Necessity of Water Purification for the Rural Areas

Purified water production represents a very demanding technological process. Various methods are available differing in the technology and the process efficiency level. A combination of more methods is commonly used or, variantly, multiple use of a single technology is applied. Such an approach guarantees the best results.

Reverse osmosis – membrane filtration

Reverse osmosis is the most widespread principle used in purified water production equipment today. Reverse osmosis is a filtration method product of which is chemically pure water from virtually any source. This method is capable of separating impurities and particles smaller than nanometre ones. In comparison with traditional distillation apparatuses the systems based on reverse osmosis offer considerably lower water and energy consumption – 2,5 times lower volume of water is used to produce the same amount of treated water. Osmosis principle based on water pressure alone has essentially no demand for electric energy. Maintenance costs are lower, too, especially in areas with hard feed water.

Filtration

Direct filtered water

Is a method based on mixture component separation by material letting through only one of the components. The procedure is suitable for drinking water treatment and pre – treatment of water intended to be later processed to purified water via subsequent cleaning stages. Filters separate unblocked chlorine, chloramine, chloride oxide, phenol, organic solvents and pesticides. Active carbon is most frequently used as the filter. There is a disadvantage, though, to this material- limited life. This brings the necessity of a change or regeneration in certain period. Active carbon filtration method is widely used in industry, breweries, water treatment stations and waterworks.

Distillation is a cleaning or mixture component separation method based on initial boiling point. In a gradual evaporation process taking place in a bosh the substances get separated due to their different initial boiling point. The vapour then condenses after passing through a cooler.

Water Filter

UV radiation is a part of the light spectrum. Radiation in the range of UV-C (100 nm – 280nm) has a gemicidal effect. A sterilizer unit contains one or more UV lamps whose radiated wavelength reaches the effective values to annihilate the microorganisms. 99,99% pathogene annihilation is reached through this method. The volume of sterilised water approaches 15 000 l / h.

Which water cleaning technologies and approaches we use? 

In our equipment we only use new components manufactured from the certified materials and provided with all the necessary tests. The high quality of the equipment is therefore guaranteed by the filtration components, ion – exchangers and other materials used. Moreover, all the components are subjected to tests in our own laboratories to provide the personal guarantee of quality. Before shipment to customers full – scale tests are performed and all the essential features are verified.

Reverse osmosis systems

They represent a cost – effective alternative to the traditional laboratory pure water production methods – distillation and redistillation. These systems are used mainly for the low water production costs and system maintenance costs. Polishing

Our expected Planet

If the requirement is to produce purified water for special laboratory analyses a special final cleaning technology referred to as “polishing” is used. Water finished to such degree (15 – 18,2 MΩ) is to be immediately used and can not be stored in common containers. Prior to polishing water has to be pre – treated using one of the previously mentioned technologies (reverse osmosis, electrodeionization, classic ion exchangers).

For production of water with ultra - low TOC content UV lamp is included as the last pre – treatment step preceding the final polishing. UV radiation oxidates the residual organic compounds contained in the water.

  Microbial filtrationThe method is used to eliminate bacteria at the water inlet. Most laboratory water standards define the quality also with respect to the bacteria content and not only with the chemical purity in mind. To reach the required laboratory purity microbial filters are applied with defined absolute 0,22 micrometre porosity.

 

Future of Solar Technology

 

Solar Panel in Rooftop

Solar manufacturers are eager to implement several new technologies that could make solar power cheaper, and the panels easier to make.

Solar power, for all its recent cost reductions, remains more expensive than fossil fuel power. Solar panel installations continue to grow quickly, but the solar panel manufacturing industry is in the doldrums because supply far exceeds demand (see “Why We Need More Solar Companies to Fail”). The poor market may be slowing innovation, but advances continue; judging by the mood this week at the IEEE Photovoltaics Specialists Conference in Tampa, Florida, people in the industry remain optimistic about its long-term prospects.

The technology that’s surprised almost everyone is conventional crystalline silicon. A few years ago, silicon solar panels cost $4 per watt, and Martin Green, professor at the University of New South Wales and one of the leading silicon solar panel researchers, declared that they’d never go below $1 a watt. “Now it’s down to something like 50 cents of watt, and there’s talk of hitting 36 cents per watt,” he says.

The U.S. Department of Energy has set a goal of reaching less than $1 a watt—not just for the solar panels, but for complete, installed systems—by 2020 (see “Why Solar Installations Cost More in the U.S. than in Germany”). Green thinks the solar industry will hit that target even sooner than that. If so, that would bring the direct cost of solar power to six cents per kilowatt-hour, which is cheaper than the average cost expected for power from new natural gas power plants. (The total cost of solar power, which includes the cost to utilities to compensate for its intermittency, would be higher, though precisely how much higher will depend on how much solar power is on the grid, and other factors.)

Solar Panel

 All parts of the silicon solar panel industry have been looking for ways to cut costs and improve the power output of solar panels, and that’s led to steady cost reductions. Green points to something as mundane as the pastes used to screen-print some of the features on solar panels. Green’s lab built a solar cell in the 1990s that set a record efficiency for silicon solar cells—a record that stands to this day. To achieve that record, he had to use expensive lithography techniques to make fine wires for collecting current from the solar cell. But gradual improvements have made it possible to use screen printing to produce ever-finer lines. Recent research suggests that screen-printing techniques can produce lines as thin as 30 micrometers—about the width of the lines Green used for his record solar cells, but at costs far lower than his lithography techniques.
 

