5 ms·

Back of the envelope - say that you could get 7-8 hours of sunlight a day that could destill water. That would mean ~50 liters/day. ~20 Days to get 1m^3. Rev

Back of the envelope - say that you could get 7-8 hours of sunlight a day that could destill water. That would mean ~50 liters/day. ~20 Days to get 1m^3. Reverse Osmosis costs approx $0.50/m^3 water, so your payback on a $100 system would be ~200 * 20 Days or 4,000 Days to equal what you could get for spending $100 on buying water from a reverse osmosis system. The objective here isn't large scale economics, but self sufficiency.

MauranKilom 5y ago
Looking at a 10+ year time frame, I feel that maintenance cost would become the dominating factor. For both.
- jillesvangurp 5y ago
  I think the difference here is that the materials used are cheap and easy to procure. That sounds like maintenance should be straightforward. The difference between producing water locally and shipping/trucking it in is probably huge in places without water pipes. A couple of gallons a day goes a long way. Scale it up a little and now you are irrigating your vegetable garden as well.
- ghshephard 5y ago
  The Reverse osmosis cost estimate was based on a 10 year committed Hyflux Desalination commercial contract with the PUB in Singapore (from about 5 years ago, so might be less expensive now, actaully) - so includes maintenance costs. Regardless - this isn't a scale able solution, but doesn't need to be - should work fantastic for a small family with negligible environmental impact.
mianos 5y ago
There are a lot of quite liveable islands that are deserted only due to lack of fresh water. This could change that.
- tonyhb 5y ago
  Or maybe we don't have to spread humans everywhere like a malignant cancer, leaving at least these Islands to nature.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    Maybe don't spread your Malthusian bullshit like a malignant cancer. Some of us like being human.
    - tonyhb 5y ago
      Hey, me too! Never said I didn't. Just that it's nice to leave some parts of the world to itself.
      - civilized 5y ago
        >> malignant cancer > it's nice come on dude, have some self-awareness
        tonyhb 5y ago
        The only thing I was saying is - just because humans can live everywhere doesn't mean we need to. If you look at any map of the modern world, there is almost nowhere that we haven't transformed into farmland, cities, etc, and it's pretty good (nice) that we have left the uninhabitable islands to nature. We've consumed most of the land, which is both pretty amazing and also quite bad for biodiversity, as everyone knows. I'm not debating the "cancer" metaphor which is definitely harsh - it has been catastrophic for other life, but great for us. Maybe that wording can be less harsh, but IMO that's not the point.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

MauranKilom 5y ago

Looking at a 10+ year time frame, I feel that maintenance cost would become the dominating factor. For both.

jillesvangurp 5y ago
I think the difference here is that the materials used are cheap and easy to procure. That sounds like maintenance should be straightforward. The difference between producing water locally and shipping/trucking it in is probably huge in places without water pipes. A couple of gallons a day goes a long way. Scale it up a little and now you are irrigating your vegetable garden as well.
ghshephard 5y ago
The Reverse osmosis cost estimate was based on a 10 year committed Hyflux Desalination commercial contract with the PUB in Singapore (from about 5 years ago, so might be less expensive now, actaully) - so includes maintenance costs. Regardless - this isn't a scale able solution, but doesn't need to be - should work fantastic for a small family with negligible environmental impact.

mianos 5y ago

There are a lot of quite liveable islands that are deserted only due to lack of fresh water. This could change that.

tonyhb 5y ago
Or maybe we don't have to spread humans everywhere like a malignant cancer, leaving at least these Islands to nature.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  Maybe don't spread your Malthusian bullshit like a malignant cancer. Some of us like being human.
  - tonyhb 5y ago
    Hey, me too! Never said I didn't. Just that it's nice to leave some parts of the world to itself.
    - civilized 5y ago
      >> malignant cancer > it's nice come on dude, have some self-awareness
      - tonyhb 5y ago
        The only thing I was saying is - just because humans can live everywhere doesn't mean we need to. If you look at any map of the modern world, there is almost nowhere that we haven't transformed into farmland, cities, etc, and it's pretty good (nice) that we have left the uninhabitable islands to nature. We've consumed most of the land, which is both pretty amazing and also quite bad for biodiversity, as everyone knows. I'm not debating the "cancer" metaphor which is definitely harsh - it has been catastrophic for other life, but great for us. Maybe that wording can be less harsh, but IMO that's not the point.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]