Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> On 12/3/2013 2:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>
> >
> > Unfortunately the water where I live is horrible so I am forced to use bottled,.
> >
>
> Either an RO system or proper filters will pay for itself over bottled.
> You do have choices.

The $150 or so under counter RO systems work very well and are very easy
to install.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:44:07 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> > On 12/3/2013 2:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Unfortunately the water where I live is horrible so I am forced to use bottled,.
> > >
> >
> > Either an RO system or proper filters will pay for itself over bottled.
> > You do have choices.
>
> The $150 or so under counter RO systems work very well and are very easy
> to install.

What is the "waste ratio" all about and why do the lower cost units
have a higher one?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

sf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:44:07 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > >
> > > On 12/3/2013 2:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately the water where I live is horrible so I am forced to use bottled,.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Either an RO system or proper filters will pay for itself over bottled.
> > > You do have choices.
> >
> > The $150 or so under counter RO systems work very well and are very easy
> > to install.
>
> What is the "waste ratio" all about and why do the lower cost units
> have a higher one?

The reverse osmosis membrane essentially passes only clean water, which
means that the contaminants stay on the input side of the filter. This
water with concentrated contaminants generally needs to be disposed of
as "reject water" to keep the crud from building up and preventing new
water to be filtered from getting to the RO membrane. Higher end units
have better designs to allow for less reject water and thus less water
consumption.

A key thing to keep in mind is that the under sink RO systems only
produce up to ~10 gal/day of filtered water, and the reject water is
only produced in proportion to the filtered water produced. Thus if the
ratio of reject water to filtered water is 1:3 the unit only "wastes" up
to 3.3 gal/day of water, and if you only use 1 gal of filtered water in
a day it only wastes .3 gal of reject water.

If you are particularly frugal that reject water can be collected for
other uses such as watering non-food plants or flushing toilets or
similar where the increased concentration of contaminants won't be an
issue. This would require some work on your part to do since such
reclamation setups aren't commercially available for a small home unit.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:22:02 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> sf wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:44:07 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 12/3/2013 2:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Unfortunately the water where I live is horrible so I am forced to use bottled,.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Either an RO system or proper filters will pay for itself over bottled.
> > > > You do have choices.
> > >
> > > The $150 or so under counter RO systems work very well and are very easy
> > > to install.
> >
> > What is the "waste ratio" all about and why do the lower cost units
> > have a higher one?
>
> The reverse osmosis membrane essentially passes only clean water, which
> means that the contaminants stay on the input side of the filter. This
> water with concentrated contaminants generally needs to be disposed of
> as "reject water" to keep the crud from building up and preventing new
> water to be filtered from getting to the RO membrane. Higher end units
> have better designs to allow for less reject water and thus less water
> consumption.
>
> A key thing to keep in mind is that the under sink RO systems only
> produce up to ~10 gal/day of filtered water, and the reject water is
> only produced in proportion to the filtered water produced. Thus if the
> ratio of reject water to filtered water is 1:3 the unit only "wastes" up
> to 3.3 gal/day of water, and if you only use 1 gal of filtered water in
> a day it only wastes .3 gal of reject water.
>
> If you are particularly frugal that reject water can be collected for
> other uses such as watering non-food plants or flushing toilets or
> similar where the increased concentration of contaminants won't be an
> issue. This would require some work on your part to do since such
> reclamation setups aren't commercially available for a small home unit.

Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 12/5/2013 11:03 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:22:02 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> sf wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:44:07 -0500, "Pete C." >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/3/2013 2:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unfortunately the water where I live is horrible so I am forced to use bottled,.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Either an RO system or proper filters will pay for itself over bottled.
>>>>> You do have choices.
>>>>
>>>> The $150 or so under counter RO systems work very well and are very easy
>>>> to install.
>>>
>>> What is the "waste ratio" all about and why do the lower cost units
>>> have a higher one?
>>
>> The reverse osmosis membrane essentially passes only clean water, which
>> means that the contaminants stay on the input side of the filter. This
>> water with concentrated contaminants generally needs to be disposed of
>> as "reject water" to keep the crud from building up and preventing new
>> water to be filtered from getting to the RO membrane. Higher end units
>> have better designs to allow for less reject water and thus less water
>> consumption.
>>
>> A key thing to keep in mind is that the under sink RO systems only
>> produce up to ~10 gal/day of filtered water, and the reject water is
>> only produced in proportion to the filtered water produced. Thus if the
>> ratio of reject water to filtered water is 1:3 the unit only "wastes" up
>> to 3.3 gal/day of water, and if you only use 1 gal of filtered water in
>> a day it only wastes .3 gal of reject water.
>>
>> If you are particularly frugal that reject water can be collected for
>> other uses such as watering non-food plants or flushing toilets or
>> similar where the increased concentration of contaminants won't be an
>> issue. This would require some work on your part to do since such
>> reclamation setups aren't commercially available for a small home unit.
>
> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
>
You had a major wildfire threat to your own municipal water supply this
summer, that had to be a bit tense.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:11:47 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> wrote:

