Interested In Advertising? | Contact Us Here
Warning!

 

Welcome to Clean It Up; the UK`s largest cleaning forum with over 34,000 members

 

Please login or register to post and reply to topics.      

 

Forgot your password? Click here

peterharwood

  • Posts: 75
cost effective water production
« on: February 04, 2016, 10:31:35 am »
In the process of moving currently running 300 gpd ro without water meter.
Using approx 500 litres a day 5 or 6 days.
New house has a water meter.
Should I change what I've got to a more cost effective system.
Re water usage and resin
Tds out of tap is 350

SeanK

Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2016, 10:39:47 am »
Depends on your pure to waste ratio if your running at around the 50/50 mark then you wont get it any
better with a bigger RO, the only difference will be that it might be slightly quicker.
At your tap tds a DI only option is out of the question as the cost of resin will far outweigh the cost of waste water.

NWH

  • Posts: 16952
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2016, 04:26:40 pm »
50-50 or 95-5 you won't be getting 50 pure to 50 waste.

robert mitchell

  • Posts: 1997
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2016, 08:17:02 pm »
50-50 or 95-5 you won't be getting 50 pure to 50 waste.

Explain?
www.ishinewindowcleaning.co.uk

The man who never made a mistake never made anything.

chris turner

  • Posts: 1492
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2016, 08:41:49 pm »
Not sure where you live but going on a meter isn't as bad as you may think.
I use 500 litres a day and since being forced onto a meter my water bill has gone up, but only by about £150 a year.
I was expecting it to go up massively, but an extra £3 something a week isn't really anything to worry about.

nathankaye

  • Posts: 5366
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2016, 08:50:24 pm »
Thankfully we live in england, a nice small island but one that attracts a whole lot of rain.
Rain salvage. Run a sock filter in down pipe or u can get special downpipe with two flows. As you dont want the initial rain off, as contains most of roof minerals n mess. Then filter at bottom end and run into a storage tank. Which you can then pump thru resin into tank in van. Which may give u a break in water bill, during the wetter seasons. Or along those principles anyway.
facebook.com/1NKServices
1NKServices.co.uk

john tomkins

  • Posts: 1639
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #6 on: February 04, 2016, 09:11:51 pm »
I moved 18 months ago to a house with a water meter, old cost per year about £300, now on water meter with 350ltr a day usage cost is £650 per year, I run a 300gpd at 50/50 waste to pure, I kept reading that will kill off my membranes as you need 3 to1, but 18 months later they are still going fine.
To get 50/50 remove the restrictor and fit at thumb tap and adjust to suit, keep checking pure/waste flow and tds to get desired results.

nathankaye

  • Posts: 5366
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #7 on: February 04, 2016, 11:42:36 pm »
Thankfully we live in england, a nice small island but one that attracts a whole lot of rain.
Rain salvage. Run a sock filter in down pipe or u can get special downpipe with two flows. As you dont want the initial rain off, as contains most of roof minerals n mess. Then filter at bottom end and run into a storage tank. Which you can then pump thru resin into tank in van. Which may give u a break in water bill, during the wetter seasons. Or along those principles anyway.
facebook.com/1NKServices
1NKServices.co.uk

Plankton

  • Posts: 2441
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #8 on: February 05, 2016, 12:02:57 am »
Is England an island?

andyM

  • Posts: 6100
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #9 on: February 05, 2016, 07:10:47 am »
Is England an island?

No. But he's repeated it twice so I think he's trying to convince himself that he's right.  ;D
One of the Plebs

nathankaye

  • Posts: 5366
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #10 on: February 05, 2016, 08:00:34 am »
Lol  ;D.   For you grammar n spelling police, ok i should have said britain
facebook.com/1NKServices
1NKServices.co.uk

deeege

  • Posts: 5008
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #11 on: February 05, 2016, 08:28:18 am »
Lol  ;D.   For you grammar n spelling police, ok i should have said britain

* Britain
"....and it's lend me ten pounds, I'll buy you a drink, and mother wake me early in the morning."

peterharwood

  • Posts: 75
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #12 on: February 06, 2016, 05:32:15 pm »
Thanks for your feedback I'm fitting a 300 gpd membrane kit to double my production.

slap bash

  • Posts: 1366
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2016, 05:36:37 pm »
Change to 150 liter membranes and add another one so you will have  a 4 membranes system. Each membranes uses the waist from the previous one. So after 4 membranes in tandem one after each other. This  will produce the cheapest water. AS someone said use a manual flow tap as you are in control of waist. When your production slows down replace membrane no 4 only as this one will be working the hardest.

ascjim

Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2016, 06:30:08 pm »
Trust me, you won't notice the difference in price over the year.

D.I is out of the question.

I'm D.I only: http://purewash.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/pros-and-cons-of-di-only-vs-ro-water.html

nathankaye

  • Posts: 5366
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2016, 10:55:48 pm »
Just read james' blog. His water tds is 150ppm and happy to use expensive DI Resin. However orig quote stated tap water was 350ppm and looking for cheaper option. Just using 2 DI cylinders will be extremely costly and so not a good recomendation in this case, surely!
When I first filled my 500 ltr tank, wanted a quick fill and used a 25ltr DI, tap water was only 256ppm. Bu time filled to 400ltrs the tds started to creep up.
facebook.com/1NKServices
1NKServices.co.uk

Spruce

  • Posts: 8462
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #16 on: February 09, 2016, 08:43:36 am »
Change to 150 liter membranes and add another one so you will have  a 4 membranes system. Each membranes uses the waist from the previous one. So after 4 membranes in tandem one after each other. This  will produce the cheapest water. AS someone said use a manual flow tap as you are in control of waist. When your production slows down replace membrane no 4 only as this one will be working the hardest.

He has one of those single 300GPD membranes Slap, the ones Streamline sell.
Success is 1% inspiration, 98% perspiration and 2% attention to detail!

The older I get, the better I was ;)

peterharwood

  • Posts: 75
Re: cost effective water production
« Reply #17 on: February 11, 2016, 10:28:11 pm »
Added the 300 Gpd kit to my existing 300 Gpd ro system (streamline) I wouldn't say it's doubled production but is a lot faster then before.

I was wondering if I could add another 300 Gpd kit to make it 900 ?


Spruce

  • Posts: 8462
Re: cost effective water production New
« Reply #18 on: February 11, 2016, 10:50:52 pm »
Added the 300 Gpd kit to my existing 300 Gpd ro system (streamline) I wouldn't say it's doubled production but is a lot faster then before.

I was wondering if I could add another 300 Gpd kit to make it 900 ?

It will depend on the size of the hose used in the system and the prefilters. 

I seem to remember unplugging the 1/4" hose from my r/o  and testing the amount of water I could push through it. At tap pressure (50psi) I could only get about 5 lpm. 1/2" hose gave me 13 lpm under the same conditions. I didn't have 3/8" to test.

However, Merlin r/o's are rated at 720 GPD and they use 1/2" piping.

So maybe the reason why you haven't doubled your output is down to hose size. If it is, then adding another housing won't achieve much more.

3 replacement membranes are going to cost you a fortune.
Success is 1% inspiration, 98% perspiration and 2% attention to detail!

The older I get, the better I was ;)