Nanohedron wrote:
Here it seems we're losing sight of the difference between water quality and water availability
I know. But I didn't introduce 3-4 hours to collect water or sand dams and I deleted quite a long paragraph responding to comments about them. Then I re-read the article and took the view that anything other than small-scale commercial applications (or even that) was a long way down the line.
My long paragraph pointed out that it might not be so much 3 hours to collect water that is the big issue, but three hours to collect
dirty water. With surface water biological quality is usually the issue so my question was "under what circumstances is a high-tech still a better option than a low-tech sand filter (especially when the sun isn't shining)". Or, is there another way of accessing ground water before animals get to it (e.g. hand dug well with Afridev pump). For chemical quality problems, sure, a still may be the only option.
I have been involved with a several WASH (Water Sanitation and Hygiene) projects, joining UK funds with local water development expertise. It leaves me with an open mind but questioning approach to hi-tech developed-world fixes until I have had the chance to check them out with the local experts. I can almost hear one of them saying of the Warka tower "How is it in the wind?". It also makes me aware of how selective fund raising material can be in how it presents a problem. Personally I would prefer to give a full and interesting explanation, but highlighting the negative opens some cheque books that would remain closed. I like the Warka Tower web site, it takes time to include the "unnecessary" background, like the yellow 20 litre cans being re-used cooking oil containers. (Though I am surprised about the ex-gasoline ones, I think containers normally get downgraded away from food use). That makes me think these are people who ask "Why?" as they research a project. Almost as an aside they mention women having to stand in line for their previous water collection (adds weight to the case for opening the cheque book). I have asked "why" about that several times and always got illuminating answers.
Don't get me wrong I am not against technical fixes. The white LED has had an amazing effect - even using disposable dry cells it seems to have tipped a flashlight into a way of stealing time from the long tropical night. About 10 years ago a UK charity was donating solar powered lights to families so that kids could study at night. At least to start with they were shipped from Europe. We looked into supplying some and found that they were being imported but there was no distribution network. On asking 'why' the answer was that they were not financially viable for rural use. The initial outlay was too great and people could buy kerosene for a lamp week by week (and if they had no money "we sit in the dark and chat"). Solar kit with mobile phone chargers became available but again the outlay was too great and a lad provided a charging service by lugging a car battery around. However, only a few years later there they were on a stall in the market. No-one had any more money but incremental development of solar cells and batteries, coupled with a massive worldwide market for both, had brought the price down enough for some people. I wonder if the local entrepreneur who owned the car battery that the lad carried round was involved.
Hence my comment about seeing a family size still in a rural market. Until it is there and at least a few people can afford it then I don't think it is sustainable in a local economy. Maybe involvement from the likes of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and the military will allow the economies of scale.