Water

Water From the Air and Power From Trash

Technology extracts at least 2,000 liters of water per day from the atmosphere at a cost of less than 2 cents per liter.

|

Jim Mason was first profiled in Reason in 2008 when his early attempts at homemade power generation ran afoul of regulators in his hometown of Berkeley, California. He fought through and created a business, All Power Labs, which turns trash into fuel.

In October, Mason and his crew were a core part of the Skysource/Skywater Alliance team that won a $1.5 million Water Abundance XPrize. Their gasification-powered prototype, called the WEDEW Watertainer, heats wood chips in a low-oxygen environment to generate gas that can be used to power an engine, providing the energy to extract at least 2,000 liters of water per day from the atmosphere at a cost of less than 2 cents per liter. This technology has the ability to produce cheap, drinkable water in areas far from modern plumbing or places where disaster has cut off normal water supplies—and to do it with a negative carbon footprint. Senior Editor Brian Doherty talked with Mason about the project in November.

Q: How was your gasification tech key to winning this XPrize dedicated to solving water supply problems?

A: Atmospheric water generation usually requires [cooling air] below the dew point, and then water vapor condenses out as drinkable water. This is energy intensive. [For the prize] they needed something on-demand—you turn it on and it makes power all day [without the battery arrays that solar would require]. Gasification fit, because with biodiesel, the cost of fuel is too high for the 2-cent-per-liter cost target, whereas using biomass residue from forest and agriculture is [close to] free.

A huge hassle with gasification is often drying water [out of the fuel biomass]. But water vapor is exactly what the Watertainer needs. A limitation of atmospheric water generation machines is they only work well in hot, tropical environments, in high humidity. The Watertainer creates an artificial atmosphere from this [extra water from the biomass] which widens the places where such machines can be efficient outside the tropical band.

The solid byproduct of gasification is biochar, and the type we make is essentially what's used for charcoal filters, so beyond making water, we're making material for final filtration of water.

Q: Does XPrize require a plan to take your water generation tech to market?

A: That's certainly what they want to happen. One of the prize sponsors is Tata, [an Indian corporation that among other things] does rural infrastructure development, and water access is a major issue in India. There isn't a formal thing where they said, "We will enable you to bring this to market," but I believe they [don't want this] dying as a press release. We have a commitment to get to market but lots of work ahead. Running a prototype to win a contest is different than [a device that will reliably] work in the world.

Q: Solar has gotten cheaper and more widespread since you got into power generation, so what is gasification's main advantage?

A: Unique to biomass fuel is that it helps solve the waste management problem. California has a huge problem with half the forest dead and, as a consequence, California is burning down. You can go cut and process [the dead trees] but there's no good economic incentive to do it. Taking them to a big biomass plant—the cost of transportation is more than the wood.

Our Watertainer is mobile. We can take it to where the wood is and process it. It is difficult getting through the regulatory issues to get self-made electricity into the grid. But with the water and the biochar we can create, you can go into a forest with a mobile shipping container on a trailer, process wood in situ, and turn it into two products with economic benefits you can carry back out of the forest. And biochar in soil has a multiplier effect on increased plant growth.

[In the developing world] the most useful [application] is for rural distributed infrastructure. This is a tool that makes distributed power, an agricultural [product], and water simultaneously. In disasters—hurricanes or fires—you have waste to deal with, and for us the fuel are things that have to be gotten rid of.

This interview has been condensed and edited for style and clarity.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

89 responses to “Water From the Air and Power From Trash

  1. Wake me when he develops technology to filter out all the chemtrails.

    1. My urine-powered Durango already does that and has a max cruising altitude of 50,000ft

      1. It just requires one little mushroom catalyst, right?

        1. Not when burning wood. Wood is a very dirty sulfur and nitrogen heavy material. You will clog up any catalyst very quickly.

          1. Some sulfur, not much compared to crude oil, but you are right there is enough to poison most catalysts.

          2. You got the joke about the mushroom right?

            1. Not really. To be frank, I thought you were meaning the little carbon canisters that attach to a vent, similar to an old witch’s hat. What reference did I miss?

              1. Ben. I did not make the joke.

                Go below the waist.

