Ok, I have a dumb question about this sort of technology. Aren't these devices essentially just borrowing from tomorrow by capturing moisture that would have eventually collected as clouds? Are there any long-term ramifications to using these?
Clouds are quite cheap. Most of them drop most of their water over areas that would not significantly suffer from a marginal reduction of rainfall (the oceans, the arctics, mountain ranges).
And a dryer average atmosphere should be partially compensated by increased evaporation from the oceans. Overall, this technology should be applicable on a continental scale before it shows any measurable effect on other areas.
A far more accurate response is “we have no idea and no way of knowing there wouldn’t be major negative ramifications but it would seem like...”
My biggest gripe with climate science in popular media is the presentation of sparse data and unproven models as fact that should be take at face value. Milking clouds in one region will have an impact elsewhere, that’s the only guarantee.
> areas that would not significantly suffer from a marginal reduction of rainfall (the oceans, the arctics, mountain ranges)
Agreed as to the ocean and the arctic, but precipitation over mountain ranges is generally recovered by lower-altitude communities when the water eventually flows down to them.
Snowmelt has been a major source of water historically.
Also the artics are essentially cold deserts, they don't get much precipitation and there is likely very little that could trace its origin to the hot deserts of the world.
Parts of the arctics are definitely deserts, but that is not true for all of the arctic regions.
Looking at the relevant parts of wikipedia [0] and [1], "annual precipitation averaged over the whole planet is about 1000 mm" while "parts of southeast Greenland [recieve] over 1200 mm". Antarctica has a lot less precipitation in general, but there are still large parts of it that are not classified as desert.
In some sort of absolute sense, sure, water in the device is not water somewhere else. But with something like 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water on Earth, it's well below the noise threshold. Even "dry desert air", if you work it out, has massive (heh, literally) amounts of water in it.
Plus the impact is even less than you think, because air that has been made dry is more able to pick up water, so you have to work even harder than you'd think to have any impact.
I used a moisture calculator to determine that 10% humidity desert air at 30 degrees celsius and 1013.25hPa air pressure contains 3.03g/m³ of water. At that rate, the air above a 100x100m football field (to altitude of 100m) contains 303kg of water, or 303L at 4 degrees celsius.
So you'd be "drying out" a very tiny cube of air to produce the water needed by an entire family per day even given desert conditions with one of these appliances.
In the first world, we use 100L/day for all our needs. That means if everyone in America lived in a desert, we might need 107,491,749,174,917.5 cubic meters of air to supply us with all our water. If that sounds like a lot of air, consider that Death Valley is 7.8e+9 square meters in area; thus, to supply ALL Americans with fresh water, you'd just need to suck Death Valley's air dry to an altitude of 10,000m or so.
> you'd just need to suck Death Valley's air dry to an altitude of 10,000m or so
It seems likely that, as the atmosphere becomes less dense with increasing altitude, so does atmospheric water. One cubic meter of air at sea level contains a lot more air than one cubic meter of air at 6,000m. Does your figure include that effect?
Anecdote but I routinely evaporate more water into air a mile higher than where I lived previously. It’s also much colder up here.
It all comes down to PV=nRT
If anything this would be much more like making sure the clouds drop their moisture where it’s sorely needed. I say this as someone who has many times seen the needed moisture fly by.
At 3000 feet it’s about .9 atmospheres of pressure, but honestly humidity is incredibly variable. The lower pressure at 3k feet just places an upper bound on possible humidity, it doesn’t tell you what it is. My instinct is that you’re right, and we’re still talking about vast volumes of moist air. We could also “enrich” the air with solar powered evaporation of seawater and wastewater.
For the purposes of this discussion I'd say order-of-magnitude is close enough, and I doubt the number for Death Valley is off by more than two orders at most (taking into account the possibility that Death Valley is just too special to use the normal numbers on). It will take a lot of work to disrupt even a desert ecosystem by extracting water from the air, and we are precluded from even wanting to do that work by the immense energy expense it will involve.
