How silly is this?

[immortal]

My state government is spending 17 crores on rituals to gain the grace of rain gods at a time of severe drought across the state instead of spending the same lump sum on scientific measures in this 21st century and its going to spend more.

 

http://www.ndtv.com/article/south/karnataka-temples-to-hold-prayers-for-rain-today-bill-will-be-17-crores-248142

 

When we are not even sure as to whether these gods exist or not how silly it is to release that much funds on these kind of rituals?

[CaptainPanic]

I think that 17 crore is about 3 million euro?

 

It seems to me that you might be better off spending that money to build a reservoir of some kind to collect water in times of abundance, so you have some left when it is dry.

 

On the other hand, if this keeps people happy, then it's money well spent. People spend loads of money on stuff that does not create any revenues (think of entertainment, movies, music, etc.).

[immortal]

I think that 17 crore is about 3 million euro?

 

 

Approximately about 2 million euro.

 

 

 

 

It seems to me that you might be better off spending that money to build a reservoir of some kind to collect water in times of abundance, so you have some left when it is dry.

 

On the other hand, if this keeps people happy, then it's money well spent. People spend loads of money on stuff that does not create any revenues (think of entertainment, movies, music, etc.).

 

Those rituals indeed exists since ancient times and should be performed for the betterment of the world but if these gods don't exist then they are going to burn rice, dry fruits, pure ghee, milk and other expensive things and turn it into an ash and all these rituals will be an utter waste.

[CaptainPanic]

Those rituals indeed exists since ancient times and should be performed for the betterment of the world but if these gods don't exist then they are going to burn rice, dry fruits, pure ghee, milk and other expensive things and turn it into an ash and all these rituals will be an utter waste.

 

But isn't any form of culture an utter waste when you regard it from the purely utilitarian point?

[immortal]

But isn't any form of culture an utter waste when you regard it from the purely utilitarian point?

 

I don't see that way, they are not spending 17 crores for the happiness of all people, its a selfish act, a political strategy to gain vote banks and they want to keep only one form of sub-caste of people happy and Yes in middle of all this the rituals are an utter waste a cop out to show to the public that whatever they are doing is for the good of all people while having a selfish benefit hidden behind it.

 

If someone was truly utilitarian and knew that gods existed to give us rain then he wouldn't have waited for the government to release that lump sum amount of money to perform that ritual. He would do on his own. It is such kind of acts that would indicate that these gods truly existed showing the presence of divine. A sane person wouldn't invest all his money and all his energy and show that much comittment if he didn't knew that these gods exist or not unless otherwise he had a selfish component hidden in his acts.

Edited July 27, 2012 by immortal

[Phi for All]

My state government is spending 17 crores on rituals to gain the grace of rain gods at a time of severe drought across the state instead of spending the same lump sum on scientific measures in this 21st century and its going to spend more.

You should go through me. For €2M, I petition your gods, who show me where to buy tanker trucks and water, then I bring it to the farms that need it. My way solves both your religious and agricultural problems.

 

Btw, you mention that your state is "going to spend more". Can you tell me how much more it's willing to $pend?

[immortal]

You should go through me. For €2M, I petition your gods, who show me where to buy tanker trucks and water, then I bring it to the farms that need it. My way solves both your religious and agricultural problems.

 

 

Our gods won't appear to you unless you give your sacrifices to them.

 

 

Btw, you mention that your state is "going to spend more". Can you tell me how much more it's willing to $pend?

 

Waive crop loans borrowed by farmers

 

Another ten thousand crores that's approximately 1.4 billion euros and I am sure some of it will be kept aside for the rituals.

[Phi for All]

Our gods won't appear to you unless you give your sacrifices to them.

I sacrificed a couple of embryonic chickens and part of a pig to them this morning and they've been helping me Google truck rental places and water sources in Myanmar. I'm singing two million praises to them right now.

 

Another ten thousand crores that's approximately 1.4 billion euros and I am sure some of it will be kept aside for the rituals.

Once I get the permits, I can be there in 2 days, 11 hours, and guarantee more water to the farms with my method.

[CaptainPanic]

You should go through me. For €2M, I petition your gods, who show me where to buy tanker trucks and water, then I bring it to the farms that need it. My way solves both your religious and agricultural problems.

 

Btw, you mention that your state is "going to spend more". Can you tell me how much more it's willing to $pend?

