**Refocusing Priorities: Prioritizing Water Over War**
In a world where basic needs such as access to clean and drinkable water remain a challenge for millions of people, it is crucial to question the spending priorities of the United States government. The recent $95 billion budget approved for 2024 by the United States Senate reflects a disproportionate allocation of resources towards armed conflicts and wars instead of addressing the most urgent human needs.
While this massive budget is allocated to finance wars and conflicts that most Americans neither agree with nor support, the real needs for clean and drinkable water continue to be ignored. It is time to rethink our priorities and direct our resources towards concrete and sustainable solutions that benefit humanity as a whole.
With strategic investment, the $95 billion could finance the construction and full maintenance of up to 100 seawater desalination plants similar in size to the one in Sorek, Israel. These plants could produce pure water for human consumption at a manufacturing cost of just 0.82 cents per 2,000 liters of purified water; simplifying, this means 120 bottles of purified water for $1 (20 liters of purified water per filled bottle). This approach would not only address the global water scarcity crisis but also benefit millions of people around the world, improving their quality of life and promoting their overall well-being.
Furthermore, by investing in sustainable water infrastructures, local jobs would be created, and economic growth would be stimulated in communities that need it most. The construction and operation of these desalination plants would require a skilled and committed workforce, thus driving economic development at the local and national levels.
It is important to note that the $95 billion budget that the United States Government is currently allocating to finance different wars around the world is only for the year 2024, and for the next year 2025, an equal or even higher amount could be approved. This means that we have the capacity and resources to implement tangible and effective solutions to water scarcity on an unprecedented scale. By rethinking our spending priorities and directing our resources towards the common good, we can build a fairer, more sustainable, and prosperous world for all. It is time to end the culture of war and prioritize the most basic and fundamental human needs.
In summary, the budget allocated for military purposes can be redirected towards initiatives that address urgent global challenges such as water scarcity. By doing so, we are not only investing in the future of humanity but also demonstrating a real commitment to peace, justice, and prosperity for all. It is time to make bold decisions and act for the collective well-being.
I 100% guarantee it is easily 100 times more than whatever you'd pay for a desalinated equal. You could bottle the desalinated water and turn a mind blowing profit. So yes, absurdly cheap.
The main use of water is not for humans drinking. That is a tiny percentage of total use. The vast scale of water usage for agriculture, landscaping and utilities makes the total cost go way up.
I did not say you were a purchaser of bottled water. But a great many people are (just look at Nestle's land acquisition rights in terms of water supply).
"The main use of water is not for humans drinking."
Could have fooled me with all the recent scaremongering campaigns by various governments saying the human race is going to run out of *drinkable water*. Perhaps they mean *potable*... but I digress, still cheaper than bottled.
"The vast scale of water usage for agriculture, landscaping and utilities"
Agriculture typically use their own aquifers and don't typically factor in. I don't know quite what you mean by 'landscaping'. I presume utilities means household utilities.
Even in humouring full house use, average household use is about 146 litres (32.1 gallons). At 6.4 gallons per penny, that would mean it'd cost only 5 pennies a day to supply a single house, or about ~$17.85 per year.
Which would probably still be less than, say, several weeks worth of bottled water.
I cannot think of a single household who would be offended at the suggestion they only had to pay $20 a year for their entire water supply. In California, the cost is anywhere between $40-$120 *per month*. Not per year, per month.
And as for agriculture, every household you free up onto desalination, frees up extra water capacity for agriculture. So it is still a win no matter how you look at it. Agriculture also doesn't strictly require drinking water (assuming it is used on fields).
I am not sure where you are getting your data, but it is way off. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that the typical American indoor household uses over 300 gallons of water per day (ten times your figure)
Landscaping = growing grass in backyard, etc.(the main usage of water in residences and not included in the above figure, although it is seasonal).
Utilities = cooling for thermoelectric plants
Again, household indoor usage of water is a small percentage of human water usage. So yes, it would be a win to supply it via desalination, but it is only a "drop in the bucket."
The 800-pound gorilla of water usage is agriculture. You dismiss agriculture as a separate thing, but it is by far the main use of water by humans. And most geographies do not have the luxury of an aquifer or ground source. That is exactly why desalination is potentially a breakthrough technology.
If desalination were absurdly cheap, it would be used at an industrial scale for agriculture by every nation that has a coast-line. It is not even close to it. Not even 1%. It is still a niche source of water, and largely because of its cost.
