6 ms·

To be honest I'm not sure. Transportation is one of the largest unknowns in this idea. On top of that, there's also the unknown of offloading the water at a giv

To be honest I'm not sure. Transportation is one of the largest unknowns in this idea. On top of that, there's also the unknown of offloading the water at a given destination. My hope is to work out a solution that takes less energy than traditional desalinization for the same amount of water, even with the transportation energy requirements.

thinkingkong 10y ago
Well. You should do some rough calculations on those requirements too with current shipping technology. Are there any water shipping ships?
- josephv 10y ago
  Oil shipping ships could work
  - mojomark 10y ago
    Actually tankers are not cost-viable today (and probably never will be). A friend of mine and I (both marine engineering professionals in commercial shipping) did a Cost Benefit Analysis on chartering a handy size tanker, cleaning the tanks and shipping water from Alaska to California during the droubt. I no longer have the email that broke the costs down, but cleaning costs aside, the operational costs alone yielded $0.25/gal. The cost of H20 in Ca is about $0.002/gal (cheaper for farmers). If you're looking to start an H20 ptoduction venture, you need to account for demand factors that will inform the type of product that is needed. For example, if the demand is geographically fragmented and/or geopolitical isolated (e.g. to remote villages in relatively undeveloped or oppressive nations) then a small and very cheap personal H20 generation technology is probably more cost feasible than creating a supply infrastructure. Just calculate the cost/galon at the end user then compare to today's cost and you'll have your answer.
    - mojomark 10y ago
      > The cost of H20 in Ca is about $0.002/gal (cheaper for farmers). *$0.25/gal cost should have read ~$0.15/gal.
      - anubisresources 10y ago
        I was going to say that figure seemed a little high
    - Spooky23 10y ago
      Double check the need to clean. Dilution is the solution to pollution. Your average tractor trailer tanker may pick up diesel then switch to orange juice. As long as they put in 95% juice, that's legal.
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        Do you have a source that orange juice can contain 5% diesel fuel?
        Spooky23 10y ago
        I was imprecise. As long as the tanker was filled greater than 95% of capacity with OJ concentrate, that's ok. Shippers aren't in the habit of leaving oil in the tank -- regulations only require rinsing/cleaning for residue in some situations. It's buried in the CFR somewhere for the Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        I'd really need to see this to believe it. I'd expect more deaths or illness if this was common. "Ingestion of kerosene is harmful or fatal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Toxicity
    - JamesLeonis 10y ago
      I think tankers will still work, but the problem has to be attacked from a different angle. California's water is a repayment on the bond measure for building it's infrastructure back in the 60s. It's somewhere around 80% of the price of water. This is the largest reason for it's seemingly fixed cost and relative cheapness, even during the drought years. Under these circumstances a single tanker is simply a drop in the proverbial bucket. What California's drought hurts is the entire state's total water carrying capacity year over year. Once that reaches a critical low, California will be spurred to take another water bond project of equal size. I predict this will fund desalinization plants along the coast. Looking at the problem from this perspective, I'm estimating how much water is produced daily by a given plant. The question then becomes "Can I produce as much water as this plant for less money (loan/maintenance/electricity)?" I imagine this requires a dozen such tankers each day in Los Angeles harbor, each selling at half the cost per gallon. Now this might be impossible to engineer cost wise because of the very math you mentioned. It also requires a staggering amount of water production, which itself might be impossible. The logistics of managing such an enterprise might crush the venture under it's weight. I'm still working through these assumptions. Still, you've helped greatly because now I know the current cost to maintain a tanker. It's expensive, but that's a number I can attack to drive down.