I agree, if we had the viable and affordable tech to do this, it would be low environmental impact. When you consider the impact of large scale ocean desalination, it would be a clear green choice.
The final heat would most likely be produced in a different location. It would take a very large scale installation to have an impact. I guess I'm thinking of weather patterns when you see those images that say "if we covered 1/4 of Arizona in solar panels we could power the world!".
More of a thought experiment than anything I guess.
Maybe, but the scale here is gigantic, and it will take a lot of work for humans to make an impact. Consider that a single cumulus cloud can weigh 2 million pounds(that is, 900 cubic meters of liquid water).
If you were going to be worried about things like this, wind farms will probably pose a bigger problem than water collection, unless we start building large cities in the desert relying only on air moisture collection.
Long term ramifications I'm sure of. Long term harmful ramifications? I doubt it. That water has to go somewhere, whether it's captured in the ground or evaporates in the skies, the machinery of nature will keep ticking :)
It does share those limitations because physical reality requires it to! There is no technological way out. Thermodynamics asks for some amount of energy in exchange for some amount of condensed water. The amount of energy is astronomical compared to the meager amount of water.
You see the giant ass heatsink at the bottom of the image? Why do you think that exists? The water is condensing on a peltier heat pump. In a desert, to get a single bottle of water you're going to have to blow hundreds of thousands of liters of air (at perfect efficiency) over the pump. And that's for a single water bottle! Oh and this is assuming that your peltier device can get cold enough to produce a 100% humidity atmosphere. Because if it doesn't you get no water.
What makes you so confident that they are using a Peltier? Here's their description of the operation of the device:
During adsorption, air is circulated around the MOF layer and water from air is adsorbed. Passive radiative cooling lowers the MOF layer temperature below the ambient by dissipating thermal radiation to the clear cold sky to increase the effective RH for adsorption. During water production, the OTTI aerogel is stacked on top of the MOF layer to suppress convective heat loss from the solar absorber. The desorbed vapour is condensed on a condenser and the heat of condensation is rejected to the ambient by a heat pipe heat sink.
And here's the more complete description of the condenser:
The condenser of the device was fabricated with a copper plate (4 cm by 4 cm and 0.6 cm thick) attached to a commercial air-cooled heat sink (NH-L9x65, Noctua) to efficiently dissipate the heat from condensation to the ambient.
Are you still sure it's condensing on a Peltier cooler? The paper never mentions "Peltier". If the "condenser" is actually an electrically driven Peltier, this would seem like a fraudulently bad description, justifying retraction of the paper. Is it possible that you are wrong?
Still, I agree that you might be right about the physical limitations of scaling. You seem knowledgeable about the field, and I'd be interested to hear your impression after you read the actual paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03162-7.
(I am genuinely interested in hearing your opinion about what they are doing, but would strongly suggest less overconfidence and more humility when offering bombastic pronouncements on papers you haven't read.)
> What makes you so confident that they are using a Peltier?
Because you can buy the exact device on Amazon (Noctua heat sink sold separately)[1]. Compare that image to the images shown in this MIT news article[2].
> The paper never mentions "Peltier". If the "condenser" is actually an electrically driven Peltier, this would seem like a fraudulently bad description, justifying retraction of the paper.
I would agree.
> The condenser of the device was fabricated with a copper plate (4 cm by 4 cm and 0.6 cm thick) attached to a commercial air-cooled heat sink (NH-L9x65, Noctua) to efficiently dissipate the heat from condensation to the ambient.
This describes a Peltier device exactly. Pass a current through it and one side will get hot and one side will get cold. Hence the heat sink. You need someway to dissipate that electrical energy.
Ask yourself, if the system works passively (i.e. ambient temperature), why do they need a heat sink? Would attaching a heat sink to my shed cool it off? I think the answer is clear.
Ignoring everything I said, to condense water from air you need two things. Air with water in it and a temperature differential. How is the differential generated? According to the paper, a condenser. How does every condenser generate a temperature gradient? Electrical current.
As long as you are clear that you are accusing the authors of outright fraud, I appreciate and applaud your logic!
