4 ms·

Desalination is energy intensive and expensive. It would make sense in urban contexts and not for agriculture. This sets up a political fight since the majority

Desalination is energy intensive and expensive. It would make sense in urban contexts and not for agriculture. This sets up a political fight since the majority of the state’s water usage derives from people who already rely on government handouts for water. Obviously people do not want to pay higher utility rates to further benefit people they are already subsidizing.

anigbrowl 4y ago
OK? Without water you'll die, so invest that energy and capital. Other places seem to manage it and the more desalination facilities that are built, the more likely it is that technological and process improvements can bring down the cost. An extremely obvious approach to the energy requirement would be to exploit tidal power, which conveniently comes from the same source as your product input.
- blululu 4y ago
  There is plenty of water in California. No-one is going to die of thirst so it doesn't make sense to frame the issue in such dire terms. The cost of desalinated water in California exceeds the market rate, so nobody in the state wants to pay for more expensive water. What they do want is for someone else to pay the bill for them. This is a purely self serving goal and it sets off political fights with the people who don't want to pay for someone else's water. In places where the market rate for water is higher (Israel), or where the cost of energy is lower (Saudi Arabia), then the situation would be different but in California it is just about trying to get more benefits stuff from the government.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    It's a synecdoche, to indicate that the state as a whole is consuming more water than there is available, drawing down its water table and so on. I didn't intend it to be interpreted literally. Water shortages are already threatening communities in Arizona: https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-water-what-happens-when-an-affluent-arizona-suburbs-main-water-supply-is-cut-off https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-water-what-happens-when-a... The market price for water in CA is artificially low, in my view. Many corporate users are effectively subsidized with fixed or below-cost supply. Nestle, for example, was taking 58m gallons/year (about 25x its land allocation) from streams in the San Bernadino forest to bottle as Arrowhead water until the state intervened in 2021: https://www.ecowatch.com/california-nestle-water-public-lands-2652807771.html https://www.ecowatch.com/california-nestle-water-public-land... Your dismissive comment that 'it is just about trying to get more benefits stuff from the government' should equally be applied to incumbent market actors if you wish to be consistent. I did not argue for subsidy, but for desalination as a hedge against water shortages, and that the costs of desalination could likely be significantly reduced.

anigbrowl 4y ago

OK? Without water you'll die, so invest that energy and capital. Other places seem to manage it and the more desalination facilities that are built, the more likely it is that technological and process improvements can bring down the cost. An extremely obvious approach to the energy requirement would be to exploit tidal power, which conveniently comes from the same source as your product input.

blululu 4y ago
There is plenty of water in California. No-one is going to die of thirst so it doesn't make sense to frame the issue in such dire terms. The cost of desalinated water in California exceeds the market rate, so nobody in the state wants to pay for more expensive water. What they do want is for someone else to pay the bill for them. This is a purely self serving goal and it sets off political fights with the people who don't want to pay for someone else's water. In places where the market rate for water is higher (Israel), or where the cost of energy is lower (Saudi Arabia), then the situation would be different but in California it is just about trying to get more benefits stuff from the government.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  It's a synecdoche, to indicate that the state as a whole is consuming more water than there is available, drawing down its water table and so on. I didn't intend it to be interpreted literally. Water shortages are already threatening communities in Arizona: https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-water-what-happens-when-an-affluent-arizona-suburbs-main-water-supply-is-cut-off https://www.hcn.org/articles/south-water-what-happens-when-a... The market price for water in CA is artificially low, in my view. Many corporate users are effectively subsidized with fixed or below-cost supply. Nestle, for example, was taking 58m gallons/year (about 25x its land allocation) from streams in the San Bernadino forest to bottle as Arrowhead water until the state intervened in 2021: https://www.ecowatch.com/california-nestle-water-public-lands-2652807771.html https://www.ecowatch.com/california-nestle-water-public-land... Your dismissive comment that 'it is just about trying to get more benefits stuff from the government' should equally be applied to incumbent market actors if you wish to be consistent. I did not argue for subsidy, but for desalination as a hedge against water shortages, and that the costs of desalination could likely be significantly reduced.