DIY UV Water Treatment System
Obtaining clean drinking water can be a major problem in many parts of the world. UV disinfection systems can work well if power is available, either from the grid or from locally generated power. This particular project has conducted some field trials in Mexico, with good results. The primary contaminant in the wells was organic, mostly fecal matter, not mineral or chemical contaminants.
The UV-Tube Project is part of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL) at University of California at Berkeley. The project focuses on improving water quality for people in developing areas where other water treatment methods are not applied consistently because of their cost, inconvenience, complexity, or energy requirements. The goal of the UV-Tube Project is to design and promote the UV-Tube—an affordable, simple, and easy to use household water disinfection device that uses ultraviolet (UV-C) light to inactivate pathogens. UV-Tubes can be built from materials available in developing areas and thus can be disseminated easily through community workshops hosted by local non-governmental organizations or sold by small-scale entrepreneurs
The home-built system costs around $41, plus $4 per month in operating costs, compared with $300 and $26 per month for a commercial UV water disinfection system.
UV Disinfection Basics (from the UV-Tube project site)
Tags: offgrid, water, ruraldevelopment
January 5th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
I hope this UV-Tube Project can be fully develope. This innovation can be more beneficial to Third World Countries.
June 4th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
The operating costs are incorrect as stated above. The comparison referenced gives costs per month for the first year. The Berkeley system is $40 in initial costs + $1 per month. When averaged over the first 12 months this is $4 per month. After that it would drop to $1 per month unless the system needed replacement. The commercial system is $300 in initial costs + $1 per month averaged out to $26 per month for the first year dropping to $1 per month after. The difference in cost is in the upfront capital cost, not the monthly operating cost.
June 4th, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Mark - thanks for picking that up. The home-built version still looks attractive in situations where it’s possible (and useful) to substitute labor for upfront capital.