  - Ensorceled 10y ago
    I use, on average, about 3 litres of gasoline a day and about 250 litres of fresh water. This doesn't include the water used to grow the food I eat and it doesn't include the fuel to bring me my food. But there is a difference of about two orders of magnitude.
    - GordonS 10y ago
      250 litres sounds like a lot - what does the breakdown look like?
      - throwaway1892 10y ago
        If you're including water for shower/bath, dish and cloth washing, it does not seem a lot.
        throwaway1892 10y ago
        I forgot the toilets. I found a breakdown there: https://www3.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/indoor.html https://www3.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/indoor.html
      - Ensorceled 10y ago
        I'm using the City of Toronto statistics for our ward and assuming my partner and I are average users. It's probably higher if you consider that I (well, we) flush toilets in commercial spaces, shower at our gyms etc.
- Pica_soO 10y ago
  A membrane Pipeline sloping upwards could do it..
mason240 10y ago
Couldn't you just put all the water onto converted oil tankers and bring it right to cities like San Diego or LA?
- philipkglass 10y ago
  Freshwater consumption absolutely dwarfs oil consumption. People also ask "if you can build long distance oil pipelines, can't you build long distance water pipelines?" It's not impossible, but it's not particularly affordable either because the value of water per liter is so much lower.
  - toomanybeersies 10y ago
    You don't need a pipeline for water most of the time. You can use open canals, which are much cheaper to build.
- JamesLeonis 10y ago
  Long term: yes. The big problem is I'll not be anywhere close to that level of production for a decade at least. Large scale is quite doable conceptually, but the financial requirements are nearly that of a desalinization plant itself. I need to work my way up to such production. But to follow that line of thought, I've been investigating FPSOs [1] because of their transportation and "mobile factory" to service the individual stills while out in the "field". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_production_storage_and_offloading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_production_storage_an...
- vhost- 10y ago
  What about utilizing ocean currents? You deploy the collectors and eventually they end up somewhere close enough to be toed in without using much fuel. Deploy them at regular intervals and go pick them up as they get closer to shore. This is assuming such currents exist and will allow enough time for the collectors to collect enough water.
anubisresources 10y ago
Offshore desalination typically costs ~3x as much as onshore. Obviously, I don't know if that will apply in your case, but thats a good rule of thumb. Have you spoken with David Zetland? He's a really good guy for running ideas like this by.
- JamesLeonis 10y ago
  I'm expecting a non-trivial YoY turnover on the stills because of degradation and disaster, so those costs likely will still hold. I do read Aguanomics, but I haven't talked with David. Once I have more concrete numbers then I could have a productive talk with him.
nl 10y ago
Do it in the Antarctic, freeze it, then tow the iceberg. This sounds totally stupid, but there has been previous work on the economics of towing icebergs to Australia for use as drinking water[1] as well as to Africa[2]. The numbers didn't work out then, but maybe now with higher efficiency solar power (and more advanced wind turbine design) the economics may have changed. [1] http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/watercrisis/12.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/watercrisis/... [2] http://www.scidev.net/global/water/news/icebergs-africa.html http://www.scidev.net/global/water/news/icebergs-africa.html
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  Nice, reminds me of Asimov's "The Martian Way".
fred_is_fred 10y ago
Transporting the water is not an unknown. It's really really expensive since water is really really heavy. If transport costs were free or a solved problem we could pipe water from wet places (like BC/Washington/Great Lakes) to dry areas. Transport IS the problem. Some Valley hipster isn't going to solve this with an app or webpage.