I think you are wrong, though.
Ask yourself, if the system works passively (i.e. ambient temperature), why do they need a heat sink?
Because as you say, they need a cooler surface than the ambient for the water to condense on. Ambient temperature in this case refers to the temperature inside the solar chamber containing the saturated sorbent and insulated by the translucent aerogel. In the "legit" view, the heatsink is cooled relative to this ambient by being thermally coupled to the cooler outside air. In the paper, Figure 3 shows the temperature differential as about 40C: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03162-7/figures/3
Would attaching a heat sink to my shed cool it off?
Well, if the inside of the shed has been heated by the sun so that it is warmer than the outside air, then yes. The heatpipes are effectively windows for heat to escape from the relative hot interior to the relatively cool exterior. Isn't this exactly how a passive heatpipe cooler like the Noctua works when installed as designed to cool a CPU? Some airflow over the radiating fins doesn't hurt, but convection takes care of this if the surface is large enough.
> Would attaching a heat sink to my shed cool it off?
What I meant to say...
> Would attaching a heat sink to my shed cool it below the ambient temperature?
To which the answer is obviously no.
A brief lesson on humidity to wrap up the discussion. The numbers I'm giving are bogus but the logic is sound.
Suppose you have a vessel of air at a temperature of 25C and a relative humidity of 90%. If I increase or decrease the temperature have I added or subtracted water from the system? No the water is constant. What will change in the relative humidity of the system.
Say I heat the vessel to 40C. The relative humidity will drop from 90% to 50%. Why? The air can hold more water. But say I reverse course and drop the temperature to 10C. Then the water begins to condense because the air can not physically hold the water any longer.
[/end-bogus-numbers]
So if we take MIT's device and try to extract water from the air we know two things. We need warm, humid air and we need to cool it until it condenses.
A heat sink will not cool the air below ambient. This is required for condensation. No configuration of heat sink + device will decrease the temperature unless we put some "work" into the system. That "work" will be electrical energy of some sort The source is irrelevant. It must be external to the system and it must have a cooling effect. We absolutely need some sort of peltier device (or other refrigeration technology). There is no way around it!
But to further illustrate the absurdity of all of this lets ask the following question. How much water can we reasonably expect to extract? After all 1 liter of air doesn't translate to 1 liter of water.
At 25C and 100% humidity air can hold about 0.02ml of water. Meaning for every one liter of water you need 50,000 liters of air. And suddenly you being to realize the magnitude of your problem. To extract 1 liter of water per day you would have to ram one liter of air through the system every second. And that's in an environment with 100% humidity! It's raining for god's sake! In the desert the amount of air needed will easily triple.
> A heat sink will not cool the air below ambient. This is required for condensation. No configuration of heat sink + device will decrease the temperature unless we put some "work" into the system.
A heat sink surrounded with foam with an opening left that looks down the focus of a satellite dish that has been carefully covered in tinfoil will get colder than ambient air temperature, if the dish is pointed at a clear sky.
I'm not sure if you looked at the paper, but they take advantage of this phenomenon to lower the nighttime moisture collection temperature, and say it gives about a 3C benefit even without a satellite dish:
Operation in such arid regions also opens an interesting avenue for increasing water harvesting output with passive radiative cooling by leveraging the typically clear sky. The clear night sky and low vapour content in the atmosphere enables dissipation of long-wavelength (infrared) thermal radiation from the device to the cold sky to cool it below its ambient temperature. By facing the device to the sky during adsorption, a ~3 K temperature drop was achieved, which corresponds to an increase in 5–7% RH experienced by the adsorbent. This passive cooling can lead to opportunities to utilise other adsorbents that have their adsorption steps located beyond the typical levels of RH in specific regions.
Wouldn't cloud cover just cause the heat energy to be absorbed by the clouds or reflected back to a much larger area of the ground (so only a small percentage would return to the device itself)?