My hope is that it will become absurdly cheap in the future, but we still have a long way to go.
The cost to obtaining 2000 liters of pure drinking water from seawater is less than 1 US dollar. This means that water scarcity it's a conflict interests and not a capacity or technique problem. Three quarters of the earth is sea water... ¿What is really you do not understand?
The cost of desalinating water through reverse osmosis in modern plants, such as the Sorek plant in Israel, is well-documented and supported by several reliable technical sources. Excluding references to Elon Musk, it is important to highlight the data provided by:
1. **IDE Technologies**: This company operates the Sorek desalination plant and has published data indicating competitive costs due to its advanced technology and operational efficiency. For more details, visit: www.ide-tech.com/en/project/sorek-desalination-plant/
2. **Global Water Intelligence (GWI)**: GWI is a recognized source that provides detailed analysis of the water market, including desalination. Its reports indicate that modern plants, like Sorek in Israel, can achieve desalinated water production costs in the range of $0.41 to $0.50 per cubic meter. More information at: www.globalwaterintel.com/
3. **Energy Monitor**: Publishes analysis on the efficiency and costs of desalination technologies. Its reports also support desalinated water production costs in the range of $0.41 to $0.50 per cubic meter. You can check it out at: energymonitor.ai/
These sources confirm the economic viability of large-scale desalination with production costs around $0.50 per cubic meter or even less, thanks to technological advancements and economies of scale.
It is easy to judge from the revealed preferences of farmers. Water is an important cost in their operations.
If desalination were absurdly cheap, it would be used at an industrial scale for agriculture by every nation that has a coast-line. It is not even close to it. It is still a niche source of water, and largely because of its cost.
My hope is that it will become absurdly cheap in the future, but we still have a long way to go.
It's 62 percent cheaper than ten years ago. If we can continue to improve at 10 percent a year, abundance doubles every 7 years. This gives us great hope. Imagine plentiful clean water to quench the world's thirst.
**Refocusing Priorities: Prioritizing Water Over War**
In a world where basic needs such as access to clean and drinkable water remain a challenge for millions of people, it is crucial to question the spending priorities of the United States government. The recent $95 billion budget approved for 2024 by the United States Senate reflects a disproportionate allocation of resources towards armed conflicts and wars instead of addressing the most urgent human needs.
While this massive budget is allocated to finance wars and conflicts that most Americans neither agree with nor support, the real needs for clean and drinkable water continue to be ignored. It is time to rethink our priorities and direct our resources towards concrete and sustainable solutions that benefit humanity as a whole.
With strategic investment, the $95 billion could finance the construction and full maintenance of up to 100 seawater desalination plants similar in size to the one in Sorek, Israel. These plants could produce pure water for human consumption at a manufacturing cost of just 0.82 cents per 2,000 liters of purified water; simplifying, this means 120 bottles of purified water for $1 (20 liters of purified water per filled bottle). This approach would not only address the global water scarcity crisis but also benefit millions of people around the world, improving their quality of life and promoting their overall well-being.
Furthermore, by investing in sustainable water infrastructures, local jobs would be created, and economic growth would be stimulated in communities that need it most. The construction and operation of these desalination plants would require a skilled and committed workforce, thus driving economic development at the local and national levels.
It is important to note that the $95 billion budget that the United States Government is currently allocating to finance different wars around the world is only for the year 2024, and for the next year 2025, an equal or even higher amount could be approved. This means that we have the capacity and resources to implement tangible and effective solutions to water scarcity on an unprecedented scale. By rethinking our spending priorities and directing our resources towards the common good, we can build a fairer, more sustainable, and prosperous world for all. It is time to end the culture of war and prioritize the most basic and fundamental human needs.
In summary, the budget allocated for military purposes can be redirected towards initiatives that address urgent global challenges such as water scarcity. By doing so, we are not only investing in the future of humanity but also demonstrating a real commitment to peace, justice, and prosperity for all. It is time to make bold decisions and act for the collective well-being.
Absurdly cheap?!? Desalinating water is getting cheaper, yes, but we still have a long way to go before it is “absurdly cheap.”
Fortunately, we are going in the right direction, as your article points out.
"Absurdly cheap?!?"
Yes: "cost at one penny per 6.4 gallons"
How much do you pay for a small bottle of water?
