A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return • Hacker News Board

Re: A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return

#151

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 3:42 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #143

lII1lIlI11ll wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume because water-wasting concerns are just another tool for the left to use against their political opponents, not an actual concern most of their constituents deeply care about. Same, for example, as right-leaning people suddenly discovered concerns regarding wind turbines killing birds or spoiling views from the shore (I bet those birds covered in oil after spills enjoy it and are a treat to the eye!).…

The opposition against data centers is remarkably both side things. Both MAGA opposes it and progressive opposes it. And no, I do not think maga and progressive are the same, but they do in fact both oppose data centers. > Same, for example, as right-leaning people suddenly discovered concerns regarding wind turbines killing birds or spoiling views from the shore What is their actual issue there? They want the electr…

[deleted]

Re: A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return

#152

Post by throwaway2037 » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 4:10 PM UTC

yreg wrote: post #102

throwaway2037 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thermoelectric power plants: 41% of total US water use I did some research on this statistic. More than 90% of this is returned to source. So if the power plant is drawing water from a river (or aquifer), it is returned after being used to generate electricity (create steam, turn turbines). For example, if you have a 1GW coal powerplant on a river, it might draw 4 billion liters of water per day, but will only evap…

Is it different with data centers?

I did some research on this matter. There are (at least) two uses for water by data centers. (1) If the data center is in a very low humidity environment, the data center is artificially humidified (is this a real English word?) to reduce the effects of static electricty. (2) Almost all data centers outside of cold regions (northern Europe, etc.) use water for evaporative cooling.

Re: A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return

#153

Post by k310 » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 4:18 PM UTC

"Farmers" in California are increasingly a few mega-businesses, with all the downside that comes with that.

There were the usual signs blasting Newsom and Pelosi for "stealing" valuable water when half the central valley was underwater.

Capitalism, Comrade!

Re: A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return

#154

Post by wookmaster » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 4:25 PM UTC

throwaway2037 wrote: post #125

messe wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California for one.

California is not water-scarce. It has plenty of water in the north and mountains to the east.

They're growing it in the south Central Valley, not the north and not the east mountains. Though assuming you're referring to snowpack in the mountains and not looking to pump the lakes dry its completely dependent on the years precipitation.

Re: A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return

#155

Post by thaumasiotes » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:44 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #13

Eji1700 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh...they're just going to pave it and throw something over it. Edit- To be clear maybe not specifically in this case, but "oops we've ruined this ecosystem to the point we can't farm it" rarely ends with "better move down the road and let nature reclaim it". It's a lot more "cool now we can put strip malls/data centers/whatever here"

It’s unlikely strip malls and data centers will be built on the land, but utility solar PV is an acceptable use that requires no water, is beneficial to the local environment, and gives the land 20-30 years to recover from agricultural use. It takes 600 to 3,000 years for 6 inches of topsoil to develop naturally, as it generally requires 100 to 500 years to form just a single inch. Underground water aquifers operate…

> It takes 600 to 3,000 years for 6 inches of topsoil to develop naturally, as it generally requires 100 to 500 years to form just a single inch.

I very much doubt those statements can both be true. It would have to be the case that the amount of time required to deposit one inch of soil is independent of the amount of soil already in place, which seems extremely unlikely.

Re: A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return

#156

Post by ChuckMcM » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:46 PM UTC

kbenson wrote: post #119

ChuckMcM wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a fair question, California agriculture tends to use 11 trillion gallons (34e6 acre feet[1][2]) of water annually. (about 1,700 Googles worth). Generally from a market driven standpoint agricultural users are trying to get maximum $/acre out of their land. I'm trying to convince the state legislature to reclassify "solar farms"[3] as agriculture (as opposed to 'industrial' that they are today) which would allow a…

If farms would choose to do solar instead of crops, I would assume that's because they can get more $/acre, but that could cause food prices to rise. At the same time, energy prices would drop if there was a surplus, so I wonder where it would level out. Lower energy cost could have a small affect in reducing the price of processed foods, but I imagine it would be very small (but I don't really know the energy cost o…

Yes, if farms went 100% from agriculture to solar we wouldn't have enough food :-) And we'd have anywhere from 100x to 1000x the entire power demand of the planet in energy. Solar has a $/acre value (which at the moment is pretty high in California) but as more Solar came on line that would go down. And like any crop they would figure out what they needed to maximize profits.

