Water scarcity is a global issue that affects people all over the world. Alternatives to long-term water scarcity should be pursued. The provision of clean and sufficient water to the world's people is critical to ensuring a sustainable future on Earth. This recommendation report is based on a research undertaken to establish a better alternative between seawater desalination and the recycling of water as alternatives towards the water shortage on earth. The research utilized a cost-benefit and environmental concerns as the criteria in analyzing the viability of the two alternatives. Based on the nature of the research, a tabular quantitative representation of research data and an in-depth interpretation of the results were used to arrive at the conclusion of the research. Other scholarly resources were utilized in explaining pertinent issues water purification processes and energy consumption. Water recycling was established as a better alternative with a high cost-benefit balance and a lower environmental degradation concerns relative to the seawater desalination alternative.
Introduction
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to recommend on the better alternative between the desalination of seawater and the recycling of water as a solution to the global water scarcity menace. The basis of the recommendation is on the cost-benefit and the environmental concerns of the desalination of seawater and water recycling based on identified indicators. Both the desalination of seawater and water recycling are viable solutions to the water scarcity being faced globally. However, a water scarcity solution alternative adopted at any given point should be highly beneficial, relatively non-costly and environmentally friendly. Thus, this report seeks at recommending a water scarcity solution alternative that is of low cost and with low environmental impacts based on the results of the research undertaken.
Problem
While adequate water supply is a vital variable towards the realization of a sustainable future on earth, the concerns on the costs and the environmental impacts of attempts to solve water scarcity come into play (Escobar 2010). Creating a problem in the process of solving another problem can be the case in the solving of global water shortage. Thus, draining of community resources (finance, human and land) as well as degrading the environment should be avoided at all costs when embarking in the eradication of global water scarcity. This recommendation report is based on a research project that considered weighty factors that determine a good water scarcity solution alternative.
Global summits on environment have been marked by concerns on the high level of greenhouse gases emitted to the atmosphere globally. Emission of greenhouse gases that result in the degradation of the ozone layer has caused global warming. Industries and processing plants including the seawater desalination plants and the water recycling plants contribute in the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Also, global summits on sustainable development have seen leaders call on societies to adopt economically viable undertakings when solving global real time problems including water scarcity.
There is a great need to adopt a water scarcity solution alternative that guarantees higher volumes of water processed per given period of time, lower greenhouse gas emission, and low initial and operational expenses (Hunt 2013).
Scope
This report compares the seawater desalination and the water recycling alternatives as solutions to global water scarcity. The comparison of the two alternatives (seawater desalination and water recycling) is based on two criteria; cost-benefit (initial and running costs, space and volumes of water processed per period) and environmental concerns (volume of greenhouse gas emissions as well as energy consumption). The alternative between seawater desalination and water recycling that guarantee higher benefits with relatively low costs and low environmental degradation concerns is recommended for adoption.
Discussion
Cost-benefit
Explanation
Cost-benefit criterion analyses given alternatives by employing a quantitative approach that factors the strengths and the weaknesses of every given alternative in order to establish the best alternative to take from the given range of alternatives. Cost-benefit criterion was selected in that, to establish the better option between seawater desalination and water recycling, economic factors that impact global societies had to be factored in the determination of a better alternative. The world is made up of scarce resources. Thus, the choices made by people should ensure that the benefits from every given cost made are optimal. The various costs and benefits from seawater desalination and water recycling are going to be analyzed and the better alternative determined.
Data
Data on cubic meters of water processed per day, installation and running costs and the space of land a standard processing plant can occupy.
Table 1: cost-benefit data
Alternative
Cubic meters per day
Installation cost
Running costs(10%/yr of total cost)
space
Seawater desalination
1000
$1M
$100,000
5 acres
Water recycling
545 - 2700
$0.7M
$70,000
2 acres
Source: (D.C: United States. Dept. of Energy 2016)
Interpretation
The driving motive behind the setting up of either a seawater desalination plant or a water recycling plant is to address the water needs of the community. From the results tabulated above, the various variables used in addressing the cost-benefit analysis of seawater desalination and the water recycling are depicted. The interpretation of the posted results forms the basis for the discussion and the decision making in recommending a viable alternative to address water shortage. However, the interpretation of the results can be subjective as opposed to being objective. It is therefore paramount that the results are interpreted from different angles.
The volume of water processed per period is a priority in choosing a water processing plant. Societies consume water on daily basis. The use of water is detrimental towards sustaining the human survival on earth. As it can be deduced from the results of the research, a standard seawater processing plant has the capability of processing 1000 cubic meters of water per day. On the other hand, a standard water recycling plant has the capability of recycling between 545 and 2700 cubic meters of water per day. The cost benefit analysis in regard to the water volumes processed per day depicts water recycling plant as being flexible and with a bigger potential than a seawater desalination plant. Seawater desalination has a standard capability of 1000 cubic meters of water per day. Water recycling plant varies its capability between 545 and 2700 cubic meters of water per day. a standard water recycling plant can therefore serve societies and organizations with varying water needs conveniently.
The installation cost of a standard water desalination plant is $1 Million. Installation cost of a water recycling plant is $0.7 Million. The installation costs include the setting up of the geographical area, payment of labor, purchase of machines and legal fees. The costs of installing a seawater desalination plant or a water recycling plant are subject to change in that, the location of the plant can imply high cost of labor, high transportation costs and high costs of purchasing land. However, from the results of the research, a water recycling plant is cheaper to install than a seawater desalination plant. The explanation behind the high cost of installing a seawater desalination plant is that, seawater needs more sophisticated infrastructure to convey the water from the sea into the plant and also in purifying the seawater which is high in mineral contents.
