this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)

Futurology

1651 readers
22 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Cheap solar gives desalination its moment in the sun

Ever-cheaper solar power is a tailwind for the global energy transition. It can make energy intensive technologies more affordable. As a result, desalination is becoming a more popular option for providing drinking water to some of the driest areas of the world.

The logic of desalination is clear. Water is increasingly scarce as populations grow and climate change bites. Already, more than half of the global population experiences severe water scarcity for at least part of the year, says the World Health Organisation. This pits users against each other, as in Spain’s most recent drought.

Desalination taps an almost infinite resource — some 97 per cent of the world’s water is in seas and oceans. Costs have plummeted. Older, thermal plants, which used heat to turn salt water into steam, delivered potable water at more than $3 per cubic metre.

Graph: the price of desalinated water over time.

Since then, reverse osmosis technology — in which water is pushed through a membrane to remove salt, minerals and impurities — has taken over. Plants cost less to build — perhaps $400mn to purify 500,000 cubic metres per day, says Christopher Gasson of GWI. Including installation, a return on capital and operating costs, that translates to $0.30 per cubic metre of water.

Newer plants also need less energy — 2.6KWh per cubic metre — and are increasingly powered by cheap solar plants. The cheapest plant in the world gets energy at $0.025/KWh, or $0.07 per cubic metre.

Put that together and it explains how the Hassyan project in Dubai has promised desalinated water at just $0.37 per cubic metre. For reference, drinking water in London is priced at £1 per cubic metre.

At this sort of level, desalination becomes more affordable for dry, coastal areas, not just in the Middle East but also in Egypt, Algeria and Morocco, which are all building new plants.

Desalination has also become cheaper than building new infrastructure to transport water over long distances: the cut-off is roughly 500km according to Acciona, a major operator. As a result, the market for new plants is expected to grow by perhaps 8 per cent a year from now to 2030.

Of course, desalination is still unlikely to be the answer to the bulk of the global water crisis. Many areas of the world only face temporary or occasional water shortages, which spreads the capital costs of infrastructure over a much smaller volume of water. Agriculture, which accounts for 70 per cent of the world’s consumption, needs cheap water to produce affordable crops.

Yet, for all this, early movers in the desalination sphere, including Saudi Arabia’s ACWA power, Spain’s Acciona and France’s Veolia, have a clear advantage in a competitive race.

top 6 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Desalination at any scale above miniscule is just creating new ecological disasters. I don't know why we keep getting/seeing articles and projected plans to try it again and again. 🤦

Edit: getting down voted because people I guess didn't want to read up on it themselves, so:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/desalination-isnt-the-magic-bullet-water-authority-warns-israelis/ https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2017-02-06/ty-article/.premium/desalination-problems-begin-to-rise-to-the-surface-in-israel/0000017f-e2ed-d7b2-a77f-e3ef81510000 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025326X20308912 https://www.wired.com/story/desalination-is-booming-but-what-about-all-that-toxic-brine/

Dealing with the Brine is a two fold problem: it's incredibly toxic and caustic, AND you have to run leeching/extraction treatment on it before putting it somewhere else.

You can't just "put it back" in the ocean, because then you're increasing the concentration of salinity and toxicity in a localized area and killing everything, and you almost certainly can't store it as-is in a bunker like nuclear waste, because it's also incredibly volatile. So, sure, you have some clean water now, but you're just kicking the can down the road on dealing with the byproducts which have no practical use as of now. Almost worse than dealing with nuclear waste with all the extra steps involved.

[–] threelonmusketeers@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

From one of the articles you linked:

Facilities can mitigate the environmental impact by, for example, mixing the brine with seawater before pumping it out, to dilute it. They might also take care to expel the byproduct where currents are strongest, thus dissipating the brine quicker. Inland, a plant might evaporate the water in pools and cart away the remaining salt.

The discharge can also contain precious elements like uranium. This might be enough incentive to turn desal brine from a noxious byproduct into a source of revenue. Or you might use evaporative pools inland to produce commercial road salt for deicing roads.

To me, it doesn't sound as though brine disposal is an insurmountable problem.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Never said insurmountable, but if it's so easy, why the world's largest desal operation still having issues 10 years on? They've solved zero of the issues, and are just hoping there is a solution in the future. As we've learned with so many other solutions in the past, kicking the can down the road and hoping someone figures it out does not work.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago

Cause it ain't 0 cost to implement a dispersal mechanism and without government incentive just dumping the brine straight in the ocean is more profitable.

[–] wahming@monyet.cc 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Despite your edits, I don't see anything in the linked articles that suggests brine cannot be diluted or dissipated.

You can't just "put it back" in the ocean, because then you're increasing the concentration of salinity and toxicity in a localized area and killing everything

Not sure why you're still insisting on this after your edit, since as several commentors have pointed out there's no reason for you to dump it in a single localised area. Toxins and heavy metals can also be extracted, and might even be done so profitably (according to your own links, in fact).

The only point you might have so far is Israel, since they are using a small lake as their source of water, and can't reasonably dilute the brine. However, with seawater desalination none of these issues apply.

[–] Gladaed@feddit.de 0 points 4 months ago

Seawater desalination can have this Problem too, if they are not continously discharging polluted brine, I.e. run a batch process. I believe some japanese build desalinator is doing the sensible continous discharge, but cant be fucked to Google right now.