6 ms·
The last two sentences appear to undermine the headline: While the Water Reclamation Facility in Bozeman found the chemistry worked, the logistics of transport
by bgentry 7y ago
The last two sentences appear to undermine the headline:
While the Water Reclamation Facility in Bozeman found the chemistry worked, the logistics of transporting the liquid brewery waste there are too expensive for now. If regulations get stricter, the plant may consider this approach in the future.
So did they save $1M using this approach, or are they not even using it after all?
- cavanasm 7y agoThey're saying it's too expensive to do outside of Bozeman. The sentence that begins that paragraph clarifies it. "But it may not work everywhere."
- bgentry 7y agoApparently it’s more subtle: although the article begins and ends by talking about Bozeman (and saying even Bozeman doesn’t actually use this method), it turns out that Havre is the city that saved some money and is in fact using this method successfully. However it hasn’t actually saved $1M, only saved a small amount over the alum that probably would have otherwise saved them from the $1M upgrade :)
- kevinoid 7y agoFrom the article: Havre, MT is using this approach and has been able to put off a $1MM upgrade to its wastewater plant (in addition to saving $16k to date on alum). Bozeman, MT but is not currently using the process, as you noted.
- scrooched_moose 7y agoFrom my reading, that's still not quite right. "We know the alum that we saved already is about $16,000 a year for sure. But if that wouldn't have done it, that's when an upgrade around the corner would have been, and then if we have to do an upgrade, there's where you run into the millions," Newfield says. Using the grain definitely saved them $16,000 a year in using alum, which may not have been as effective. If the alum hadn't worked, then they would have had to make the $1million investment.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- asdfman123 7y agoI think the solution should be obvious. Cities should get into the business of producing both clean water AND beer at the same facilities, and create a separate pipe network to distribute beer on tap to every home.
- frandroid 7y agoWe're not there yet, but they've gotten closer in Bruges... https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/bruges-pipe-dream-a-reality-beer-pipeline https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/08/bruges-pipe-dr...
- rendall 7y agoHear hear! Beer beer!
- rendall 7y agoIt amuses me that someone downvoted this.
- boring_twenties 7y agoHa, people's tastes in beer vary too widely for that. I grimaced at the mere thought of what kind of beer my municipality would provide.
- bluejekyll 7y agoDefinitely be a good way to increase voter turnout. “Vote for IPA this year!”, and town brewer be a competitive elected position. No downsides.
- boring_twenties 7y agoI don't think so. People who prefer light lagers will always be in the majority, and everyone else will just be unhappy all the time. Imagine having to pay a municipal tax to get Bud Light piped into your house. Ugh.
- ahoy 7y agoThey do not. Those sentences are about a different water reclamation facility facing different circumstances. You should amend your comment.