Our waterways are becoming more and more polluted due to PFAS, plastics, medicines, drugs, and new chemicals made by companies that just hand over the responsibility of cleaning to plants paid for by public moneys. Detecting the different chemicals and filtering them out if getting harder and harder. Could the simple solution of heating up past a point where even PFAS/forever chemicals decomposes (400C for PFAS, 500C to be more sure about other stuff) be alright?
This would be carcinogenic beyond imagination
Please explain.
Because you’re essentially cooking a cocktail of complex chemicals, many of which were never designed to be heated, and the result is often airborne toxins and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are far worse than drinking trace amounts of the original chemicals.the chemicals dont vanish or turn into pure air when vaporized. they degrade into other more harmful chemicals. which are carcinogenic and more toxic.
My guy you’re burning plastic
Can the degraded chemicals withstand sustained exposure to 500C?
The chemicals don’t just disappear, whatever they’ve degraded into will still remain.
Yes, but will they all be harmful?
At this point I think we’ve figured out that all chemicals should be considered harmful unless we have specifically tested and concluded otherwise.
Raising water temperature from 10 to 500 degrees requires about 500 calories/mm3. That’s 2 MJ/litre, meaning if you want to heat 1 liter/second you need 2 MW with perfect insulation, so a power plant of say 10 MW.
A post industrial world citizen could probably get by on 200 l/day (US averages about 300/day). That needs 2 kW/person/day.
Total global energy production is about 630 EJ which averages out at about 12 TW.
Meaning if the whole global energy production went to treat water in that way, we have enough clean water for about 6 million people.
How the hell do people use that much water? Are they including water consumption needed for the products we use or? Let’s say a flush is 8L and the average person flushes 5 times a day, that’s 40L. The average person needs about 2L of water a day. Let’s say an average shower is 100L. Cleaning dishes at worst is probably like 20L per person without a dishwasher. That’s like 160L of water per day and I feel like most of those were over-estimates. How did they get to that number?
Dishwashing is a significant underestimate here, and don’t forget hand-washing (before/after bathroom, food, cleaning…).
Plus you missed outdoor and gardening, which would help explain why the Land of the
FreeLawns uses more than anybody else.Ok yeah the second part makes sense, but for the first part I was calculating it based on hand washing, dishwashers would be way less since you have to split the usage per person in the household, which holds for hand washing as well. Idk for other people but when I’m alone I use the dishwasher probably every 3-4th day and for handwashing I’d say 20L is realistic, double it maybe but still isn’t that much.
They eat meat.
Yeah but it says “at home” and gives recommendations how you personally can reduce water consumption (like more efficient taps or showerheads), which makes me believe that it’s not your entire direct and indirect water consumption (which realistically isn’t even relevant for the argument since the water used for crops isn’t gonna be getting treated anyway)
The estimations for water required to make meat even include rainwater. As if cows are out standing in the field collecting water through their hooves or something.
The crops are literally standing in a field collecting water through their roots. Sometimes it comes from rain, but an ever-increasing share comes from irrigation. One way or another, that water has to be accounted for. Rainfall is a limited resource in agriculture, like any other source of water. Even entire rivers are often 100% consumed by agriculture.
They use AI.
How much water do you believe AI consumes? The 31 billion land animals we keep in captivity and the crops we grow to feed them dwarf most human water consumption.
The global AI demand may even require 4.2 – 6.6 billion cubic meters of water withdrawal in 2027, which is more than the total annual water withdrawal of 4 – 6 Denmark or half of the United Kingdom
https://oecd.ai/en/wonk/how-much-water-does-ai-consume
AI’s projected water usage could hit 6.6 billion m³ by 2027
That’s a lot, but by some back of the envelope math I calculated that American consumption of cheese alone uses four times that amount in a year.
Based on this, 4 oz of cheese uses 450 liters of water. https://foodprint.org/blog/dairy-water-footprint/
Based on this, the average American consumes 41 lbs of cheese per year. Each lb of cheese uses 1800 liters of water per the above. https://www.statista.com/statistics/183785/per-capita-consumption-of-cheese-in-the-us-since-2000/
That means that each US citizen uses 73,800 liters of water per year on cheese alone.
Multiply that by 340E6, the US population, you get 25 trillion liters of water per year. That’s 25 billion cubic meters of water a year.
Not that AI is environmentally friendly by any stretch, but dairy is the equivalent of like, a dozen AI industries all stacked on top of each other. Feel free to check my math and correct me as needed.