  2. This is pretty cool tech. Innovation stomped on by government unless they can have a piece of the pie and some credit.

    1. Or doesn’t allow it to get to the people just because they don’t care or appreciate the power of governing a people struggling for survival.

    2. Or doesn’t allow it to get to the people just because they don’t care or appreciate the power of governing a people struggling for survival.

    3. It turns out I may have been wrong. This indeed might just be the Fyre Festival of technology.

      1. If they can get it to work it is still cool tech. It may not have any commercial application at this point but that does not make it worthless.

      2. So it comes with sammichs?

  3. Aw geez guys, this snake oil is garbage that’s been debunked a million ways. The best way to get water to a remote location is a TRUCK.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3s-xI895zc&t=563s

    1. “Our Watertainer is mobile. We can take it to where the wood is and process it. It is difficult getting through the regulatory issues to get self-made electricity into the grid. But with the water and the biochar we can create, you can go into a forest with a mobile shipping container on a trailer, process wood in situ, and turn it into two products with economic benefits you can carry back out of the forest.”

      One of the points he made is, effectively, that the best way to get water from a remote location is a truck.

      His point was that half the forest in California is dead wood that’s a huge part of the fire problem in California. He can put his tech on a truck and turn that dead wood into electricity and water.

      1. For a couple years – and then all the dead wood is gone.

        1. Getting all that dead wood gone is a good thing in a state where the biggest electric company has entered bankruptcy because it can’t stop its equipment from igniting gigantic fires that erase entire communities and kill people. In fact, when Pacific Gas & Electric emerges from bankruptcy, they’ll eventually need some kind of protection against future liabilities in order to keep operating because their equipment will continue to cause devastating fires so long as that dead wood is there–or until Jesus comes back.

          1. Once the dead wood is gone, they start in on the live wood. Without fail. There are pictures of the remains of prehistoric cities in the Southwest and Mexico where you can see – a thousand years later – the clearcut ring around these places. A ring several miles in diameter.

            1. Modern timber cutting is not comparable to what the ancients did. I will take you to clear cuts in the Bitterroots that are fully grown over a decade later (in fact overgrown because of idiots who think logging is evil). The dead timber is because of the mindset that logging is bad for the environment, which is demonstrably not true.

            2. “Once the dead wood is gone, they start in on the live wood.”

              Let’s not miss the forest for the trees.

              If private companies finance the use of this technology to get rid of the dead wood lying around because it’s profitable for them to do so, then that will be a good thing–regardless of what you think about the viability of this technology for other purposes.

              If Sacramento gets their misguided environmental polices out of the way so that this kind of technology can be used to solve problems, that will also be a good thing.

              Because you don’t believe in global warming or whatever is no reason to pretend that there aren’t legitimate solutions to other environmental problems using new technologies. And if this technology won’t solve all of California’s water and electricity problems, that’s hardly any reason to think it can’t do what he says it can do for the problem of California’s forests being overgrown with dead wood.

              The fact that all the dead wood will go away one day is not a reason not to get rid of the dead wood. The fact that the technology may not be viable for other purposes is no reason not to use it for purposes for which it is viable.

            3. Once the dead wood is gone, they start in on the live wood.

              So?

              Teen scoop, buddy–trees grow on trees.

              What is this fucking idiocy that’s sprung up in the last two decades or so that literally renewable resources–shit that grows–are being treated like precious rarities that will be gone if we touch them?

              Hey, geniuses, that Amazon Rainforest you’re so enamored of? Well, it’s a replacement forest. In fact, it’s a replacement of a replacement of a replacement.

              Because climates change, forests die, and are reborn.

          2. I thought I had heard investigators are now sayingbPG&E was responsible for the Camp Fire, that is was somebody’s private electric generator that started it.

            1. They were already given some relief for the fires their equipment caused in 2017. What state officials say is one thing. Judges and juries are another. PG&E is in Chapter 11 because there’s no way they can cover their liabilities. The damages those fires cause are in no small part due to all the dead wood lying around, and regardless of what happened in any one case (like the Camp Fire), their exposure for liability for fire damage will remain highly elevated so long as that dead wood is still there. Meanwhile, PG&E going bankrupt over such liability was only one example of the kind of problem this guy was talking about solving by getting rid of that dead wood and turning it into something useful. Suffice it to say, pointing out that this solution is only viable so long as there’s so much dead wood lying around seems to miss the point that getting rid of that wood lying around is a solution in itself. In fact, that was the problem the guy being interviewed was saying this technology could be used to solve.