With all respect for your plan, even if a cubic meter of water would just cost a euro (incl. transport, and some form of distribution on the land), that's just 2 million m3. On a land the size of the Karnataka state in India, (size: 191,976 km2), that is about 10 micrometer of water per area. And that's even before you remove a portion of the €2M for the Phi for All personal charity fund.

 

Driving water into an area is the equivalent of giving a hungry man a fish. We all know it makes more sense to teach someone how to fish. Invest in something sustainable, or you might as well invest in the gods.

[Phi for All]

With all respect for your plan, even if a cubic meter of water would just cost a euro (incl. transport, and some form of distribution on the land), that's just 2 million m3. On a land the size of the Karnataka state in India, (size: 191,976 km2), that is about 10 micrometer of water per area. And that's even before you remove a portion of the €2M for the Phi for All personal charity fund.

 

Driving water into an area is the equivalent of giving a hungry man a fish. We all know it makes more sense to teach someone how to fish. Invest in something sustainable, or you might as well invest in the gods.

With all respect to you, which plan guarantees at least some water to Karnataka for €2M?

 

I'm a bit offended that you think I'm stupid enough to drive my trucks over the whole state giving out a dipper to each farm. My strategy is to bring most of the first €2M worth of water to some selected areas, and when the crops start growing again, I would hope to be given part of the larger €1.4B budget when people see which idea the gods favor. Just a part, because I agree that something more sustainable is necessary.

[imatfaal]

I know where the Phi for All charitable trust can get hold of brand spanking new and clean tankers; carry a shade under 2 million barrels of water (burns about $50K worth of fuel a day though) - how many do you want?

[Phi for All]

I know where the Phi for All charitable trust can get hold of brand spanking new and clean tankers; carry a shade under 2 million barrels of water (burns about $50K worth of fuel a day though) - how many do you want?

How close to Myanmar are they? That's about $125k per tanker for a one-way trip. I'd be counting on the Indian government to work out the permits and tariffs with the Sister States and Bangladesh. And my charitable trust only needs €50k to put this together . How many charitable ventures need only 2.5% for administrative costs?

[Ophiolite]

But isn't any form of culture an utter waste when you regard it from the purely utilitarian point?

Science is a cultural artifact, so your suggestion seems incorrect.

[CaptainPanic]

With all respect to you, which plan guarantees at least some water to Karnataka for €2M?

On the short term, your plan does. Not mine. On the long term, I think spending it on some reservoirs of some sort, or trickle irrigation, is better.

 

I'm a bit offended that you think I'm stupid enough to drive my trucks over the whole state giving out a dipper to each farm. My strategy is to bring most of the first €2M worth of water to some selected areas, and when the crops start growing again, I would hope to be given part of the larger €1.4B budget when people see which idea the gods favor. Just a part, because I agree that something more sustainable is necessary.

Don't be offended, please. You misunderstood the point of my post. I know you did not suggest to give only a few liters per hectare... the net result would be zero. It would evaporate before it reached even the first roots. I know you didn't propose that. It was just my way of saying that I think the whole plan is too little (and/or too late).

 

I'll do another back-of-the-envelope calculation, assuming a more reasonable distribution, and a dirt cheap price.

Let us assume that only 10 cm of water (100 liter/m2) will save the harvest for this season. Annual rainfall in Karnataka is 10x as much... so it's really a bare minimum...

Let us furthermore assume that the trucks would have to drive only 10 km, to some nearby river with enough water. A tanker can hold 40 m3. It would consume 1 liter per 10 km, at 1 euro/liter fuelprice. That's 2 euro per 40 m3, or 5 cents per m3. Then you get 40 million m3 for your 2 million euro.

 

That means you can irrigate 400 million m2, or 400 km2, which is only 0.2% of the land area of the state of Karnataka. To put it in a more simple way, irrigation water should never be transported by trucks... and I really think you might as well offer your money to the gods.

 

I hope that, by choosing a best-case scenario, I have not insulted you. It seems we both agree that more sustainable options are better than either offerings or truck transport. For example, reservoirs or trickle irrigation can reduce the burden of agriculture on the waterlevels, thereby increasing the net agricultural yields.

 

Science is a cultural artifact, so your suggestion seems incorrect.

Hmm... fair point. I had overlooked that the definition of culture could include science.

Replace "culture" by "entertainment", and my point is easier to defend (although the Romans had a point with their concept of bread and games).

