Output Water: Fit-for-Purpose

Sustainable solutions that increase use cases, balance costs, and increase adoption.

@oded64, @eytanlevy, @gtparker, do you think this should be one of the criteria according to which teams competing a Circular Water Economy XPRIZE would be judged?

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 potable quality of output water should definitively be one of the 5, please vote this up by clicking on the arrow in the yellow box.

Hello community, we have considered feedback and changed the Water Output criterion to Fit-for-Purpose. We are taking into consideration the variability in water quality needed for different uses to balance energy and costs, and increase the likelihood of adoption by a wide variety of actors - including households, agriculture, and industry.

Please weigh in and tell us what you think? Is this criterion now a priority?

@oded64, @eytanlevy, @gtparker, @malkhadra, @bliner, @jsmegal, in light of this update, would you now consider this an essential judging criterion?

If so, please vote it up (even if you already voted for 5 other criteria) and let us know why!

The quality/potability of water is a direct proxy for its value as a resource, and as such, is an important criteria.

This is the most important criterion which sets the basis of this challenge, without it the judging will be onerous. Please see my previous comments on cost effectiveness and safe and reliable quality. I would rather have this criteria and remove the latter as it can be incorporated here. Fit for purpose already covers the safety and reclaimed water quality which we will need to define. Potable - WHO guideline, non potable eg irrigation - xxx, non potable e.g flushing-xxx, non potable e.g process water in tannery, textile, pulp and paper industry -xxxx