I 100% guarantee it is easily 100 times more than whatever you'd pay for a desalinated equal. You could bottle the desalinated water and turn a mind blowing profit. So yes, absurdly cheap.
I am not stupid enough to buy bottled water.
The main use of water is not for humans drinking. That is a tiny percentage of total use. The vast scale of water usage for agriculture, landscaping and utilities makes the total cost go way up.
I did not say you were a purchaser of bottled water. But a great many people are (just look at Nestle's land acquisition rights in terms of water supply).
"The main use of water is not for humans drinking."
Could have fooled me with all the recent scaremongering campaigns by various governments saying the human race is going to run out of *drinkable water*. Perhaps they mean *potable*... but I digress, still cheaper than bottled.
"The vast scale of water usage for agriculture, landscaping and utilities"
Agriculture typically use their own aquifers and don't typically factor in. I don't know quite what you mean by 'landscaping'. I presume utilities means household utilities.
Even in humouring full house use, average household use is about 146 litres (32.1 gallons). At 6.4 gallons per penny, that would mean it'd cost only 5 pennies a day to supply a single house, or about ~$17.85 per year.
Which would probably still be less than, say, several weeks worth of bottled water.
I cannot think of a single household who would be offended at the suggestion they only had to pay $20 a year for their entire water supply. In California, the cost is anywhere between $40-$120 *per month*. Not per year, per month.
And as for agriculture, every household you free up onto desalination, frees up extra water capacity for agriculture. So it is still a win no matter how you look at it. Agriculture also doesn't strictly require drinking water (assuming it is used on fields).
You are missing my point.
I am not sure where you are getting your data, but it is way off. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that the typical American indoor household uses over 300 gallons of water per day (ten times your figure)
Landscaping = growing grass in backyard, etc.(the main usage of water in residences and not included in the above figure, although it is seasonal).
Utilities = cooling for thermoelectric plants
Again, household indoor usage of water is a small percentage of human water usage. So yes, it would be a win to supply it via desalination, but it is only a "drop in the bucket."
The 800-pound gorilla of water usage is agriculture. You dismiss agriculture as a separate thing, but it is by far the main use of water by humans. And most geographies do not have the luxury of an aquifer or ground source. That is exactly why desalination is potentially a breakthrough technology.
If desalination were absurdly cheap, it would be used at an industrial scale for agriculture by every nation that has a coast-line. It is not even close to it. Not even 1%. It is still a niche source of water, and largely because of its cost.
My hope is that it will become absurdly cheap in the future, but we still have a long way to go.
The cost to obtaining 2000 liters of pure drinking water from seawater is less than 1 US dollar. This means that water scarcity it's a conflict interests and not a capacity or technique problem. Three quarters of the earth is sea water... ¿What is really you do not understand?
The cost of desalinating water through reverse osmosis in modern plants, such as the Sorek plant in Israel, is well-documented and supported by several reliable technical sources. Excluding references to Elon Musk, it is important to highlight the data provided by:
1. **IDE Technologies**: This company operates the Sorek desalination plant and has published data indicating competitive costs due to its advanced technology and operational efficiency. For more details, visit: www.ide-tech.com/en/project/sorek-desalination-plant/
2. **Global Water Intelligence (GWI)**: GWI is a recognized source that provides detailed analysis of the water market, including desalination. Its reports indicate that modern plants, like Sorek in Israel, can achieve desalinated water production costs in the range of $0.41 to $0.50 per cubic meter. More information at: www.globalwaterintel.com/
3. **Energy Monitor**: Publishes analysis on the efficiency and costs of desalination technologies. Its reports also support desalinated water production costs in the range of $0.41 to $0.50 per cubic meter. You can check it out at: energymonitor.ai/
These sources confirm the economic viability of large-scale desalination with production costs around $0.50 per cubic meter or even less, thanks to technological advancements and economies of scale.
It is easy to judge from the revealed preferences of farmers. Water is an important cost in their operations.
If desalination were absurdly cheap, it would be used at an industrial scale for agriculture by every nation that has a coast-line. It is not even close to it. It is still a niche source of water, and largely because of its cost.
My hope is that it will become absurdly cheap in the future, but we still have a long way to go.
It's 62 percent cheaper than ten years ago. If we can continue to improve at 10 percent a year, abundance doubles every 7 years. This gives us great hope. Imagine plentiful clean water to quench the world's thirst.
What is Aruba's calculus? I always get a kick out if that running out of water trope! My answer has always been the same as Elon's.