It might also spur the development of 100% electric Farm vehicles (tractors, planters, combines etc) as the Farm could make it own electricity and not have to pay diesel costs for fueling that. At the extreme, if you have enough 'free power' on your farm you can use it for electrolysis of Ammonia to make nitrates. (fertilizer). That would be because you could make money offsetting the other costs of farming to make your cost of goods lower than your neighbors farm and increase your total $/acre.

So the short summary is "no" is isn't going to change how much food is available. Farmers pick crops all the time that aren't "food" for you, they are exports or added to some other product (corn syrup, cotton), because they are in demand. That balances out by regular market dynamics.

Re: A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return

#157

Post by ChuckMcM » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:51 PM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #146

ChuckMcM wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a fair question, California agriculture tends to use 11 trillion gallons (34e6 acre feet[1][2]) of water annually. (about 1,700 Googles worth). Generally from a market driven standpoint agricultural users are trying to get maximum $/acre out of their land. I'm trying to convince the state legislature to reclassify "solar farms"[3] as agriculture (as opposed to 'industrial' that they are today) which would allow a…

> I'm trying to convince the state legislature to reclassify "solar farms"[3] as agriculture (as opposed to 'industrial' that they are today) which would allow a farm to decide on an acre by acre basis how much to plant and how much to put into solar farming. If you were not already aware, you might consider reaching out to the Wetlands Water District legal and policy team ( https://wwd.ca.gov/ ), as they helped cham…

Totally going to reach out here and see if we can help each other.

Re: A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return

#158

Post by toomuchtodo » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 6:59 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #155

toomuchtodo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s unlikely strip malls and data centers will be built on the land, but utility solar PV is an acceptable use that requires no water, is beneficial to the local environment, and gives the land 20-30 years to recover from agricultural use. It takes 600 to 3,000 years for 6 inches of topsoil to develop naturally, as it generally requires 100 to 500 years to form just a single inch. Underground water aquifers operate…

> It takes 600 to 3,000 years for 6 inches of topsoil to develop naturally, as it generally requires 100 to 500 years to form just a single inch. I very much doubt those statements can both be true. It would have to be the case that the amount of time required to deposit one inch of soil is independent of the amount of soil already in place, which seems extremely unlikely.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0454h/report.pdf (page 5, Start at “Introduction”)

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/07/1123462 (“It also takes around a thousand years to create just a few centimetres of topsoil and to help land restoration.”)

Re: A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return

#159

Post by b3lvedere » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 7:12 PM UTC

peterbecich wrote: post #147

b3lvedere wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given enough solar/wind/battery power i do wonder if a desalination plant could run pretty cheaply. A quick chat with ChatGPT tells me it should be feasible. Roughly investing around 1 billion dollars and around 40 million per year for keeping it run producing around 100.000 m³ per year. Cost price of the water would be around $0.20 per m³. Could run for more than 25 years.

They are not popular. See the canceled Poseidon facility in Huntington Beach.

I did a little research. Although also not that popular, the one in Carlsbad in San Diego did get built. Matter of timing and costs it seems. Also didn’t help that Poseidon wanted big profit guarantees.

Re: A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return

#160

Post by nate_meurer » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 8:50 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #124

consp wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on if they use evaporative cooling or not. But the water returned is warmer which can harm the ecosystem quite a bit, both for power plants and data centers.

Water which is evaporated is also returned to the ecosystem. It falls back out as rain. The heat issue is also widely misunderstood. The state of California gets on the order of a PWh of heat every day from the sun. A million GWh. Even a large nuclear plant doesn't make a dent in that. The issue is localized to the immediate area at the outlet, because the water temperature directly at the outlet is going to be highe…

> Water which is evaporated is also returned to the ecosystem. It falls back out as rain.

This is about as useful as saying "the water stays on Earth". The ecological damage entirely depends on the nature of the water source.

The most poignant situation is non-rechargeable aquifers. When water is extracted, the mineral structures collapse and the storage capacity is forever destroyed.

And as the other reply stated, evaporation (as from evaporative cooling) exports water out of a catchment basin so that it can't be used downstream, just as if you pumped it away.