←back to thread

130 points bentocorp | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.724s | source
Show context
bastloing ◴[] No.42171982[source]
That's great news! Now if they can solve the same problem with sea water, California, Arizona and Nevada can reduce their reliance on the Colorado river and grow more crops. It is only a matter of time before it's solved. Great work, MIT!
replies(3): >>42172316 #>>42172543 #>>42172816 #
1. dylan604 ◴[] No.42172816[source]
Getting water to heat/boil is much less impressive than coming up with a solve for the left over salt/minerals. Solve that, then I'll join in the "Great work"
replies(1): >>42174531 #
2. SoftTalker ◴[] No.42174531[source]
> the left over salt/minerals

There is a commercial market for salt -- and for stuff like treating roads in the winter it doesn't have to be very clean.

Otherwise, disolve it into the local waste water stream and discharge it back into the ocean.

replies(1): >>42176674 #
3. dylan604 ◴[] No.42176674[source]
If this was the case, then why is the briny residue left after desalination always the thing that gets pointed back to being a big negative of desalination?

Either it's not as big of deal as people suggest, you are wildly underplaying it, or somewhere in between. I've never felt that the argument against being the cost to heat the water was a strong one since salt water pretty much means a coastline which tends to have steady wind and sun. The biggest hang up has typically been putting that brine back into the ocean.