Green says this and other techniques will make it cheap and practical to replicate the designs of his record solar cell on production lines. Some companies have developed manufacturing techniques for the front metal contacts. Implementing the design of the back electrical contacts is harder, but he expects companies to roll that out next. Meanwhile, researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have made flexible solar cells on a new type of glass from Corning called Willow Glass, which is thin and can be rolled up. The type of solar cell they made is the only current challenger to silicon in terms of large-scale production—thin-film cadmium telluride (see “First Solar Shines as the Solar Industry Falters”). Flexible solar cells could lower the cost of installing solar cells, making solar power cheaper. 

One of Green’s former students and colleagues, Jianhua Zhao, cofounder of solar panel manufacturer China Sunergy, announced this week that he is building a pilot manufacturing line for a two-sided solar cell that can absorb light from both the front and back. The basic idea, which isn’t new, is that during some parts of the day, sunlight falls on the land between rows of solar panels in a solar power plant. That light reflects onto the back of the panels and could be harvested to increase the power output. This works particularly well when the solar panels are built on sand, which is highly reflective. Where a one-sided solar panel might generate 340 watts, a two-sided one might generate up to 400 watts. He expects the panels to generate 10 to 20 percent more electricity over the course of a year.

Solar Car

 Such solar panels could be mounted vertically, like a fence, so that one side collects sunlight in the morning, and the other in the afternoon that means whole day long we can use solar energy like solar car. That would make it possible to install the solar panels on very little land—they could serve as noise barriers along highways, for example. Such an arrangement could also be valuable in dusty areas. Many parts of the Middle East might seem to be good places for solar panels, since they get a lot of sunlight, but frequent dust storms decrease the power output. Vertical panels wouldn’t accumulate as much dust, which could help make such systems economical.

Even longer-term, Green is betting on silicon, aiming to take advantage of the huge reductions in cost already seen with the technology. He hopes to greatly increase the efficiency of silicon solar panels by combining silicon with one or two other semiconductors, each selected to efficiently convert a part of the solar spectrum that silicon doesn’t convert efficiently. Adding one semiconductor could boost efficiencies from the 20 to 25 percent range to around 40 percent. Adding another could make efficiencies as high as 50 percent feasible, which would cut in half the number of solar panels needed for a given installation. The challenge is to produce good connections between these semiconductors, something made challenging by the arrangement of silicon atoms in crystalline silicon.
Source: http://www.technologyreview.com

New Food and Beverage Technology

Latest Drinks

 A recent survey by Leatherhead Food Research asked the food and beverage industry what objectives are currently the most important when considering investment in new technology. Over 55% still considered that, despite big moves within the industry to improve sustainability and resource efficiency, the primary technology innovations needed remain focused on the product - either to deliver better quality or new products. ‘Health and wellness’ was considered as less of a priority, maybe indicating a tide of change in the focus of development teams for the coming years. This also suggests that ‘health and wellness’ is no longer the domain of the ‘innovators’ but is a mainstream trend that is considered the core of any development activity since it is a still a priority agenda item across the industry. 

   However when asked to consider a range of issues or themes and whether an emerging technology was the only way of achieving a step change in that area, an interesting picture emerges. When asked 'Which of these objectives are currently the most important when considering investment in new technology?', Product Innovation and Quality are where the majority of investment considerations are being made.

Necessity is the mother of invention so it is important to identify where emerging technologies could be most effectively implemented to achieve that all important step change. Two main themes emerged - ‘Efficiency, Productivity and Sustainability’ and ‘Salt and Fat Reduction’ (Figure 2). These groupings suggest that it is generally believed that ‘green’ agendas cannot be met by the current manufacturing platforms and that the reductions in salt and fat that are possible by existing strategies are at their maximum, this echoes research conducted by Leatherhead Food Research earlier in 2012 that suggested that maximum salt reductions had been achieved within the current landscape. With ever challenging targets such as salt reduction, it is possible that the industry will have to look at alternatives, such as nano-particles, to achieve new levels of functionality and delivery.  

Figure 1 Commercialisation of emerging technology is the only way of achieving a step change in "..."

The implementation of new and emerging technology is not thought to be key in further improvements to taste texture and market share - the product-centered and market-driven innovations. Yet product-centred objectives were at the heart of investment policy.

Around 60% felt that new and emerging technology would be key in the successful delivery of strategic objectives compared to existing technology; only 4% felt this would not be the case. Putting it into context of whether the greatest financial gains would be made from renovation or innovation, the population was evenly split with only 2% difference reflected between the opinions, interestingly falling in favour of renovation. It could be considered that the reasons behind this reflect the need for speed to market and return on investment - two thirds require a product to market within two years and 87% needing to launch within three years. The return on investment would need to be realised within three years by 62%.

To achieve success with a fledgling technology, less than 10% considered that their exclusive use was important with 36% rating sole rights as very or extremely important.