5 ms·

By the way, this is a good lesson for everybody to invest in a reverse osmosis water filter. Engineering failures (either due to structural, legal, or politica

By the way, this is a good lesson for everybody to invest in a reverse osmosis water filter. Engineering failures (either due to structural, legal, or political failure) happen all the time. Having clean water is obviously good and having a backup is even better, especially considering the consequences.

josefresco 5y ago
Doesn't "reverse osmosis" waste or require a lot of water? I'm no expert but I seem to recall hearing about how inefficient the process was/is.
- tengbretson 5y ago
  The efficiency of some of the better systems is about 4:1, so if you drink 50 gallons of water a day that could be nearly 200 gallons of water wasted.
  - Scoundreller 5y ago
    Thats why you just r/o your drinking water, not your toilet/dish/clothes machine. Shower is kinda iffy, but you’ll want to filter your hot water unless you drink from a separate tap.
    - joshstrange 5y ago
      People drink their heated water? I always thought that was a bad idea. Something about mineral build ups in the hot water heater or something? I only consume cold tap water and use my electric kettle to heat it up if needed. I only use hot water for bathing/showering, washing the dishes, and jump-starting the sous vide.
      - Scoundreller 5y ago
        My kitchen has one of those “pullable” taps on a flexible line. If you drink what first comes out, your cup is being filled with whatever it was set to during the last use. Then there’s whatever residue is left from washing/rinsing with warm water. TBH, if I’m making a pot of pasta, I fill the pot with hot water to jump-start too, but I know my system is mostly pex. Maybe that’s still risky due to the plastic, but there shouldn’t be any lead deposited in the heating process. I’m in the Great Lakes area, so cold taps can be 5C in winter. If you’re making OJ from concentrate (or Tang), it could take a while to dissolve at that temperature.
        joshstrange 5y ago
        Interesting, yeah I always run the sink for 10-20 seconds after using hot water to clear the line. My house isn’t pex (I want to update it at some point) but I also thought it was more the water heater than my pipes that I was combatting but it’s very possible that it’s an old wives tale that I fell for decades ago. For pasta I have a convoluted system of putting a small amount of cold water into the pot and then doing 3-4 rounds of the electric kettle (with occasional additions of cold water when the water in the pot reaches a boil but I still need more water).
        Scoundreller 5y ago
        If your water system has been doing corrosion control, you’re fairly well (but not 100% protected) against lead exposure from your old copper pipeworks. The big risk is new lead-soldered piping and leaded (largely pre-2014 USA brass plumbing but [1]) fixtures, because even with corrosion control, it takes a while (months to years) to build up that protective layer. What people get wrong with pasta is they think they need a strong boil. While the steam is hotter than the liquid, most pasta is in contact with the water and your energy is going into evaporating more water off. Just use a spoon to stir occasionally and use a pot cover to condense the steam back in. [1] http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/11/06/nsf-61-lead-from-a-new-lead-free-brass-faucet/ http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/11/06/nsf-61-lead-from-a-ne...
        omnimus 5y ago
        I must say i am often surprised by practices in other countries. I've never heard of any of this stuff. I am probably completely uninformed or situation here must be very different. Like it seems you have to know so much stuff and have so many systems in place to have water... For example i live in appartent building with central water heater. I absolutely use hot water from it for pasta. Am is it wrong? And letting water to flow for 20s? Why?
- Nasrudith 5y ago
