Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity and rage (e.g. schadenfreude) often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
Hang on a sec. I'm trying to understand something here. Lets say there is a huge amount of salt from all the processing, is the salt so bad that it cannot be consumed, or there is just too much salt that it exceeds consumption?
It's just a lot of salt. Seawater (on average) is 3.5% salt. So for 1kg of water (aka 1 liter) you get 35 grams of salt. For 5 thousand liters, thats 175kg of salt. While we do use salt for industrial purposes, that salt is usually treated and chemically processed for sanitary reasons. Given the average person uses 310 liters of water a day (drinking, cooking, cleaning, ect...) 5,000 liters gets you slightly more water than 16 people are going to consume in a day. And 175kg of salt is way more than 16 people are going to use in a day. Now figure this system runs all year round, and we have 63,000kg of salt. Just so 16 people could drink desalinated sea water all year.
There are a number of theories put forth in recent years how best to desalinate sea water for drinking water and disposing of that salt, most of them involve dumping it in the desert, burying it in old mines, or possibly deep sea operations where salt concentrations are already too high for most life to exist, so adding salt to those regions won't have a ecological impact and it's possible for currents to spread that excess salt over a wider area.
Every one of these options has downsides, but we do need water to live and oceans are a vast source of water we aren't really tapping so you can see the desire to utilize them when majority of the global population lives within a hundred km or so of a coast line.
Thanks for taking your time to explain! Guess its now how risk adverse are we, and judging by that, not really are we?
You have to put it somewhere. And salt tends to be bad for its surroundings. Even if you put it back into the water, You'd have to spread it very far for it to get diluted enough to not be a problem
And I would have to guess that the resulting salt is not remotely clean enough for human consumption. So you'd have to process it before you could sell it (if there would even be a big enough market)
Urgh. So that means its just not economically viable, even if it is possible huh. (And not to mention not so environmentally friendly)
well, it just needs to compete with other methods in the area. which are all expensive and energy intensive.
Every little improvement helps, tbh
Approx 35 grams of salt per litte. 35 g x 5000 litres per day is about 385 pounds of salt everyday. This is the problem with desalination no one discusses.
On the low end people use around 300 litres a day. So this is only enough water for 16 people. When you start scaling this it really becomes clear.
Let's say you wanted to provide LA with water from desalination. At around 23 pounds of salt from 300 liters of water per person with LA population being 3.8 million that would make 87 million pounds of salt... wait for it... per day!
Sure you can put it back into the ocean, but that is not good for sea life at all. Not to mention all the energy needed to pump it back if that is what you choose to do. I don't think sequestering is an option either.
If you have a conveniently located valley you're not using, you can make a new great salt lake for a few years. 87 million pounds of salt sounds like a lot, but a cubic mile of salt weighs approximately 9 trillion metric tons, or about 20 quadrillion pounds, or over 600 years of salt at 87 million pounds per day.
I'm sure there are a few people (very few) who would disagree, but a quick glance at a topo map shows Shelter Valley as a possible target for a strategic sea salt reserve deposit that could serve the area for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years. San Francisco bay looks like they have salt ponds in what could otherwise be valuable real-estate.
I think it is important to keep in mind how much energy moving 87 million pounds of salt a day would take. Unless this valley was extremely close it would be prohibitive.
I do think you have a decent idea though if we had to use desalination and didn't want to dump it right back into the ocean.
The real answer is to dilute the salt back into the ocean, but even the cost of transport - whether by truck or rail or pipeline - a hundred miles and +3000' of elevation is likely less than building and maintaining a system that distributes that salt widely enough in the ocean to have negligible ecological impact at the points of dispersal.
A thousand smaller desalination plants spread along a hundred miles of coastline each distributing 87 thousand pounds of salt per day (basically: one pound per second) would be more feasible for ocean discharge than anything you might try to do from a single point. The system would also be much more robust / less prone to critical failures. ~10% of the plants might be offline at any given time while still providing full required capacity.
Looking at those numbers, I would propose something like 500 plants, no two closer than 1000' from each other along the coastline, each distributing up to three pounds of salt per second in a 6" outflow pipe at least 500' offshore that's carrying 100 gallons per minute of water with that salt dissolved therein. The discharge could be through a series of 100 1" holes spread 1' apart. I'm sure there would be local ecological effects, but in most areas they should be minimal by the time you're 200' or more down-current from the outflow.
Compared to treated wastewater discharge, I think the salty water discharge would be much less impactful. There's probably some opportunity to combine treated wastewater with the salty discharge to further treat the wastewater, though I wouldn't want to do that in ALL the salt discharge plants (you'd want some to study the salt impact alone.)
You can make your own:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170050868A1/en
There's still a battery, but its storage for the solar pannels, unless they're using a different method.
I guess you could, but the EDI units to clean water aren't cheap, sheesh.
If they wanted to have people make their own, why would they patent it?
If you want everyone to have it, you patent, then charge nothing to license it.
If you don't patent it, then a corporate patent troll will come in, patent it, charge an inordinate amount for the license, then bury you in paperwork with a lawsuit so you can't fight back. Effectively killing the tech.
No, that's not how open source hardware works.
You copyright it (free) and publish online with a copyleft license.
You would absolutely win in court without the patent. Just point to the publishing date on GitHub. Then you sue them for filing a blatantly fraudulent patent.
Source: I work in open hardware
How many suits for these kinds of blatantly fraudulent patents have actually been won? And lost?
Patents does not have defensive uses, only offensive.
You beat patent trolls by demonstrating you published first.
no defensive uses
Says someone whos never blocked an assassin's ninja star with a binder full of patent paperwork. There was also some incorporation stuff in there, but not enough to have worked with that alone.
Clearly you lack real experience in the field.
They can be defensive in a roundabout way like the x86/amd64 patents
Only against practicing entities, and if you have enough cash reserves to deter them with legal expenses.
sometimes you want some sort of control, or trade… like, (as much as like everyone else hates them this is the best example i can think of) tesla holds a bunch of patents and says people are free to use them, but if you do you can’t sue them for patent infringement: they still have some control
Yes, Tesla is a good example. Only evil companies with malintent file patents.
Here I thought it was an oversized fish bol, upside down, using the sun to evaporate water.
Silly me.
A useful product can be nice, but I wouldn't call this patent uplifting news.
It'll be uplifting when its use is widespread.
Well if we could get 44 million of these going 24/7 we could counteract the ice caps in Greenland melting.