5 ms·
Every time I see articles like this I think ‘Great, so where are they going to get access to unlimited free energy?’ That’s about what it would take for ‘Atmosp
by TimSchumann 6y ago
Every time I see articles like this I think ‘Great, so where are they going to get access to unlimited free energy?’ That’s about what it would take for ‘Atmospheric water harvesting’ to be economically viable.
- alextheparrot 6y agoWouldn’t dry, arid, sunny places be the perfect fit for this, then? Solar power and a lack of preexisting water would probably make that scenario economically viable
- AlotOfReading 6y agoThe amount of energy you need goes up the less moisture there is in the air. The ideal conditions are moist, cool places with cheap electricity. Tropical conditions would have a shot at profitability, but you may as well desal whatever's already there than condense it.
- TimSchumann 6y agoExactly this. Desalination and transport is aways orders of Magnitude cheaper and more efficient. I don’t see this changing at any point in the near future. It’s phenomenally energy intensive to pull water out of the air in any quantity.
- tyingq 6y agoThere are arid places with lots of cheap hydrocarbons, or alternatively, lots of sunlight.
- beamatronic 6y agoFrom the sun
- TimSchumann 6y agoStill not worth it. Just desalinate and transport the ocean. Always more cost and energy efficient.
- The_rationalist 6y agoNuclear fission ?
- qayxc 6y agoDesalination?
- The_rationalist 6y agoDesalination indeed is more efficient than what's proposed here. And yes, nuclear power plants often offer desalination facilities.