  I looked it up - the 4:1 is the ratio of waste water to purified water. I wonder if it is possible to apply it in grey-water applications at least - although situations where you need that much greywater are probably pretty rare. Personally I am of the point of view of "Upgrade the damn water infastructure already! There is ample demand for pure and better tasting water and it would benefit from scale compared to a household level."
  - shagie 5y ago
    > I wonder if it is possible to apply it in grey-water applications at least - although situations where you need that much greywater are probably pretty rare. Use it to flush the toilet or do laundry. This is a very light gray water. It isn't "water that went down the sink" or "water that was used to wash clothes". It's "water that has a slightly higher concentration of what isn't in the RO water.
    - VikingCoder 5y ago
      Right, like is there a RO system that provides tap water for drinking, and returns the "waste" to your hot water heater for everything else?
      - shagie 5y ago
        I want to say "that's not a function of the RO system, but rather an added complication to the rest of the water system in the house." It is similar (to an extent) as the collection of rainwater for similar non-potable applications. This means running multiple water systems through the house. Hot, tap cold, non-potable, filtered. One could combine the tap cold and non-potable to simplify the use. But it's the same problem (and solution) of using rain water as non-potable and RO waste water as non-potable.
  - tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
    Assuming the filters don't add extra pollutants, the "bad" water would only have 25% more of whatever is in the input. If the input is just barely not good enough for drinking, the "bad" water is probably still good for showers.
- DantesKite 5y ago
  Yes. The way most RO filters are designed, they waste a lot of water, because of all the pressure the tank imposes. Specifically, as the tank becomes full, it takes more and more water to go against the backpressure. I use Brondell Circle RO which developed a different design that wastes less water. Much less water. They wrote an interesting white paper about it. You don't have to read the whole thing. Just look at the graph on page 5 to see how efficient this system is: https://www.brondell.com/media/wysiwyg/water-filters/circle-white-paper-final.pdf https://www.brondell.com/media/wysiwyg/water-filters/circle-... It's by far the best designed filter I've ever used. Changing the filters is so simple because of the lack of high water pressure. Previously water would spill everywhere and tightening and loosening the filters was such a nightmare. Like an mini-explosion. It's also less susceptible to structural breakdowns (water will bore through any material over the span of months. It's how my old system failed). Nobody has really innovated on the RO design as well as they have. It stayed stagnant for a number of years and it was something I complained about constantly. For example, one of the other innovations they've done (that most other companies don't automatically do) is automatic flushing so the RO filter last longer. You can install this on old RO systems, but normally, you have to do it manually. Other companies have also tried building a tankless version of the RO system, but the problem they ran into is as the water empties, there's less pressure, so the water dribbles out. Brondell built a flexible reservoir so the pressure always stays constant. It's a beautiful piece of engineering and I wish more people heard about this company. https://www.brondell.com/circle-reverse-osmosis-water-filter-system/ https://www.brondell.com/circle-reverse-osmosis-water-filter...
- maxerickson 5y ago
  Obviously it doesn't apply everywhere, but in the context of the places around the Great Lakes that use surface water, the only significant cost is the wasted energy. Water consumed by the reverse osmosis is going to get treated and returned to the environment, and there's not any kind of shortage.