The running costs of a seawater desalination plant or a water recycling plant include the maintenance costs, recurrent labor and legal fees, and the purchase of purification chemicals. While a water desalination plant will require more maintenance due to the high content of minerals that cause wear and tear of the plant parts, a water recycling plant requires a lower maintenance cost. The running costs are subject to the installation costs of the respective plants. The initial costs also include the cost of land. While a standard seawater desalination plant can require up to 5 acres of land, a standard water recycling plant requires up to 2 acres of land. The space requirement is attributed to the amount of processes required by each plant to produce potable water in the end.
Environmental Concerns
Explanation
The following is data on the volume of greenhouse gases emitted and the energy consumed by a standard seawater desalination plant and standard water recycling plant.
Table 2: greenhouse gas emission and energy consumption
Alternative
Material processed
(kg N2O & CO2e/M3)
Amount of GHS (kg)
Megawatts/cubic meter
Megawatts consumed/day
Seawater desalination
1000 cubic meters
0.025
25
0.0015
1.5
Water recycling
1000 cubic meters
0.001
1
0.001
1
Source: (D.C: United States. Dept. of Energy 2016)
Interpretation
Environmental concerns of water shortage solution alternatives is explained in terms of greenhouse gas emissions that cause the degradation of the ozone layer that has led to global warming and the energy consumption. Energy production and consumption is an environmental concern in that, fossil fuel leads to production of gases and the destruction (trees, coal mining, etc) of the environment to produce energy (World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2015). The results from the table above are structured to explain both the emission of greenhouse gases and energy consumption by the respective alternatives of water shortage.
Major greenhouse gases emitted by seawater desalination plants and water recycling plants are Nitrous oxide (N2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2). Nitrous oxide results from the nitrification and the de-nitrification process used in purifying sea and waste water. Sea and waste water contains ammonium ions (NH4+) in varying quantities. The ammonium ions present in impure water causes diseases thus calling for the need of removing them (Cooley, et al 2006). Carbon dioxide produced during the seawater desalination and the recycling of water results from the burning of fossil fuel. Nitrous oxide which is more in seawater desalination due to the high concentration of ammonia in seawater is more harmful than carbon dioxide (Townsend-Small 2011). From the results of the research, greenhouse gases have been quantified in terms of kilograms produced per given quantity of water processed. Seawater desalination plants produce more greenhouse gases per 1000 cubic meters of water processed at the rate of 0.025kg N2O & CO2e/M3. Water recycling plants produce greenhouse gases at the rate of 0.001kg N2O & CO2e/M3.
The energy consumed by the respective water shortage solution alternatives can be attributed to the level and intensity of activities required to produce clean and safe water from the process. Seawater desalination is seen to be consuming energy at the rate of 0.0015 megawatts/cubic meters of water processed. On the other hand, water recycling is consuming energy at the rate of 0.001 megawatts/cubic meter. The process required making seawater safe and secure requires more energy than the processes in the case of water recycling.
Conclusion
Summary
Based on the results from the research, it can be deduced that a seawater desalination plant is costly, occupies more space and less flexible. On the other hand, it can also be deduced that a standard water recycling plant is relatively cheap, flexible with a greater capacity than a seawater desalination plant, and occupies less space. The cost-benefit analysis therefore depicts water recycling plant as having more strengths than weaknesses as compared to the sweater desalination plant.
On environmental concerns, the results of the research portrays a seawater desalination plant as having more environmental damages as compared to a water recycling plant. A standard seawater desalination plant produces more greenhouse gases and consumes more energy than a standard water recycling plant.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that water recycling is a more viable alternative towards solving the problem on global water shortage menace. Water recycling is relatively cheap, sufficient and has less environmental damage concerns.
Recommendations
Water recycling is recommended as opposed to the seawater desalination. Private businesses, institutions and governments should embark and encourage water recycling. The results from the research depict water recycling as more promising towards a sustainable future on earth.
Contacts
For any inquiry in regard to this recommendation report, please contact me through my mobile phone number (insert phone number) or through me email address (insert email address)
Work cited
Cooley, Heather, Peter H. Gleick, and Gary H. Wolff. Desalination, with a Grain of Salt: A California Perspective. Oakland, Calif: Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, 2006. Print.
Dynamics of Water Confined in Lyotropic Liquid Crystals: Molecular Dynamics Simulations of the Dynamic Structure Factor. Washington, D.C: United States. Dept. of Energy. Office of Basic Energy Sciences, 2016. Internet resource.
Escobar, I. C., & Schafer, A. (2010). Sustainable Water for the Future: Water Recycling versus Desalination. Burlington: Elsevier.
Hunt, Constance E. Thirsty Planet: Strategies for Sustainable Water Management. London: Zed Books, 2013. Internet resource.
Townsend-Small, Amy, Diane E. Pataki, Linda Y. Tseng, Cheng-Yao Tsai, and Diego Rosso. "Nitrous Oxide Emissions from Wastewater Treatment and Water Reclamation Plants in Southern California." Journal of Environment Quality. 40.5 (2011): 1542. Print
World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, In Karvazy, K., In Webster, V. L., American Society of Civil Engineers,, & Environmental and Water Resources Institute (U.S.),. (2015). World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2015: Floods, droughts, and ccosytems : proceedings of the 2015 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, May 17-21, 2015, Austin, Texas.
