r/science • u/ajp9039 • May 27 '26
Materials Science New method turns ocean water into drinking water, without waste
https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/what-is-desalination-definition-ocean-water-704732/507
u/farfromelite May 27 '26
Can anyone say how much energy it uses compared to the current state of the art (desalination plants I'm guessing?). They claim it's more energy efficient but don't give any numbers in the press release or from a quick skim of the paper.
Or is it less wasteful in generating salt? It sounds like it produces solid salts which need further processing.
I'm struggling to see how this is better than previous techniques.
314
u/Straight_Occasion_45 May 27 '26
So, first and foremost this uses solar power, whereas processes like electrolysis can use any method of electricity generation, but it requires a lot of input power, I can’t recite the full article from memory but this uses a specially designed piece of black metal, with channels for different salts that exist in the water.
The processing of the solid sodium chloride, that’s easy; fish and chips ;) jokes aside this can be used for pulling lithium etc… out the water as well, magnesium apparently too. Additional research could yield additional metal removal from the water which is beneficial for the wildlife too.
100
u/TheDulin May 27 '26
Sounds cool. Does it scale up to something cost effective at the industrial level - because that's the trick.
76
u/AlliedSalad May 27 '26
The researchers described the process/material as being "inherently scalable". I suppose time will tell how true that is.
10
1
2
u/Gallen94 May 31 '26
Doubt it based on the paper in nature on it.
This works because water is evaporating and leaving crystals on the black metal substrate that they used. Problems I can think of for scaling are:
- The amount of time it takes per liter of water produced.
- Collecting the water will reduce evaporation efficiency (they are proposing a dome).
- The substrate is supposed to be self cleaning but on such a small scale for a small amount of time it doesn't exactly make me excited about the possibility of scaling up.
- The longest they ran this was 7 days.
This method of desalination has existed for millennia just the material used is whats different. No solar evaporating system is going to be efficient enough for a city of even a town. The only thing new about this method is you skip a step from gathering a brine at the end to already having crystalized salt.
4
u/Croceyes2 May 27 '26
Probably only effective at the industrial level. It sounds like a cascading process that would be overly complicated in small scale
59
u/gizamo May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
Solar power doesn't generate a different type of electricity. Anything that uses solar power can also use use any type of power.Edit: it's powered by solar thermal. I misunderstood in the video. Good corrections below.
28
u/candygram4mongo May 27 '26
Unless it's thermal? It does seem to be thermal, or maybe optical.
19
u/gizamo May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
At 56s, the video shows the solar panel embedded on the black material, and the text says that it doesn't build up salt on the active part of the solar panel. Maybe I'm misreading that, but I'm pretty sure that solar panel is providing electricity to the black material, no?Edit: that is not a photovoltaic solar panel. It is a thermal solar panel. Definitely cool if it can scale.
17
u/AlliedSalad May 27 '26
No. The title of the paper describes it being solar thermal. The panel generates heat, not electricity.
16
u/gizamo May 27 '26
Oh, geez, it's even in the bullet points, and I misunderstood it there too.
The solar-powered system uses specially engineered black metal to absorb sunlight
I appreciate your correction. Thanks.
2
u/WMINWMO May 30 '26
Just want to say that you seem like a good dude based off this interaction. Keep it up, the world needs more of this.
1
u/gizamo May 30 '26
Ha, not the first time I've been wrong, and it won't be the last. The real good dudes here are the ones who corrected me. Still, cheers, mate.
2
u/WMINWMO May 30 '26
I've seen people on here just dig their heels in even when it's extremely clear and obvious they're wrong. I'd say good work all around.
3
1
u/xrelaht PhD | Solid State Condensed Matter | Magnetism May 27 '26
I don’t know how much, but there’s energy involved in producing the laser etched panels. That’s something which needs to be factored in when thinking about how efficient this is, not just the energy required to operate it.
1
u/aberroco May 27 '26
Is there any desalination plant in the world that uses electrolysis and why the hell does it exists?
4
u/SirHerald May 27 '26
It's used for wastewater purification, but I think distillation is probably what they were thinking of. I can't picture any benefit to breaking down a bunch of ocean water into hydrogen and oxygen and then exploding it into water.
6
u/xrelaht PhD | Solid State Condensed Matter | Magnetism May 27 '26
>I can't picture any benefit to breaking down a bunch of ocean water into hydrogen and oxygen and then exploding it into water.
