Our waterways are becoming more and more polluted due to PFAS, plastics, medicines, drugs, and new chemicals made by companies that just hand over the responsibility of cleaning to plants paid for by public moneys. Detecting the different chemicals and filtering them out if getting harder and harder. Could the simple solution of heating up past a point where even PFAS/forever chemicals decomposes (400C for PFAS, 500C to be more sure about other stuff) be alright?
Yes, with our current energy output it would not be possible, but I’m asking about whether even theoretically it could be an easier way to clean water. Maybe in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years it’s a method worth pursuing.
This is simple math. We would need to increase our energy production by 1000 times to just treat water, maybe only 250 times if we used more efficient systems than simply heating it and letting the heat dissipate. If we doubled our energy production every year, it would still take a decade to do it (8 years if we were aiming at 250 times). That isn’t a realistic amount for a civilization at our tech level.
You say 1000, another poster says 11, and yet another gives another number I can’t remember.
If I’m reading the graph right on page 20 of Homo Sapiens’ Energy Dependence and Use Throughout Human History and Evolution, in 1820 we needed about 20 EJ. That’s a 31 fold increase to ~530 EJ in 2010 (190 years). Looking at the chart, you can see that the rate of increase has sped up, not slowed down. In 1960 it was ~120 EJ making it a 4x increase in years.
It might take time, but it’s not impossible. And unless a great calamity happens upon us, we will not stay at our current tech level for another 200 years.
I understand the pessimism, but my question wasn’t about “is this possible within our lifetimes” or “how much energy would this need” but “Could wastewater plants simply heat up water past 500C to decompose all chemicals and output clean water?”. I just want to know if with our understanding the water will be clean after going through a procedure where it’s heated past 500C. That could be once or multiple times, it could involve adding a filter, removing deposited waste material, etc.
The part you’re studiously ignoring is plenty of people saying yes, you could do this, but that it’s wildly inefficient. You could also power a bike by getting the biggest rock you could throw, tying a rope to it, applying the brakes on your bike, throwing the rock, releasing the brakes, and then pulling on the rope until you’ve collected your rock, and repeating until you’ve reached your destination. This will always work. But as long as your bike is in earthlike conditions, there will always be easier ways to do it. This is also the case for your idea.
You’re ignoring that I’m responding to the messages that say it’s wildly inefficient by saying things can change. Nowhere am I debating it’s not inefficient. You’re arguing with a strawman you built.
If by strawman, you mean fundamental laws of physics, then yes, you’re correct. If we find ways to break basic laws of thermodynamics, then I won’t be worrying about ways to sterilize water, I’ll be worrying about how to make faster-than-light starship.