmorbius 9y ago
"...farmers in the Central California Irrigation District near Los Banos (Merced County) paid $17 per acre-foot of water used..." http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/California-drought-Charge-true-cost-of-water-6319943.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/California-drough... Via GNU units: You have: 17/(acrefoot) You want: /litre * 1.3782124e-05 / 72557.755 Your Israeli desal source is 42,083.499 times more expensive.
- sologoub 9y ago
  The acre-foot in the desal prices would be $715. All you are proving is that $17 is an unsustainable price and not what non-ag consumers pay at all. California as a landmass has sunk measurably during the few years because of these unsustainable practices. If you were to buy water at real unsubsidized prices in any metro area, you would not be able to find $17/acre-foot.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    I'm not arguing that the price is sustainable. I am noting that present levels of ag activity are in fact predicated on that price. And that (as is prominently noted in the article) water is the limiting factor for virtually all California ag. And that any significant increase (other contemporary news articles are talking of "only" 10x increases in water costs) would be devastating to existing operations. I'm finding your views charmingly optimistic. But highly unrealistic.
    - sologoub 9y ago
      The price isn’t the only limiting factor. Right now there isn’t water at any price that you can buy in unlimited quantities through the current watering system. As the result, new land development of more sustainable ag is effectively blocked by more senior water rights. We even legislate into our consumer laws that you cannot use water for your landscaping at any price beyond a certain amount or risk being completely cut off. I find this absolute limit situation highly questionable, because as we have a physical ability to not have these limits in a much more sustainable sense.

dredmorbius 9y ago

"...farmers in the Central California Irrigation District near Los Banos (Merced County) paid $17 per acre-foot of water used..." http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/California-drought-Charge-true-cost-of-water-6319943.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/California-drough... Via GNU units: You have: 17/(acrefoot) You want: /litre * 1.3782124e-05 / 72557.755 Your Israeli desal source is 42,083.499 times more expensive.

sologoub 9y ago
The acre-foot in the desal prices would be $715. All you are proving is that $17 is an unsustainable price and not what non-ag consumers pay at all. California as a landmass has sunk measurably during the few years because of these unsustainable practices. If you were to buy water at real unsubsidized prices in any metro area, you would not be able to find $17/acre-foot.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  I'm not arguing that the price is sustainable. I am noting that present levels of ag activity are in fact predicated on that price. And that (as is prominently noted in the article) water is the limiting factor for virtually all California ag. And that any significant increase (other contemporary news articles are talking of "only" 10x increases in water costs) would be devastating to existing operations. I'm finding your views charmingly optimistic. But highly unrealistic.
  - sologoub 9y ago
    The price isn’t the only limiting factor. Right now there isn’t water at any price that you can buy in unlimited quantities through the current watering system. As the result, new land development of more sustainable ag is effectively blocked by more senior water rights. We even legislate into our consumer laws that you cannot use water for your landscaping at any price beyond a certain amount or risk being completely cut off. I find this absolute limit situation highly questionable, because as we have a physical ability to not have these limits in a much more sustainable sense.