> On 12/5/2013 11:03 AM, sf wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
> > cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
> >
> You had a major wildfire threat to your own municipal water supply this
> summer, that had to be a bit tense.
>

It was touch & go for a while.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 12/5/2013 11:47 AM, sf wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 11:11:47 -0700, "Pearl F. Buck"
> > wrote:
>
>> On 12/5/2013 11:03 AM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
>>> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
>>>
>> You had a major wildfire threat to your own municipal water supply this
>> summer, that had to be a bit tense.
>>
>
> It was touch & go for a while.
>
I would think that there is an opportunity for prescribed burns to
reduce future threats in the area of that one reservoir which was in danger.

Has that happened, or did enough material burn naturally to reduce
future risks?

sf wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:22:02 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > sf wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:44:07 -0500, "Pete C." >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On 12/3/2013 2:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Unfortunately the water where I live is horrible so I am forced to use bottled,.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Either an RO system or proper filters will pay for itself over bottled.
> > > > > You do have choices.
> > > >
> > > > The $150 or so under counter RO systems work very well and are very easy
> > > > to install.
> > >
> > > What is the "waste ratio" all about and why do the lower cost units
> > > have a higher one?
> >
> > The reverse osmosis membrane essentially passes only clean water, which
> > means that the contaminants stay on the input side of the filter. This
> > water with concentrated contaminants generally needs to be disposed of
> > as "reject water" to keep the crud from building up and preventing new
> > water to be filtered from getting to the RO membrane. Higher end units
> > have better designs to allow for less reject water and thus less water
> > consumption.
> >
> > A key thing to keep in mind is that the under sink RO systems only
> > produce up to ~10 gal/day of filtered water, and the reject water is
> > only produced in proportion to the filtered water produced. Thus if the
> > ratio of reject water to filtered water is 1:3 the unit only "wastes" up
> > to 3.3 gal/day of water, and if you only use 1 gal of filtered water in
> > a day it only wastes .3 gal of reject water.
> >
> > If you are particularly frugal that reject water can be collected for
> > other uses such as watering non-food plants or flushing toilets or
> > similar where the increased concentration of contaminants won't be an
> > issue. This would require some work on your part to do since such
> > reclamation setups aren't commercially available for a small home unit.
>
> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.

Not really, and it's an easily calculable expense. Your cost for
filtered water is the cost of the RO and pre filters divided by their
service life in gallons, plus the cost of the reject water for that many
gallons of filtered water. given the specifications for a particular
unit and the water cost it's easy to calculate the extra cost per gallon
of filtered water. It's likely in the range of $0.03-$0.05 per gallon.

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:12:57 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>sf wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:22:02 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > sf wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:44:07 -0500, "Pete C." >
>> > > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 12/3/2013 2:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Unfortunately the water where I live is horrible so I am forced to use bottled,.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Either an RO system or proper filters will pay for itself over bottled.
>> > > > > You do have choices.
>> > > >
>> > > > The $150 or so under counter RO systems work very well and are very easy
>> > > > to install.
>> > >
>> > > What is the "waste ratio" all about and why do the lower cost units
>> > > have a higher one?
>> >
>> > The reverse osmosis membrane essentially passes only clean water, which
>> > means that the contaminants stay on the input side of the filter. This
>> > water with concentrated contaminants generally needs to be disposed of
>> > as "reject water" to keep the crud from building up and preventing new
>> > water to be filtered from getting to the RO membrane. Higher end units
>> > have better designs to allow for less reject water and thus less water
>> > consumption.
>> >
>> > A key thing to keep in mind is that the under sink RO systems only
>> > produce up to ~10 gal/day of filtered water, and the reject water is
>> > only produced in proportion to the filtered water produced. Thus if the
>> > ratio of reject water to filtered water is 1:3 the unit only "wastes" up
>> > to 3.3 gal/day of water, and if you only use 1 gal of filtered water in
>> > a day it only wastes .3 gal of reject water.
>> >
>> > If you are particularly frugal that reject water can be collected for
>> > other uses such as watering non-food plants or flushing toilets or
>> > similar where the increased concentration of contaminants won't be an
>> > issue. This would require some work on your part to do since such
>> > reclamation setups aren't commercially available for a small home unit.
>>
>> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
>> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
>
>Not really, and it's an easily calculable expense. Your cost for
>filtered water is the cost of the RO and pre filters divided by their
>service life in gallons, plus the cost of the reject water for that many
>gallons of filtered water. given the specifications for a particular
>unit and the water cost it's easy to calculate the extra cost per gallon
>of filtered water. It's likely in the range of $0.03-$0.05 per gallon.

