9 ms·

According to http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report14.pdf http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report14.pdf it requires 140 liters of water to pr

According to http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report14.pdf http://waterfootprint.org/media/downloads/Report14.pdf it requires 140 liters of water to produce 1 cup of coffee. The most expensive source of water that I can think of, from a reverse-osmosis desalinization plant, costs $0.40/1000 liters in Singapore (Hyflux, 20 year contract), - so that cup of coffee has a ceiling of about $0.08/to produce in terms of the cost of it's water content. The question should never be "how much water to produce this" - but, "what value are we getting from the water" - if you are able to sell a cup of coffee for $5, then it's probably a good investment of that $0.08.

gradys 9y ago
This depends on water being well-priced in California (i.e. not subsidized, reflective of opportunity costs and externalities). I don't know much about water in CA, but is this the case?
- anubisresources 9y ago
  California has a very strange water system. It’s not really privatized, only ~5% of California’s water is provided by private parties last I checked. Californian water rights promise significantly more water than the state actually has (which will cause some problems). The water districts and utilities do most of the price setting, as I understand it. The water districts are largely controlled by farming interests who do not want pricy water. This info may be out of date, since I work in a very different water market (East Africa), so if someone knows better please correct me.
- skybrian 9y ago
  Definitely not and it would probably put most agriculture in California out of business. Farmers can't compete with cities on price. https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21647994-why-golden-state-so-bad-managing-water-price-wrong https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21647994-why-go...
  - loverofthings 9y ago
    Yep. No more California beef too. Water there is too expensive and there's no free-market in agriculture there.
- jgowdy 9y ago
  No it is not. The water districts are extremely powerful, and the biggest usage districts are held by agricultural interests. They have staggered elections to stop water board takeovers and ensure that they can shift water costs from usage based to per-meter fees. Captive homeowners in agriculture controlled water districts can end up with $200 a month water bills for a family of four. Source: Lived in a water district for 7 years with some of the cheapest water in the state (sub $3 a unit) yet a water bill for a family of four with fake grass and small yard of around $180 a month. If we used ZERO water, the bill would have been about $120 in flat fees. We were subsidizing the massive avocado groves and other major agricultural producers in the water district. They brushed off our complaints and the fact that we pointed to neighboring cities with $40 water bills.
  - imbur 9y ago
    Was it $180 per month or $180 per quarter?
    - jgowdy 9y ago
      Per month. Very small yard. Fake grass in the back.
      - exclusiv 9y ago
        Just watched a documentary on Netflix about water in California which stated that 80 pct of the water goes subsidized to agriculture which is like 2 percent of the economy. They got into this family, the Resnicks of POM Wonderful and all the shady moves they made to control public water privately which caused this wake of issues including what you wrote about where families either had no water, tainted water or it was crazy expensive. California even bought back it's own water it invested to store in Kern county at a multiple. Insane stuff.
teemwerk 9y ago
that really doesn't sound so bad. at least curiosity piquing enough to work out more of the economics and impact of using reverse osmosis water in agriculture. I would think it might not hold up so feasible for non-cash crops, but at first glance that seems pretty cool that you might be able to use reverse osmosis water for crops. I guess you just have to convince/get farmers to give up their cheap water ha.
godzillabrennus 9y ago
That's the retail price of the coffee and a whole lot of layers of people/businesses are involved between the grower and the retailer.
notatoad 9y ago
That sounds like a good argument to stop allowing california agriculture to externalize the cost of water.
- pzone 9y ago
  That is purely a political problem, not an economic one. The economics are forehead-slap obvious.
seanalltogether 9y ago
Alfalfa is a very water intensive crop and is grown all over california. You can get 7 tons per acre per year at a value of $220 per ton [1]. It requires 435,000 gallons of water per acre per year [2]. [1] https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cs_public/f2/0e/f20ea94b-1cf4-4364-bf51-79dc5ad44790/alfalfasv08.pdf https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cs_public/f2/0e/f... [2] https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgroups/lcfssustain/hanson.pdf https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgroups/lcfssustain/han...
- valleyer 9y ago
  Am I missing something? That still sounds profitable just based on the data I read in these comments: 7 ton / acre * $220 / ton - (435000 gallon / acre * $0.40 / 1000 liter) $881.34 / acre
  - anubisresources 9y ago
    Obviously your equation is a big simplification, but you’re missing a lot of the input costs.
  - ghshephard 9y ago
    Your math checks out - of the top of my head, 435,000 gallons is approx 1.6 million liters - 1600 m^3 * $0.4/m^3 = ~$640/acre of water, for $1440 of product, or ~ $800 profit (for just water costs) One variable we are missing is transport costs - that $0.40 is for generation, and transportation of water from the ocean to the central valley would probably be expensive.
  - Moto7451 9y ago
    Alfalfa is also a nitrogen fixer, so on top of being something farmers can sell it reduces furtilizer costs.
devmunchies 9y ago
> it requires 140 liters of water to produce 1 cup of coffee Not to mention the milk that people usually add, which is even more water intensive
- lostlogin 9y ago
  For someone outside the industry it’s suprisingly hard to get good data on the water needed to make milk. A search has given just under 1000L for Waikato NZ and just over 1000L for Canterbury. However the Guardian suggests 255L of water for a single litre of milk. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-mu... https://sciblogs.co.nz/waiology/2012/05/24/how-much-water-does-it-take-to-produce-one-litre-of-milk/ https://sciblogs.co.nz/waiology/2012/05/24/how-much-water-do...
rileymat2 9y ago
Those K-Cups bottom out at .25? .08 for the water is a lot.
yorby 9y ago
those reverse-osmosis systems are really expensive.... I wish I could get one at my house that could provide pure water at $0.40/1000 liters over X years... I pay a lot more then that and it it is only to get softened well water (still has 400 ppm of stuff in it)... But the health department just came to test my water and according to them, it doesn't include petroleum products, at least.
quickthrower2 9y ago
> if you are able to sell a cup of coffee for $5 That's the retail price though, the grower doesn't see much of that.