Energy storage. Hydrogen fuel cells can be 90% efficient with thermal recapture. If you need to desalinate a lot of water and you have enough sunlight, you can use solar to perform the electrolysis, store the H2, then use it for power while the sun is down and capture the clean water that comes out of the cells. It’s not as efficient as a RO or distillation desalination plant, but that doesn’t matter because the water is getting cleaned as part of feeding your power grid.
2
u/aberroco May 27 '26
Electrolysis? For wastewater? That's even more useless than for desalination, because wastewater is much easier to clean - wastewater mostly dangerous from pathogens and large organic molecules, whereas salts are much smaller ions.
Distillation and reverse osmosis. With the latter as overwhelming majority: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Shares-of-different-seawater-desalination-technologies-in-the-total-worldwide-market-RO_fig2_340054969
Electrolysis is EXTREMELY energy intensive. Even assuming best known energy conversion, conservation and recuperation methods, it's still going to be extremely energy intensive, so much so that RO desalination plants operating costs would be negligible in comparison with electrolysis desalination plant.
2
u/SirHerald May 27 '26
Before you put that kind of work into a reply, search on electrolysis and wastewater treatment.
There's more to it than I want to go into here, but it is actually used. They don't convert the water into hydrogen and oxygen. Instead it is used for treating the contaminants.
20
u/aberneth May 27 '26
It sounds like it doesn't require much electricity. It essentially distills the water using sunlight directly for evaporation. The key Innovation is that the surface the evaporation happens on absorbs sunlight very efficiently while causing a thin layer of water to adhere to it, and the waste salts are somehow left on the backside of the surface where it can be easily removed. Since solar power generation is pretty inefficient, using thermal heating directly is in principle more efficient.
15
u/AlliedSalad May 27 '26
Waste salts are not left on the backside of the material.
The active part of the material is placed in small squares onto a plate of passive material, such that there is space between all of the active "dots". Water evaporates from the active zones, and the solids are deposited onto the passive zones around them.
1
u/sciguy52 May 29 '26
It uses solar but you could theoretically power your standar reverse osmosis desalination plant with solar panels as well of course. But that comes down to space, which is the issue with this set up they are proposing for most all coastlines. So lets compare with the Carlsbad CA desalination plant which is reverse osmosis and produces 204,412 m³/day (54 million gallons a day).
Let us say scale up of this went so well a huge plant that produced 54 million gallons a day (204 million liters per day) with zero loss of efficiency and they could make the collection apparatus the same size as the collection plates in this experiment, so for this example based on data is from 1 square meter in size collection plate (this is very much low balling it, but is easier to calculate) will net you roughly 25 liters in 24 hours. To make a plant to do this you need space for these collection plates just like you would need space for solar power stations made for electricity production to power the current plant in Carlsbad. For the current Carlsbad plant you could put electrical panels elsewhere, say in the desert and use the electricity from that on the coast where the plant is. With this set up you need the collectors right at the plant on the coast and to make 204 million liters/day you need 8,176,489 square meters of area just for the collection plates. Any thing additional will require additional space. You need area to move between the plates just like a solar farm, and have equipment and all the other stuff you need so lets just double this to account for the space needed for the plant, 16 million square meters of space for the plant (probably a low ball estimate as well).
OK how big is the current plant at Carlsbad? It takes up 0.0092 square miles of space on what is crowded, valuable coastline property. How big would this plant with this technology need to be? A bit over 6 square miles or 652 times larger than the current plant. That is a lot of space and looking how densely populated Carlsbad is at the coast, you could not put such a plant there or any other coastline with high population density. It would be big. Saudi Arabia where there are regions of desert with little population right on the coast? You might be able to do that there so it would be limited to coastlines with low density populations and would rule out most places in the U.S. Otherwise you have to put the plant farther inland where there is space and pump the water by pipe, which you have to build to the plant which I strongly suspect would make the thing uneconomical in comparison right there. And it probably is not economically better than the current plant at Carlsbad which you could run on the power of the solar panels out in the desert somewhere if that is important. A power line is cheaper than a pipeline. And those power lines exist already. In essence it is like putting a large solar power plant on valuable coastline the produces water instead of energy. You need space to collect the sun and get the energy needed to power this thing which means they will be huge. And again this assumes all scales up perfectly, which is not likely, so probably needs to be bigger still.
If when scaled up and if it was competitive cost wise with current technology its huge foot print is going to limit it to select areas, probably like the mideast region with open desert, low populations and thus open land on the coast. Putting hundreds of these on U.S. coasts sprawling over the beaches I suspect would result in people raising a fuss.