I agree that the common explanation is confusing. If I understand it right, it's not the transparency of the sky to the outgoing radiation that matters, but the absence of a (relatiely) high temperature emitter like a cloud. The two are closely tied (if there is no absorber, then there is no emitter) but the "clear sky" explanation mixes up cause and effect.
Rather than emphasizing the transparency, a clearer explanation would emphasize the absence of a counterbalancing warm mass whose emissions can be absorbed. Objects are always losing energy by black body radiation, but normally are gaining thermal energy from their similarly temperatured environment. One a clear night, there is a greater imbalance.
> Would attaching a heat sink to my shed cool it below the ambient temperature?
To which the answer is obviously no.
Except it's "yes" if you define "ambient temperature" as the temperature inside the shed on a sunny day, and if you put the radiating fins of the heatsink in the cooler outside air, which is the equivalent of what the paper does! You can criticize that this is a poor definition of ambient, but it is the one they use.
No configuration of heat sink + device will decrease the temperature unless we put some "work" into the system. That "work" will be electrical energy of some sort The source is irrelevant. It must be external to the system and it must have a cooling effect. We absolutely need some sort of peltier device (or other refrigeration technology). There is no way around it!
So when I take a shower and then and then see water condensing on the inside of my single pane bathroom window on a cold night, it means there's got to be a hidden Peltier cooler in there somewhere? Or in a more exact comparison, if I have an outdoor greenhouse on a cold but sunny day, and I see water condensing on the inside of the glazing, there's got to be a refrigerator making it happen? No, there just needs to be a temperature differential, and the heat sink acts like a cold window.
At 25C and 100% humidity air can hold about 0.02ml of water. Meaning for every one liter of water you need 50,000 liters of air.
By contrast, this is an appropriate criticism! Yeah, to collect a liter (1 kg) of water at 25C and 50% humidity, you'd need to extract all the water from 100,000 liters of air. And since you aren't going to get all the water out, you it probably needs to process several times that amount. Is this absurd? It probably depends on how much water you need. An Olympic Swimming Pool is 50m x 25m x 2m, so that amount air would give you something between 1 and 25 liters of water depending on your efficiency of extraction.
How do you get this much air over your collector? It looks like a medium bathroom fan (70 cubic feet per minute) seems to move a little over 100,000 liters per hour, so it could move this amount of air in a day. Alternatively, if you wanted to do it without power, you'd probably get more than this amount of air flow with a gentle breeze. Whether it's worth it would depend on how thirsty you are in that desert and what your other options are, but it's still a neat technique!
The world is ambient. Your device is not. You are trying to extract water from the world so your device needs to be lower than ambient.
> So when I take a shower and then and then see water condensing on the inside of my single pane bathroom window on a cold night, it means there's got to be a hidden Peltier cooler in there somewhere? Or in a more exact comparison, if I have an outdoor greenhouse on a cold but sunny day, and I see water condensing on the inside of the glazing, there's got to be a refrigerator making it happen? No, there just needs to be a temperature differential, and the heat sink acts like a cold window.
The hot, moist air from your shower should be considered ambient. Your window is colder than that ambient temperature. Hence the water condenses.
Let me explain further because this is clearly a sticking point.
The air your shower is generating is roughly 40C at 100% humidity. You don't have to put in any work to condense this water on the window because you already put work in to heat it.
"Ah ha!" you say. "They're heating the water vapor up inside the container! Just like my shower!" Except no the two are not equivalent. Heating up 25C air at 100% humidity to 40C would decrease its humidity. I.e. no condensation. Cooling 40C air at 100% humidity to 25C would result in condensation (your shower)! It is a one way process. The source of the water vapor MUST be hotter than the condenser! When your source is the atmosphere that means your condenser has to have a lower temperature than the exterior conditions.
> Except it's "yes" if you define "ambient temperature" as the temperature inside the shed on a sunny day
The temperature is higher in the shed but the humidity is lower! Lowering the temperature of the shed to the outside temperature will not produce condensation!
Edit: Sidenote. Greenhouses generate their own water vapor (transpiration). Their absolute humidity will be higher than the outside.