For the record, dairy production and consumption has been around for almost all of human civilization. It had time to really embed itself in society, and it served a very real, practical purpose. It kept people alive.
The AI hype has only being going for like a decade and shows no signs of slowing down. Those numbere are literally rookie numbers.
Based on this, 4 oz of cheese uses 450 liters of water.
https://foodprint.org/blog/dairy-water-footprint/I always find those kinds of numbers difficult because they include rain water in that estimation.
For instance, water footprint data shows that the majority of water consumed for feed crops grown for U.S. dairy comes from rain and soil moisture (i.e., green water footprint), but as dairy and alfalfa production shift to Western states that are getting progressively drier, more irrigation is needed to grow those crops. This means a larger share of water withdrawn and consumed from streams, rivers and groundwater (i.e., blue water footprint).
What percentage of the 450 liters of water comes from those different sources? How impactful is a green water footprint vs a blue water footprint vs a gray water footprint? If the 120g of cheese were made from 100% blue water, that would definitely be problematic. But if it were 100% green water, that would most likely be less of an issue.
Next, you have to consider how the water comes into the calculation. Is it just considering the water for feed crops of the water that the cow itself consumes? And if it’s feed crops, the type is also important. Some feed is simply the byproduct of crops that are used for human consumption e.g maize only has maybe 10% of its biomass for human consumption. Would simply throwing away the other 90% be considered wasteful or useful? And how does that factor into the water calculation?
And a final point regarding feed, is what kind of feed it is and where it’s grown. Feed may not only be byproduct of human comestible crops but also crops that cannot be consumed by humans at all, and they can also grown in places where human comestible crops cannot be grown.
Now you have to compare that water for server farms. I have little knowledge thereof, but my guess is that they don’t wait for rain to cool their servers and it probably is more blue water than not. It maybe as entangled and complicated as the source of water for cheese, I don’t know.
My point is, it’s not an apples to apples comparison. Water consumption doesn’t always equal water consumption. To drive the point home, would you consider the water required to raise fish in a landlocked country the same as that of a coastal country?
Yes, with our current energy output it would not be possible, but I’m asking about whether even theoretically it could be an easier way to clean water. Maybe in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years it’s a method worth pursuing.
This is simple math. We would need to increase our energy production by 1000 times to just treat water, maybe only 250 times if we used more efficient systems than simply heating it and letting the heat dissipate. If we doubled our energy production every year, it would still take a decade to do it (8 years if we were aiming at 250 times). That isn’t a realistic amount for a civilization at our tech level.
You say 1000, another poster says 11, and yet another gives another number I can’t remember.
If I’m reading the graph right on page 20 of Homo Sapiens’ Energy Dependence and Use Throughout Human History and Evolution, in 1820 we needed about 20 EJ. That’s a 31 fold increase to ~530 EJ in 2010 (190 years). Looking at the chart, you can see that the rate of increase has sped up, not slowed down. In 1960 it was ~120 EJ making it a 4x increase in years.
It might take time, but it’s not impossible. And unless a great calamity happens upon us, we will not stay at our current tech level for another 200 years.
I understand the pessimism, but my question wasn’t about “is this possible within our lifetimes” or “how much energy would this need” but “Could wastewater plants simply heat up water past 500C to decompose all chemicals and output clean water?”. I just want to know if with our understanding the water will be clean after going through a procedure where it’s heated past 500C. That could be once or multiple times, it could involve adding a filter, removing deposited waste material, etc.
The part you’re studiously ignoring is plenty of people saying yes, you could do this, but that it’s wildly inefficient. You could also power a bike by getting the biggest rock you could throw, tying a rope to it, applying the brakes on your bike, throwing the rock, releasing the brakes, and then pulling on the rope until you’ve collected your rock, and repeating until you’ve reached your destination. This will always work. But as long as your bike is in earthlike conditions, there will always be easier ways to do it. This is also the case for your idea.
You’re ignoring that I’m responding to the messages that say it’s wildly inefficient by saying things can change. Nowhere am I debating it’s not inefficient. You’re arguing with a strawman you built.
If by strawman, you mean fundamental laws of physics, then yes, you’re correct. If we find ways to break basic laws of thermodynamics, then I won’t be worrying about ways to sterilize water, I’ll be worrying about how to make faster-than-light starship.
Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors (like the one China’s making with thorium) operate at something like 700* C to generate electricity. With the waste heat, we could desalinate water. Instead of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository, it becomes Yucca Mountain Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor and brackish groundwater distillation for Las Vegas.
