sounds expensive, you need alot of electricity to do that, its like desalination, its not cheap. heat my not dissociate chemical compounds. that high temp would probably degrade whatever container its in overtime. you're better of using wastewater treatment and filtration systems.
this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
134 points (95.9% liked)
No Stupid Questions
40593 readers
690 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yes; this is something that has been studied. However as other commenters have said it requires a lot of energy, and is better suited for processing smaller quantities of water with a high level of PFAS contamination than massive quantities of water with an extremely low level of PFAS. It's also not a standalone solution, as plenty of harmful chemicals survive heating past 400/500C (heavy metals like cadmium, lead, and mercury do not break down at any temperature).
Thank you for the only response that actually answers the main question and linking to a scientific paper. Much appreciated.
Regarding harmful chemicals that do not decompose beyond 500C, could it be more likely that the number of such chemicals/materials (known and unknown) is much lower than the number of chemicals/materials at the temperatures used for current clarification processes?
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
Raising water temperature from 10 to 500 degrees requires about 500 calories/mm3. That's 2 MJ/litre, meaning if you want to heat 1 liter/second you need 2 MW with perfect insulation, so a power plant of say 10 MW.
A post industrial world citizen could probably get by on 200 l/day (US averages about 300/day). That needs 2 kW/person/day.
Total global energy production is about 630 EJ which averages out at about 12 TW.
Meaning if the whole global energy production went to treat water in that way, we have enough clean water for about 6 million people.
load more comments
(24 replies)
Let's assume that heating water to 500C does what you want it to do. Even then, the sheer amount of energy required to do this would be massive. It would just be incredibly uneconomical to do this, when other cheaper solutions (like not polluting in the first place) exist.
Not only that, but given that heating up volumes of water is basically the metric around which energy units and calculations are all derived, it's easy to determine just how much energy.
Assuming an inlet temperature of a fairly optimistic 60°F or 15.56°C, it takes 12,934,470.48 joules to heat one US gallon of water to 500°C. Or if you prefer, possibly because you're an American used to reading your electricity bill, 3.59 kWh to heat that gallon. Just one.
The EPA estimates that just in the US alone, wastewater plants treat 34 billion, with a B, gallons of water per day. No need to get out your calculator, that's 122,060,000,000 kWh or if you prefer, just under 11.5 times the existing average daily power production of the entire country (10,640,243 MWh, if you're wondering).
So, uh. Yeah. Probably not feasible.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(32 replies)
At the risk of sounding silly - Instead of focusing on burning the solids, boil the water. Water boils at 100C, at which point the water vapor should separate and leave all the solids behind. Then capture the vapors and condense it back down into clean water. Now, if you later want to incinerate the leftover solids, sure, go for it, fire's always cool in my book.
I'll add, simply boiling water is energy intensive. What you are proposing probably won't work at any scale.
fire's always cool in my book.
I think you're doing fire wrong, friendo.
load more comments
(17 replies)
No. The far more likely way to handle it is with flocculation/coagulation since plants are already set up to support this.
Edit: the quick and dirty overview: shit water comes in. Chlorine and other chemicals are added to the water which kills the bad stuff. Polymers are added to the water which binds to the chlorine, causing chunks. Chunks removed. Water discharged. You can change the polymers used to bind specifically to which pollutant is coming in.
That part of the process is called flocculation. Using it to add polymers that have additional capability (like removing microplastic) is where you’d want to do it. The cost is the polymer which would be some sort of reasonable, not rebuilding every plant that exists to boil water.
Check out the video on the flocculation page. Does a great job of showing how floc works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flocculation
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wastewater_treatment&wprov=rarw1
load more comments
(6 replies)
This would be carcinogenic beyond imagination
Please explain.
Because you're essentially cooking a cocktail of complex chemicals, many of which were never designed to be heated, and the result is often airborne toxins and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are far worse than drinking trace amounts of the original chemicals.the chemicals dont vanish or turn into pure air when vaporized. they degrade into other more harmful chemicals. which are carcinogenic and more toxic.
My guy you're burning plastic
Can the degraded chemicals withstand sustained exposure to 500C?
The chemicals don't just disappear, whatever they've degraded into will still remain.
Yes, but will they all be harmful?
At this point I think we've figured out that all chemicals should be considered harmful unless we have specifically tested and concluded otherwise.
they can get even worse than previous forms, so yes.
Got an example?
pesticides, pharmeceuticals, PFAS or forever chemicals. all can be made much worse by boiling at over 500c, just forna few examples.
For PFAS that definitely isn't true
In the new EPA study, experts added oxidizing substances to water contaminated with PFASs and heated the liquid above its critical temperature of 374 degrees Celsius at a pressure of more than 220 bars. During this process, the water becomes what is called supercritical: it is neither a gas nor a liquid. In this state, even water-repellent substances such as PFASs dissolve much more readily, and at the same time, the state accelerates chemical reactions.
re read what you quoted, and then re read op's question, then re read what i said.
That sounds expensive.
And the chemicals decompose into what? How do you get whatever they decompose into out of the water?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›