SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Wharf Rat who wrote (882301)8/25/2015 1:39:08 PM
From: Tenchusatsu  Read Replies (2) of 1576440
 
WR,
They aren't trying to save money; they are trying to save 300 million gallons of water from evaporating. Water will get you thru times of no money better than money will get you thru times of no water.
It's all a matter of cost. California, for instance, hasn't resorted to desalination because there was no need until recently.

As for what the water executive said, OK. Let's take that $28K/month savings at face value. That's $336K/year in savings, or less than one percent of the $37M it cost to dump the balls into the reservoir.

Even over the 10 year lifetime of the balls, that's $3.3M. Still nowhere near enough savings to justify the cost.

The real question here is how much water evaporation is being prevented by the balls, and how much it would cost to make up for the lost water via desalination or additional water infrastructure.

Tenchusatsu
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News