josefresco 5y ago

Doesn't "reverse osmosis" waste or require a lot of water? I'm no expert but I seem to recall hearing about how inefficient the process was/is.

tengbretson 5y ago
The efficiency of some of the better systems is about 4:1, so if you drink 50 gallons of water a day that could be nearly 200 gallons of water wasted.
- Scoundreller 5y ago
  Thats why you just r/o your drinking water, not your toilet/dish/clothes machine. Shower is kinda iffy, but you’ll want to filter your hot water unless you drink from a separate tap.
  - joshstrange 5y ago
    People drink their heated water? I always thought that was a bad idea. Something about mineral build ups in the hot water heater or something? I only consume cold tap water and use my electric kettle to heat it up if needed. I only use hot water for bathing/showering, washing the dishes, and jump-starting the sous vide.
    - Scoundreller 5y ago
      My kitchen has one of those “pullable” taps on a flexible line. If you drink what first comes out, your cup is being filled with whatever it was set to during the last use. Then there’s whatever residue is left from washing/rinsing with warm water. TBH, if I’m making a pot of pasta, I fill the pot with hot water to jump-start too, but I know my system is mostly pex. Maybe that’s still risky due to the plastic, but there shouldn’t be any lead deposited in the heating process. I’m in the Great Lakes area, so cold taps can be 5C in winter. If you’re making OJ from concentrate (or Tang), it could take a while to dissolve at that temperature.
      - joshstrange 5y ago
        Interesting, yeah I always run the sink for 10-20 seconds after using hot water to clear the line. My house isn’t pex (I want to update it at some point) but I also thought it was more the water heater than my pipes that I was combatting but it’s very possible that it’s an old wives tale that I fell for decades ago. For pasta I have a convoluted system of putting a small amount of cold water into the pot and then doing 3-4 rounds of the electric kettle (with occasional additions of cold water when the water in the pot reaches a boil but I still need more water).
        Scoundreller 5y ago
        If your water system has been doing corrosion control, you’re fairly well (but not 100% protected) against lead exposure from your old copper pipeworks. The big risk is new lead-soldered piping and leaded (largely pre-2014 USA brass plumbing but [1]) fixtures, because even with corrosion control, it takes a while (months to years) to build up that protective layer. What people get wrong with pasta is they think they need a strong boil. While the steam is hotter than the liquid, most pasta is in contact with the water and your energy is going into evaporating more water off. Just use a spoon to stir occasionally and use a pot cover to condense the steam back in. [1] http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/11/06/nsf-61-lead-from-a-new-lead-free-brass-faucet/ http://blogs.edf.org/health/2018/11/06/nsf-61-lead-from-a-ne...
      - omnimus 5y ago
        I must say i am often surprised by practices in other countries. I've never heard of any of this stuff. I am probably completely uninformed or situation here must be very different. Like it seems you have to know so much stuff and have so many systems in place to have water... For example i live in appartent building with central water heater. I absolutely use hot water from it for pasta. Am is it wrong? And letting water to flow for 20s? Why?
Nasrudith 5y ago
I looked it up - the 4:1 is the ratio of waste water to purified water. I wonder if it is possible to apply it in grey-water applications at least - although situations where you need that much greywater are probably pretty rare. Personally I am of the point of view of "Upgrade the damn water infastructure already! There is ample demand for pure and better tasting water and it would benefit from scale compared to a household level."
- shagie 5y ago
  > I wonder if it is possible to apply it in grey-water applications at least - although situations where you need that much greywater are probably pretty rare. Use it to flush the toilet or do laundry. This is a very light gray water. It isn't "water that went down the sink" or "water that was used to wash clothes". It's "water that has a slightly higher concentration of what isn't in the RO water.
  - VikingCoder 5y ago
    Right, like is there a RO system that provides tap water for drinking, and returns the "waste" to your hot water heater for everything else?
    - shagie 5y ago
      I want to say "that's not a function of the RO system, but rather an added complication to the rest of the water system in the house." It is similar (to an extent) as the collection of rainwater for similar non-potable applications. This means running multiple water systems through the house. Hot, tap cold, non-potable, filtered. One could combine the tap cold and non-potable to simplify the use. But it's the same problem (and solution) of using rain water as non-potable and RO waste water as non-potable.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  Assuming the filters don't add extra pollutants, the "bad" water would only have 25% more of whatever is in the input. If the input is just barely not good enough for drinking, the "bad" water is probably still good for showers.
DantesKite 5y ago
Yes. The way most RO filters are designed, they waste a lot of water, because of all the pressure the tank imposes. Specifically, as the tank becomes full, it takes more and more water to go against the backpressure. I use Brondell Circle RO which developed a different design that wastes less water. Much less water. They wrote an interesting white paper about it. You don't have to read the whole thing. Just look at the graph on page 5 to see how efficient this system is: https://www.brondell.com/media/wysiwyg/water-filters/circle-white-paper-final.pdf https://www.brondell.com/media/wysiwyg/water-filters/circle-... It's by far the best designed filter I've ever used. Changing the filters is so simple because of the lack of high water pressure. Previously water would spill everywhere and tightening and loosening the filters was such a nightmare. Like an mini-explosion. It's also less susceptible to structural breakdowns (water will bore through any material over the span of months. It's how my old system failed). Nobody has really innovated on the RO design as well as they have. It stayed stagnant for a number of years and it was something I complained about constantly. For example, one of the other innovations they've done (that most other companies don't automatically do) is automatic flushing so the RO filter last longer. You can install this on old RO systems, but normally, you have to do it manually. Other companies have also tried building a tankless version of the RO system, but the problem they ran into is as the water empties, there's less pressure, so the water dribbles out. Brondell built a flexible reservoir so the pressure always stays constant. It's a beautiful piece of engineering and I wish more people heard about this company. https://www.brondell.com/circle-reverse-osmosis-water-filter-system/ https://www.brondell.com/circle-reverse-osmosis-water-filter...
maxerickson 5y ago
Obviously it doesn't apply everywhere, but in the context of the places around the Great Lakes that use surface water, the only significant cost is the wasted energy. Water consumed by the reverse osmosis is going to get treated and returned to the environment, and there's not any kind of shortage.