• soEZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    This a really bad take. Seawater deal with RO is a marvel of efficiency, only 2-3 times above the thermodynamic limit of demixing water from salt. It does not really generate toxic waste like coal fired power plants, but does produce lots of brine with various organics (antiscalants, surfactants etc.) that are not that great. The key issue is water is very cheap from traditional sources (surface water and groundwater) and requires rather crude treatment to be usable, resulting in very low cost. Hence why desal is used in areas where they have no choice. If you don’t have surface/ground water source or brackish water source you are doing seawater deal or leave the area…not many choices. At least RO is electrified so it can use renewables but that does not really solve the much higher cost…or issue of brine generation, with zld have a set of it’s own issues costs…

    • grue@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It does not really generate toxic waste like coal fired power plants

      It generates all the waste associated with the electricity it uses, which is often from coal fired power plants…

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Considering the area a desalination plant requires, fitting it with wind and solar would not pose a challenge.

        • grue@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          By the same argument, replacing the coal fired power plant with wind and solar wouldn’t pose a challenge either.

          The point is, you’ve got to compare apples to apples: either coal power vs. desalinization powered by coal, or renewables vs. desalinization powered by renewables. In every case, the pollution produced by the desalinization process (i.e., the brine etc.) is simply added to the pollution produced by whatever means was used to generate the power for it, which means @soEZ’s attempt to compare desalinization to power generation doesn’t make much sense.

          • qyron@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            A coal burning plant has a comparisable smaller base of implantation; deactivating the coal plant to have it replaced by a solar or a wind (if even possible) would hardly output the same energy.

            By comparison, a desalination plant takes a large area, by the shore, where wind and solar are plentiful, so it can be fitted with such energy source from the start.

            The brines can and should be channeled to harvest the salts in it. The salt is raw matter for chemical industry.

            It’s amazing how quick we are to find problems to a promising solution but the moment extracting water from surface or underground sources becomes impossible or unfeaseable we will resort to those solutions.