What is a cup of water worth PDK?

A desert has plenty of free energy, but the water is costly.

And there is nothing wrong with displacing existing land-use.  Market will reflect that, as the existing land-prices will readjust towards their proper value.  Also as those sustainable fuels (or at least in the short term, the renewable fuels) become more price effective ... ie other prices will be pushed towards them as supply gets tougher, then they will gain market acceptance and alternatives to existing supply lines will evolve, just as the blood supply in an athlete tends to adapt.  At the moment reduction in road freight is not particularily effective, but as petroleum fuel goes up another dollar at the pump over the next 4-4.5 years, rail projects and local produce will be more cost effective (logistic vs distributive cost.  Of course if the government keeps pushing up the hirage costs, then distributive "hirage-positive" models will also be priced out of the market.
 
In fact, looking at fuel costs, the Roads Of National Sufferance should just about be hitting maximum debt potential just as people can't afford to use them.  That's real planning for you!
Of course, the gubberment will push up wages, so we can afford to pay for their roads, except of course the more they push it up the higher prices and inflation will be, and the larger the governments own wages bill will be.  And only a few will be left with disposable income (those invested way back).

But if you are right, and the market is all going to heck.  Then it is time to go for short positions.  It took a bit of working the models, to work out how to mechanically (ie reality wise) impliment the algorythm,  but if it exists "in market" and the market is [supposed :) ] to be a reflection of an underlying real world process(es).  Then it must also stand that a "short" position must be achievable in those real world processes.  Do you understand how?
 
- - - 
slight aside:  If using an electric circuit system as a comparitive model, you've got to remember "money is debt"!  ie money is the flow of holes, assets and services are the electrons (real supply).  Most folks would tend to think it's the money flowing, perhaps even Benny Franklin.
 
- - - 
And cost of the water... outside mai dwelling at the moment.... it's friggin' bucketting down!!

In Queensland they are going hell-bent-for-leather on fracking for CSG, and they are having a lot of trouble with land subsidence and contamination of aquifiers.
 
Fracking
The report pointed out that "even small changes to the land surface due to subsidence may alter overland flow paths initiating new erosion features in susceptible areas." Subsidence can also "change or cause fracturing in aquifers which may alter the hydraulic connectivity."
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2011/03/22/3169602.htm
 
Fracking
Fracking (the process often used to fracture coal seams) injects large volumes of toxic chemicals into the coal seams. These chemicals then leak into nearby aquifers and contaminate farmland and waterways. Fracking has also caused land subsidence and earthquakes.
http://www.sixdegrees.org.au/content/csg-facts

The " right wing " guys who abuse people as much as PDK does , have all be banned by Bernard ......
 
...... the DUKE , the MAN , WESTMINSTER ...... long gone .....
 
Why isn't PDK given his marching orders too , Bernard ? ....... how much personal abuse do we have to take from this blogger ?

A point that you are missing notaneconomist is that if we burn/use more than about 20% of proven oil/coal/gas reserves then it is almost certain that world average temperatures will increase by more than 2 degrees C.  Which will be a disaster.
It is suicidal maddness to continue with oil exploration etc.
See http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719

The USA invaded Iraq for oil, it wants to invade iran, for oil. When it comes down to it as Presidents say the American way of life is not up for negoitiation. What conclusions can be made except the USA has killed and will continue kill for oil....and it will use its poor for canon fodder.....
Capital injection...there is a time and science element that no quantity of capital can address...
NB Capital will want a return....but we as ppl simply wont be able to afford that bill......
regards

I have found it rather hard to acquire resources or time without money.

And as India and Asia prove the Amish approach is not sustainable.

monetisation, to me, is the process of assigning value for trade.  Currency, to me, is establishment of tokens to enable trade of money, including portability and enhancing transferrability (transferrability is an information value of an asset or resource, and thus that property of the asset has value).
 
Money can therefore buy things.  If their is nothing to buy, there are no resources anyway.
If there are resources, then there is potential demand, which like potential difference, explicitly declares teh ability to do work.  "money" to me is just resource markers'...'debt based resources markers'  (and quite separate from currency)

I am no longer only paying 1 day a week to work on my lords estate, doing his taxes.
It now consumes far more than that, and every turning there's more wastage.
Most of the "services" offered are claimed to be valuable but arent to me - only to the people who consume them, which isn't me. And they're not paying for them.  It's like that broken windows fallacy - in most cases we're paying "window insurance" for windows that aren't broken, and now can't even afford the original window...but still paying the insurance.

Yes farmers are classic for not rating their time and costs properly.  However do consider that his time, as sold to the company probably is worth nearly nothing.  Most farmers have low yield around 1% on an average year, which is compounded.  The real value of most farms is that of capital gain through inflation - they usually don't make - or charge - anything on their invested equity.   Likewise their time is usually written off as just a CODB (cost of doing business), with minimal drawings until the number of good years hopefully exceeds enough of the bad for their equity to reduce their borrowing cost.  (ie the interest cost drops, and there's no cost of equity, so the mortgage slow gains ground.  Almost all farmers are on interest-only automatically-renewed indefinate loans (at least the first generation owners).   Life insurance, and farm property speculation, are the usual paydowns on the debt.

So yes, the farmer probably was making a profit on the $5.