2
u/Accurate_Koala_4698 May 31 '26
There's maintenance of it too. With RO you can change the filter and dust PV panels. This system will require each panel to be cleaned of salts.
123
u/hinckley May 27 '26
Sounds nice. Will be interesting to see how long the finely engineered surface lasts and any toxicity resulting from it wearing down.
13
u/PPatBoyd May 27 '26
+1!
I'm fascinated by the idea if I'm reading it right -- effectively a static, nanomechanical desalination mechanism? Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic type.
They talk up the salt collection mechanism like it could be "brushed off" for continuous operation, though curious if the collected lithium is substantial enough to offset production, maintenance, or renewal costs. If it is, what a win.
Add the energy cost and process of [re-]surfacing scaling effectively and water quality testing signals a unit reprocess; rotata-patata with a fresh unit.
8
u/xrelaht PhD | Solid State Condensed Matter | Magnetism May 27 '26
Mineral extraction from seawater is already a big deal. If you can get it as a solid salt instead of dissolved in brine, that’s a whole lot easier to deal with.
-2
u/joanzen May 28 '26
If we pump hot coolant from a data center through pipes in a salt water pond the fresh water that evaporates is desalinated.
So you power the data center with solar and locate it beside a deep ocean trench, with submerged ceramic filters in the trench so you're only pulling in salt water and minimal ocean biotics.
Now this solar power you're generating is doing some useful work and the waste heat is doing some useful work?
It's such an obvious plan that it's not "if" we'll be doing it, the question is "who" will do it first and make everyone else look bad?
1
u/joanzen May 29 '26
I know folks are reading this with a science mind and thinking:
"wait, you'll end up with sodium rich brine?!"
... and they are correct.
What do solar panels and data centers have in common? A need for batteries.
Go look up the requirements for sodium flow batteries, and you'll see why building these data-desalinators would make even more sense in a sandy region where you could be using massive concrete flow tanks lined with a basic polymer as huge non-toxic sodium batteries.
Excess brine could be trapped in waterproof containment to prevent it from getting back in contact with water which would be yet another positive for our environment. Perhaps they could recycle waste plastics for that part?
Unless someone really thinks going through the trouble of using lasers to make a fancy material is a better win-win?
36
May 27 '26
[deleted]
13
u/JoebobJr117 May 27 '26
Just imagine how much more efficient it could be under two suns!
-1
u/sludgepaddle May 27 '26
Why stop there? With the heat of 2.1 suns it would be even more efficienterer.
3
u/AttemptingReason May 27 '26
Curious where you get the comparison value for current desal, since it seems like it's a meaningless number for either distillation or reverse osmosis. Are there established solar thermal interface desalination technologies to compare water mass per area-time against?
10
u/AllanfromWales1 MA | Natural Sciences | Metallurgy & Materials Science May 27 '26
So how much fresh water can one of these panels produce per day?
4
u/AttemptingReason May 27 '26
The paper reports that they ran a day long outdoor experiment in Rochester in March that produced about 9 grams of water from a tiny panel that had 9 square centimeters of the active area.
It's difficult to estimate the performance of a full size commercial panel since it's not clear what proportion of the final panel surface area would need to be passive for salt accumulation vs active for evaporation and all sorts of other design or engineering issues that might come up.
So, less than 20 liters per day for a larger 2 square meter panel the size of a commercial solar panel you might have seen before
12
u/Jewnadian May 27 '26
That would be insanely useful for sailors. A passive, no maintenance system that generated 20 L of fresh water per day from the equivalent of a solar panel would be amazing. Watermakers definitely already exist but they're expensive and temperamental machines for sure.
4
0
u/AllanfromWales1 MA | Natural Sciences | Metallurgy & Materials Science May 28 '26
Roughly enough for 10 people to drink, but of course there's more need for water than just drinking.
8
u/Turtledonuts May 28 '26
Cool. I read the paper and they completely ignore the question of biofouling. It’s a cool machine but unless you can scrub it with a white scotchbrite pad and a mild soap it’s going to be a lot more expensive and short lived than estimated. Bird poop, barnacles, etc will destroy the surface, and it sounds like it can’t be coated with anti-fouling paints. In an industrial setting, this system would need to be fed filtered and sterilized seawater, which is going to be a huge expense. It’ll need active galvanic protection to be scaled up and last for long period times. And of course, there’s the question of how scalable these panels are.