            2. Christian National Socialists say it was homeless hippies that set the fires. Figures bear this out. When the Progressive, Communist and Prohibition parties got the income tax and prohibition amendments into the Constitution, stills were moved into the woods to evade revenooers, pastors and snitches. For 14 years These States had the largest number of forest fires ever. Most were probably accidents, but some may have been attempts to destroy evidence on the approach of coercive agents–evidence which would otherwise be waved at the grand jury. Nowadays people made homeless by politicians of the looter persuasion lack skills and have little motivation to effectively police their campfires.

              1. Was there a point to any of that?

    2. I don’t know it this is the same bullshit as the Fountus… condensing water from the air (doable but not practical)… so I wont give Mason the axe yet though his explanation of “gassification!!!!” does seem to point to “salesgenering” (IE: the phenomena of salesmonsters pretending to be engineers and thinking “if thing X is all around us then I can just easily source thing X from the ready supply all around me if I think about it hard enough” ignoring the fact that entropy is a bitch and if thing X was easy to be got nature would have got it already).

      I mean it’s still most likely bullshit but I’d at least like to see what he thinks hes doing…. I’m just not interested enough to try to figure it out amidst the noise.

      1. Okay, it’s just an air conditioner run off a generator burning syngas (wood gas) generated by stuff that burns. So we’ll get a tiny bit of water and a bunch of charcoal consuming a whole bunch of wood and it will only really work in places where it’s humid (IE: places where there is already water),

        yep… utter bullshit.

        1. “It will only really work in places where it’s humid (IE: places where there is already water),”

          Potable water is still an issue in lots of places where it’s humid, from India to Central America and the Congo.

          He isn’t saying that this is the solution to every water problem in the world everywhere.

          1. Ken, a dehumidifier is one of the WORST and LEAST SANITARY water sources available. By its very nature, it cannot be sealed, and you have a stagnant, moist environment with every possible contaminant running through quickly. To keep everything clean is essentially impossible even with ready access to bleach, which is what the people in those areas lack. You would be far better off filtering and boiling water with that same wood.

            1. I see your claim.

              I see theirs:

              “Their gasification-powered prototype, called the WEDEW Watertainer, heats wood chips in a low-oxygen environment to generate gas that can be used to power an engine, providing the energy to extract at least 2,000 liters of water per day from the atmosphere at a cost of less than 2 cents per liter. This technology has the ability to produce cheap, drinkable water in areas far from modern plumbing or places where disaster has cut off normal water supplies.”

              If this has been demonstrated, then I don’t see any reason to doubt but that it can do what it’s been demonstrated to do.

              Because it isn’t the perfect solution to a non-problem here in the U.S. is no reason to think that it isn’t an excellent solution for India, which is why Tata, a huge company based in India, may be pursuing it.

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Group

              We’re not talking about a popularity contest here. We’re not talking about whether the tax payers should get involved. We’re talking about whether private companies should invest in this technology to solve problems and make a profit. If you don’t want to use the technology yourself, I suggest you don’t. If the technology isn’t economically viable compared to other options, then I’d expect companies like Tata to pass or abandon it after a market test.

              1. The water product will have numerous toxic oxygenates in it. The worst are the phenols that are hard to remove and very nasty.

                This type of technology has been, and still is being studied very intensely for the production of various chemicals (benzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene, etc) and a valuable char. The char needs some further modification to be effective as an absorbent, and the aromatics have sulfur impurities. So the process is not applicable to small distributed installations.

                1. It’s not a “perfect solution” problem. It’s actively worse than traditional solutions of cleaning water, and this company is preying on the vulnerable by promising the world while draining support and income away from ACTUAL solutions.

                  And you should know very well to NEVER take advertisers at their word.

