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?

  • TerranFenrir@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      2 months 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.

    • atro_city@fedia.ioOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

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

      • naught101@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        You realise water boils at 100°C, right?

        Edit: yes, I know it boils a different temperatures, but we’re talking about 500°C for a practical use case at scale here…

        • moody@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          You can still heat it up past 100 once it’s turned to vapor. However, it requires a ton of energy to convert it to vapor in the first place.

        • bluGill@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          At standard pressure. high pressures can make it liquid. I can’t find charts that go high enough with a simple search but it looks like you need to get to 4000-5000psi. industry does go that high for some operations. It needs special design to toeit safely though.

          • naught101@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            Right… Have you considered that a basic order-of-magnitude estimate of scale of water, energy, and pressure requirements make the idea wildly infeasible in practice?

            • bluGill@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              A lot is all I need to know. Since others have allready pointed out we have ways that work that use much less energy I don’t feel a need to estimate deeper.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I think at this point, it would be more economical to distill the water than to burn up contaminants.

        • truthfultemporarily@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Bit pendantic but I think its interesting: no, water doesn’t always boil at 100 °C. It can boil anywhere between -50 °C and 317 °C, depending on pressure.

          On top of Mt. Everest you cannot cook potatoes because the water boils at 71 °C. On the other hand, with enough pressure water does not boil at all, instead becoming a supercritical fluid - a different phase from gas or liquid.

      • Mothra@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 months ago

        There isn’t a steel supply tap to every house is it? I don’t think I’ve had to replace or buy any steel pieces over the last two months or so. Different story with water.

        • al_Kaholic@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          Why would you need to purify the water locally at everyone’s individual house? Your logic makes me chuckle. Just wait untill you find out about a steam engine.

    • Waterdoc@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Unfortunately, even if we stopped using PFAS entirely it will remain a legacy problem in wastewater and landfills because so many consumer products contain PFAS. That said, some places are working towards banning PFAS in new products and some of the really nasty ones are already banned in many countries. Here is Canada’s plan to phase PFAS out of industrial and consumer goods:

      https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/chemicals-product-safety/per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances.html#a3

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Heat exchangers are extremely efficient. You use the 500C water to heat 400C water, then use your 400C water to heat 300C water etc etc. It still takes energy, but you recover over 90% of it.

      Stopping pollution is difficult, and filtering water is expensive, but boilers are well established technology.