NASA's Big Gulp
NASA pisses away
millions hauling H2O into orbit. But there's a better way - recycle
astronaut urine. Just one question: How does it taste?
By Tom McNichol
People head to Reno
for all sorts of reasons. Some want to gamble. Others are looking for a
hasty wedding or quickie divorce. I've come to the Biggest Little City
in the World to drink my own pee. Not straight up, of course. First,
I'll run it through a new NASA water purification system that collects
astronaut sweat, moisture from respiration, drain water, and urine -
and turns it all into drinking water.
NASA desperately needs this technology. Water makes for a heavy -
and expensive - payload. Over the past five years, the agency has spent
$60 million delivering potable water to the International Space Station
on the space shuttle (6 tons at a cost of about $40,000 per gallon).
Deploying the Water Recovery System on the ISS will cut the volume of
water hauled into space by two-thirds and free up enough room on the
shuttle for four more astronauts.
I'm in Reno because this is the home of Water Security, a new
company that is finding ways to use the NASA technology in extreme
environments here on Earth. Company president Ray Doane can't wait to
show me his magic box. "This is whiz-bang technology," he boasts, with
an emphasis on the whiz.
Water Security has added a special filter to the NASA unit, creating
a system that can scrub away 99.9 percent of all waterborne viruses,
which could prove particularly useful in the developing world. The
United Nations estimates that more than 1 billion people lack access to
safe drinking water and that 10 million die each year as a result of
contaminated water supplies and inadequate sanitation.
The six-stage system starts with a prefilter that removes large
particles of sediment and debris, such as hair or lint, from
contaminated liquid. Next, a carbon filter strips out the organic waste
products contained in urine, like urea, uric acid, and creatinine, as
well as pesticides and herbicides, which frequently leech into water
supplies from farmland. The liquid then flushes through a cartridge
developed by Water Security that contains tiny black beads of iodinated
resins. Any microorganisms collide with the beads, which release iodine
to kill the bugs.
"The iodine is released gradually into the water and is very stable
over a wide range of temperatures and pHs," company vice president Ken
Kearney says. "It's very predictable, and that's what you want in
space. It can also take some of the dirtiest, nastiest water on the
planet and produce clean, safe drinking water."
The water lingers briefly in a holding tank to give the iodine
enough contact time for a complete kill. Next, a resin filter strips
out the iodine, along with nitrates and heavy metals. Finally, the
water moves through a filter that eliminates cryptosporidium (a
waterborne parasite that's resistant to iodine) and provides a final
"polish" for good taste.
At least that's what they tell me. A Water Security system is set up
here at company headquarters, ready to be put to my own uric acid test.
A big yellow bucket next to the unit is filled with water and then
tainted with "Arizona dust," a common contaminant used by laboratories.
I discreetly retire to a side office and emerge clutching a warm
plastic cup. I pour the urine into the yellow bucket, taking care not
to splash. The chemist stirs the brew with a long stick.
Human waste has bedeviled NASA engineers from the
get-go. Alan Shepherd's first 15-minute suborbital flight was so short
that no one thought to install a urine receptacle in his space suit. At
T-minus 15 minutes, an electrical problem caused an 86-minute delay on
the launchpad. Shepherd's bladder soon reached the bursting point, and
he radioed the first-ever "Houston, we have a problem" message. After
some deliberation, mission control had an answer: "Do it in the suit."
Gemini and Apollo astronauts wore plastic bags taped to their
buttocks. After defecation, the crew member was required to seal the
bag and knead it, mixing in a liquid-bactericide to provide the desired
degree of "feces stabilization." The first men to walk on the moon
stepped onto the lunar surface wearing astrodiapers - undershorts
layered with absorbent material. Which may explain all the jumping up
and down.
As a 1975 NASA study put it, "In general, the Apollo waste
management system worked satisfactorily from an engineering standpoint.
From the point of view of crew acceptance, however, the system must be
given poor marks." For the space shuttle, the agency designed a $23
million toilet that freeze-dries solid waste so it can be transported
back to Earth. Until recently, the gray water was dumped overboard,
becoming an orbiting monument to mankind.
The water filtration system allows NASA to solve two problems at
once. It eliminates the gray water disposal issue and recycles urine
into drinking water for the astronauts. The agency is testing the
system at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama -
where employees run on treadmills as their sweat, respiratory moisture,
and urine are collected, cleansed and consumed.
Water Security has already begun putting the technology to work in
areas where freshwater is in short supply. This summer, global relief
agency Concern for Kids deployed a foot-powered purification unit in
northern Iraq. Robert and Roni Anderson, Concern's founders, loaded it
onto the back of a Toyota pickup and drove to dozens of villages to
purify their groundwater. The unit pumps out 5 gallons per minute, and
a single day of purification can sustain a village of 5,000 people for
a month. The cost is about 3 cents a gallon. Iraqi water companies, by
comparison, charge $4 a gallon.