                  1. They have a working prototype. If it works as advertised, that’s what it does.

                    This isn’t about government policy. This isn’t a popularity contest. This is about entrepreneurs using and improving technology in order to solve problems. If the prototype generates a sufficient return by solving problems, that’s what it will do. Why argue with it? It really doesn’t matter if people in this thread say it won’t work–if it does. If it doesn’t, I don’t suppose the market will embrace it.

                    Why all this arguing over whether the technology works? What’s the point of that?

                    Are you afraid the taxpayers will have to pay for it?

                    Are you reluctant to admit that there are environmental problems for fear that someone will use their existence to argue for authoritarian and socialist solutions?

                    I don’t see any of that coming into play here. If and when our environmental problems are solved, it will be through new technology and entrepreneurship. It will be because new technologies evolve that do things we couldn’t do before–either because it wasn’t scientifically feasible before or because it wasn’t economically feasible.

                  2. Ben,

                    Take a lighter look. The guy got a grant, not from the government, to try something different. Nobody is talking solution to all the problems of the world here.

                    You can pull water out of the air. We know that from any refrigeration device and basic physics. The ancients knew this from observation. Turn it from a vapor to a liquid. Water is great that way.

                    Can it be done more efficiently? Say a better heat exchanger system. Yes.

                    Can the process be coupled to a fuel source cheaply available?

                    That is what this team is trying to do. They came up with an approach. Wood. We have known for a long time how to do use wood to generate energy. A really really long time. Start with that.

                    Now come up with a physical system capable of turning scrap wood into drinkable water. Maybe they did that.

                    Can it be a commercial product? Don’t think anyone knows.

                    Since you seem like techie stuff. We all know it takes at least 1000 times to learn how not to make a light bulb.

                  3. Also if you read the actual article, they mention that this solution extracts water released as a bi-product of the gassification process. So essentially, you bring a bunch of wood that has water in it, then begin this sealed process, that outputs water and wood char. So many of the problems of sucking water out of the general atmosphere are a bit different.

                    1. It’s a tiny amount of water. In places where dead wood is a big problem there’s going to be even less than usual.

                      This is yet another artist discovering what people have known forever and rejected, packaging it in a neat looking container, and selling it on ignorance (much of which is their own)…

                      Does it technically work as he says… Maybe… But it’s going to be tiny quantities of water with a ton of effort and a fuel source that is even more of a logistics issue then just shipping a container of chlorine and filters into an area.

                      Just like the idea that solar and wind power will replace hydrocarbons and nuclear, the materials and energy you need to make this work in quantities that matter just aren’t there.

    3. “A limitation of atmospheric water generation machines is they only work well in hot, tropical environments, in high humidity.”

      No, the limitation is that they don’t work at all. This is just a variation on the bullshit “science is magic” nonsense that convinces the same idiots that believe in Elon Musks ridiculous schemes.

      Those same idiots defend this shit by saying: “Well technology keeps advancing so anything is possible.” As if the laws of physics and thermodynamic can suspended once we’re smart enough.

      Uh huh, and someday we’ll all be driving on Solar Roadways, flying in ballistic missiles and riding on the Hyperloop.

    4. Aw geez guys, this snake oil is garbage that’s been debunked a million ways. The best way to get water to a remote location is a TRUCK.

      Yeah, I’m very skeptical of this. Once again, that ugly thing called Thermodynamics is lurking in the background and I’m going to take a lot more convincing.

  4. Add just ONE more application to the basic layer of “tech” here, and we’d have an ABSOLUTE KILLER techie thing going on here:

    ADD the ability to turn worthless politicians into biochar as well!!!

  5. We should care about our environment
    Get best washing in India
    best washing machine in india

      1. They us cow shit in everything there.

        1. ‘Use’, but in India it works both ways.

  6. More disastrous results of letting a Russian intelligence asset install dangerous right-wing extremist Supreme Court justices.

    The Supreme Court is finally taking another guns case. Get ready for guns to be everywhere.

    Guns. Literally. EVERYWHERE.

    I voted for Hillary Clinton to prevent exactly this. She would have nominated libertarian-friendly RBG-style justices. Instead we have ideologues who ignore the plain meaning of the Constitution so they can reach predetermined results. The Heller decision is logically and morally indefensible. When Democrats retake the White House and expand the Court to 11 or 13 members, overturning Heller must be a top priority.

