No more than 5-15% based on salinity.
Our prize designers have drafted 10 potential judging criteria. We’re asking community members to vote for 5 each to find out how we can create the most impactful yet audacious integrated wastewater treatment system.
If you think minimal water loss should definitively be one of the 5 criteria, please vote this up by clicking on the arrow in the yellow box.
No, I didn’t pick this one. It’s too specific and, compared to the other 9 criteria, not the most important.
This criterion has so far received the fewest votes from the community, so it seems it wouldn’t be essential to the competition. But if anybody has a different opinion, we want to hear it!
Good afternoon Nick,
This is not the most important but could be good for the bonus points as discussed during the last meeting.
I agree it’s a nice-to-have but not as critical if you have the other prioritized aspects in place. If you have Waste and Resource Recovery working well for example, this won’t be such an issue.
I actually think this is one of the key important criteria if we consider the true value of the ‘resource recovery’ potential. By value the order is about 100:10:1 between value of water:energy:nutrients, obviously depended on the actual need/demand for water in the particular situation.
Minimal water loss is important politically because so many areas of the world are potable water short. Feelings run high about waste in such areas as evidenced by an adage in the American West, “whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting over…” Wasting water is a red flag in front of a bull. Any projects that address the potable water needs of dry areas will need to be careful about minimizing waste if they are to receive the necessary financial and political support.
I totally agree that in this times the criteria of minimal waste is a No. 1 according to lack of water but also according to environment issues that cause residual water from a process to be disposed in nature.
I guess I will be the guy to say I don’t really understand how this criteria is defined. Perhaps others don’t either and this is why it hasn’t seen a lot of votes.
I would want ‘loss’ defined and possibly weighted in such a way that reflects context
Are we talking about yield of effluent vs influent? Do we care where along the [treatment] train we lose it? Where are we measuring effluent and should delivery be part of the system?