EPA Moves to Regulate How Long You Spend in the Shower

a reply to: aorAki

It is pretty astonishing IMO how irate people are getting over having a little flyer in a hotel room "asking them" to please reuse their towels more than once.

That is the total end product that came from the study.

We live in a very self-absorbed society.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Yeah, the method you are talking about is called reverse osmosis the snippet and article I linked p above talks about it.

Yes but this new material, said to be 100 times more efficient, might drop the $2,000 per acre foot given in what you posted to $20.

And I just had to point out that its a weapons manufacturer that holds the patent. What, no red flags popping?

What's next? Do they want to monitor how much I urinate and charge me per flush?

Can someone direct me to the head of the EPA's desk? I want to leave my mark...

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Snarl

Well the Navy (afloat) seems to git'r'done every day ... I'd say that accounts for the production aspect of things.

Production was never the issue I am sure trillion dollar Navy's can do it. They can also get jet fuel but I think they pay in some cases $26 a gallon.

Your claim is it could be done with less cost I hope you were referring to the figures I posted and not the Navys.

As for cost, my water bill is less than a hundred dollars a month, and I go through as much as I want. Over here in Korea, they're not trying to get rich off of it (at least not yet).

My water bill is less than $100 as well and I am not even in Korea. When I was stationed in Korea ( CheunChon to be precise) everything seemed cheap the exchange rate is like that.

You're giving me some bad examples.

What I was hoping for was some evidence.

And I might add, I drink tap water when I'm thirsty ... and people think I'm crazy, while they sip from their designer water bottles.

When I was there I don't think water bottles were even sold. I had canteens.

We're both smart enough to recognize when you're being intentionally obtuse.

The Navy buys their jet fuel because they can't feasibly haul around a refinery. They produce their own water because they can ... and do so efficiently, and with only minimal maintenance costs. The budget for the Department of the Navy comes nowhere close to revenues spent in California. Are you gonna tell me you respect rewarding inefficiency?

The truth is, there's no money to be made in desalination, local government is unwilling to re-direct tax revenues, the first guys in are going to lose their shirts (though they may earn some ATS stars & flags), tap water hasn't been assigned a fixed price.

The last word is yours, Sir.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Yeah, the method you are talking about is called reverse osmosis the snippet and article I linked p above talks about it.

Yes but this new material, said to be 100 times more efficient, might drop the $2,000 per acre foot given in what you posted to $20.

And I just had to point out that its a weapons manufacturer that holds the patent. What, no red flags popping?

I read the article you posted as well as some articles linked to it here is what was actually said.

graphene is both strong and durable, making it more effective at sea water desalination at a fraction of the cost of industry-standard reverse osmosis systems.

I didn't read anywhere where it was said that it would be 100 times more efficient.

a reply to: Grimpachi

The exact wording in the link I posted was:

It's also about 1,000 times stronger than steel, but still has a permeability that is about 100 times greater than the best competitive membrane out in the market, said Stetson.

This one says it clearer:
New Graphene Desalination Requires Nearly 100 Times Less Energy

"The energy that's required and the pressure that's required to filter salt is approximately 100 times less." Stetson

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Snarl

Well the Navy (afloat) seems to git'r'done every day ... I'd say that accounts for the production aspect of things.

Production was never the issue I am sure trillion dollar Navy's can do it. They can also get jet fuel but I think they pay in some cases $26 a gallon.

Your claim is it could be done with less cost I hope you were referring to the figures I posted and not the Navys.

As for cost, my water bill is less than a hundred dollars a month, and I go through as much as I want. Over here in Korea, they're not trying to get rich off of it (at least not yet).

My water bill is less than $100 as well and I am not even in Korea. When I was stationed in Korea ( CheunChon to be precise) everything seemed cheap the exchange rate is like that.

You're giving me some bad examples.

What I was hoping for was some evidence.

And I might add, I drink tap water when I'm thirsty ... and people think I'm crazy, while they sip from their designer water bottles.

When I was there I don't think water bottles were even sold. I had canteens.

We're both smart enough to recognize when you're being intentionally obtuse.

The Navy buys their jet fuel because they can't feasibly haul around a refinery. They produce their own water because they can ... and do so efficiently, and with only minimal maintenance costs. The budget for the Department of the Navy comes nowhere close to revenues spent in California. Are you gonna tell me you respect rewarding inefficiency?

The truth is, there's no money to be made in desalination, local government is unwilling to re-direct tax revenues, the first guys in are going to lose their shirts (though they may earn some ATS stars & flags), tap water hasn't been assigned a fixed price.

The last word is yours, Sir.

Is it obtuse to ask for evidence for your claims?

Let's be clear I asked for evidence on your claim about desalinating sea water at much-reduced cost.

You keep giving me your opinionated claims about the Navy.

I don't care how many times you claim something is fact, I would like to see evidence backing your so called facts.

If you can't or won't be able to produce the evidence don't bother with more opinion.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Grimpachi

The exact wording in the link I posted was:

It's also about 1,000 times stronger than steel, but still has a permeability that is about 100 times greater than the best competitive membrane out in the market, said Stetson.

This one says it clearer:
New Graphene Desalination Requires Nearly 100 Times Less Energy

"The energy that's required and the pressure that's required to filter salt is approximately 100 times less." Stetson

Thanks for those links on the actual claims.

