Environmental Protection Blog

Blog archive

The Dream of Desalinization

The prospect of desalination is tantalizing: The Earth’s oceans, after all, hold some 332.5 million cubic miles – that's 1.39 billion cubic kilometers for metric-system folks.

But each gallon in those vast waters holds roughly 130 grams of salt that has to be removed before that water can be drinkable. Removing that salt has always been expensive, prohibitively so, because of the large amounts of energy that it requires to heat the water to extract the salt from it. Reverse-osmosis filtration has been a source of hope for the future, but it, too, is rather energy-intensive: Current methods require between 10 and 14 kWh to produce 1,000 gallons of desalinated seawater, compared with .01 to 1.8 kWh per 1,000 gallons with freshwater treatment.

In Britain, where Thames Water just opened the U.K.’s first desalination plant to make the brackish water of the Thames potable, the process costs twice as much as conventional water treatment. While desalinating brackish water is certainly less energy-intensive than performing the process on seawater – there’s less salt to remove – it is still expensive. And the water also has to be remineralized after it goes through the desalination plant’s reverse-osmosis filters, as they strip out the nutritious minerals in addition to the salt.

The water company’s plans for the plant are to activate it in times of drought and low rainfall, so it functions as a kind of backup in case groundwater supplies are inadequate—as they did in a 2005 drought. Opponents of the plant, however, argue that fixing the leaky pipes that plague any water distribution system would save the same amount of water that the desalination plant will produce, and with less cost and lower emissions.

This move will certainly draw attention to desalination’s potential – but I’m not so sure it’s the backup we should be placing our hope in. Despite the tantalizing idea of desalination, to me water reuse sounds more promising, as soon as we can get over the creepiness factor of drinking water that may or may not have sloshed around the bowl of a toilet.

Indeed, someone in the UV purification sector once shared with me a story about an area in California where his company’s technology was employed to disinfect the water coming from a wastewater plant. After it was disinfected by their UV lamps, he said, the water was 100 percent drinkable. But because the area residents were squeamish about drinking it at that point, the utility re-injected this clean, potable water into the below-ground aquifers. A few miles away, a water filtration plant extracted that very same water, ran it through a filtration system, and sent it out to customers.

What do you think? Will desalination ever become viable? Does water reuse have any potential, or is the “ick” factor still too high?

Posted by Laura Williams on Apr 28, 2011 at 12:43 PM


Comments

Thu, May 12, 2011 Stuart A. Hoenig Tucson, AZ USA

The problem with desalinazationis that people keep thinking that only reverse-osmisos is the way to go. The people in Chile cooked up a better way some 300 years ago. We have built a better system that is simple, low cost and easy to build. Information is avaiable, wwe built it and it works.

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 Daniel Jackson

It's not true that we all understand sextillion. Correctly one sextillion means a 1 followed by 36 zeros. The *** is the Latin word for six and it is the number multiplied by number of zeros in million. However some innumerate people have corrupted the true meaning of the number and make it mean something else. Even a billion can have different meanings, its true meaning is a 1 followed by 12 zeros. Because of the confusion that results between the true and corrupted meaning, these words should be avoided. If the total volume of the ocean is 1 338 000 000 km^3, this can be reduced to 1.338 Mm^3. If you use the prefixes properly you can eliminate the unnecessary zeros with out using words of uncertain meaning.

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 Laura Williams Dallas, TX

You know, John S., the more that I think about it, the more that I think cubic miles/kilometers would be a better measurement for something as vast as the ocean. Aside from the rather sticky issue of all those zeros, the ocean's volume would vary widely, in terms of gallons, due to the water cycle. The g/gal figure is what I intended; here's the source: http://www.livescience.com/4510-desalination-work.html

Fri, Apr 29, 2011 JohnS

We all understand what "sextillion" is, but not the metric system? Really? Compared to other resources, your numbers seem off a bit. This article http://www.tos.org/oceanography/issues/issue_archive/issue_pdfs/23_2/23-2_charette.pdf estimates the total volume of the world's ocenas at 1.33 billion cubic kilometers (that's 1.33 sextillion liters) or 1/100 of your figure. Still plenty of salty water though, although your gallon figure seems off by the same amount. What's up with the hybrid units like grams per gallon? Could that be 35 g/L?

Thu, Apr 28, 2011 pauldanish Longmont, Colorado

The answer to both questions is "yes". Desalination is already viable in a number of countries, including Saudi Arabia and Israel. The latter will get about 30 percent of its water (and most of its water for municipal use) from desalination in a couple of years. As for the "yuk" factor regarding recycled municipal sewage, it is real as a brick wall. People will get over it only if the alternative reaches genuine crisis proportions.

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above