:) Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt: Downey wings, but wroth they beat Tempest even in reason's seat.
"Goose neck" chemistry is still in diapers !
Those "luxuriant" way of living don't happen in parts of the world were water is already scarce - there is a culture of water-use - (whether hygienic or not)! Rain water, washing the pavements and the roads, allows for benzenes and other tar related molecules to be washed with old and sick dog dung while french regulation takes pain in separating the toilet drain from the others...
Having "autonomous" systems for water as sewers goes back to the collectivity vs communities diary :-)
The few times I have made the water "visible", either as a transparent tank with markings or with a button to press when a given quantity has been used, to replenish a tank, water consumption and use has been reduced (slightly, but it's always a beginning).
The illimited access to "I don't care where it comes from" water, coupled with a few bills in cubic meters and the weird idea of a "house" (cheap, so far from city center services), doesn't usually help !
Anyhow, most modern regulations goes in the direction of preserving grey waters... Still, it is a cost that many don't want to go through, stating of an "urgency" of having social housing!
Many "answers" of various scales exist, though they are still seen as "experimental" (because of fundings)! And, sad to say, we might need some severe droughts to get to the point... "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Over all, I believe that learning to look at, develop and fund whole systems instead of discrete items may help illustrate how things tie together in ways that planners and the public don't often remember when designing their "designer" homes or communities. Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt: Downey wings, but wroth they beat Tempest even in reason's seat.
Er... Don't get at me on homes and communities <LOL> "What can I do, What can I write, Against the fall of Night". A.E. Housman
Unfortunately, we now have developed a culture that distinctly lacks a lot intelligence simply due to the development of a "land of abundance" mentality coupled with rampant consumerism.
:/ Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt: Downey wings, but wroth they beat Tempest even in reason's seat.
There's nothing special to waste water. Compared to sea water, it's actually pretty clean and easy to process.
Either you use a standard system - sedimentation pool + biological process - or a more compact biological treatment assisted by ultrafiltration or even on-line filtration and ultra-filtration directly on raw water. From there on, you need sterilization - UV / ozone / chlorine - followed by reverse osmosis and re-mineralization. Dense urban centers would work nearly in closed loop. Suburbs less so because of lawn watering and such but then, they can (and do) use recycled waters for that.
If RO sounds futuristic to you, you should consider the SEDIF Méry water plant in the Paris region, which is getting very close to that. They use nano-filtration rather than RO so they don't have to remineralize. They treat water from the Oise river, which ain't that much better than treated sewage water. They process 140,000 m3/day with nano-filtration, enough for 450,000 inhabitants (about 300 l/day/person).
Singapore is also starting to do full RO from sewage for their fresh water supply. Google for NEWater.
RO or nano-filtration works and, as I said, sewage water is pretty nice for that process. The energy (and difficulty) for RO comes from two items:
Anyway, 100% treating all waste waters at is the way to go. Trying to separate at the source in a diffuse setting like residential sewers is just too dangerous because of the sink pissers on one hand and more seriously because of the risk of involuntary discharges, which are unavoidable in a developed context. There always will be someone somewhere throwing away some weird shit in the sink without even knowing : insecticide, medications, cleaning products, etc.
The real difficulty would come from old cities like Paris with unitary sewer systems that also collect rain water. Just separating the waste waters and the rain in the collection network is already a big deal. No need to go redo the plumbing in every house on the top of that.
But overall, water shortage for human consumption is a non-issue in developed countries. There are just governments unwilling to invest and tax accordingly to maintain and improve the common infrastructure.
Actually, the diary makes me a bit angry. Invading people's life with pointless "resource conservation" of inexistent shortages when there are efficient technological solutions is counter-productive. It's just a way of maintaining the citizenry in a constant sentiment of crisis and helplessness, the left-wing version of the right-wing's Shock Doctrine, well documented by Noami Klein.
It also detracts from real issues. Agricultural irrigation, even in developed country, is a real issue.
--
In less developed countries, well, it's a different story. They need functional governments to start with, something we used to have but less and less so. Facts, selfish little bastards. They don't even care about your feelings.
Agricultural irrigation, even in developed country, is a real issue.
Indeed. When locusts move on, they leave nothing behind
For starters, that's a great and informative comment that really helps the content overall. Thank you.
I'll take things one at a time, hoping that I don't miss anything.
I'm not sure what the problem is supposed to be, at least for developed countries.
In some developed countries, overflow from excessive rain or floods can present a great biological hazard. By having new construction and new renovations include a degree of internal, on-site water treatment -- whether technological in nature or more natural -- then some of these issues can be slightly mitigated simply by not adding to the already existing problem.
I believe I've seen degrees of all this beginning to be implemented in various stages.
I think that any system which can used a biological (and more natural, vs. chemically-based) system would ultimately be healthier all around, but it may not be entirely practical on some of the scale and in some of the heavily developed areas.
