By creating hydrogen peroxide on site, you don't have to deal with chlorine, or having stocks and stocks of peroxide around, and the article said it was much more effective than traditional means...
By creating hydrogen peroxide on site, you don't have to deal with chlorine, or having stocks and stocks of peroxide around, and the article said it was much more effective than traditional means on top of it. If the gold or palladium acts as a catalyst, then it should just be a fixed cost at the beginning, no?
Catalysts do degrade. Nevermind that the article implies this could be used to make clean water more widely available (kinda implying rural africa or so to me). Where this is not only a cost of...
Catalysts do degrade. Nevermind that the article implies this could be used to make clean water more widely available (kinda implying rural africa or so to me). Where this is not only a cost of setting things up, but also of keeping it safe or replacing it if stolen. Of course that depends entirely on the cost of those catalysts and how much of that can be "recovered" by scrapping it.
I also think the primary competitors of this product aren't peroxide and chlorline, and I wonder how those exact comparison numbers were calculated. This sounds more like it would compete with reverse osmosis.
A factor of 10⁶ improvement makes me highly skeptical. That would be quite incredible. Smells more like creative accounting to me, devil hiding in what exactly constitutes "equivalent conditions". It sounds to me that what they showed was that these (highly reactive and highly volatile) oxygen compounds are 1000000X more effective than H2O2. This is not remarkable if they also controlled for duration and concentration. I.e. "we can clean this water in 10 seconds using 1mg of weird oxygen compounds, or 1 kg of H2O2. If it takes 1000x more energy to produce that compound and it lasts only 1/1000th as long, you're even on cost. This is what I would expect.
But I can't read the article due to a paywall. Maybe someone can have a look at the relevant part of the methodology?
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41929-021-00642-w/MediaObjects/41929_2021_642_MOESM1_ESM.pdf ? (I'm not sure how legit/legal this link is. I just found it posted by...
That's just the appendix. Probably a legal link. I mean, it's their own damn site, so their fault if it's not supposed to be public. But the appendix on its own isn't very useful.
That's just the appendix. Probably a legal link. I mean, it's their own damn site, so their fault if it's not supposed to be public. But the appendix on its own isn't very useful.
Requirements: expensive catalyst (gold, palladium), electricity.
Just how viable is this to make clean water cheaper or more available...?
By creating hydrogen peroxide on site, you don't have to deal with chlorine, or having stocks and stocks of peroxide around, and the article said it was much more effective than traditional means on top of it. If the gold or palladium acts as a catalyst, then it should just be a fixed cost at the beginning, no?
Catalysts do degrade. Nevermind that the article implies this could be used to make clean water more widely available (kinda implying rural africa or so to me). Where this is not only a cost of setting things up, but also of keeping it safe or replacing it if stolen. Of course that depends entirely on the cost of those catalysts and how much of that can be "recovered" by scrapping it.
I also think the primary competitors of this product aren't peroxide and chlorline, and I wonder how those exact comparison numbers were calculated. This sounds more like it would compete with reverse osmosis.
A factor of 10⁶ improvement makes me highly skeptical. That would be quite incredible. Smells more like creative accounting to me, devil hiding in what exactly constitutes "equivalent conditions". It sounds to me that what they showed was that these (highly reactive and highly volatile) oxygen compounds are 1000000X more effective than H2O2. This is not remarkable if they also controlled for duration and concentration. I.e. "we can clean this water in 10 seconds using 1mg of weird oxygen compounds, or 1 kg of H2O2. If it takes 1000x more energy to produce that compound and it lasts only 1/1000th as long, you're even on cost. This is what I would expect.
But I can't read the article due to a paywall. Maybe someone can have a look at the relevant part of the methodology?
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41929-021-00642-w/MediaObjects/41929_2021_642_MOESM1_ESM.pdf ? (I'm not sure how legit/legal this link is. I just found it posted by someone else elsewhere.)
That's just the appendix. Probably a legal link. I mean, it's their own damn site, so their fault if it's not supposed to be public. But the appendix on its own isn't very useful.