It's not just war-torn regions that are short on potable water.
After the tsunami hit Indonesia last December, much of the freshwater
supply became contaminated with salt water and toxic street runoff.
Kearney says the Water Security system is perfectly capable of working
in such natural-disaster scenarios. After all, the technology was
originally tested on an open sewage ditch in Jakarta and produced water
that met Environmental Protection Agency standards.
Back at Water Security HQ, the contents of the
bucket get a final stir, and the experiment begins. The water is sucked
through an intake hose and into the purification system - prefilter,
carbon filter, iodinated resin, disinfectant holding tank, iodine
scrub, and a polish. (Don't be shy with the polish, guys.)
After 30 seconds, water dribbles out of a nozzle and into a plastic
cup. I raise it with a trembling hand. A toast to Alan Shepherd and all
the brave astronauts who endured the wrong stuff in their space suits
for the advancement of science: This number one's for you. I take a big
astronaut gulp, lower the cup, and wait for the noxious aftertaste.
Nothing.
The water tastes pretty good - it's definitely not Evian, but it is
better than most city tap. Certainly more palatable than many light
beers I've had, and not at all, uh, urinous. Move over, Tang: There's a
new space drink in town!
Crude oil is at $65 a barrel and rising. Traders on commodity exchanges
are warning that a cold winter in the northern hemisphere could see
prices, already up 38% since the start of the year, rise a lot further.
I've been a little surprised at the continuing steady rise of
oil prices over the past few months. After all, with only a couple of
exceptions, even the most pessimistic peak oil folks didn't think world
oil production is going to peak for several more years, which means
there's not much reason for short term price spikes. So what's the
explanation?
It's possible that it's due to nothing more than normal short term
market fluctuations. However, the chart on the right suggests the
answer is more fundamental: demand is now exceeding supply. And while
this doesn't necessarily mean that production has peaked, it may mean
that we've hit the supply/demand crunch I wrote about a couple of months ago:
Current
world demand for oil is about 84 million barrels per day, and current
world production capacity is about....84 million barrels per day. As Amy Myers Jaffe points out, OPEC's spare capacity — and thus the world's — has dropped nearly to zero in the past few years. Everyone is pumping full out.
This is why prices are increasing now even though there's been no
oil shock. It's not because of a sudden disruption, it's because demand
is now bumping up against supply. What's more, this is a permanent
condition: new capacity takes years to develop, so even in the best
case supply will only barely keep up with future growth in demand.
There's not much margin for error.
Oil production
will almost certainly surpass 84 million barrels per day as new fields
come online in the future, but demand is going to increase right along
with it. Thus, unless there's a global economic shock of some kind,
it's likely that demand is now permanently equal to supply. There's no
spare capacity left, and there never will be again.
This mean that we're now living in a different world. I'm not sure
what all the ramifications of this are, but one thing is pretty
certain: the next oil shock — and there will be one eventually — is going to be worse than any previous shock. Fasten your seat belts.
I think it likely that the human species is headed towards a "triple whammy" in this century:
1. Oil depletion: we have consumed about half of the earth's
oil deposits (the half that is cheapest and easiest to get at) over a
century or so. We will substantially consume the remainder in the next
50 years. When it is gone there is no other energy source or
combination of energy sources that can "replace" that one-time windfall
of cheap, readily available energy." When it is gone, those aspects of
modern human civilization that are utterly dependent on an abundant and
ever-increasing supply of cheap energy will come to an end. This will
be massively disruptive, socially and economically, to advanced
industrial societies, particularly the USA which is probably the least
prepared to deal with it.
2. Global warming:By burning up half the world's oil
deposits (plus lots of coal and natural gas) we have already brought on
global warming and consequent climate change that empirical observation
strongly suggests may already be irreversible, accelerating, and
catastrophic. As we burn up the other half in the next 50 years, we
will ensure that the earth experiences a global environmental
catastrophe that will, among other things, kill hundreds of millions or
billions of human beings, and may threaten the very survival of the
earth's biosphere as we know it. (It is important to remember that, as
serious as it is, global warming is only one of the injuries we are
inflicting on the living earth. We are also causing massive ecological
damage of other kinds, through other means, such as conversion of land
to human use and destruction of oceanic food webs.)
3. War: I expect that the human response to the above two
crises will be typical of the human response to similar, smaller-scale
crises in the past: war. In this case, up to and including nuclear war,
possibly large scale intercontinental nuclear war (which has almost
occurred several times in the past just by accident or mistake, and
could easily occur that way in the future).
Unfortunately I see little reason to expect anything other than an
extremely grim future not only for humanity but for all life on earth,
as nature's little evolutionary experiment with big-brained,
opposable-thumbed primates comes to a tragic conclusion.