gradys 9y ago

This depends on water being well-priced in California (i.e. not subsidized, reflective of opportunity costs and externalities). I don't know much about water in CA, but is this the case?

anubisresources 9y ago
California has a very strange water system. It’s not really privatized, only ~5% of California’s water is provided by private parties last I checked. Californian water rights promise significantly more water than the state actually has (which will cause some problems). The water districts and utilities do most of the price setting, as I understand it. The water districts are largely controlled by farming interests who do not want pricy water. This info may be out of date, since I work in a very different water market (East Africa), so if someone knows better please correct me.
skybrian 9y ago
Definitely not and it would probably put most agriculture in California out of business. Farmers can't compete with cities on price. https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21647994-why-golden-state-so-bad-managing-water-price-wrong https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21647994-why-go...
- loverofthings 9y ago
  Yep. No more California beef too. Water there is too expensive and there's no free-market in agriculture there.
jgowdy 9y ago
No it is not. The water districts are extremely powerful, and the biggest usage districts are held by agricultural interests. They have staggered elections to stop water board takeovers and ensure that they can shift water costs from usage based to per-meter fees. Captive homeowners in agriculture controlled water districts can end up with $200 a month water bills for a family of four. Source: Lived in a water district for 7 years with some of the cheapest water in the state (sub $3 a unit) yet a water bill for a family of four with fake grass and small yard of around $180 a month. If we used ZERO water, the bill would have been about $120 in flat fees. We were subsidizing the massive avocado groves and other major agricultural producers in the water district. They brushed off our complaints and the fact that we pointed to neighboring cities with $40 water bills.
- imbur 9y ago
  Was it $180 per month or $180 per quarter?
  - jgowdy 9y ago
    Per month. Very small yard. Fake grass in the back.
    - exclusiv 9y ago
      Just watched a documentary on Netflix about water in California which stated that 80 pct of the water goes subsidized to agriculture which is like 2 percent of the economy. They got into this family, the Resnicks of POM Wonderful and all the shady moves they made to control public water privately which caused this wake of issues including what you wrote about where families either had no water, tainted water or it was crazy expensive. California even bought back it's own water it invested to store in Kern county at a multiple. Insane stuff.

teemwerk 9y ago

that really doesn't sound so bad. at least curiosity piquing enough to work out more of the economics and impact of using reverse osmosis water in agriculture. I would think it might not hold up so feasible for non-cash crops, but at first glance that seems pretty cool that you might be able to use reverse osmosis water for crops. I guess you just have to convince/get farmers to give up their cheap water ha.

godzillabrennus 9y ago

That's the retail price of the coffee and a whole lot of layers of people/businesses are involved between the grower and the retailer.

notatoad 9y ago

That sounds like a good argument to stop allowing california agriculture to externalize the cost of water.

pzone 9y ago
That is purely a political problem, not an economic one. The economics are forehead-slap obvious.

seanalltogether 9y ago

Alfalfa is a very water intensive crop and is grown all over california. You can get 7 tons per acre per year at a value of $220 per ton [1]. It requires 435,000 gallons of water per acre per year [2]. [1] https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cs_public/f2/0e/f20ea94b-1cf4-4364-bf51-79dc5ad44790/alfalfasv08.pdf https://coststudyfiles.ucdavis.edu/uploads/cs_public/f2/0e/f... [2] https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgroups/lcfssustain/hanson.pdf https://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/lcfs/workgroups/lcfssustain/han...

valleyer 9y ago
Am I missing something? That still sounds profitable just based on the data I read in these comments: 7 ton / acre * $220 / ton - (435000 gallon / acre * $0.40 / 1000 liter) $881.34 / acre
- anubisresources 9y ago
  Obviously your equation is a big simplification, but you’re missing a lot of the input costs.
- ghshephard 9y ago
  Your math checks out - of the top of my head, 435,000 gallons is approx 1.6 million liters - 1600 m^3 * $0.4/m^3 = ~$640/acre of water, for $1440 of product, or ~ $800 profit (for just water costs) One variable we are missing is transport costs - that $0.40 is for generation, and transportation of water from the ocean to the central valley would probably be expensive.
- Moto7451 9y ago
  Alfalfa is also a nitrogen fixer, so on top of being something farmers can sell it reduces furtilizer costs.

devmunchies 9y ago

> it requires 140 liters of water to produce 1 cup of coffee Not to mention the milk that people usually add, which is even more water intensive

lostlogin 9y ago
For someone outside the industry it’s suprisingly hard to get good data on the water needed to make milk. A search has given just under 1000L for Waikato NZ and just over 1000L for Canterbury. However the Guardian suggests 255L of water for a single litre of milk. https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-much-water-food-production-waste https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/10/how-mu... https://sciblogs.co.nz/waiology/2012/05/24/how-much-water-does-it-take-to-produce-one-litre-of-milk/ https://sciblogs.co.nz/waiology/2012/05/24/how-much-water-do...

rileymat2 9y ago

Those K-Cups bottom out at .25? .08 for the water is a lot.

yorby 9y ago

those reverse-osmosis systems are really expensive.... I wish I could get one at my house that could provide pure water at $0.40/1000 liters over X years... I pay a lot more then that and it it is only to get softened well water (still has 400 ppm of stuff in it)... But the health department just came to test my water and according to them, it doesn't include petroleum products, at least.

quickthrower2 9y ago

> if you are able to sell a cup of coffee for $5 That's the retail price though, the grower doesn't see much of that.