RO doesn't sound too futuristic -- I'm a technophile, believe it or not. :)
However, the description of the SEDIF Méry water plant method is very interesting; I'm going to have to go do some additional research. Thanks!
RO or nano-filtration works and, as I said, sewage water is pretty nice for that process. The energy (and difficulty) for RO comes from two items: * The dynamic pressure drop across the permeation membrane, in other words the amount of energy to push the water through. It's really a matter of membrane quality and it goes down every generation. * The biggest part by far comes from the osmotic gradient which is about proportional to mineralization. Raw water carries generally less than 1 kg/m3 (1 g/l) dissolved minerals compared to 35 kg/m3 for seawater. Actually, with a lead-free distribution network and full recycle, you can go as low as 0.150 kg/m3 and what comes in comes around so it's less energy to spend for a recycle through RO. Sea water RO takes about 2.5 kWh/m3 on large scale systems. With waste water, I'd guess it would be less than 1 kWh/m3.
* The dynamic pressure drop across the permeation membrane, in other words the amount of energy to push the water through. It's really a matter of membrane quality and it goes down every generation.
* The biggest part by far comes from the osmotic gradient which is about proportional to mineralization. Raw water carries generally less than 1 kg/m3 (1 g/l) dissolved minerals compared to 35 kg/m3 for seawater. Actually, with a lead-free distribution network and full recycle, you can go as low as 0.150 kg/m3 and what comes in comes around so it's less energy to spend for a recycle through RO.
Sea water RO takes about 2.5 kWh/m3 on large scale systems. With waste water, I'd guess it would be less than 1 kWh/m3.
You are a bastion of good and useful info.
I think there may be reasons for using one system over another, but as technological understand gets better and (hopefully) moves hand-in-hand along with the understanding of how natural systems work, I'd like to think that there will be less "hard technology" in play that doesn't integrate and utilize natural systems models and more "systems tech" that can produce a more natural (and hopefully cheaper) result.
Some of the above paragraph may seem cryptic or delusional (or, perhaps both), but I have another piece I'm working on that will tie in regarding soil use and fertilization -- hopefully, that piece will help illustrate part of the overall understanding of my cryptic comment.
Which is a lot more efficient than the DEKA system which sounds pretty horrible. 500W for 10 gal/h, that's 13 kWh/m3. Bleeh!
Heh -- yeah, though the DEKA system may be a good niche fit for emergencies. For example, when NOLA flooded, if a few DEKA systems with alt. energy sources were available and distributable, then water could be processed on-site and dehydration (as well as other possible medical issues) may have been alleviated. Such systems may not be good for long-term or widespread use, but I can see them being quite useful in disasters.
I'm sure there are much better alternatives for long-term/widespread usage, particularly in developing nations where technology isn't always a good or preferable solution.
True -- there are those who are "pissers" in more than the biological sense who challenge systems of thought, intelligence, maturity and sanity.
Involuntary discharges and other possible problems, esp. as our "developed" nations create and utilize more and more toxic materials in everyday life, are a constant problem.
That's part of the underlying justification in my mind for some definite localized treatment prior to dumping into a common-use pipeline or sewer system. Even if simple sensors could be developed that actively re-route hazardous water from greywater systems and allow local systems to recycle greywater for re-use while partitioning and redirecting the hazardous and the blackwater, that could significantly help reduce overall public processing requirements and assist with waste mangement.
In theory, at least.
Retro-fitting carte blanch may not be much of an option, but prepping and planning for future construction or incorporating what can be done into any significant or sizable rebuilding effort -- including energy efficiency as well as water -- can, IMO, make a significant step forward to reducing waste and pollution.
I don't think that makes it a non-issue -- it just makes it more difficult to address.
Actually, the diary makes me a bit angry.
Well, dammit -- that wasn't my aim. Sorry. :/
Invading people's life with pointless "resource conservation" of inexistent shortages when there are efficient technological solutions is counter-productive.
I don't believe it's pointless (obviously), but I can see (from scanning ahead) that you've got other issues of higher importance in mind.
I do believe that this relates, albeit indirectly in some ways. There are water shortages being reported in several areas, and so this isn't exactly detached from reality.
Also, having efficient solutions doesn't mean much if they aren't implemented or if they are only haphazardly supported.
If a cohesive, uniform approach and attitude could be developed and implemented with regard to waste mangement overall, and water usage in particular, I think we'd be taking a very important step toward dveloping the capacty to deal with other problems facing all societies -- developed or not.
It's just a way of maintaining the citizenry in a constant sentiment of crisis and helplessness, the left-wing version of the right-wing's Shock Doctrine, well documented by Noami Klein.
Eh -- I disagree. I'm not flapping my wings and yapping that the sky is falling; I purposely linked in pieces to illustrate that there are reasons for concern.