This, I like. The water would be radioactive though, wouldn’t it? I wonder if “exchanging” the unknown toxins for radioactivity in the dispelled water would be better or worse. But, it could maybe help decompose some of the toxic chemicals during in the process.
Not how reactors work, they are very much closed systems specifically to avoid this problem.
Think of it like and air conditioner or refrigerator. The the attempt that cool the inside by dumping heat outside uses a closed loop and the two mediums do not directly interact or mix, which is why your home isn’t full of pollen when running an air conditioner all day if your windows and doors all properly seal.
No. Radioactivity isn’t like a disease. Specific particles are radioactive. If you remove it prevent contamination form the first place, there is no reason the water would become radioactive. Heat is just heat.
That made no sense at all. Do you think toxic water is 100 toxins or that when somebody is sick they become one big walking disease?
And “water can’t become irradiated” is a great take. So radioactive radiation has no effect on water whatsoever? “High energy particles don’t exist and they can’t hurt you🧠”
Ok so i think the disconnect here is that you are visualizing the water literally passing into the reactor and out the otherside.
In reality the water would pass around the outside of the shielding, where it is still plenty hot, but the radiation from the reactor isnt passing through.
This is more or less how a nuclear power plant operates today. We sont get the power directly from the reaction, we get it by using the heat fenerated to boil water to operate steam turbines. In fact, they are just steam engines with the coal replaced with nuclear fission.
When someone more knowledgeable than you is giving you good answers to your questions you should maybe show a bit more respect
Yes; this is something that has been studied. However as other commenters have said it requires a lot of energy, and is better suited for processing smaller quantities of water with a high level of PFAS contamination than massive quantities of water with an extremely low level of PFAS. It’s also not a standalone solution, as plenty of harmful chemicals survive heating past 400/500C (heavy metals like cadmium, lead, and mercury do not break down at any temperature).
Thank you for the only response that actually answers the main question and linking to a scientific paper. Much appreciated.
Regarding harmful chemicals that do not decompose beyond 500C, could it be more likely that the number of such chemicals/materials (known and unknown) is much lower than the number of chemicals/materials at the temperatures used for current clarification processes?
Always good to do a quick search of the literature to make sure your intuition about something is actually correct; I too thought “no way” when I first saw your question.
I don’t think only heating water to 500C would remove more harmful chemicals than a typical full treatment process, as they have a lot of steps to filter various things out, but I don’t have a source for that.
Even if it did, there’s still the issue of heating up the water taking an enormous amount of energy, which is probably a dealbreaker. My local wastewater plant treats 40 million gallons a day, which by a quick calculation would take 150 GWh to heat, 83% the daily energy consumption of the whole of Minnesota. That can be reduced significantly with heat exchangers but even 1% of that would be far too expensive.
As you can see, these communities are an absolute fucking joke, and only like 15% tops of the comments are actually helpful or backed up by reputable sources.
In a practical sense, making lead hot won’t break it down. But I wonder if there is any temperature where lead would stop being lead and continue to not be lead after the results cool down again?
Alchemy! Now this is the out-of-the-box thinking that I like!
In all seriousness, lead is lead because it’s made of lead atoms. It can’t not be lead. (The reference to alchemy was because before we knew about atoms, many alchemists tried their hand at turning low-value metals like lead into high-value metals like gold).
To answer your question in a silly but scientifically accurate way, there is a temperature to which lead can be heated to become something else, but these are nuclear fusion temperatures, like you get in the Sun.
At the risk of sounding silly - Instead of focusing on burning the solids, boil the water. Water boils at 100C, at which point the water vapor should separate and leave all the solids behind. Then capture the vapors and condense it back down into clean water. Now, if you later want to incinerate the leftover solids, sure, go for it, fire’s always cool in my book.
I’ll add, simply boiling water is energy intensive. What you are proposing probably won’t work at any scale.
Golly gee, if only there were some form of energy generation that required boiling vast amounts of water to turn into steam. But no, that would be silly.
You definitely wouldn’t want to drink the water from any of those systems you’re describing though :)
The steam you see coming off a cooling tower is not the water than went through the reactor or turbine, a secondary cooling loop is used specifically cause the plants are not allowed to release radioactive material in any form, including the cooling processes.
The real reason this idea would not work is the same problem desalination has, making clean and safe drinking water is the easy part, it’s what are you doing with all the contaminants and water products left behind that quickly becoming a concentrated pool of filth and toxins at the bottom of your heat exchanger.
Yeah, turning wastewater plants into sewage distilleries doesn’t seem like a public health win.
