SUMMARIZING THE FIRST 26 ...

Published by

SUMMARIZING THE FIRST 26 POSTS:  I could fit the posts to 8 categories, with their respective writers.

  1. DATA: - Petler, Owen, Le Vernoy
  2. Awerness and Education: - Khatri, Mistry, Dozier
  3. New Economic / Poltical / Aid distibution Model: - Gieske, Goonetilleke, Schifter, Williams
  4. Innovative sewage-treatment technologies: - Hansen, Presser, Kharal, Shaheen
  5. Use of variable small water-saving devices: - Kapoor, Larson
  6. Water from vapour technologies: Marnou, Jepsen
  7. Low cost electric energy / Cheap Desalinization: Ghakesi, Lorberer
  8. Biotechnology / Auaponics / Vertical gardens: Mann, Hoodley
  9. (I did not included the post of Moreira and Shrisasta, as it seemed to me that their topics fit to other XPrize forum questions.)

    No method has majority so far, No 8 got more votes than others.

    The first three categories are not technical, and not especially water-specific, so it seems unprobable for me to win a price with them. I can try to compare the other six categories by estimating the likelihood of their global succes using simple Bayesian analyses. To do this I need answer from their supporters to the following two questions:

    1. What do you think is the probablity that your method will have a technical (+economical+media) breaktrough within the next 20 years? (in percentage)
    2. After yo have your new device what is the likelihood that your technology (alone) can solve the water crises in most part of the planet? (in percentage)

    1 Comment

    UV LEDs have seen similar trends of visible spectrum LEDs in that they grow in power output and efficiency and decrease in cost. Because of this an obvious trend of more efficient systems will be available in the coming years. Although systems are now available they typically have low flow rates and require pretty advanced reactor designs to compete with conventional UV systems. In the coming years (possibly less than 10) these UV-C LED systems will be similar in flow rates and initial cost but with all the energy savings and design benefits they currently have. I would say there is a 90% chance of this technology advancing to the point of a breakthrough. 

    Within the water crisis, disinfection only plays a portion of the solution. Apart from screens, filtration, COAS/SEP. disinfection is broken down further to options such as: chemical, heat, ozone, and UV. That being said, UV LEDs could have a big impact on how we treat water after filtration. 

    I mentioned in another thread that the population breakdown of access to water is obviously more nuanced then people with and people without. The top 1 billion people have access to lots of clean, cheap water. The bottom 1 billion have little to no access to clean water. But the middle 5 billion people have access to water but rarely is it treated to be potable. This causes the middle group to buy drinking water from vendors even though they have running water in their home. 

    Given this addition to the water crisis, disinfection can bring more to the table for a larger portion of the population. Because other technologies and policies would  be needed this technology could solve 20% of the current water crisis. 

    Published by

    Permalink