4 ms·

Zero Mass Water: A startup selling specialized panels that use solar power and batteries to pull water from the air. The goal is to reduce the amount of energy

Zero Mass Water: A startup selling specialized panels that use solar power and batteries to pull water from the air. The goal is to reduce the amount of energy needed to access clean drinking water without geographical limitations. There is a lot of energy involved in the phase change of water. We've also had dehumidifiers for over 100 years. The takeaway from that is, dehumidifiers produce don't produce water well in arid environments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vc7WqVMCABg This makes me wonder if the Gates Foundation is properly utilizing scientific expertise.

akshatrathi 8y ago
So the tech inside Zero Mass Water is not the same as dehumidifier. Instead, they use a sophisticated absorbent to selectively capture water, heat it to release the water, then sterilize and add minerals. But you're right. It's the company that I was most surprised to see in the list. The economics don't yet make sense to me. I pushed Carmichael Roberts (BEV's head of investing) to explain. He said he has studied water startups for years, and he really likes the tech. But more importantly, he is very impressed by Cody's skill to sell this unit and far wide. It's already in 16 countries.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Instead, they use a sophisticated absorbent to selectively capture water, heat it to release the water, then sterilize and add minerals. So it's using a dessicant? Heating a saturated dessicant in an enclosed environment can produce a hot, high humidity environment where dehumidification is easy. That said, it will still produce the most water someplace like San Francisco, where the humidity is high. There are places where humidity is high and the rainfall is very low. Apparently, Zero Mass Water is using some good engineering to get something like a 4X efficiency increase for water extraction over existing commercial dessicant dehumidifiers. It's possible that removing the requirement to process large volumes of air could produce such an efficiency increase.
  - debatem1 8y ago
    Stupid question, is this targeted at producing water or is it targeted at producing clean water where contaminated water is available?
    - stcredzero 8y ago
      It's targeted at producing water by extracting it from the air.
- D_Alex 8y ago
  >more importantly, he is very impressed by Cody's skill to sell this unit and far wide That is a really bad reason to invest, given the stated aims of the fund.
cheeko1234 8y ago
Yes it is energy intensive but it's for a niche application: Allowing access for clean water in areas where it is prohibitively more expensive (monetarily and energy wise) to get clean water. Think remote or disaster stricken areas (with appropriate conditions to use the device).
D_Alex 8y ago
I absolutely agree with you - this is bad allocation of money and effort. I just cannot think of a niche where these units would actually make sense. It is a terrible idea to use these for disaster relief - never mind the cost, it would be better to ship in an equal weight of water. It is wrong to use these wherever there is salt water, or polluted water - it would be far cheaper to purify whatever water there is. And it is a bad idea to use them at remote locations, as emergency supplies or wherever reliability is important. Again, equal weight of bottled water would be much cheaper, and safer - bottled water will not break down. I invite anybody (Mr Carmichael Roberts or company itself) to outline a scenario where this technology is preferred over reverse osmosis, or bottled water. The "Applications" page on the company web site demonstrates IMO 100% wastefully inappropriate applications. Happy to comment on any specific one of those.

akshatrathi 8y ago

So the tech inside Zero Mass Water is not the same as dehumidifier. Instead, they use a sophisticated absorbent to selectively capture water, heat it to release the water, then sterilize and add minerals. But you're right. It's the company that I was most surprised to see in the list. The economics don't yet make sense to me. I pushed Carmichael Roberts (BEV's head of investing) to explain. He said he has studied water startups for years, and he really likes the tech. But more importantly, he is very impressed by Cody's skill to sell this unit and far wide. It's already in 16 countries.

stcredzero 8y ago
Instead, they use a sophisticated absorbent to selectively capture water, heat it to release the water, then sterilize and add minerals. So it's using a dessicant? Heating a saturated dessicant in an enclosed environment can produce a hot, high humidity environment where dehumidification is easy. That said, it will still produce the most water someplace like San Francisco, where the humidity is high. There are places where humidity is high and the rainfall is very low. Apparently, Zero Mass Water is using some good engineering to get something like a 4X efficiency increase for water extraction over existing commercial dessicant dehumidifiers. It's possible that removing the requirement to process large volumes of air could produce such an efficiency increase.
- debatem1 8y ago
  Stupid question, is this targeted at producing water or is it targeted at producing clean water where contaminated water is available?
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    It's targeted at producing water by extracting it from the air.
D_Alex 8y ago
>more importantly, he is very impressed by Cody's skill to sell this unit and far wide That is a really bad reason to invest, given the stated aims of the fund.

cheeko1234 8y ago

Yes it is energy intensive but it's for a niche application: Allowing access for clean water in areas where it is prohibitively more expensive (monetarily and energy wise) to get clean water. Think remote or disaster stricken areas (with appropriate conditions to use the device).

D_Alex 8y ago

I absolutely agree with you - this is bad allocation of money and effort. I just cannot think of a niche where these units would actually make sense. It is a terrible idea to use these for disaster relief - never mind the cost, it would be better to ship in an equal weight of water. It is wrong to use these wherever there is salt water, or polluted water - it would be far cheaper to purify whatever water there is. And it is a bad idea to use them at remote locations, as emergency supplies or wherever reliability is important. Again, equal weight of bottled water would be much cheaper, and safer - bottled water will not break down. I invite anybody (Mr Carmichael Roberts or company itself) to outline a scenario where this technology is preferred over reverse osmosis, or bottled water. The "Applications" page on the company web site demonstrates IMO 100% wastefully inappropriate applications. Happy to comment on any specific one of those.