3 ms·

My research indicates it has not dropped significantly. Here is a report from last year on a winning bid to construct a new massive state-of-the-art desalinatio

by Veserv 6y ago

My research indicates it has not dropped significantly. Here is a report from last year on a winning bid to construct a new massive state-of-the-art desalination plant in Israel for a very low bid of NIS 1.45 or ~$0.44/m^3 [1] which this article [2] indicates is NIS 0.65 lower than the existing lowest prices (existing prices would be ~$0.64 by that count). This is a little lower than my lower number, but this is significantly lower than the prevailing number which is in range and is being done at scale in Israel, one of the leaders in the field, so should probably not be viewed as globally representative. Here are a few other random sources of unknown credibility which corroborate: https://www.advisian.com/en/global-perspectives/the-cost-of-desalination https://www.advisian.com/en/global-perspectives/the-cost-of-... https://smartwatermagazine.com/blogs/carlos-cosin/evolution-rates-desalination-part-i https://smartwatermagazine.com/blogs/carlos-cosin/evolution-... https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263468292_Optimization_of_Integrated_Seawater_Desalination_Salt_Production_Environmental_Engineering_Project https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263468292_Optimizat... [1] https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/05/27/2039505/0/en/IDE-Technologies-Secures-the-Sorek-B-Tender.html https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/05/27/203950... [2] https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-ide-wins-sorek-2-desalination-tender-after-us-pressure-1001330178 https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-ide-wins-sorek-2-desalina...

Retric 6y ago
The low end of that range in 2005 was also from leaders in the field. In nominal prices that’s a 31% drop, but we also had ~34% inflation from 2005 to 2021. So relative to pipelines it’s a ~48% drop which is quite significant IMO.
- Veserv 6y ago
  I was saying relative to the range I offered. $0.44 versus the low end of my range at $0.50 is not a very significant difference, so the numbers I was using in my original comment would still be largely valid. It is possible that the transport costs I cited were invalid as those are also from 2005 and may have kept pace with inflation, or it is possible that the authors of that paper did not correct for inflation relative to their earlier cited study from 1993, but that would still only amount to an 84% nominal price increase, so even if we take the absolute worst case interpretation that would be a ~$0.09/m^3 per 100 km versus a $0.44/m^3 which would mean it is only price competitive at ~500 km. If we take a more central position, we could reasonably assume the study accounted for inflation from 1993-2005, so we are only looking at the same nominal 34% increase you mentioned and we should compare against the existing plants in Israel rather than planned plants which are at ~$0.64/m^3. This would be ~$0.065/m^3 versus $0.64/m^3 which is back to price competitive at ~1000 km as I mentioned previously. My primary point is that piping water in bulk is mind-bogglingly cheap compared to what most people think. In fact, desalination is also mind-bogglingly cheap. The per-capita usage of water in the US is ~2800 m^3, so even if the US had no fresh water and had to get all of it from desalination that would only account for a $1400/person cost increase which is only 4.5% of the median income in the US. However, despite that, piping is even more insanely cheap to such a degree that it is still cheaper to ship it vast distances which is why we continue to deplete freshwater reserves even though desalination is actually an economically viable solution, it is just not market competitive yet. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-how-much-water-nations-consume/#:~:text=The%20global%20annual%20average%20per,as%20meat%20can%20exacerbate%20demand https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-h....

by Veserv 6y ago

Retric 6y ago

The low end of that range in 2005 was also from leaders in the field. In nominal prices that’s a 31% drop, but we also had ~34% inflation from 2005 to 2021. So relative to pipelines it’s a ~48% drop which is quite significant IMO.

Veserv 6y ago
I was saying relative to the range I offered. $0.44 versus the low end of my range at $0.50 is not a very significant difference, so the numbers I was using in my original comment would still be largely valid. It is possible that the transport costs I cited were invalid as those are also from 2005 and may have kept pace with inflation, or it is possible that the authors of that paper did not correct for inflation relative to their earlier cited study from 1993, but that would still only amount to an 84% nominal price increase, so even if we take the absolute worst case interpretation that would be a ~$0.09/m^3 per 100 km versus a $0.44/m^3 which would mean it is only price competitive at ~500 km. If we take a more central position, we could reasonably assume the study accounted for inflation from 1993-2005, so we are only looking at the same nominal 34% increase you mentioned and we should compare against the existing plants in Israel rather than planned plants which are at ~$0.64/m^3. This would be ~$0.065/m^3 versus $0.64/m^3 which is back to price competitive at ~1000 km as I mentioned previously. My primary point is that piping water in bulk is mind-bogglingly cheap compared to what most people think. In fact, desalination is also mind-bogglingly cheap. The per-capita usage of water in the US is ~2800 m^3, so even if the US had no fresh water and had to get all of it from desalination that would only account for a $1400/person cost increase which is only 4.5% of the median income in the US. However, despite that, piping is even more insanely cheap to such a degree that it is still cheaper to ship it vast distances which is why we continue to deplete freshwater reserves even though desalination is actually an economically viable solution, it is just not market competitive yet. [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-how-much-water-nations-consume/#:~:text=The%20global%20annual%20average%20per,as%20meat%20can%20exacerbate%20demand https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-h....