What exactly do you think evaporation ponds are doing, then?
Evaporation is a component of distilling, but if you don’t capture the vapor and condense it it’s just evaporation.
Why would you capture it? It’s waste water, evaporation into the atmosphere should be fine.
There might be things in the vapor that haven’t decomposed or that have decomposed, are toxic, and become airborne.
Like what? Heavy metals would precipitate, organic compounds would break down. (I’m not a chemist, just have general science background).
not a chemist, but couldn’t chemicals with boiling points near 95-100C like https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylmercury survive?
No. The far more likely way to handle it is with flocculation/coagulation since plants are already set up to support this.
Edit: the quick and dirty overview: shit water comes in. Chlorine and other chemicals are added to the water which kills the bad stuff. Polymers are added to the water which binds to the chlorine, causing chunks. Chunks removed. Water discharged. You can change the polymers used to bind specifically to which pollutant is coming in.
That part of the process is called flocculation. Using it to add polymers that have additional capability (like removing microplastic) is where you’d want to do it. The cost is the polymer which would be some sort of reasonable, not rebuilding every plant that exists to boil water.
Check out the video on the flocculation page. Does a great job of showing how floc works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocculation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wastewater_treatment&wprov=rarw1
For simplicity, this process is called clarification.
Unfortunately, coagulants are not effective at removing PFAS. The only effective methods for PFAS removal are adsorption (using granular activated carbon or ion exchange resins) or reverse osmosis filtration. These approaches are not used in traditional wastewater treatment because they are very expensive and are not required to meet registrations. However, potable reuse facilities will use these approaches to further treat wastewater effluent to drinking water standards. This is the future of water supply for arid areas like the southwest USA.
Also PS, the most commonly used coagulants are aluminum sulphate (alum) and ferric sulphate, which are not polymers. Polymers definitely are used (especially where I live) but they are more expensive and thus avoided when not needed.
Let’s assume that heating water to 500C does what you want it to do. Even then, the sheer amount of energy required to do this would be massive. It would just be incredibly uneconomical to do this, when other cheaper solutions (like not polluting in the first place) exist.
Not only that, but given that heating up volumes of water is basically the metric around which energy units and calculations are all derived, it’s easy to determine just how much energy.
Assuming an inlet temperature of a fairly optimistic 60°F or 15.56°C, it takes 12,934,470.48 joules to heat one US gallon of water to 500°C. Or if you prefer, possibly because you’re an American used to reading your electricity bill, 3.59 kWh to heat that gallon. Just one.
The EPA estimates that just in the US alone, wastewater plants treat 34 billion, with a B, gallons of water per day. No need to get out your calculator, that’s 122,060,000,000 kWh or if you prefer, just under 11.5 times the existing average daily power production of the entire country (10,640,243 MWh, if you’re wondering).
So, uh. Yeah. Probably not feasible.
Now explain making steel.
There isn’t a steel supply tap to every house is it? I don’t think I’ve had to replace or buy any steel pieces over the last two months or so. Different story with water.
Why would you need to purify the water locally at everyone’s individual house? Your logic makes me chuckle. Just wait untill you find out about a steam engine.
Their point, which you quite clearly missed, is that people don’t need a steady, reliable, high volume flow of steel delivered to every single home and business.
And maybe you should look into steam engines a little more and check out things like how hot that water actually gets. You’re gonna discover that for all the prodigious fuel use, the temperature is far below the goal of 500C and the flow rate far below requirements. But keep up the sass.
The point you missed and everyone’s autism is preventing y’all from seeing that the fact that we have water and elecricity flowing to most houses in the USA. Things which were deemed impossible back in the day. Imagine the energy cost of conditioning the air individually at everyone’s house let alone their moving car too. It would be iMpOsSiBlE.
It’s not 100 perfect so let’s do nothing.- great idea enjoy your day.
An idea that requires 11.5 times more energy production on a daily basis than the entire country’s output is a lot more than “Not perfect.” So maybe you pipe down before you go calling everyone who disagrees with you autistic, m’kay?
You’re right technology never improves. I loved you in that movie “Idiocracy” Red_october he’s got what plants crave! Enjoy your job at Costco.
when other cheaper solutions (like not polluting in the first place) exist
That involves convincing your polluting cousin, who doesn’t believes climate change doesn’t exist, not to buy non-stick pans or not to dump their pills into the toilet.
Edit:
Let’s assume that heating water to 500C does what you want it to do.
That’s the question I’m asking btw.
You could always regulate and ban toxics at the point of production or sale, before they get into the waste stream