Edit2: I also want to emphasize that if you're adding water to the system you're doing it wrong. We're trying to harvest water not supply it. Showers and greenhouses are not apt comparisons.
I think you are thinking about this device as if it operates continuously. My understanding is that it 'consumes' the temperature gradient created by the day/night cycle.
Could mean that this would be ineffective in the tropics where the temperature between day and night varies less. And presumably the device may 'stop working' part way through the afternoon if the previous night was too warm relative to daytime temperature.
In fact, the system doesn’t even require sunlight — all it needs is some source of heat, which could even be a wood fire. “There are a lot of places where there is biomass available to burn and where water is scarce,” Rao says.
That sure sounds and looks like a peltier device to me. MIT is gaining a reputation for crackpot stuff like this.
Yes, there are previous devices that use a Peltier cooler to condense water directly out of the air. The article you link mentions these as a contrast to what this device is doing: "Another method of obtaining water in dry regions is called dew harvesting, in which a surface is chilled so that water will condense on it, as it does on the outside of a cold glass on a hot summer day, but it “is extremely energy intensive” to keep the surface cool, she says, and even then the method may not work at a relative humidity lower than about 50 percent. The new system does not have these limitations."
This approach uses a "sorbent" that adsorbs water at night, and then then uses sunlight to generate heat to drive the water out of the sorbent during the day. It does not use a thermoelectric cooler: 'The new system, by contrast, is “completely passive — all you need is sunlight,” with no need for an outside energy supply and no moving parts.' Rather than requiring active cooling, this approach requires heat to release free the water from the sorbent. The passive heat sink is used to help capture the water after the heat from the sunlight forces it out of the sorbent: "The desorbed vapour is condensed on a condenser and the heat of condensation is rejected to the ambient by a heat pipe heat sink."
So as best as I can tell, your theory that the paper (which you haven't read) is simply lying about what they are doing? Not impossible, but I think it would require some greater level of evidence the "Notice the heat sink". And while we're at it, how does "biomass available to burn" imply that they are using a thermoelectric aka Peltier cooler? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoelectric_effect
(Yes, I agree that it would be nice if the press release would actually link to the paper that correctly describes the apparatus, but its regrettable failure to do so does not give license to make up your own details as to how it works.)
The technique described sounds similar to how desiccant dehumidifiers work, where you capture moisture in a desiccant then remove the moisture by heating the desiccant. The energy required is similar to the chiller based technology due to the laws of thermodynamics.
I have a one that has a descant drum, and it slowly rotates as it blows air through it. A small section of the drum is heated to release water into a separate air stream and that air is then ran through a radiator to cool it, releasing water into a storage container. It costs $0.5-1/L to generate water with it, since the heat comes from electricity. Heat could easily come from solar, leaving ~20w for a fan.
"They have developed a completely passive system that is based on a foam-like material that draws moisture into its pores and is powered entirely by solar heat."
> The current version can only operate over a single night-and-day cycle with sunlight, Kim says, but “continous operation is also possible by utilizing abundant low-grade heat sources such as biomass and waste heat.”
It can operate for multiple days, but it only generates water once a day. At night the foam absorbs moisture, and then sunlight provides energy to release it as water.
- Dust would need to be swept off to allow sunlight energy to reach the solar chamber.
- Ambient temperature on mars in below the freezing point of water. May not get enough sun to warm the MOF enough to drive off the moisture. EDIT: Found a source saying that water vaporizes during the day because of the reduced pressure - interesting.
This is pretty neat. From previous papers it is using temperature swing adsorption[1] pull the water out of the air. Basically their MOF material collects on its surface (adsorbtion) water at one temperature and releases it (desorption) at the other. In this way, just by putting their material out in the Sun light the day/night cycle will collect and then dispense the collected water all passively.
The 'catch' is how expensive is it to produce the MOF and how long does it work before it needs to be replaced. In an ideal world, with a cheap catalyst and infinite lifetime, you could build a large tower full of this stuff and it would pour water out during the desorption process.
Yes, you can extract water from air. You have just re-invented distillation, in a painfully mind blowing way.
In Chile we have the driest desert on earth, the Atacama desert, this projects have “tried” to address the challenge of getting fresh water in remote communities located in such places. State funds have been directed toward similar "science" projects. TV has dedicated time and resources to explore this "idea".
This has to stop, the amount of water that you can extract from air is related to the amount of humidity in that place's air. You don't need much to understand that the amount of water in the air isn't much in places such as deserts. And if you have lots of humidity in the air, you can probably get water from other sources, such as rain.
Air already has X amount of water, you cannot get more than X. It doesn't matter if X is very tiny like in deserts or very large like in the middle of the pacific ocean.
Per cubic meter, sure, but there is a lot more of it than that to work with
We build our space equipment the same way... arrange for/synthesize/simulate a close analogue of an environment for initial development and then move on to the real thing once the initial quirks are solved. I certainly don't know the science behind water extraction but I imagine an extremely dry locale would not be the best place to be performing all your validation tests. Maybe start with a kind-of-dry desert, or some other biome. Like Joshua Tree instead of Death Valley...
You are absolutely right. No matter how many down-votes you receive. The scientific illiteracy on HN is astounding considering the audience it tries to cater to (college-educated software engineers).
It really is astounding. About the wettest the atmosphere can get is a rain cloud and one several kilometres in height and several kilometres in length will drop a few millimetres of water. Yet people seriously believe that these little things will suck more water out of much less atmosphere.
could this idea work? tie these devices to balloons, so they can reach the high humidities of the clouds, then when waters collect the balloons will drop to the ground, dumping the water into a collector. as the water is dumped the device rises again to continue humidity collection.
You're taking something simple and making it very complicated.
The reason clouds form is not because there's more water up there, but because temperatures and pressures are lower and the air can't hold on to the water anymore, and the water separates into droplets of liquid water or ice.
There's plenty of water at ground level, even in lip-cracking low humidity, as long as it's not also freezing.
The trick is getting what water there is to leave the air and to collect in your bucket, and collecting a meaningful amount.
Seems interesting, for small, possibly off the grid, desert communities. Not sure how the overall lifecycle energy demands would compare to say desalination for most of the coastal population centers.
"Here, we demonstrate an air-cooled sorbent-based atmospheric water harvesting device using the metal−organic framework (MOF)-801 [Zr6O4(OH)4(fumarate)6] operating in an exceptionally arid climate (10–40% RH) and sub-zero dew points (Tempe, Arizona, USA) with a thermal efficiency (solar input to water conversion) of ~14%. We predict that this device delivered over 0.25 L of water per kg of MOF for a single daily cycle."
So what does a kilogram of the MOF cost, compared to the ordinary costs of acquiring water in dry places?
>One large tree can lift up to 100 gallons of water out of the ground and discharge it into the air in a day.
This won't forest the desert. It may supplement a couple areas which could almost sustain trees, but trees are some of the most water-thirsty plants around.
Let me elaborate because this received a couple of downvotes. They only use the metal-organic framework to adsorb water vapor from the atmosphere during the night and then use sunlight to desorb it during the day which leaves them with water vapor again. Now they still have to condense that into water and their 2017 paper [1] shows that they use a Peltier element paired with a big heat sink to do this. But this is the process that actually requires the most energy, disiapating 2.265 MJ/kg of water which is enough energy to heat the same amount of water by 541 K. Maybe I am missing something but to me it seems like that metal-organic framework at best provides a marginal benefit over simply condensing water on a Peltier element directly, which will, with an efficiency of 15 % [2], still require about 4.2 kWh/kg.
I downvoted the original comment because I thought it was factually accurate but misleading. The implication was that the amount of energy required made it obviously nonviable, but you didn't actually show the work to make that case. Without strong evidence, "go figure how viable this is" is an unhelpful thing to say when someone claims to have a working prototype.