I have my own well. My _drinking_ water is prefiltered, UV treated,
and RO filtered... it calculates to about 5¢/gallon. All the rest of
the water in my house is softened, prefiltered, and UV treated, never
had reason to cost out that water. My hose bib water is not treated,
however I have a hose bib at the garage door that has softened and
tempered water but I never use it... the last owner installed that
because he was a stickler for washing his car even in frigid weather.
I occasionally hand wash my car and occasionally it goes through a car
wash (in cold weather when coated with road salt, there's a car wash
not too far that even washes the undercarriage), but mostly my car
gets washed when it rains... sometimes when there's a heavy rain I
drive my car out of the garage, drive down the road a minute's worth
to wash its undercarriage and then leave it in the driveway. I'm
really not much into washing cars.

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 13:12:57 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >sf wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:22:02 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > sf wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 08:44:07 -0500, "Pete C." >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > On 12/3/2013 2:52 PM, Helpful person wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > > > Unfortunately the water where I live is horrible so I am forced to use bottled,.
> >> > > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Either an RO system or proper filters will pay for itself over bottled.
> >> > > > > You do have choices.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > The $150 or so under counter RO systems work very well and are very easy
> >> > > > to install.
> >> > >
> >> > > What is the "waste ratio" all about and why do the lower cost units
> >> > > have a higher one?
> >> >
> >> > The reverse osmosis membrane essentially passes only clean water, which
> >> > means that the contaminants stay on the input side of the filter. This
> >> > water with concentrated contaminants generally needs to be disposed of
> >> > as "reject water" to keep the crud from building up and preventing new
> >> > water to be filtered from getting to the RO membrane. Higher end units
> >> > have better designs to allow for less reject water and thus less water
> >> > consumption.
> >> >
> >> > A key thing to keep in mind is that the under sink RO systems only
> >> > produce up to ~10 gal/day of filtered water, and the reject water is
> >> > only produced in proportion to the filtered water produced. Thus if the
> >> > ratio of reject water to filtered water is 1:3 the unit only "wastes" up
> >> > to 3.3 gal/day of water, and if you only use 1 gal of filtered water in
> >> > a day it only wastes .3 gal of reject water.
> >> >
> >> > If you are particularly frugal that reject water can be collected for
> >> > other uses such as watering non-food plants or flushing toilets or
> >> > similar where the increased concentration of contaminants won't be an
> >> > issue. This would require some work on your part to do since such
> >> > reclamation setups aren't commercially available for a small home unit.
> >>
> >> Thanks, that could be a very expensive proposition considering the
> >> cost of city water these days and how it its increasing.
> >
> >Not really, and it's an easily calculable expense. Your cost for
> >filtered water is the cost of the RO and pre filters divided by their
> >service life in gallons, plus the cost of the reject water for that many
> >gallons of filtered water. given the specifications for a particular
> >unit and the water cost it's easy to calculate the extra cost per gallon
> >of filtered water. It's likely in the range of $0.03-$0.05 per gallon.
>
> I have my own well. My _drinking_ water is prefiltered, UV treated,
> and RO filtered... it calculates to about 5¢/gallon.

Exactly, it's not a large expense. For a small under counter RO setup
it's ~$150-$200 for the unit and a low continuing cost per gallon for
the reject water and replacement filters.


> All the rest of
> the water in my house is softened, prefiltered, and UV treated, never
> had reason to cost out that water. My hose bib water is not treated,
> however I have a hose bib at the garage door that has softened and
> tempered water but I never use it... the last owner installed that
> because he was a stickler for washing his car even in frigid weather.
> I occasionally hand wash my car and occasionally it goes through a car
> wash (in cold weather when coated with road salt, there's a car wash
> not too far that even washes the undercarriage), but mostly my car
> gets washed when it rains... sometimes when there's a heavy rain I
> drive my car out of the garage, drive down the road a minute's worth
> to wash its undercarriage and then leave it in the driveway. I'm
> really not much into washing cars.