I always prefer to address potential problems with solutions while the problems are still small, rather than have to wait for possibly inadequate emergency procedures to be required.
I agree wholeheartedly -- it becomes even more of an issue when looking at agriculture for potential secondary uses like biofuels.
In less developed countries, well, it's a different story. They need functional governments to start with, something we used to have but less and less so.
Heh. Too true...
How dysfunctional do our governments need to get before we either fix them or become a whole other classification of nation -- "developmentally dysfunctional" or something like that?
...or are we there already...? Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt: Downey wings, but wroth they beat Tempest even in reason's seat.
I think that any system which can used a biological (and more natural, vs. chemically-based) system would ultimately be healthier all around,
I don't understand the justification for that assumption. Hemlock and deadly nightshade are 'all-natural' and completely organic. That doesn't mean they're good for you.
Solutions should be evaluated on their merits, not on whether they are 'chemical' or 'biological.'
I would guess that that would depend on how much black- and greywater differs between households. I could see the case for pre-treating the water locally if some households (or industries) are vastly more prone to adding really nasty pollutants. But I think that the idea that the different kinds of waste water a household or factory produces can be separated is a pipe dream, largely because you can't user-proof such a system. And trust me, you will need to user-proof a waste water treatment system.
How dysfunctional do our governments need to get before we either fix them or become a whole other classification of nation -- "developmentally dysfunctional" or something like that? ...or are we there already...?
...or are we there already...?
I always liked neo-barbarian. And yes we are.
- Jake 640 kiloton should be enough for anybody
And I guess the logical reaction to neo-barbarism is starting to build self-suffient houses. Maybe out in the countryside with access to good farming land. And some neighbours, so a self-suffient village might be the way to go. Course you might need protection down the road so a self-suffient castle perhaps?
Luckily the dark ages were not that dark after all. Bet there were even days when the sun shone. Good for the solar-cells.
Now, semi-self-contained cities which import food and export fertiliser, that I can believe. But that will require a lot of steel and concrete and highly centralised waste processing.
And no, the proper reaction to neo-barbarism is to fight back!
That aside, self-sufficient houses? For six-point-five bn people? Plus the loose change? You're dreaming.
Well, the last time was not pretty either. Livi-Baccis Concise History of World Population gives a population of non-USSR Europe in 200 AD as 44 millions, and in 400 AD as 22 millions. In between is the collapse of the Roman empire and its centralised structure with cities and far-flung trade. It would of course be proportionally worse this time around as we start with a larger population and more dependence on products from far away lands.
My comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek (and from thoughts provoked by that neo-barbarian thing (another thought was Conan with an iPod but lets not explore that one)). However if the neo-barbarism continues neo-feudalism might follow at its heels. The evolution towards feudalism started within the Roman empire as central authority failed, and more local systems took control. Estates developed into castles and the cities became half-abandoned cess-pools. And half the population or so died.
One thought I have been pondering from time to time is where do you give up on the old system, cut your losses and start building a new? I see that conflict reflected in this thread as well as in other places.
However if the neo-barbarism continues neo-feudalism might follow at its heels.
I think you have that backwards: Neo-feudalism is already with us - and it's the feudal lords who are pushing for neo-barbarism.
One thought I have been pondering from time to time is where do you give up on the old system, cut your losses and start building a new?
When the bother and cost of fixing the old system is perceived as being greater than the bother and cost of abandoning the old and starting over? When you are sufficiently certain that the old system isn't strong enough to swallow up your new system?
And too much water can kill you, and too much oxygen in your system can drive you crazy. However, my statement was written with the intent of a system being more robust and less wasteful -- one where the use of more toxins to clean the water wouldn't be necessary, and hopefully one where the outside ingredients needed to sustain the ability of the system to process water would be minimal.
>> Solutions should be evaluated on their merits, not on whether they are 'chemical' or 'biological.' <<
Yes, that's true -- and ultimately, all biological processes are chemical to a degree. That's kinda picking the nit, however, since I was speaking in generalities.
>> I would guess that that would depend on how much black- and greywater differs between households. I could see the case for pre-treating the water locally if some households (or industries) are vastly more prone to adding really nasty pollutants. <<
Very true -- there can be some elements that may be addressed cost-effectively, but there would likely still be a need to install some sort of sensors that could shunt off greywater that is (intentionally or otherwise) rendered toxic/unsuitable from the normal greywater cycle; that would enable a system to have a degree of failsafe involved that wouldn't be perfect, but it would help.
>> But I think that the idea that the different kinds of waste water a household or factory produces can be separated is a pipe dream, largely because you can't user-proof such a system. And trust me, you will need to user-proof a waste water treatment system. <<
Can't argue with that -- just like computers or clock radios or even bicycles and roller-skates, it's hard to user-proof (and even more difficult to stupid-proof) everything. Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt: Downey wings, but wroth they beat Tempest even in reason's seat.
