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

A California aquifer may have crossed the point of no return

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 183 posts

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

#131

Post by theshrike79 »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #56
rayiner wrote: post #30

Why can't we work up the political outrage over water-wasting agriculture in California that we managed to gin up over data centers: https://finance.biggo.com/news/202508220112_Data_Centers_vs_... > Alfalfa irrigation (Colorado River): 1.6 trillion gallons annually > Google data centers (global): 6.4 billion gallons in 2023 > Thermoelectric power plants: 41% of total US water use EDIT: that page has a correction to s…

Farming is a necessary activity and in most countries, they are also a politically influential group. The case for data centers in the age of AI is weaker, and the only effects for the average person are noise, pollution, higher electricity costs, higher water costs, for the ultimate "benefit" of losing your job.

California farms some very non-essential things like Pistachios, that take insane amounts of water to grow. In what's effectively a desert.

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

#132

Post by euroderf »

voakbasda wrote: post #116
cobbzilla wrote: post #81

California has codified a water caste system. In 2015 (my last experience with this), citizens were ordered to cut water use 25% while ~400 pre-1914 claimants with magical "senior water rights" took 90% of the water. [1][2] We conserved, rates still rose, f*ck the poor the most, so that select farmers can use however much water they want. During a drought. As allowed and protected by law. [1]: https://www.waterboards…

I expect the people will realize how easy it is to disable agriculture pumps, located in the middle of nowhere, with no one around to protect them. When the law fails to protect the people, they will eventually do what it takes to protect themselves.

When water is outlawed, only outlaws will have water.

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

#133

Post by interactivecode »

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…

I sometimes wonder what would happen to our other resources if energy was abundant and "free". For example desalination plants running for free could perhaps be used to refill an aquifer.

Of course there are markets and balances in the real world. The idea that energy is always scarce and that we shouldn't produce more than I as an individual need always feels a bit like maintaining scarcity.

often energy storage has a lot of losses in the the conversion. but if you produce 10x of what you need for "free". Would that really matter? I'm sure we will get there at some point.

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

#134

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

rayiner wrote: post #30

Why can't we work up the political outrage over water-wasting agriculture in California that we managed to gin up over data centers: https://finance.biggo.com/news/202508220112_Data_Centers_vs_... > Alfalfa irrigation (Colorado River): 1.6 trillion gallons annually > Google data centers (global): 6.4 billion gallons in 2023 > Thermoelectric power plants: 41% of total US water use EDIT: that page has a correction to s…

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!).

Western lefties consider farmers their class allies, and white-collar engineers and tech billionaires their class enemies. Which is not universal BTW because those kinds of farmers that hold water right in California would have a hard time in Soviet Union, for example.

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

#135

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

theossuary wrote: post #14
cryptoegorophy wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What can you realistically do?

Start by not electing a pedophile who calls climate change a hoax

I would assume that the problem with California aquifer is (mostly) a consequence of its Democratic state government decisions and it is highly unlikely that electing Hilary or Kamala would have prevented it.

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

#136

Post by acdha »

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…

This can be confounded heavily by the riding “agrivoltaics” trend of finding ways to use solar panels while continuing to farm the same land. The most common example are ranching (e.g. letting sheep enjoy the shade under panels) but some crops actually benefit from lower sun intensity.

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/feb/22/k...

However, that’s probably unnecessary: just converting the land used to produce ethanol to solar farms would produce an enormous amount of electricity with no impact on food production.

> Through spatial analyses, we determined that converting just 3.2% of land currently used for corn ethanol would increase the share of utility-scale solar energy in the US from 3.9 to 13%.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2501605122

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

#137

Post by ToucanLoucan »

kuerbel wrote: post #46
ToucanLoucan wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right?! Like there’s so much you can do. * Vote for fucks sake. Bare minimum and stop making fucking excuses both for yourself not doing it and for politicians you otherwise support burying their heads in the sand. * Stop buying stupid shit on the internet. Every package you don’t get delivered means less CO2. * Fix shit instead of replacing it. The greenest EV on earth is more CO2 intense than the car you’ve already…

I agree but >Fix shit instead of replacing it. The greenest EV on earth is more CO2 intense than the car you’ve already got (assuming you keep it in good working order) This is not correct at all... https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehicles-defini... one source of many. Also local pollution is reduced, e.g. nox and particles.

Valid pushback! That said going through the MIT study quickly (and I may be wrong, feel free to correct me further) it doesn't seem to include CO2 from overseas shipping of materials and/or finished vehicles, and it also only seems to factor in tailpipe emissions as opposed to emissions from things like tire wear which is notably worse on EVs due to their weight. But again, I'll concede the point anyway.

You could however say exactly what I said about so many other classes of products. Home appliances, electronics, tools, on and on.

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

#138

Post by RichardLake »

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…

You could only allow the conversion for farms that grow corn for ethanol at first. Isn't that around 10 million hectares on the low estimates?

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

#139

Post by [deleted] »

kasey_junk wrote: post #130
culi wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't even mention water waste in my comment yet you out of touch techies managed to return to your industry talking point AND hate on poor people in one go of it. And yes, despite your industry talking points, water waste is absolutely a major concern. Unlike residential use, where 80% of the water is reclaimed, open loop data centers (which are over 90% of data centers) allow almost all the water to evaporate. S…

What makes you think rayiner is a techie?

[deleted]

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

#140

Post by rayiner »

culi wrote: post #93
rayiner wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I didn't even mention water waste in my comment yet you out of touch techies managed to return to your industry talking point AND hate on poor people in one go of it. And yes, despite your industry talking points, water waste is absolutely a major concern. Unlike residential use, where 80% of the water is reclaimed, open loop data centers (which are over 90% of data centers) allow almost all the water to evaporate. S…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN