My cynical take is that this will not make it past the Senate, due to Newsom leveraging himself into the discussion behind the scenes. His national political ambitions likely prevent him from taking a public stand on this issue, as he would were it to come to him to be signed.
Ah. It was paywalled and I foolishly assumed it was copy I read earlier about it passing the Assembly with it yet to be sent back to the Senate. That's what I get for assuming.
He's citing year-over-year? Seems to me that for some reason the economy was in the toilet this time last year but it had reason to be an aberration. I don't know, it's a real mystery.
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.
"Turns out the last shower curtain you bought from us isn't working out so great, is it? Well, check out all these top-ranked shower curtains that your search didn't return!"
"If you do not understand every single command in this thing, you should avoid it, and if you understand every single command in this, you don't need it."
" if you understand every single command in this, you don't need it." - Oh, I don't need it, but it's kind of convenient to have a reference of them, all in one repo.
If I don't understand every single line of code and algorithm in any piece of OSS I use, do you feel as though I don't need it? Not starting a flamewar with this question, I'm genuinely curious
From the abstract: "This article argues that there is a 50-square-mile swath of Idaho in which one can commit felonies with impunity. This is because of the intersection of a poorly drafted statute with a clear but neglected constitutional provision: the Sixth Amendment's Vicinage Clause."
Mods: The title "The Perfect Crime" seemed insufficiently descriptive, so I took the liberty of augmenting the title.
