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

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#61

Post by justin66 »

acover wrote: post #52
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...

You're comparing the usage of an entire state to the demands placed on a single aquifer.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#62

Post by acover »

justin66 wrote: post #61
acover wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

You're comparing the usage of an entire state to the demands placed on a single aquifer.

I agree. However that is not a price issue. Further the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality site specific review said it was okay.

I am genuinely confused why people think this is an issue.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#63

Post by HarryHirsch »

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?

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?

You mean Turing Pharmaceuticals raising the price of Daraprim to whatever the market will bear? People have issues with that, and for some reason for sixty years the price was closer to what the stuff costs to produce (i.e. USD 15 per dose, not USD 750.

I'd like to know more about the ecosystem the original owners operated in, and why the price was so low for so long.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#64

Post by StephenConnell »

michaelt wrote: post #47
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…

Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. I don't know about South Carolina, but as I understand it in the west of America this isn't the case, as the heaviest water users are subsidised by taxpayers. For example, in California alfalfa growers pay $70 for an acre-foot of water, while urban users in Los Angeles pay $1,000 per acre-foot. The growers use 34.1 million acre-feet a year, while urban use…

California is a big state. Los Angeles is in a desert portion of the state. I have not researched where alfalfa is primarily grown but that is important information. You can see alfalfa test plots on this map are not in desert portions of the state. You can also see how much of the state is not a desert. http://alfalfa.ucdavis.edu/-images/variety_map.gif

Buying in bulk is different than buying just enough to drink. A bottle of water for $5 at a movie for example.

Maybe the price of water in LA primarily covers infrastructure, not water. Their water does come from hundreds of miles away.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#65

Post by sandworm101 »

michaelt wrote: post #47
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…

Water is a resource with a price, just like land or gasoline. I don't know about South Carolina, but as I understand it in the west of America this isn't the case, as the heaviest water users are subsidised by taxpayers. For example, in California alfalfa growers pay $70 for an acre-foot of water, while urban users in Los Angeles pay $1,000 per acre-foot. The growers use 34.1 million acre-feet a year, while urban use…

Slightly different products. Water made available to a farmer, as in the farmer is allowed to pump it out of a local river, is different than clean and sanitized water delivered on demand through the tap in your downtown loft kitchen. The bottled water sold to passengers at 30,000 feet over the pacific en route to Japan is also a fundamentally different product. Water pricing is all about time and place, not necessarily volume.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#66

Post by PhasmaFelis »

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.

I can't tell if you're summarizing the problem or actually making a straight-faced assertion.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#67

Post by PhasmaFelis »

mjfl wrote: post #20
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.

I mean, it's not like the water is being destroyed, or even rendered undrinkable, it's just being warmed...

It's being moved. Drawing down groundwater on a massive scale can have massive and permanent environmental effects. The fact that it still exists somewhere is immaterial.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#68

Post by wyldfire »

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…

> 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 a different way of cooling.

Agreed. But we always seem to fail to price-in the externalities for natural resources. Just like carbon dioxide emissions from energy production.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#69

Post by thescriptkiddie »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #25
mjfl wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it's not like the water is being destroyed, or even rendered undrinkable, it's just being warmed...

Right, but > The Google aquifer permit application states it will reuse water before eventually discharging it to the sewer system, but the company did not provide details when asked by The Post and Courier. And 2 paragraphs down > Groundwater can be returned to the aquifer after use, but some is lost to evaporation and the operation is costly, according to industry sources. There are other alternatives. The National…

I wonder why they don't just pump the heated water back down into the aquifer. That would make it basically an open-loop geothermal heat pump.

Re: Google's controversial groundwater withdrawal sparks question

#70

Post by themihai »

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…

The government could change the economics with a tax on cooling down the servers with water so I believe the morality can beat pure economics.
Post reply on HN