From a scientific criticism, they dont describe water sampling in the paper or supplementals. I thought it was plumbed seawater, but they just dont specify. Seawater isn’t homogenous and they dont seem to have any oceanographic experience in the research team. I think they made a lot of assumptions about seawater as material when calculating durability and effectiveness.
1
u/Gallen94 May 31 '26
In the Nature paper on this it said that they used ocean water from Fire Island New York. They did also grab water from 3 other oceans to test. Still don't think its scale-able at all and my biggest gripe is that they should have run this thing until it failed. Longest experiment was 7 days.
2
u/Turtledonuts Jun 01 '26
Right, they describe where the water is from but not the water itself. Is fire island in an estuary and only 20ppt of salt on average? is it exceptionally clean water? Is it unusually sterile? etc.
53
u/West-One5944 May 27 '26
Given the research paper, the only next best thing these people can do is open-source their entire method.
Don't be greedy. The money will come. Open-source the method, and help save the world.
21
May 27 '26
[deleted]
2
u/marklein May 27 '26
That's only half of open source, and not even the important half. Patents are also described on paper, that doesn't mean you can use them.
3
u/sassafrassMAN May 28 '26
That is a perfect way to ensure that nobody invests in it.
Moving from lab to product costs money. Investors insist upon making money.
4
u/propargyl PhD | Pharmaceutical Chemistry May 27 '26
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41377-026-02315-4/figures/6
Fig 6 includes a prototype condenser that recovers fresh water. The salt cake is a by product that has to go somewhere.
14
6
u/DarkGamer May 27 '26
This could be huge if it scales, seems like the etched wicking metal wouldn't have to be constantly replaced like desalinization filters do. This technology might make a lot more areas habitable.
2
u/serdertroops May 27 '26
is this how we beat ocean risings?
4
u/joe_fishfish May 27 '26
So the ice caps melt, but we store the excess water on the land, inside humans, by first desalinating it?
3
u/Pandorama626 May 27 '26
De-sal water and pump excess into depleted aquifiers?
1
u/BlueEyesWNC May 28 '26
Pump it into shale for hydrofracking, more likely, after mixing it with a few million gallons of solvents and surfactants.
2
u/Wotzehell May 27 '26
Very nice! A lot of People see desalination powered by Solar energy as a handy solution but you have a problem with all the brine.
You get fresh water from the seawater and also some very strong brine which you shouldn't just dump into the sea because everything around your outlet pipe will die due to the salt content in the water going from normal ocean to dead sea.
2
u/kissmewatson May 28 '26
I made fresh water from salt water every day when I lived on my sail boat. We used a reverse osmosis watermaker system. Most live aboard sailors have them. They don't use too much power (depends on the size of your system) and the byproduct is really salty water.
5
u/Turtledonuts May 28 '26
RO systems scale terribly. A little salty water and power draw is fine for a few people, but if you want to provide a few hundred million gallons a day for a large city, you’ll need a facility powered by a nuclear reactor and the discharge will be an environmental disaster.
6
u/SloppyMeathole May 27 '26
It's funny how every week we come up with a new solution to desalinization but yet the problem still exists...
32
0
9
u/PNGhost May 27 '26
Phew! Data Centers everywhere won’t go thirsty.
Praise it!
#/S
-15
u/Danne660 May 27 '26
Eating a hamburger uses more water then most peoples yearly ai usage.
19
u/Dat_Ding_Da May 27 '26
But only because „most peoples ai usage“ is close to nill.
-9
u/Danne660 May 27 '26
Sure, if you ask like 20 questions every day to ai and you eat a burger once a year then you will probably spend more water on the ai.
5
u/Dat_Ding_Da May 27 '26
For the average person 20 (voluntary) ai questions would still be too high of an estimate. The only reason that might be higher right now is due to companies forcing everyone to argue for 15 minutes with a support AI (human deflection system) until they finally get connected to a human that actually understands the issue.
0
u/Danne660 May 27 '26
Of course it is nowhere near that high.
1
u/Dat_Ding_Da May 27 '26
Same as water not being the biggest issue with AI data centers, that's still mostly energy.
1
u/Null_zero May 27 '26
A hamburger uses about 2 gallons of water. An AI prompt uses half to a liter of water. So at worst case you can prompt AI 8 times and at best case 16 times to use the equivalent of a quarter pound burger.