Your explanation here is much better (and I upvoted it), but I think it still misses the major point that the authors claim that the new device does not use a Peltier cooler. Instead, it's heated by the sun, and uses a passive heatsink. I think it's the same mentioned in the earlier paper as "We also report a device based on this MOF that can harvest and deliver water (2.8 L kg–1 day–1 at 20% RH) under a non-concentrated solar flux below 1 sun (1 kW m–2), requiring no additional power input for producing water at ambient temperature outdoors.".
So I think the answer to your question is "Yes, it can be viable if you have a convenient source of heat that can produce the necessary energy". 1 MJ is about 270 Watt Hours, sunlight at noon is about 1000 W/m^2, and solar thermal collection can be more than 50% efficient. This doesn't mean it's viable, but as the new paper shows, if you have a square meter of sunlight available the energy necessary for condensation is probably less of a limiting factor than the collection of the moisture into the (currently exotic) sorbent.
ISTM they're just waiting until night again? A simple mechanical design could contain water vapor in a chamber isolated from environmental atmosphere but not ambient temperature. Eventually it condenses and is harvested. The MOF acts as a sort of Maxwell's Demon, moving water from the environment to the isolated chamber. The trick would be to remove the MOF from communication with the chamber (e.g. at 2 PM) without allowing the chamber humidity to equalize with the environment. Probably there is some sort of airlock?
A pure MOF based irrigation system that produces enough on demand seems a little far fetched but you don't have to go that far to see something like this as potentially powerful. You could run this thing all year and store the water underground and that could have some cool consequences. Imagine an area with good soil that gets enough rain to take plants 60% of the way through their growing season. Something like this might be able to supplement that supply enough to make it practical to grow there. Or, regions that are normally good for growing but have regular droughts could maybe use it to offset the reduced water. Or, if you can store up enough water through winter, maybe you could run a conventional irrigation system purely off the water from the MOFs.
Maybe transporting water is already a way better mitigation to the above scenarios. It really depends on how fast and cheap you can deploy something like this.
Given that it's generating "millimeters" of water (I assume they mean milliliters), it seems unlikely that it's going to scale up to where the water can be dumped into the ground for irrigation, or even used for hydroponic growing. Many food crops lose a lot of water through leave, for example, it takes about 15 gallons of water to grow a head of lettuce, while a human can subsist on about a gallon a day.
MOF’s are not mass produced, and while a method has been proposed to scale up production, as far as I know it’s never been tested. It’s also a solvent-heavy process, and often uses a lot of benzene.
MIT the university is an amazing thing, but MIT the press release machine is pathetic.
MOFs aren't mass produced, but it is possible to produce large quantities of them. BASF has been able to make double-digit tonnage quantities of MOFs per a single production run[0]. It much simpler to make MOFs than other nanomaterials like carbon nanotubes and graphene. The MOF used in the paper is somewhat expensive as it uses zirconium, but it is possible that MOFs based on other metal ions could be used.
Zircon (zirconium raw material) isn't very expensive. Removing hafnium from zirconium compounds to reach nuclear-application purity is expensive. Reducing zirconium compounds to metal is expensive. The authors start with zirconyl chloride, which doesn't have either of those expensive requirements.
It much simpler to make MOFs than other nanomaterials like carbon nanotubes and graphene.
Well yes, but nanomaterials are tough to make, and mass produced graphene is a nightmare. None of that changes the energy requirements to make the stuff, or the hazardous byproducts of production. If it’s not energetically and financially efficient, then it doesn’t compete with desalination, and is useless.
This won't work. Purely because of thermodynamics. We already have devices that suck water out of the air - dehumidifiers. They don't collect enough water to drink.
That seems like exactly the unit. Just like when measuring rainfall, the amount collected scales with the area of the equipment. What would you prefer, mm/(mm)^2?
I would assume time is on the scale of per day; that seems, at least to me, the only time unit they wouldn't have specified here. Of course, in an article this bloggy it's not a given that the reasonable interpretation of such vague units is the interpretation intended--but I think that there is a reasonable interpretation.
