136

Our waterways are becoming more and more polluted due to PFAS, plastics, medicines, drugs, and new chemicals made by companies that just hand over the responsibility of cleaning to plants paid for by public moneys. Detecting the different chemicals and filtering them out if getting harder and harder. Could the simple solution of heating up past a point where even PFAS/forever chemicals decomposes (400C for PFAS, 500C to be more sure about other stuff) be alright?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 63 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Raising water temperature from 10 to 500 degrees requires about 500 calories/mm3. That's 2 MJ/litre, meaning if you want to heat 1 liter/second you need 2 MW with perfect insulation, so a power plant of say 10 MW.

A post industrial world citizen could probably get by on 200 l/day (US averages about 300/day). That needs 2 kW/person/day.

Total global energy production is about 630 EJ which averages out at about 12 TW.

Meaning if the whole global energy production went to treat water in that way, we have enough clean water for about 6 million people.

[-] Redex68@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

How the hell do people use that much water? Are they including water consumption needed for the products we use or? Let's say a flush is 8L and the average person flushes 5 times a day, that's 40L. The average person needs about 2L of water a day. Let's say an average shower is 100L. Cleaning dishes at worst is probably like 20L per person without a dishwasher. That's like 160L of water per day and I feel like most of those were over-estimates. How did they get to that number?

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] TerranFenrir@lemmy.ca 54 points 1 year ago

Let's assume that heating water to 500C does what you want it to do. Even then, the sheer amount of energy required to do this would be massive. It would just be incredibly uneconomical to do this, when other cheaper solutions (like not polluting in the first place) exist.

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 49 points 1 year ago

Not only that, but given that heating up volumes of water is basically the metric around which energy units and calculations are all derived, it's easy to determine just how much energy.

Assuming an inlet temperature of a fairly optimistic 60°F or 15.56°C, it takes 12,934,470.48 joules to heat one US gallon of water to 500°C. Or if you prefer, possibly because you're an American used to reading your electricity bill, 3.59 kWh to heat that gallon. Just one.

The EPA estimates that just in the US alone, wastewater plants treat 34 billion, with a B, gallons of water per day. No need to get out your calculator, that's 122,060,000,000 kWh or if you prefer, just under 11.5 times the existing average daily power production of the entire country (10,640,243 MWh, if you're wondering).

So, uh. Yeah. Probably not feasible.

[-] lemming741@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You'd have heat exchangers, like a desalination plant

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-stage_flash_distillation

Such plants can operate at 23–27 kWh/m3 (appr. 90 MJ/m3) of distilled water.[5]

So still impossible, but not unfathomable

edit:
122,060,000,000 kWh becomes
003,500,000,000 kWh

About a third of the national capacity

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 7 points 1 year ago

when other cheaper solutions (like not polluting in the first place) exist

That involves convincing your polluting cousin, who doesn't believes climate change doesn't exist, not to buy non-stick pans or not to dump their pills into the toilet.

Edit:

Let's assume that heating water to 500C does what you want it to do.

That's the question I'm asking btw.

[-] naught101@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

You could always regulate and ban toxics at the point of production or sale, before they get into the waste stream

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (18 replies)
[-] ptc075@lemmy.zip 28 points 1 year ago

At the risk of sounding silly - Instead of focusing on burning the solids, boil the water. Water boils at 100C, at which point the water vapor should separate and leave all the solids behind. Then capture the vapors and condense it back down into clean water. Now, if you later want to incinerate the leftover solids, sure, go for it, fire's always cool in my book.

I'll add, simply boiling water is energy intensive. What you are proposing probably won't work at any scale.

[-] MajorMajormajormajor@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

fire's always cool in my book.

I think you're doing fire wrong, friendo.

[-] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

Golly gee, if only there were some form of energy generation that required boiling vast amounts of water to turn into steam. But no, that would be silly.

You definitely wouldn't want to drink the water from any of those systems you're describing though :)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] x00z@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

I thought about this too for a while but I learned that even rain contains microplastics.

[-] atro_city@fedia.io 4 points 1 year ago

That might be possible but there are particles that also will be present in vapor which might be toxic. Simply sending the out into the atmosphere would probably not be a good idea. PFAS for example do not break down under ~400C and just creating a fine PFAS mist is probably not what we want.

But yes, of course while heating up the water there will be residue. How to dispose of that will probably also have to be thought of. Maybe 500C is also the answer, but I don't know.

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] specialseaweed@sh.itjust.works 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No. The far more likely way to handle it is with flocculation/coagulation since plants are already set up to support this.

Edit: the quick and dirty overview: shit water comes in. Chlorine and other chemicals are added to the water which kills the bad stuff. Polymers are added to the water which binds to the chlorine, causing chunks. Chunks removed. Water discharged. You can change the polymers used to bind specifically to which pollutant is coming in.

That part of the process is called flocculation. Using it to add polymers that have additional capability (like removing microplastic) is where you’d want to do it. The cost is the polymer which would be some sort of reasonable, not rebuilding every plant that exists to boil water.

Check out the video on the flocculation page. Does a great job of showing how floc works.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocculation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wastewater_treatment&wprov=rarw1

[-] Waterdoc@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 year ago

For simplicity, this process is called clarification.

Unfortunately, coagulants are not effective at removing PFAS. The only effective methods for PFAS removal are adsorption (using granular activated carbon or ion exchange resins) or reverse osmosis filtration. These approaches are not used in traditional wastewater treatment because they are very expensive and are not required to meet registrations. However, potable reuse facilities will use these approaches to further treat wastewater effluent to drinking water standards. This is the future of water supply for arid areas like the southwest USA.

Also PS, the most commonly used coagulants are aluminum sulphate (alum) and ferric sulphate, which are not polymers. Polymers definitely are used (especially where I live) but they are more expensive and thus avoided when not needed.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Where does the energy to do that come from.

[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 5 points 1 year ago

Same place as nearly everything else, the Sun.

[-] zxqwas@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

That sounds expensive.

And the chemicals decompose into what? How do you get whatever they decompose into out of the water?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago

This would be carcinogenic beyond imagination

load more comments (12 replies)
[-] AstralPath@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

I'm not a scientist but wouldn't the atmospheric pressure need to be insane to bring the boiling point of water to 500°C? Is that even possible?

500C is above the critical temperature for water. So it would probably be a supercritical fluid. Unless the pressure was above 10 GPa or so in which case it would be solid.

[-] truthfultemporarily@feddit.org 5 points 1 year ago

Its above the critical point, so water will be a supercritical fluid. 370 C already requires 217 atm of pressure.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] robato@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Molten Salt Nuclear Reactors (like the one China's making with thorium) operate at something like 700* C to generate electricity. With the waste heat, we could desalinate water. Instead of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste repository, it becomes Yucca Mountain Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor and brackish groundwater distillation for Las Vegas.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] YiddishMcSquidish@lemmy.today 4 points 1 year ago

The temperature will be impossible to maintain at any scale. Why do you think our high end computers use "water cooling"?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
136 points (96.6% liked)

No Stupid Questions

49595 readers
1108 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS