Talk:Seawater greenhouse

POV tag

This concept is wonderful, but its applicability and economics limit its scope to a very few world locations. It will not transform the Sahara into a lush garden. The math just doesnt work. For starters it is only applicable to below sea level locations without incurring monumental pumping costs. Hadrianheugh (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Theses seem to me to bald assertsions. Can you table any calculations to back up your pumping points? I have looked at pummping costs and they seem to me to be quite minor.Engineman (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, using the Guardian article, someone from Friends of the Earth is quoted as saying: "one million tonnes of sea water could be evaporated every day from just 20,000 hectares of greenhouses". Lifting a million tonnes to a modest fifty metres above sea level would require 50 x 9.81 x 1million x 1000 = nearly 500 billion joules per day, which is around 5MW average power. At the tropics, we'll allow 500W/m^2 solar radiation during the day, but since half the day is night time, 250W/m^2, and we'll give 60% efficiency from radiation to pumping, which I suspect is too generous, to leave 150W/m^2. That would take some 33000 m^2, or 3.3 ha, which doesn't seem unreasonable. I agree that the article is biased, however: there's very little mention of any downsides or difficulties, and it reads as if it's been written entirely by the advocates of the technology. The obvious question that occurs to me is what one does with the 35 000 tonnes of salt left behind by the daily million tonnes of seawater? Thomas K (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thomas - I have my doubts about the feasibility too. I dug around a bit for an article with some criticism I could add to the page and didn't find much. Peasreach77 (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't leave salt behind, you merely anow ll the saltier sea water to gravitate back to the sea, using a turbine to pick up some of the energy used to pump it there..........5 MW of power is a piffling amount of power. UK uses average 35,000 MW

For handy energy calculator look at http://www.claverton-energy.com/pipe-headloss-power-calculator-calculate-how-much-energy-to-pump-seawater-to-the-middle-of-the-sahara-or-gobi-desert-for-desalination-in-the-seawater-greenhouse-answer-not-a-lot.html.

The thing could easily transform the sahara (IMHOP)...Engineman (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I too wondered about where to dispose of the salt. Pumping it back in the ocean will also require power. But of course it can be done. Simpler than sending a man to the moon! Are, 4 March 2009 213.187.160.210 (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does require power, but the amountof power is piffling compared to say the energy already used by a typical country. Any energy could esaily come from eg CSP. Its not use talking about "large amounts of power" without quanitfying it and comparing it with something else. (IMHOP)Engineman (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

From this article, I still don't know what a seawater greenhouse looks like or how it functions. Not up to usual Wikipedia standards. David B. Benson (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the reference cited no 7 - this gives a full descrtiption and pictures. Maybe if you don;t like the article you could improve it by copying bits in? ^ http://www.claverton-energy.com/the-sahara-forest-project-%E2%80%93-a-new-source-of-fresh-water-food-and-energy.html

Engineman (talk) 10:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The name of the technology is a common noun phrase not a proper name

The business name is a proper name but the technology is a common noun phrase and should not be capitalized. The article title should be "Seawater greenhouse" and the article body should use "seawater greenhouse" except where it refers to the business. Jojalozzo 22:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed bibliography

I removed the "Bibliography" section. It appears to be a list of papers on the topic presented at various conferences. This is not encyclopedia material. Here is the list:

1. “Development of an integrated reverse osmosis-greenhouse system driven by solar photovoltaic generators”, P. A. Davies and A. K. Hossain, Desalination and Water Treatment, 22, 1-13 (2010)
2. “Properties of seawater bitterns with regard to liquid-desiccant cooling”, G. Lychnos, J. Fletcher and P. A. Davies, Desalination, 250, 172-178 (2010)
3. “Stand-alone groundwater desalination system using reverse osmosis combined with a cooled greenhouse for use in arid and semi-arid zones of India, Desalination and Water Treatment”, P. A. Davies, A. K. Hossain and P. Vasudevan, Desalination and Water Treatment, pp. 223–234, (2009)
4. “The Sahara Forest Project – a new source of fresh water, food and energy”, Paton, Fourth World Conference on the Future of Science “Food and Water for Life” – Venice, September 24–27, (2008)
5. “A Solar Powered Liquid-Desiccant Cooling System for Greenhouses, ISHS International Workshop on Greenhouse Environmental Control. and Crop Production in Semi-Arid Regions”, G. Lychnos and P. A. Davies, Tucson (October 2008) Acta Horticulturae, 797, 339–346 (2008).
6. “Energy saving and solar electricity in fan-ventilated greenhouses, ISHS International Workshop on Greenhouse Environmental Control. and Crop Production in Semi-Arid Regions”, P. A. Davies, A. K. Hossain, G. Lychnos and C. Paton, Tucson (October 2008) Acta Horticulturae, 797, 95–101 (2008).
7. “Seawater bitterns as a source of liquid desiccant for use in solar-cooled greenhouses”, Davies, Knowles, Elsevier Desalination 196 266–279, (2006)
8. “Cooling of greenhouses using seawater: a solar driven liquid-desiccant cycle for greenhouse cooling in hot climates”, Davies, Harris and Knowles, International Symposium on Greenhouse Cooling, Almería (2006)
9. “A solar cooling system for greenhouse food production in hot climates”, Davies, Elsevier Solar Energy 79 (2005) 661–668, (2005)
10. “The Seawater Greenhouse in the United Arab Emirates: thermal modeling and evaluation of design options”, P. A. Davies and C. Paton, Desalination 173, 2, 103–111 (2005)
11. “The Seawater Greenhouse and the watermaker condenser”, Davies and Paton, International Conference on Heat Powered Cycles Cyprus (2004)
12. “Potential of the Seawater Greenhouse in Middle Eastern climates”, Davies, Turner and Paton, International Engineering Conference Mutah (2004)
13. “The Seawater Greenhouse and the Watermaker Condenser”, P. A. Davies and C. Paton, 3rd Int. Heat Powered Cycles Conference, Larnaca, Cyprus (2004)
14. “Potential of the Seawater Greenhouse in Middle Eastern climates”, P. A. Davies, K. Turner and C. Paton, International Engineering Conference Mutah, Jordan, 523–540 (2004)
15. “Solar energy desalination for arid coastal regions: Development of a humidification-dehumidification seawater greenhouse”, Goosen, M.F.A., S.S. Sablani, C. Paton, J. Perret, A. Al-Nuaimi, I. Haffar, H. Al-Hinai, and W.H. Shayya, Solar Energy Journal 75:413-419 (2003)
16. “Seawater Greenhouse Development for Oman: Thermodynamic Modelling and Economic Analysis”, Charlie Paton, MEDRC Series of R&D Reports, MEDRC Project: 97-AS-005b (2001)
17. “Thermodynamic and economic considerations in solar desalination”, Goosen, M.F.A., S. Sablani, W.H. Shayya, C. Paton, and H. Al-Hinai. Desalination 129(1):63-89 (2000)
18. “The Seawater Greenhouse: a case study based on Morocco”, P. A. Davies and C. Paton, Sustainable Development International, 2nd Edition, 99-103. ICG Publishing Ltd (2000)
19. “Performance aspects of a seawater greenhouse”, A. Raoueche and B.J. Bailey, 23rd WEDC Conference Durban, South Africa (1997)
20. “Sensitivity analysis of the seawater greenhouse”, A. Raoueche, B. Bailey and B. Stenning, 22nd WEDC Conference, New Delhi, India (1996)
21. “The Seawater Greenhouse for Arid Lands”, C. Paton and P. A. Davies, Mediterranean Conference on Renewable Energy Sources for Water Production, Santorini, 163–166 (1996)

Jojalozzo 23:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Problem with awards links

A couple of links for the awards do not go to a page that tells us about seawater greenhouses. That creates a verifiability problem. Jojalozzo 23:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Seawater greenhouse. Favonian (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Seawater Greenhouse → Seawater greenhouse – The term "seawater greenhouse" is a common noun phrase referring to a technology. "Seawater Greenhouse" is the proper name of a business. The article is about the technology not the business so we should not capitalize 'Greenhouse' in the title. Jojalozzo 01:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with the nom. This is a generic term, not a proper noun. Jenks24 (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"As of February 2012, Seawater greenhouse is no longer part of The Sahara Forest Project."

What does this mean?

1. The Sahara Forest Project no longer uses the technology of seawater greenhouses?
2. The company Seawater Greenhouse Ltd. has dropped its cooperation with The Sahara Forest Project?

In both cases the current spelling "Seawater greenhouse" needs to be corrected. See above comment under "The name of the technology is a common noun phrase not a proper name".
And besides crying for a citation which proves it, how about some actual information, like, Why did SGLtd pull out of TSFP? or Why is TSFP no longer using sg technology?
--BjKa (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Misleading photos

The photos used to support the idea that the system has any noticible change in the ability of plants to live in the vicinity are highly misleading.

The initial photo shows bare ground around the building, the second that bushes had grown around leading you to presume that the system has something to do with it.

The reality is the bare ground was caused by bulldozers, and the Bush is exactly what would normally be in the area if left alone.

This can be seen from aerial photography, showing the distinct lines caused by human clearing, and the Bush in uncleared areas.

Photos should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.150.62.107 (talk) 10:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• 1-s2.0-S1364032115010953-gr1.jpg (discussion)
• Seawater greenhouse Algeria.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• 1-s2.0-S1364032115010953-gr1.jpg (discussion)
• Seawater greenhouse Algeria.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)