The configuration of the device allows water to circulate in swirling eddies, in a manner similar to the much larger “thermohaline” circulation of the ocean. This circulation, combined with the sun’s heat, drives water to evaporate, leaving salt behind. The resulting water vapor can then be condensed and collected as pure, drinkable water. In the meantime, the leftover salt continues to circulate through and out of the device, rather than accumulating and clogging the system.

The new system has a higher water-production rate and a higher salt-rejection rate than all other passive solar desalination concepts currently being tested.

The researchers estimate that if the system is scaled up to the size of a small suitcase, it could produce about 4 to 6 liters of drinking water per hour and last several years before requiring replacement parts. At this scale and performance, the system could produce drinking water at a rate and price that is cheaper than tap water.

  • AbstractifyBot@beehaw.orgB
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s a short summary for the linked article


    Click to expand

    Engineers have developed a passive solar desalination system that mimics ocean circulation to produce freshwater from seawater. The design uses sunlight to heat saltwater and induce swirling eddies that evaporate water while rejecting salt. Testing showed a single stage could produce 5 liters of drinking water per hour. A scaled-up version is estimated to have a lifetime of several years without maintenance. As it requires no electricity, the system could produce water cheaper than tap water, potentially addressing water scarcity in coastal communities. An innovative aspect is how it circulates saltwater in a manner similar to ocean currents to effectively separate salt without clogging.

    The passive design makes it well-suited for household water production in off-grid areas.


    This comment was generated by a bot. Send comments and complaints via private message.

  • Illecors@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think the main keyword here is could, unfortunately. I live in a first world country and could benefit from it, which means there’s very little chance nobody will snatch it up and abuse it.

    • Leonard Kelley@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Came here to say this, but i see you have it covered. I get sooooo tired of the “coulds” ,“woulds” and “shoulds” we see in article titles like this. What is more likely to happen… a promising new technology that’s cheap to produce, maintain, and reduces prices for the delivery of the worlds most needed resource is universally embraced by ALL…or Companies like Nestle, who’s massive water profiteering is threatened by this innovation, either buys out all the patents and sweeps it under the rug , and/or launches a campaign of legal litigation against it’s developers so that it never gets funded nor ever gets to the practical production stage.

      I know what kind of world we’re living in… and it’s not one that favors the hope and needs of the many over the greed of the few.

      • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        we removed responsibility from groups of humans and called it incorporation. then we distilled pure human greed into what is now called the stock market, built on a lack of responsibility.

        it is so gross… the rich are addicted to profit, the poor cannot see past their next paycheck.

                        we are all fucked
        
        
      • Akasazh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s really awkward to see multiple reactions critical of the article, yet zero downvotes (well only mind now). Why?

        • Barry Zuckerkorn@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because this instance doesn’t use downvotes. The default interface doesn’t show downvoting, and attempts to downvote through another interface are literally discarded by the server.