    1. Its already happening man. I was trying to walk the dog this morning but they kept tripping over fully loaded assault weapons just lying on the sidewalk. Damn near got our heads blown off.

      1. Yep, those things just randomly go off and spray bullets everywhere. Even when unloaded.

        1. Yeah but it’s fine as long as they have those “silencers” progressives keep telling us about.

      2. It would be less of a dog issue without all the bacon flavored gun lubricant they are using these days. They need to ban that stuff.

    2. I love this:

      “When Democrats retake the White House and expand the Court to 11 or 13 members, overturning Heller must be a top priority.”

      Uh…that requires amending the constitution. Strike one.

      1. OBL produces great parody, not serious ideas.

      2. The constitution doesn’t speak to the number of justices that comprise the court. So a constitutional amendment is not required.

    3. I read an op-ed recently saying the Dems need to start adding Justices to the Supreme Court since the Republicans have been “stacking” it with conservatives. But adding actual new seats isn’t “stacking”.

      1. Well democrats are filthy lying piece of shit, so no shock when they say something so distorted. This is why their party attracts so many sociopaths. Just look at the shit Tony writes.

  7. Seems, sometimes, that the horseshit we’ve been fed on the environment by socialists has made us skeptical of any technology that might help us address environmental problems. We should always remember that practical technological advances are the legitimate alternative to socialism and forced sacrifice. If the only solutions to our environmental problems are socialism and forced sacrifice, then IF IF IF and when these problems become legitimate concerns, we libertarian capitalists will need more than denialism to counter the socialist environmentalists. IF IF IF and when these problems prove legitimate, the best solutions will come from technological breakthroughs, something that is facilitated best by capitalism.

    On one hand, we know the authoritarian socialists are full of shit on the environment, but we seem to have internalized the worst part of their bullshit. We know they’re full of shit, and yet we believe them when they tell us that the only solution to environmental problems are authoritarian and socialist. I think that’s what drives so many of my fellow libertarians to denialism. Honestly, it doesn’t matter if the problem really exists anywhere near as much as it matters that the solutions are libertarian and capitalist rather than authoritarian and socialist. If the solutions are libertarian and capitalist, then the only people harmed by pursuing an expensive solution to a nonexistent problem will be the people who willingly invest in them.

    1. If socialists believe that the problem with the environment is capitalism it’s only because they haven’t had to live in polluted socialist or ex-socialist states. The biggest scourge on the environment in the history of the world bar none has been socialism.

      1. As a commercial real estate developer, I’ve been exposed to this–I’ve seen it happen. The primary concern that drives polluters to avoid contaminating the environment is the fear of violating other people’s property rights and being taken to court for it. The idea that that a democratic government or union planned economy will choose environmental controls over maximizing employment and wages is absurd. There is no greater enemy of pollution than private property.

        Incidentally, I’ve made the same argument around here about conservation many times. The Park Service culls the last of the truly wild American bison herd to protect the cattle of ranchers that graze on public land. Even in a more capitalist country like ours, pluralism in our democracy means that the Park Service, the BLM, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the EPA are there to serve the interests of ranchers, commercial fishing, and industry just as much as they’re there to serve the interests of conservation.

        If you want to exclude pollution, commercial interests, etc., then the property must be private.

  8. I am still so amazed that water is such a big issue in most parts of the world. In researching where to life abroad last year, I was shocked at how often people (mostly women) spend a lot of their days getting water and how often people are sick or die because they only have access to unclean water. Even here in Ukraine, many people still pull water from a well with a bucket, bucket baths are normal and whole cities can go for weeks without running water so they keep bottles of water in the bathrooms.

    Unfortunately, as I looked into this and also power issues, it seems that it’s not technology that the problem though I still innovation is needed. Decent technology is available to get water and power to just about everyone who doesn’t have it. The problem is getting through governments. Be it oppression, corruption or war, people are still struggling in these areas because of government.

    1. I agree with that. Look at the problem that happened in Capetown South Africa. There were plenty of options. A big desalination company is located right there. They had portable units ready to go.

      The only issue was that the money had not found its way into the pockets of the right government officials.