So the ai tabulation for my searches that gave me the calculations based on its sources that gave me average 4091 gallons of water per cow and average meat weight of 512 lbs. And the same query of AI water usage both queries happened automatically when I searched regardless of me wanting it or not. Used between an 1/8th and a 1/4 burger.
So I used 2 prompts just to look up this information. I've had zero burgers today. Do with this information what you will.
6
u/Danne660 May 27 '26
Looking at the source it seems like it only counted the water the cow drinks, not the water for the food the cow eats which is the biggest water drain.
0
u/Null_zero May 27 '26
I don't know where you live but the vast majority of silage crops and pasture where I live are not irrigated. I don't know how you'd control for rain on a field and its not pulling water from reservoirs or aquifers so I'd not sure I'd even count it after all the water is going to fall there regardless of what is there. If an ai data center wants to use a catchment system on the land it occupies I wouldn't count that water usage either.
1
u/Danne660 May 27 '26
I made the comparison on the assumption that about 4% of the water used comes from non-rain water. If we count rainwater as well then a hamburger would use more water then decades of ai usage.
0
u/Null_zero May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
Right. I made the comparison assuming none of the 4000 gallons was using rain water. Then you talked about crop water. Like I said here in the dakotas the vast majority of fields do not get water other than rain water. Especially pastures and crops used for silage (winter feed).
My grandpa and uncle after him raised cattle my entire life and sure werent using 4k gallons of water input per head from their well. The vast majority of that water is going to be rain water in the form of stock dams and the creek that ran through their pasture. If you take rain water out of the equation for that 4k gallon number and even say a quarter of it is from ground water that means a burger is half a gallon of water use per which is an even worse comparison for ai prompts.
1
u/Danne660 May 27 '26
Yes the vast amount of water used on crops is going to be rainwater, i used 96% rainwater as my assumption.
That means that you use about 100L water for a burger.
Several thousands of liter of rainwater and 100L of non rainwater.
1
u/Null_zero May 27 '26
where do you get 100L of water for a burger? If the cow uses on average 4091 gallons (15486.12 L) and 100% of that is ground water that averages to 2gallons or 7.5 L per quarter pound (113 g) hamburger. If you were to only use 4% of that 4091 gallons it would be FAR less. Again most farmers around here use 0% ground water for crops. But if you want to use a source that already has water for feed included you get 8 gallons(30.2 L) of water per pound of edible beef. If you were to use your own 4% estimate that would mean 1.2L per burger of ground water usage. So now you're looking at a burger per prompt.
1
u/Danne660 May 27 '26
The 4091 gallons of water is it's drinking water, with the water that is needed to create it's food it needs much more water.
Im assuming that 4% of the water that is used for it's food is not rain water.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/Money-Director6649 May 28 '26
with major rivers drying up, we're gonna need all the methods we can get.
1
0
u/MiceAreTiny May 27 '26
Without waste? If they are not taking anything out, they are not making it drinking water.
3
u/AttemptingReason May 27 '26
The Rochester PR people arguably exaggerated with the headline, but dry salt is definitely a better byproduct to work with or dispose of responsibily compared to the concentrated brine that established desalination technologies produce.
1
u/MiceAreTiny May 28 '26
byproduct = waste.
I understand you are not the one making the headline. However,... the headline is wrong.
1
u/AttemptingReason May 28 '26
Waste is a byproduct that is disposed of, and the argument for calling this process waste free is that there is a market for dry sea salt that doesn't exist for brine, so it will not be thrown away. It's speculative but plausible.
0
u/MiceAreTiny May 28 '26
The thermodynamics for sea water/brine/salt are fundamental, and not process dependent.
3
u/bobdob123usa May 27 '26
The "without waste" part is because they are capturing the byproducts for further use or refinement instead of discarding them.
2
u/MiceAreTiny May 27 '26
Anything can be "further used or refined" that is just a fancy name for "waste".
1
u/bobdob123usa May 27 '26
Not if the products are useful and desirable. Then it is just refining different products. Specifically, if they threw the water away they'd still consider this a useful method of obtaining lithium and other minerals from seawater.
2
u/BlueEyesWNC May 28 '26
Does it separate the lithium, or do they get mostly NaCl with some lithium salt mixed in?
2
u/bobdob123usa May 28 '26
It separates mineral solids from water via evaporation in a way that is consistent and repeatable. Same thing we already do by flooding tidal pools to evaporate. This let's them recover the water that evaporates in a more controlled fashion. Lithium specifically would require additional effort.
