The prevailing water reuse is location/geography dependent

XPRIZEXPRIZE Los Angeles, CaliforniaPosts: 193 admin
edited February 2020 in Barriers to Water Reuse
Plants are large and require geographical considerations in construction. This may include the available space for a large plant, proximity to an environmental barrier for the most common treatment method (IPR) and pumps to deliver water and waste to centralized locations.
  • Do you agree this is a major barrier to water reuse?
  • Do you know of any specific innovations currently trying to address this problem?

Comments

  • GREENLYGREENLY GREENLY Posts: 46 ✭✭
    Is not only the distance that is a barrier but also the time you need to put in function the facility. The most of the problems are in crisis situation and do not have time to develop a solution in long term condition
  • EtiEti Posts: 93 XPRIZE
    @GREENLY we've actually been considering this as an aspect in light of global challenges and trends -- the ability for immediate deployment / mobility. Do you believe this is a key criterion for the system? Do you know how does it affect the collection of wastewater to treat?
  • GREENLYGREENLY GREENLY Posts: 46 ✭✭
    Thank you. Greenly plant can adjust not nonly to energetic disponibility but also in geographic availability facilities that should adjust also to height locations mainly in Andean region. Reuse is a process not well viewed due to cultrual reasons but if reuse is made without adding chemicals and practically demonstrating the quality of water I would say that reuse for industry could well be one of the major solutions a government or a country can support.
    If you additionally could put plants in mnior term of time in function solving problemas that are actually running that makes a system more than PRACTICAL.
  • EtiEti Posts: 93 XPRIZE
    @GREENLY thanks, and sorry for diverting the discussion from location, but your point about adding chemicals for treatment is interesting. As part of challenges around wastewater, we've also been looking into eliminating DBPs (by-products that result from disinfection, and particularly chlorine) -- do you think this is a feasible option?
  • GREENLYGREENLY GREENLY Posts: 46 ✭✭
    Greenly bases on a phisical principle. If a sustainable and feasible system does not avoid chemicals I owould not take into consideration the possibility. Pollution should not increase in any case.
  • EtiEti Posts: 93 XPRIZE
    Hello all, back to the location discussion. If we were to think of a system that can theoretically function in both urban and rural communities -- what should we be thinking of? i.e., remote monitoring of quality? Space? retrofitting existing structures due to limited space in cities? Let's start with a general discussion. Thank you!
  • NickOttensNickOttens Community Manager Amsterdam, NetherlandsPosts: 899 admin
    @fabchang, @jk972, @Thanku, do you have any thoughts on @Eti's question?
  • ThankuThanku Posts: 38 ✭✭
    Again sorry for my delay. A big question for sure. I think part of how we move forward is for individuals to accept the limits of one perspective (very much what XPrize is about). With that said, my personal focus would be on clean water; whether that is protecting, maintaining, allocating and ensuring a regenerative approach to use; or cleaning/sanitizing "dirty" water (not in a fracking sense though that would be a piece) for reuse in other ways. As i said in an earlier post, i don't see a way for one particular system to satisfy what's needed regarding water and the relationship between humans and their ecology; capacities of mind - how we even think about ourselves and water--is also a key leverage point to include as we address/support/design/integrate these systems.
Sign In or Register to comment.