Better system design

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I’m sure a chemist will correct this:

CO2 in an aqueous solution, exists in a potential state; as either [ (CO2) aq] or
[ (H+) (HCO3-) ]

With a probability azimuth at the matter state change.

Temperature influences the probability of which form.

As I stated in my first post, lowering the temperature will increase solubility of most gases, including CO2 in seawater.

What that does not necessarily imply is that a chiller on a CaCO3/CO2 reactor will appreciably improve the efficiency of CO2 use.

It is not possible to make such an assertion based merely on the solubility of CO2.

I personally think this would be an expensive add on of dubious value. Even if one accepts the premise that CO2 is more efficiently used (I do not), how much CO2 must be saved to offset the expense of the chiller, it's electricity, and the other equipment to attach it?

The hypothesis does not have enough justification to make it worthwhile, IMO.

Same analysis and lack of convincing utility applies to the ozone suggestion.

 

[BeanAnimal]

If a 25wt UV Syerilizer has a pathogen flow of X gph, an algae flow of 2X gph.

System volume is also (X); the math is stupid simple.

Once every hour the volume could be irradiated to a pathogen level.

Or a mixed percentage every hour to an alga level.

Although each manufacturer designates suggested flow rates.

The complexity of adding actuators, provides an option to set a unit into algae flow rates.

You are introducing information that is irrelevant to the point. No, the mechanical and control additions just add unneeded complexity for no benefit for the UV.

Switching flow rates is still unjustified. Pathogen eradicating flow levels already delivers the dose sufficient for what you are citing as needing less flow (algae is your wording). You position has been debunked several times now.

Furthermore each flow rate adds heat.

This limits the influx of heat, while still providing the benefit of correctly sized UV sterilizer.

Absolutely wrong. This is basic thermodynamics and a simple first order application of the First Law of Thermodynamics..

Heat is steady state, set by wattage of the lamp and not the flow rate through the fixture. The lamp envelope is water cooled.

Lower flow raises delta T per pass, it doesn't reduce total heat added to the tank. The same energy is imparted to the water regardless of the flow, it has nowhere else to go.

Example:
A 30W UV sterilizer lamp = 102.4 BTU/hr (30W × 3.412 BTU/Wh)

1 BTU raises 1 lb water 1°F. Water = 8.34 lb/gal.
Low flow 60 GPH: 60 × 8.34 = 500.4 lb/hr
Delta T = 102.4 / 500.4 = 0.205°F per pass

High flow 180 GPH: 180 × 8.34 = 1501.2 lb/hr
Delta T = 102.4 / 1501.2 = 0.068°F per pass

Total heat added per hour: 102.4 BTU in both cases. Flow rate changes delta T per pass, not total heat added to the system.

I’m sure a chemist will correct this:

Are you aware that you are arguing with an actual credentialed chemist?

 

[BeanAnimal]

I personally think this would be an expensive add on of dubious value. Even if one accepts the premise that CO2 is more efficiently used (I do not), how much CO2 must be saved to offset the expense of the chiller, it's electricity, and the other equipment to attach it?

I did some napkin math above that shows this to be exactly the case.

The power required for any reasonable delta T large enough to measurably make a difference is 1kW or more for a modestly small reactor. Any net benefit would be easier to obtain via flow adjustment. This whole thing is a non starter even if the theory has merit.