I'd like to see technology implemented as soon as possible. But I don't have a lot of faith in our current economic model. I struggle to support continual government funding to in some cases force development in an area that might not be viable.
jmiller, personally I'd rather see technology get implemented sooner rather than later for several reasons: makes more people aware of it, gets accepted faster, and helps bring down costs sooner, among them. Government tax breaks can help all these happen. At least using our current economic model, it's higher volumes in manufacturing that can help to make things more affordable.
jmiller, thanks for the comment--I enjoy reporting and writing articles that showcase engineers who've designed something with innovation and ingenuity, which can make major improvements in our lives, too.
I haven't read anything definitive about why the strawberries aren't as tasty or nutritious. But just taking the salt out doesn't turn seawater into freshwater. It may be drinkable but it's not the same.
Maybe a Gadget Freak will come up with something for grey water or capturing rain water for the lawn.
Ann, RO water purifications are commonly implemented with house hold water purifiers. It's a five stage purification method and so far I had not seen it with any large scale implementation. If my knowledge is right, Arab countries are implemented multi stage flash distillation method, where water is heating and reheating multiple times. Now there are some new technologies like osmosis technologies (Reverse, Forward), Electro dialysis and Distillation methods like Thermal Distillation, Multi-Effect distillation etc are implemented in certain countries.
I do agree with the idea of tax breaks to encourage developement of technologies that make things better or cheaper. But I struggle with tax breaks for homeowners just to put in the solutions. I'd rather see the government spending money to make things more affordable, rather than giving us money to use products that aren't financially viable right now.
I do agree there are areas we shouldn't be. However, it's interesting how many people choose to live there. In the case of a lot of cities, more and more people are living in a n area that just can't support the population. In the case of some cities, we have literally built in areas below sea level. In the end, sometimes, I think every time we build a solution to a problem. The world finds a way to build a bigger idiot.
So why aren't the strawberries as good. Is the water quality not as good? Did some of the salt not get our of the water? I agree with the idea of using grey water because that would be available in a lot more of the middle United States. But I'm also curious with some of the problems being experienced with current systems.
I think often problems like this are solved by going through a set of steps where the technology to solve the problem is solved and then economics come in and are improved and then the technology to solve the problem is improved and then the economics come in. It's a cycle of improvement that ends up developing a final solution. It's fun for me to watch because it just shows the never give up attitude of engineers.
Although plastics make up only about 11% of all US municipal solid waste, many are actually more energy-dense than coal. Converting these non-recycled plastics into energy with existing technologies could reduce US coal consumption, as well as boost domestic energy reserves, says a new study.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.