    2. Water is 100 percent renewable, and easily made drinkable again.

    3. “I am still so amazed that water is such a big issue in most parts of the world.”

      Much of Africa and Central America suffer a GDP per capita somewhere south of $6,000 a year.

      GDP per capita is about $60,000 a year in the U.S.

      Why is it surprising that people who can only generate a tenth of our GDP per capita wouldn’t have the water infrastructure we have?

      GDP per capita in Mexico is about $20,000 a year, and everyone still relies on bottled water there. Bottled water isn’t a luxury commodity in Mexico. When I lived in Merida, they’d distribute it with a donkey pulling a cart.

      Infrastructure is expensive to build and maintain, and if your customers can’t afford to reimburse you for the cost of building and maintaining that infrastructure, why would it be surprising that it isn’t built and maintained?

      If this technology lowers the cost of water infrastructure so that poorer people can afford to cover its costs, it’ll be an amazing innovation just for that reason alone.

      1. I don’t expect the infrastructure we have here but there are affordable ways to get water to people where their days aren’t spent fetching water. The same thing that happened to technology they can use now will happen to this. Government won’t fund it because they are too busy lining their pockets.

        There are people who go to villages in Africa and help them lay simple pipe or dig a well and install a hand pump. Simple technology. Simple solution. Oppressive governments won’t let it happen.

  9. Apart from the economic issues, biomass gasification has some stubborn technical issues. One is that the products include a small amount of tars that foul valves, pipes, and tanks. This limits the time on stream between cleaning, a laborious process. A second is the energy balance. A significant portion of the biomass must be burned to provide the heat to drive the process. And biomass contains a few percent of minerals that deposit everywhere, again limiting operability. I’ve never looked at the option of collecting the water, but whatever is collected will need to be purified for human consumption or other use, since it is sure to contain oxygenated byproducts such as acids, aldehydes, and phenols. Phenols in particular are problematic for any use, including irrigation.

    This is an active area of R&D.

  10. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here….. http://www.mesalary.com

  11. Whatever: tell me when we’re riding giant sand worms.

  12. Think of the power generated if all toilets where required to have a flatulence output line that could be directed toward gas tanks for power generating.

  13. He fought through and created a business, All Power Labs, which turns trash into fuel.

    But it really doesn’t. It just burns wood. Of which there really isn’t that much waste lying around. I guess you could spend a lot of energy compressing paper blocks and then chipping them apart to get more . . .

    This technology has the ability to produce cheap, drinkable water in areas far from modern plumbing or places where disaster has cut off normal water supplies

    But where you can source a reliable supply of woodchips? properly dried out and everything? And in quantities small enough that a low-tech society in areas far from modern plumbing could source and produce them?

    Sounds like it would be easier, in those situations, to just ship in bottled water.

  14. Oh, and he’s spent a long time ‘engineering’ a wood-gas generator? We’ve had wood-gas burning cars since WW2.

    https://tinyurl.com/yaoyok7b

    I mean, literally all this is is a condenser run by a generator powered by wood-gas. Its not revolutionary and its only viable in remote places, etc until you’ve burnt up all the wood in the forest. And its not even particularly efficient at burning so that’s not going to take long for any significant sized village.

    1. North Korea is using wood-gas power now. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz8I4HM7eGY

  15. Jesus, he’s pulling water from the exhaust stream. Which will be full of contaminants, including methanol. That will require further processing to be drinkable – though I guess you could use it for other things (not cooking) as is.

    1. You would need air and water filters. The commercial ones I read about are designed for high pollution environments. He did talk about using the charcoal as a filter.

      1. The char needs some further processing to be an effective filter – the raw char won’t trap all the nasties.

        1. Good point.

          If they are going to try to develop a useful commercial product they will need to answer for all of that.

          Still good experiment if it works as advertised.

    2. Methanol won’t be there in significant quantities, but there will be a host of phenols that are as or more dangerous.

  16. Rejoyce, poor rural folk !

    Why lug backbreaking loads of water for miles from the nearest source.?

    Now you can haul a trailer with a still and wood chipper a country mile to your ever receeding fluel source, labor with your machetes to feed the gadget, haul backbreaking loads of distlled water back to your hovel, and only have to pay a penny a pint for the privelege of this thirsty labor.