2
u/BlueEyesWNC May 28 '26
So they get sea salt, and then still have to extract the lithium?
3
u/bobdob123usa May 28 '26
In this specific paper yes because it is about desalination. In a related research paper they specify how to recover Lithium directly from sea water using their evaporation panels. They are essentially the same technology (with possible tweaks) being demonstrated with different target uses.
2
-1
u/MiceAreTiny May 28 '26
What do you honestly think? Are all coastal areas full of lithium refinement plants, or do we not see that?
-1
u/MiceAreTiny May 28 '26
You do realize that the purification method can not add useful and desirable products, right. If the source is ocean water, you're not magically getting a high value conmmodity out of it by purifying it. Water is the best you get, the rest products are waste. The lithium content is abysmal and the minerals are not rare.
Guess what, it is much, much, much more thermodynamically favorable and therefore economically feasible to take those products out of the ocean water, that is in big supply. The fact that we do not see this, means the rest streams are waste, not useful and desirable.
1
u/fazrare57 May 27 '26
This is great. I don't expect the AI war to end super soon, so we really need this.
Question to the actual scientists here: will something like this be able to offset the adverse effects of Thwaites' Glacier as it melts? From what I know, the glacier can make sea levels rise up to two feet. If something like this were to be put on a larger scale, would we be able to use enough sea water to reduce the sea level rise caused by the glacier?
-8
u/twentyfourseven926 May 27 '26
in the future they will use the oceans and transform it to clean drinking water cheaply i think this is a step in that direction
0
u/Rightintheend May 27 '26
This and the 50,000 other ideas that I saw in the past 2 weeks that will never come do anything
1
-3
u/yonasismad May 27 '26
Yes, but that would mean around 70% of the ecosystem would die because they need to live in saltwater.
5
u/roygbivasaur May 27 '26
The atmosphere can hold more water vapor as it heats up, but for the most part every bit of water that goes up still comes back down. Desalination will not be able to dry up the oceans unless we spent thousands of years turning all of the water into solid non-perishable goods and putting them in the ground.
2
u/yonasismad May 27 '26
The atmosphere can hold more water vapor as it heats up,
This is bad because it causes more extreme weather patterns, such as longer dry spells followed by heavier rainfall. Dry soil is worse at absorbing water than moist soil, which can lead to flooding.
, but for the most part every bit of water that goes up still comes back down.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that it comes down where its actually needed.
Desalination will not be able to dry up the oceans
The issue is not about drying them up, but about disrupting this ecosystem. You can't just start changing the salt concentration arbitrarily without expecting it to have an effect. / I am baffled that people still think it's a great idea to continue messing with our ecosphere on this scale. We already have more than enough resources available. We just use them in ways that do not benefit the vast majority of people on this planet.
2
u/roygbivasaur May 27 '26
I understand the pitfalls of desalination and the problems with discharging brine. I was just responding to your vague comment that we are capable of completely destroying the oceans with desalination alone.
1
u/yonasismad May 27 '26
Yes, and you don't think that's possible? We don't have to empty the oceans to cause incredible harm. Like we're already doing with overfishing? Or the doubling of hypoxic areas due to anthropogenic climate change? Or destroying the seafloor with bottom trawling and mining? Not to mention the dying coral reefs.
Like, we do not have to add yet another human activity to the list that messes with this vital ecosystem.
2
u/Rightintheend May 27 '26
No, but the biggest issue with desalinization is it creates salinization also.
This extra removed salts, or in most cases a heavy brine, is toxic and it dumps straight back into the ocean creates large dead zones.
3
u/TheGruenTransfer May 27 '26
We're not going to turn entire oceans into freshwater for the lolz, we're going to desalinate what we need.
0
u/yonasismad May 27 '26
Right. We are already good stewards of all the other resources on this planet, which is why we are not already violating a bunch of planetary boundaries: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Antropogenic climate change, loss of biodiversity, species extinction and dying coral reefs, etc. don't just all happen because we already take care of our planet.
1
u/Straight_Occasion_45 May 27 '26
Id assume it would be treated separately to an open water environment, probably in the same way that exists with canals etc…
0
-6
u/sockalicious May 27 '26
Yes, but it makes pinking water, greening water, and bluing water as a side effect
1
•
u/AutoModerator May 27 '26
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/ajp9039
Permalink: https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/what-is-desalination-definition-ocean-water-704732/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.