 

How close to Myanmar are they? That's about $125k per tanker for a one-way trip. I'd be counting on the Indian government to work out the permits and tariffs with the Sister States and Bangladesh. And my charitable trust only needs €50k to put this together . How many charitable ventures need only 2.5% for administrative costs?

[edit] damn this thread went fast - I'll squeeze in a reply to this too.

 

Water transport by ship - large tankers - is a LOT better. I have been playing with the idea to use empty oil tankers, and send them back to hot arid countries full of water. They're heading that way anyway, so that's definitely gonna be a bare minimum cost. For example from Rotterdam (wet country, large river with sweet water, lots of oil refineries) to Arab countries. Full of crude oil one way, full of water the other way.

 

Not sure how this is gonna help Karnataka.

[Phi for All]

On the short term, your plan does. Not mine. On the long term, I think spending it on some reservoirs of some sort, or trickle irrigation, is better.

Well sure, there are plenty of smart ways to spend the money. I'm just offering a way to get SOME water for the €2M earmarked for gods appeasement AND show some practical results. The people can pray, the gods can help my trucks make it through and everyone gets something. Except the priests, but I would insist the first bushels of produce go to them, as a sacrifice of course.

[imatfaal]

How close to Myanmar are they? That's about $125k per tanker for a one-way trip. I'd be counting on the Indian government to work out the permits and tariffs with the Sister States and Bangladesh. And my charitable trust only needs €50k to put this together . How many charitable ventures need only 2.5% for administrative costs?

 

You also need to pay the shipowner and the broker :-D

 

 

/snipped

 

[edit] damn this thread went fast - I'll squeeze in a reply to this too.

 

Water transport by ship - large tankers - is a LOT better. I have been playing with the idea to use empty oil tankers, and send them back to hot arid countries full of water. They're heading that way anyway, so that's definitely gonna be a bare minimum cost. For example from Rotterdam (wet country, large river with sweet water, lots of oil refineries) to Arab countries. Full of crude oil one way, full of water the other way.

 

Not sure how this is gonna help Karnataka.

 

It's been mooted and kicked around for about 35 years (to my knowledge) - just a few things off the top of my bonce

 

- clean up is very difficult although the sort of ships you get in Rdam will be carrying over 50,000 mt of water ballast, which is rabidly kept separate from the crude oil.

 

- as is the avoidance of spreading of alien marine species. i actually get a publication called "ballast water news" which deals solely with these problems - now you see why I spend time here rather than reading for my job.

 

- pumping 50k-250k mt of water up hill onto a tanker is no mean task and will require infrastructure. budget 30k-100k (in a bad market) for each day that you delay the ship during loading.

 

- most of the ships in Rdam and elsewhere are traded by commercial entities - what sort of incentive for these guys (not known for being naive ingenues)? who takes the shipping risk - and more importantly the commercial risk. as an example; ships the size of titan glory (currently in petroleumhaven) have been known to be contracted with agreed damages for delay at over $200K per day.

 

 

Although - it is definitely not a non-starter; just wanted to counter my negativity above. Many new ships - ie straight from the yard are used to transport cargoes other than their intended cargo. We took delivery of two tankers from Gdansk-Gdynia in the 80s and used them for fresh water transportation from the UK to Middle East - at which point we could slot them into their normal trade of clean petroleum products

Edited July 30, 2012 by imatfaal
note of positivity

[CaptainPanic]

It's been mooted and kicked around for about 35 years (to my knowledge) - just a few things off the top of my bonce

 

- clean up is very difficult although the sort of ships you get in Rdam will be carrying over 50,000 mt of water ballast, which is rabidly kept separate from the crude oil.

 

- as is the avoidance of spreading of alien marine species. i actually get a publication called "ballast water news" which deals solely with these problems - now you see why I spend time here rather than reading for my job.

 

- pumping 50k-250k mt of water up hill onto a tanker is no mean task and will require infrastructure. budget 30k-100k (in a bad market) for each day that you delay the ship during loading.

 

- most of the ships in Rdam and elsewhere are traded by commercial entities - what sort of incentive for these guys (not known for being naive ingenues)? who takes the shipping risk - and more importantly the commercial risk. as an example; ships the size of titan glory (currently in petroleumhaven) have been known to be contracted with agreed damages for delay at over $200K per day.

