Yeah; the solar part is really questionable. In an installation without batteries, they’d need an additional large tank to store excess daytime output.
Without such a tank, they’d need to somehow power the thing at night, which means a big battery, just like RO.
Also, the article suggests the power input needs to be steady and they use a computer to run it at higher rates when the battery would be charging.
Assuming there is a small battery or power grid (as both systems require), you could oversize an RO system and then change its duty cycle to keep the batteries at (say) 80% to prevent the solar production from curtailing. Round-tripping electricity through our home battery loses about 20%.
So, the “advantage” boils down to two questions that the article doesn’t answer: (1) what are the relative energy efficiencies of this system (in theory) vs RO? If the new system is 20% worse, RO wins, regardless of this optimization (2) what is the relative equipment cost vs. max throughput? (Since both setups assume oversizing to get better solar utilization).
I’d also like to know if the new system requires plastic, since the RO membrane probably leaches all sorts of nasties into its output.
I do like the fact that they are focusing on brackish water. We have this problem even in the coastal US (in the form of water softener output), and I’m sure they could sell a premium alternative to RO as a way to get scaling advantages on the manufacturing of the equipment.