3 ms·

Thanks for the detailed answer again. Clearly, there exists a business opportunity to innovate on these systems, make them cheaper and sell them in my new city.

Thanks for the detailed answer again. Clearly, there exists a business opportunity to innovate on these systems, make them cheaper and sell them in my new city. Both the systems you link to are reverse osmosis systems which require electric power to run the pumps etc. Solar radiation -> electric power is only 20% efficient. My understanding is that membrane distillation tech uses hot water (60 degrees in OP link), which can run on solar thermal systems + small amount of PV. Solar radiation -> thermal energy of water can be 80%+ efficient, so the price of the whole system might come down significantly from the $5000.

jaclaz 7y ago
Yep, but it was a comparison aimed to the real world and costs, not abstract efficiency. Given that you need for both 5-10 square meters of surface exposed to the sun and assuming (and it is not necessarily given) that solutions "A" and "B" have the same "current" (maintenance, spares, consumables) costs, I don't care if solution "A" is more efficient than solution "B", I only care if solution "A" costs less than "B". If it does, then it should cost much less, as solution "B" might have a tangible advantage (once you have purified enough water the solar energy can be used for other uses). Now, be nice, check the actual Solar Spring Gmbh site /the spin-off of the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems mentioned in the wikipedia article ), and see how - strangely enough - they build/sell both "A" and "B" solutions: https://solarspring.de/en/products-and-services/#pg-356-2 https://solarspring.de/en/products-and-services/#pg-356-2 https://solarspring.de/en/solar-purification/ https://solarspring.de/en/solar-purification/ In any case high efficiency - usually - means more sophistication, added components, and what not, so rarely exists a solution that is more efficient AND costs less.

jaclaz 7y ago

Yep, but it was a comparison aimed to the real world and costs, not abstract efficiency. Given that you need for both 5-10 square meters of surface exposed to the sun and assuming (and it is not necessarily given) that solutions "A" and "B" have the same "current" (maintenance, spares, consumables) costs, I don't care if solution "A" is more efficient than solution "B", I only care if solution "A" costs less than "B". If it does, then it should cost much less, as solution "B" might have a tangible advantage (once you have purified enough water the solar energy can be used for other uses). Now, be nice, check the actual Solar Spring Gmbh site /the spin-off of the Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems mentioned in the wikipedia article ), and see how - strangely enough - they build/sell both "A" and "B" solutions: https://solarspring.de/en/products-and-services/#pg-356-2 https://solarspring.de/en/products-and-services/#pg-356-2 https://solarspring.de/en/solar-purification/ https://solarspring.de/en/solar-purification/ In any case high efficiency - usually - means more sophistication, added components, and what not, so rarely exists a solution that is more efficient AND costs less.