 

 

Although - it is definitely not a non-starter; just wanted to counter my negativity above. Many new ships - ie straight from the yard are used to transport cargoes other than their intended cargo. We took delivery of two tankers from Gdansk-Gdynia in the 80s and used them for fresh water transportation from the UK to Middle East - at which point we could slot them into their normal trade of clean petroleum products

I don't think you should clean those ships from the inside. Either be able to deal with the water getting contaminated (run it through a waste water cleaning facility upon arrival, and pray that the refinery is not gonna be upset - the latter obviously being the major issue here), or install some giant bags on the inside to keep any water and oil separated. This technical issue must be solved (economically) or the plan is worthless.

 

Spreading marine alien species is a big issue, however: you're taking fresh water on board. Dumping that in the ocean will kill most species contained in it, because they can't handle the salt. Still, this might leak into local rivers and lakes and this can cause a problem there. So, this water should only be used in isolated dry areas without local bodies of fresh water of any significance. A fish can't swim in the desert.

 

Pumping costs are acceptable, because the alternative is to pump up water from deep down in some aquifer. If you want water, you'll need a pump. It's a significant cost factor, but I would assume it is roughly equal for all options.

 

This plan should obviously have some economic benefits. If there is no money to be made, this won't fly. Someone is gonna have to pay money for that water. I'm sure that they can take it in practically for free in the Netherlands (we have excess anyway, the river flow is about 1500 metric tons per second in Rotterdam), so the costs of the water should only compensate the operational costs (including additional loading time) and some initial investments. Perhaps you can start loading water while still removing oil to reduce loading time.

 

I wonder what would be cheaper in terms of energy spent per metric ton of water... a long pipe from Rotterdam to Saudi Arabia, or to transport it by ship.

 

Oh, and here's a concrete location (just an idea). Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia is a large oil exporting port. Within 50 km, there are large irrigated fields. It completely lacks open water, so no worries about local water life. It's not at a particularly high altitude. And it might even allow local aquifers to recover. If only this is economically interesting. What would an Arab farmer pay for fresh water for irrigation?

[imatfaal]

I don't think you should clean those ships from the inside. Either be able to deal with the water getting contaminated (run it through a waste water cleaning facility upon arrival, and pray that the refinery is not gonna be upset - the latter obviously being the major issue here), or install some giant bags on the inside to keep any water and oil separated. This technical issue must be solved (economically) or the plan is worthless.

Need an opinion on the amount of crude oil per unit that would stop fresh water being an acceptable irrigant (is that a word?). A good new tanker loading decent crude oil (ie not to much sand etc) will be able to remove all cargo apart from about 1 part in 100,000 - the next voyage she will get rid of even more. So after reloading with water you would have about 10 barrels of oil for every million barrels of water - could you grow stuff safely with that?

 

 

Spreading marine alien species is a big issue, however: you're taking fresh water on board. Dumping that in the ocean will kill most species contained in it, because they can't handle the salt. Still, this might leak into local rivers and lakes and this can cause a problem there. So, this water should only be used in isolated dry areas without local bodies of fresh water of any significance. A fish can't swim in the desert.

Yeah - but we are not dumping in ocean; the water is being used for irrigation and most will end up in local water drainage.

 

Pumping costs are acceptable, because the alternative is to pump up water from deep down in some aquifer. If you want water, you'll need a pump. It's a significant cost factor, but I would assume it is roughly equal for all options.

True - mentioned only because many proponents seem to assume this is an easy stage

 

This plan should obviously have some economic benefits. If there is no money to be made, this won't fly. Someone is gonna have to pay money for that water. I'm sure that they can take it in practically for free in the Netherlands (we have excess anyway, the river flow is about 1500 metric tons per second in Rotterdam), so the costs of the water should only compensate the operational costs (including additional loading time) and some initial investments. Perhaps you can start loading water while still removing oil to reduce loading time.

 

I wonder what would be cheaper in terms of energy spent per metric ton of water... a long pipe from Rotterdam to Saudi Arabia, or to transport it by ship.

Politically so much easier than a pipeline. Search on BTC for some ideas of the potential political/logistical problems with a pipeline across that part of the world.

Oh, and here's a concrete location (just an idea). Ras Tanura, Saudi Arabia is a large oil exporting port. Within 50 km, there are large irrigated fields. It completely lacks open water, so no worries about local water life. It's not at a particularly high altitude. And it might even allow local aquifers to recover. If only this is economically interesting. What would an Arab farmer pay for fresh water for irrigation?

Your last question is the only really important one.