Don't worry about it I sometimes misremember things as well. Less energy will always make the processes cheaper. Like they said it will be a fraction of the cost of current reverse osmosis systems. What that fraction may be I haven't seen any solid figures yet.

Once they figure a way to produce usable graphene sheets dependable and cheaply there are going to be some huge leaps in many scientific fields. The world has been anticipating it for years we can only hope it happens sooner than later.

a reply to: EternalSolace

They are not charging you for anything in this, so you are save.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Grimpachi

Maybe it's just my tinfoil hat that's on a little tight but the buzz in desalination is graphene. One atom thick and 100 time more efficient than other membranes. The patent holder is what makes me think maybe Snarl might be onto something, Lockheed Martin.

Lockheed Martin Says This Desalination Technology Is An Industry Game-Changer

Graphene solves some of the issue. It becomes more cost effective, and I believe more energy efficient. There's still one other major issue though which is what you do with all the waste salt. Ultimately it has to be sent back into the ocean, but it causes major ecological problems to pump it in at one spot. You need to dilute it over a large area, and that requires a lot of coastline. The US probably can handle this issue, we have a lot of coast. It's not just the US that's experiencing water issues though, it's a global problem and when some nations don't have the coastline to let them extract drinking water, they're going to come after those who do.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: EternalSolace

They are not charging you for anything in this, so you are save.

How long shall I be safe from the tinkle fairy EPA?

a reply to: EternalSolace

You could ask that about anything.
But what we are discussing here does not show anything outside of them monitoring water usage in hotels

Well as long as they do this in hotels and not our homes I don't care.

a reply to: xuenchen

I knew this would come along one day. I asked myself this question when there was a dinner time discussion about how long various family members took to have a shower.

Here, they are slowly turning the screws on us on how much water we can put on the lawns and garden.

First they started with "we have to limit sprinklers to two days per week because of the long hot summers we've been having' then we had ads on tv about conserving water, then they made the ban permanent

then they 'encouraged' or 'educated' us to use highly efficient rose heads, you know those ones that you have to run around in the shower to get wet.

There next move I'm sure will be 'train' us through tv eduction to use shower roses that have timers built into them. Then will come permanent built in timers in all new homes. After that they will be compulsory to retro fit.

Just not sure of the timetable for this.

a reply to: Aazadan

Good point but I just have to think that the brine can be marketed and sold as a sidestream. There's already a market for sea salt and I remember one of those coooking shows visiting an old school sea salt producer that used evaporation. I would think this would give them a head start.

Also, for landlocked countries, this should make water recycling cheaper as well.

originally posted by: aorAki

originally posted by: Cygnis


THAT... OMG... hello!! HYGIENE!

Yuck, I do NOT want to dry my face off, and smell some other person's behind still stained in the towels!

gak!

I suppose water conservation is a bad thing?

I'm not even going to mention door handles in rest rooms/public spaces...oh wait!

"We're the 'Land of the Free" damnit. How dare they touch my rights and care for the stupid environment?!!"

My comments had nothing to do with the water, I was merely commenting on the towel / sheets thing.

I expect linens to be clean when I arrive, and if they are to remain my linens, fine with me.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Aazadan

Good point but I just have to think that the brine can be marketed and sold as a sidestream. There's already a market for sea salt and I remember one of those coooking shows visiting an old school sea salt producer that used evaporation. I would think this would give them a head start.

Also, for landlocked countries, this should make water recycling cheaper as well.

It produces more sea salt than can be used. It's already standard practice for evaporation plants to give away the salt. The person who wants it pays to collect it, but the company that has it charges nothing. And even giving it away they can't get rid of it all. Producing more isn't going to change the economics of this.

originally posted by: Aazadan
It produces more sea salt than can be used.

Honestly I think you are making a much bigger deal than it actually is. You don't have to pump it right back into the ocean. For the desalination plant, that might be the most convenient action and at the same time the most detrimental for the environment.

This is an EPA thread, so let's not forget that the reason it even exists is to restrict that type of action. Like all other businesses forced to comply, they will bitch about it but in the end, if there is a profit to be made, they continue operating. I think that that was what Snarl was talking about.

I am so glad our county put laws in place to make the EPA null and void. If EPA shows up around here there are standing orders for the local police to arrest them. They no longer have any power here.

Our state has the same verbiage on a bill that is making its way through as we speak. Before long the EPA will have no jurisdiction in Montana at all. If they try they will be jailed and have to face legal action.

All this started from the water take over they were working on last year, when the EPA said they had the last say on any and all bodys of water. Many land owners in the county did not like that idea, since that included irrigation ditches and ponds.
So the county had its meeting, a vote was taken and EPA lost the right to have authority in Ravalli County.

I know it will be a battle when push comes to shove and there will be a heck of a time in court. But we will win. Not only do we have the law on our side, but we have the local police, sheriff on our side. And if that is not enough, we have a lot of land owners who own a lot of guns. We will win, one way or the other.
We have drawn the line in the sand, and refuse to move from it. No matter what it takes.

a reply to: severdsoul

I am not wanting to burst your bubble but county doesn't have power over federal.

Believe that or not.