    As 2 cents a liter, carbon-negative distilled water costs $ 200,000 per hectare-meter ($40,000 per acre-foot) — it won’t save many crops from drought, or subsistence farmers from starvation.

    1. Why would you want distilled water? It isn’t safe to drink.

  17. Start working at home with Google. It’s the most-financially rewarding I’ve ever done. On tuesday I got a gorgeous BMW after having earned $8699 this last month. I actually started five months/ago and practically straight away was bringin in at least $96, per-hour. visit this site right here….. http://www.just4work.com

  18. I’ve never thought someone would talk about mass forest destruction as “environmentally friendly”.
    The “gassification” is just a slightly modified charcoal production. It’s not unique, and it’s not any better for the environment than wood burning (slightly worse, actually, since you have to burn it twice, so you lose a lot of energy).

    As for water from air. This is beyond stupid. It’s a dehumidifier. Most importantly, it won’t work in any place where water is scarce because, in the words of Samuel L Jackson “There Is No Water In the Air”. Anyone with half a brain can tell you that.

  19. So far as I can tell the water generators out there are only feasible for drinking water. A natural disaster where the local water supply is contaminated, or a remote village for example.

    Water generators are out there. Watergen, a newer company started in Israel is making them here now. You need to plug those into a power source.

    The innovation here is the fuel source.

    It would make sense to use a modular approach. The water generator could be paired with different energy sources, biomass, solar, or more conventional energy depending on local resources and application. These could be scaled up or down and made into portable or permanent installations.

  20. Gosh, in just a few weeks this econazi technology could partly fill a backyard Hollywood swimming pool. Every time I light a sheet of paper in Austin to fire up some charcoal, the Farenheit 451 government fire department sends its morphine needling dog howling into the hood. For heating wood chips I have no doubt they would retaliate by burning every book in our zip code, including the New Testament Mein Kampf by Amory Lovins.

  21. This will piss off the progressives. Anything eco-friendly that is the result of free markets is anathema to them. It’s because they really don’t care about the environment at all. It’s just a convenient excuse to achieve their only two REAL goals: 1) to punish people they hate (anyone not progressive) and 2) to redistribute wealth, which partially covers goal #1.

    They loved natural gas until they discovered that the US has a ton of it and can use it to fuel the free exchange of goods.

    1. “Anything eco-friendly that is the result of free markets is anathema to them.”

      I agree.

      Anyone who prefers that environmental problems remain unsolved rather than embrace free market solutions has no business calling themselves “environmentalists”.

      Meanwhile, the support necessary for some of our most challenging environmental problems will only materialize amid prosperity. In the developing world, people aren’t about to make willing sacrifices for environmental solutions since putting food on the table is already hard enough–they have so little to sacrifice. In the developed world, it isn’t the poor who have the means to pay a premium for a hybrid or electric car and shop at Whole Foods in the hope of alleviating some of the stress on our environment. The wealthier people are, the more likely they are to make whatever sacrifices are necessary for causes they care about, and if there’s anything that generates prosperity better than free market capitalism, I haven’t seen it.

  22. Water from the air?

    We used to call this “rain”.

    1. Aha

      Now take wood for fuel and use it to make rain inside a box.

      Collect the water and make it safe to drink.

      That was the project.

  23. The other water from air machine-

    Air > C02 + H20 > C,H,0 > C6H5CH=CH2 > styrene based synthetic latex > condoms > shipping > shithole countries > birth control > smaller families > less human waste and pollution > fewer resources used > more resources available for everyone (ex: water)…

    Now someone go build the machine.

  24. “shithole countries > birth control > smaller families > less human waste and pollution > fewer resources used >”

    Paul Ehrlich, is that you?
    Grow up.

  25. My knowledge is not sufficient to confirm the claims here; fuel quantity, H^2O return from what temps, contaminants, cost of transport, etc. The claims are such that skepticism seems appropriate.
    Ron B. should probably have been on this; the jacket is not known for technological insight.

  26. I earned $5000 last month by working online just for 5 to 8 hours on my laptop and this was so easy that i myself could not believe before working on this site. If You too want to earn such a big money then come…… http://www.Mesalary.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.