The actual paper (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03162-7) actually gives something very close to numbers you want, although they express it as liters/day/kilogram @ humidity. Here's the abstract:
Water scarcity is a particularly severe challenge in arid and desert climates. While a substantial amount of water is present in the form of vapour in the atmosphere, harvesting this water by state-of-the-art dewing technology can be extremely energy intensive and impractical, particularly when the relative humidity (RH) is low (i.e., below ~40% RH). In contrast, atmospheric water generators that utilise sorbents enable capture of vapour at low RH conditions and can be driven by the abundant source of solar-thermal energy with higher efficiency. Here, we demonstrate an air-cooled sorbent-based atmospheric water harvesting device using the metal−organic framework (MOF)-801 [Zr6O4(OH)4(fumarate)6] operating in an exceptionally arid climate (10–40% RH) and sub-zero dew points (Tempe, Arizona, USA) with a thermal efficiency (solar input to water conversion) of ~14%. We predict that this device delivered over 0.25 L of water per kg of MOF for a single daily cycle.
The actual MIT press release has much better information than the Techcrunch article:
The test device was powered solely by sunlight, and although it was a small proof-of-concept device, if scaled up its output would be equivalent to more than a quarter-liter of water per day per kilogram of MOF, the researchers say. With an optimal material choice, output can be as high as three times that of the current version, says Kim.
Arizona air isn't very humid, to my knowledge. I'd be curious to see how much this device can gather in gulf areas. It might be very useful in somewhere like Saudi Arabia, where expensive desalinization plants are pretty much their only source of fresh drinking water.
I wasn't sure about the numbers either, so I looked it up. The levels were higher than I would have guessed, generally ranging from 30%-50% relative humidity.
Millimeters over what area, though? A millimeter depth over a kilometer^2 area is a decent amount of water; a millimeter depth over a meter^2, less so.
I think TC screwed it up, the MIT article (linked in the article) says milliliters.
---
> The test device was powered solely by sunlight, and although it was a small proof-of-concept device, if scaled up its output would be equivalent to more than a quarter-liter of water per day per kilogram of MOF, the researchers say.
...
> The next step, Wang says, is to work on scaling up the system and boosting its efficiency. “We hope to have a system that’s able to produce liters of water.” These small, initial test systems were only designed to produce a few milliliters, to prove the concept worked in real-world conditions
It could be any, if the device depends on area. The more area you use, the more water you get. Weather report often uses litres per square metres. One meter high per square metre is a thousand litres, so one mm would be a litre.
Edit: in the article I read: These small, initial test systems were only designed to produce a few milliliter.
Unless I'm missing something, (s)he didn't switch any units. The original article as I am reading it clearly just says "millimeters" without any associated area or timeframe.
It's ambiguous anyway what "only measured in the millimeters" refers to. You can measure any length you like in millimeters, like the distance to the moon. Perhaps they mean less than a meter?
> The system, based on relatively new high-surface-area materials called metal-organic frameworks (MOFs), can extract potable water from even the driest of desert air, the researchers say, with relative humidities as low as 10 percent. Current methods for extracting water from air require much higher levels ... above 50 percent for dew-harvesting refrigeration-based systems
Thanks for trying to explain instead of simply cluelessly down voting but this still does not answer my question.
This is a Peltier device you can see the power wires and the heat sink on the hot side.
Are MOFs used in the construction of the Peltier for example are Cu3-BTC MOFs used to increase the surface area of the cold plate which improves condensation or are MOFs used as a membrane to increase the humidity in the condensation chamber to above ambient?
I really don’t understand why people get triggered by honest questions and decide to burry them.
There is a heat sink, but it's not dissipating electrically produced heat. From the paper:
During day-time water production, the enclosure is closed and the solar absorber side is covered with an optically transparent thermal insulator (OTTI aerogel). The MOF layer is heated by exposure to solar irradiance, causing water release (desorption). The desorbed water vapour diffuses from the MOF layer to the condenser due to a concentration gradient. Accumulation of vapour in the enclosure leads to saturation conditions and consequently, the condensation process occurs at ambient temperature. The heat of condensation is dissipated to the ambient by a heat sink.
