Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

postandcourier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 92 posts

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#51

Post by ue_ »

friedman23 wrote: post #45
RodericDay wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, old people have little to no economic use. We should dispose of them. Looking at everything as a psychopathic economic agent is fun!

We use economics to understand how resources can be exchanged for human benefit. If google had offered 100 billion dollars for this water, none of us would believe it immoral for them to make this transaction because the money could be used for good by the community. Obviously however, 100 billion dollars is too high a price so the problem becomes not if it is immoral for google to take this water but what price is t…

In the case where the money goes to "the community", then sure, maybe. But are the people selling it doing it for the interests of the community? How is the money used to benefit the community?

I am a Socialist myself, so perhaps that's why I am sceptical of the claim that 100 billion dollars would be enough to offset any kind of moral questions. Is it ethical to accept 100 billion dollars from an exploiter of labour?

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#52

Post by acover »

rmason wrote: post #35

It is not just South Carolina. My home state of Michigan probably has more fresh water than just about any other state but it still has become a political issue and not just in Flint. Giant Nestle is pumping tens of millions of gallons in a rural Northern Michigan county in exchange for a $200 yearly permit. Even though the promised jobs never materialized they want to pump even more water threatening the aquifer. Th…

The total ground water withdrawal in Michigan [mainly for agricultural use] is 98,000 Million gallons [1]. Why is Nestle extracting 100 Million a problem?

[1] -http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdard/2015_MAEAP_Water_Use...

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#53

Post by labster »

rmason wrote: post #35

It is not just South Carolina. My home state of Michigan probably has more fresh water than just about any other state but it still has become a political issue and not just in Flint. Giant Nestle is pumping tens of millions of gallons in a rural Northern Michigan county in exchange for a $200 yearly permit. Even though the promised jobs never materialized they want to pump even more water threatening the aquifer. Th…

That is cheap. In California, those millions of gallons cost Nestlé $524 -- a 262% increase over Michigan.

http://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/nestle-gets-away-pumping-...

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#54

Post by hammock »

cryptarch wrote: post #8

Are there any "municipal heating" systems in the U.S.? It's popular in NL, the idea is basically hot (~70 degrees celcius) water being pumped from industrial areas (where it was used for cooling), to residential areas for cheap heating.

The University of Virginia campus has one. It's popular for students to sneak into the steam tunnels.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#55

Post by rhino369 »

ryandvm wrote: post #3

Water has an exceptionally high heat capacity, I get it. But using drinking water to cool our servers (in the interest of seeing the very best ads) seems like an exceptionally short-sighted choice for us to make. If there is a less worthwhile thing for us to be doing with potable water, I can't think of it.

There isn't any lack of drinking water in the US other than maybe parts of Nevada. It's mostly used for commercial or agricultural purposes. When there is a shortage the question should be which the least important commercial or agricultural use.

Just using market based pricing would solve it. But western states have a shitty water rights policy that doesn't allow it. Someone growing water intensive crops in an arid region get priority over junior users. It's a bad system.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#56

Post by losteric »

kjksf wrote: post #28
ryandvm wrote: post #3

Water has an exceptionally high heat capacity, I get it. But using drinking water to cool our servers (in the interest of seeing the very best ads) seems like an exceptionally short-sighted choice for us to make. If there is a less worthwhile thing for us to be doing with potable water, I can't think of it.

Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. If Google had a cheaper way to cool their servers, they would. If we have plenty of cheap water then we should use it to cool the server or for watering lawns or whatever. If the price of water is too low, then we should raise the price of water so that it's cheaper for Google to use…

> Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive.

Always?

What happens when the market price of a biological necessity exceeds what some people can bid? If business utilization of a resource yields more economic value than the continued existence of some people, is the right choice to let them die?

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#57

Post by m-j-fox »

dogma1138 wrote: post #11
revelation wrote: post #4

Water is great for cooling, but who the hell dumps it afterwards?! I don't think they quite understood what "water cooling" is..

Large scale water cooling systems are open return systems. Basically they pump in cold water and pump hot water back out. Cooling the water is expensive and ineffective on large scales. Beyond that you have evaporative cooling which is used for large scale HVAC systems in this case the water simply evaporates away into the atmosphere.

Fine but why not pump it out onto some crops? Here I am paying to heat water for my house and pool -- I should move next door to Google and hook up to their drain pipe.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#59

Post by sologoub »

losteric wrote: post #56
kjksf wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. If Google had a cheaper way to cool their servers, they would. If we have plenty of cheap water then we should use it to cool the server or for watering lawns or whatever. If the price of water is too low, then we should raise the price of water so that it's cheaper for Google to use…

> Economics beats morality. Making it about morality is counter-productive. Always? What happens when the market price of a biological necessity exceeds what some people can bid? If business utilization of a resource yields more economic value than the continued existence of some people, is the right choice to let them die?

Sounds horrid, but this is the reality of many poor countries - we literally still have people around the struggling to find enough food to eat. Many of them are from countries with ongoing conflicts/wars, which likely cost more than the the food the people need to be properly nourished.

To clarify - not saying it should be that way, quite the contrary.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#60

Post by jasonkostempski »

ryandvm wrote: post #3

Water has an exceptionally high heat capacity, I get it. But using drinking water to cool our servers (in the interest of seeing the very best ads) seems like an exceptionally short-sighted choice for us to make. If there is a less worthwhile thing for us to be doing with potable water, I can't think of it.

Literally shitting in it?
Post reply on HN