thinkingkong 10y ago

Well. You should do some rough calculations on those requirements too with current shipping technology. Are there any water shipping ships?

josephv 10y ago
Oil shipping ships could work
- mojomark 10y ago
  Actually tankers are not cost-viable today (and probably never will be). A friend of mine and I (both marine engineering professionals in commercial shipping) did a Cost Benefit Analysis on chartering a handy size tanker, cleaning the tanks and shipping water from Alaska to California during the droubt. I no longer have the email that broke the costs down, but cleaning costs aside, the operational costs alone yielded $0.25/gal. The cost of H20 in Ca is about $0.002/gal (cheaper for farmers). If you're looking to start an H20 ptoduction venture, you need to account for demand factors that will inform the type of product that is needed. For example, if the demand is geographically fragmented and/or geopolitical isolated (e.g. to remote villages in relatively undeveloped or oppressive nations) then a small and very cheap personal H20 generation technology is probably more cost feasible than creating a supply infrastructure. Just calculate the cost/galon at the end user then compare to today's cost and you'll have your answer.
  - mojomark 10y ago
    > The cost of H20 in Ca is about $0.002/gal (cheaper for farmers). *$0.25/gal cost should have read ~$0.15/gal.
    - anubisresources 10y ago
      I was going to say that figure seemed a little high
  - Spooky23 10y ago
    Double check the need to clean. Dilution is the solution to pollution. Your average tractor trailer tanker may pick up diesel then switch to orange juice. As long as they put in 95% juice, that's legal.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Do you have a source that orange juice can contain 5% diesel fuel?
      - Spooky23 10y ago
        I was imprecise. As long as the tanker was filled greater than 95% of capacity with OJ concentrate, that's ok. Shippers aren't in the habit of leaving oil in the tank -- regulations only require rinsing/cleaning for residue in some situations. It's buried in the CFR somewhere for the Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        I'd really need to see this to believe it. I'd expect more deaths or illness if this was common. "Ingestion of kerosene is harmful or fatal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerosene#Toxicity
  - JamesLeonis 10y ago
    I think tankers will still work, but the problem has to be attacked from a different angle. California's water is a repayment on the bond measure for building it's infrastructure back in the 60s. It's somewhere around 80% of the price of water. This is the largest reason for it's seemingly fixed cost and relative cheapness, even during the drought years. Under these circumstances a single tanker is simply a drop in the proverbial bucket. What California's drought hurts is the entire state's total water carrying capacity year over year. Once that reaches a critical low, California will be spurred to take another water bond project of equal size. I predict this will fund desalinization plants along the coast. Looking at the problem from this perspective, I'm estimating how much water is produced daily by a given plant. The question then becomes "Can I produce as much water as this plant for less money (loan/maintenance/electricity)?" I imagine this requires a dozen such tankers each day in Los Angeles harbor, each selling at half the cost per gallon. Now this might be impossible to engineer cost wise because of the very math you mentioned. It also requires a staggering amount of water production, which itself might be impossible. The logistics of managing such an enterprise might crush the venture under it's weight. I'm still working through these assumptions. Still, you've helped greatly because now I know the current cost to maintain a tanker. It's expensive, but that's a number I can attack to drive down.
- Ensorceled 10y ago
  I use, on average, about 3 litres of gasoline a day and about 250 litres of fresh water. This doesn't include the water used to grow the food I eat and it doesn't include the fuel to bring me my food. But there is a difference of about two orders of magnitude.
  - GordonS 10y ago
    250 litres sounds like a lot - what does the breakdown look like?
    - throwaway1892 10y ago
      If you're including water for shower/bath, dish and cloth washing, it does not seem a lot.
      - throwaway1892 10y ago
        I forgot the toilets. I found a breakdown there: https://www3.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/indoor.html https://www3.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/indoor.html
    - Ensorceled 10y ago
      I'm using the City of Toronto statistics for our ward and assuming my partner and I are average users. It's probably higher if you consider that I (well, we) flush toilets in commercial spaces, shower at our gyms etc.
Pica_soO 10y ago
A membrane Pipeline sloping upwards could do it..

mason240 10y ago

Couldn't you just put all the water onto converted oil tankers and bring it right to cities like San Diego or LA?

philipkglass 10y ago
Freshwater consumption absolutely dwarfs oil consumption. People also ask "if you can build long distance oil pipelines, can't you build long distance water pipelines?" It's not impossible, but it's not particularly affordable either because the value of water per liter is so much lower.
- toomanybeersies 10y ago
  You don't need a pipeline for water most of the time. You can use open canals, which are much cheaper to build.
JamesLeonis 10y ago
Long term: yes. The big problem is I'll not be anywhere close to that level of production for a decade at least. Large scale is quite doable conceptually, but the financial requirements are nearly that of a desalinization plant itself. I need to work my way up to such production. But to follow that line of thought, I've been investigating FPSOs [1] because of their transportation and "mobile factory" to service the individual stills while out in the "field". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_production_storage_and_offloading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_production_storage_an...
vhost- 10y ago
What about utilizing ocean currents? You deploy the collectors and eventually they end up somewhere close enough to be toed in without using much fuel. Deploy them at regular intervals and go pick them up as they get closer to shore. This is assuming such currents exist and will allow enough time for the collectors to collect enough water.

anubisresources 10y ago

Offshore desalination typically costs ~3x as much as onshore. Obviously, I don't know if that will apply in your case, but thats a good rule of thumb. Have you spoken with David Zetland? He's a really good guy for running ideas like this by.

JamesLeonis 10y ago
I'm expecting a non-trivial YoY turnover on the stills because of degradation and disaster, so those costs likely will still hold. I do read Aguanomics, but I haven't talked with David. Once I have more concrete numbers then I could have a productive talk with him.

nl 10y ago

Do it in the Antarctic, freeze it, then tow the iceberg. This sounds totally stupid, but there has been previous work on the economics of towing icebergs to Australia for use as drinking water[1] as well as to Africa[2]. The numbers didn't work out then, but maybe now with higher efficiency solar power (and more advanced wind turbine design) the economics may have changed. [1] http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/watercrisis/12.htm http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/watercrisis/... [2] http://www.scidev.net/global/water/news/icebergs-africa.html http://www.scidev.net/global/water/news/icebergs-africa.html

pavel_lishin 10y ago
Nice, reminds me of Asimov's "The Martian Way".

fred_is_fred 10y ago

Transporting the water is not an unknown. It's really really expensive since water is really really heavy. If transport costs were free or a solved problem we could pipe water from wet places (like BC/Washington/Great Lakes) to dry areas. Transport IS the problem. Some Valley hipster isn't going to solve this with an app or webpage.