Post
@ZenHeathen The degree I'll be finishing over the summer is best described as "planning where cities, tech, and sustainability come together" and maaanannn...
I came out of the "tech" sector to this, and while I didn't figure "tech" was everything, it's been a slight disappointment in a way to find the tech is basically a non-issue.
We need ZERO "new" "tech" innovations (and certainly not "AI"). We need planners, engineers and MONEY to actually install what we HAVE.
@johannab I've often thought that we should be building two sets of water infrastructure in most places, potable and non. You use one for brushing your teeth, washing dishes and drinking, and you use the water we haven't spent as much effort on, as many chemicals in, to flush the toilet, run the laundry, water the lawn. That we're using specially treated potable water to flush the toilet is unconscionable to me.
@ZenHeathen we should be using every functional method available to treat raw water only as far as is necessary for its intended use, using it very conservatively, and returning it as close to “raw” not “pure” and as close to where it was taken from as is humanly possible.
You’re absolutely right on using potable water for toilets, unfortunately wholesale duplication of a distribution system in an established urban area is not actually humanly possible.
@johannab No, I know. I'm not thinking about replacing an in-situ system. But if new standards could be passed, for new systems, as when building a whole new town. Or, in my dream, far earlier in time.
@ZenHeathen something that I was delighted to learn is being done near me, is that we have a local builder who includes rainwater collection tech, cisterns and a parallel in-building network for toilets and other non-drinking water.
Another multi-benefit idea, as using rainwater in place of our incredibly hard groundwater reduces pipe wear, reduces amount of softener salt used, and hence reduces the salts in our effluent…. And literally “lather, rinse repeat”!
@johannab Oh yes, this was part of my thinking, too. Every new house should be built with collection, storage, and the systems you describe. While we're at it, let's build in some greywater treatment, too--if we start using more eco-friendly washing soap, some greywater systems right at the home level could allow a lot of that "waste" water to go right back into the ground on site.
Professor just introduced us to a “sewage treatment plant” that is an engineered wetland.
And a wedding venue!!!!?!!? Apparently a popular one that pays its way.
I can’t help thinking that @bethsawin would be looking in on this engineering lecture thinking “well, DUH?”.
Multisolving needs to be a 101-level course in every engineering, environmental, planning and design program everywhere.
Cc @samnabi
Another slide showcased a waste treatment project where an engineered wetland was tested to provide the same water quality in the down-gradient surface water connection as a nearby but under stress conventional sewage treatment plant. For about 5% of the cost of adding new conventional capacity.
These are not just the odd swamp you pour your extra runoff into, they are engineered and cared for, and they function as incredibly effective bioreactors.
With high cultural value (WEDDING VENUES!!!)
Some great questions +dialogue on the technologies’ performance in cold climates. The takeaway I get is that there has to be environment and climate context to a project and there are components that perform better or worse in different conditions.
But there could be advantages in places like Waterloo region too. Mentioned a case where there could be no discharge to surface streams, and there was a seasonality to the vegetation, so veg die-back was added to the design …
… and wastewater via surface diffusion infiltrated an inland, “underground wetland” through … I guess what amounts to mulch? … and consequently served as treated groundwater recharge, rather than running away downstream where another community would be challenged to treat their source water.
How different would our situation be if more wetlands in agricultural sub-basins put water back into the SWO aquifers rather than rinsing it away to Lake Erie?
@johannab do there natural wastewater treatment plants deal with phosphates and other chemicals that are currently removed by adding chemicals to get them to precipitate and physically removed?
@jfmezei That is the key question, and yes, the lecture was more technical than I’d usually live-blab about and this prof was so good at showcasing all his grad student that I kept forgetting his own name. 😁 Almost all treatment systems are concerned with volume of N, C, then P in units of molar mass. Almost all show statistically significant address of all of those with N being most reduced.
Every environment is different, and the wetlands are often an additional rather than primary plant.
@johannab We have one of those here in Austin (engineered wetland). Very popular among local birders. It produces lots of compost, which is sold back to the public. Not so much a wedding venue, though. It's fragrant on hot days.
@edebill I learned of the "localization" aspect of development work in semester 2! 😁
Trying to localize urban water seems to involve broadening the system scope to consider the entire watershed/river basin. Trying to localize a tool for water may actually mean what you deploy in the US is irrelevant in sub-Saharan Africa, but also there are parts you put together differently to work best in that climate/weather.
Pretty Much: The appropriate unit of planning/governance is Watershed.
@edebill I think this lecture included that! As well as an invite to next year’s annual conference of … I do not remember the exact initialism, but this guy’s Academic-professional water resources society, which will be in Austin. 😁
Install bonfire.cafe
Get the full app experience
