Print this page

Published: 15 September 2014

Solar desalination a solution for Indian villages


A simple set of solar panels and a battery system connected to an electrodialysis desalination unit could provide fresh water for a typical Indian village – that’s the finding of recent research from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the US.

Off-grid Indian communities with salty groundwater could get potable water through the proposed solar technique.
Off-grid Indian communities with salty groundwater could get potable water through the proposed solar technique.
Credit: Illustration: Christine Daniloff/MIT

Groundwater is more commonly salty than fresh and drinkable. For example, 60 per cent of India is underlain by salty water – and much of that area is not served by an electric grid that could run conventional reverse-osmosis desalination plants.

The analysis by MIT researchers shows that a different desalination technology – electrodialysis powered by solar panels –could provide enough clean drinking water to supply the needs of a typical village.

The study, by MIT graduate student Natasha Wright and Professor Amos Winter, appears in the journal Desalination.

Winter says finding optimal solutions to problems such as saline groundwater involves ‘detective work to understand the full set of constraints imposed by the market.’ After weeks of field research in India, and reviews of various established technologies, he says, ‘when we put all these pieces of the puzzle together, it pointed very strongly to electrodialysis’ – which is not what is commonly used in developing nations.

The factors pointing to the choice of electrodialysis in India include relatively low levels of salinity – ranging from 500 to 3000 milligrams per litre (mg/L), compared with seawater at about 35,000 mg/L – and the region's lack of electrical power. (For on-grid locations, the team found, reverse-osmosis plants can be economically viable.)

Moderately salty water is not directly toxic, but can have long-term effects on health, and its unpleasant taste can cause people to turn to other, dirtier water sources. ‘It's a big issue in the water-supply community,’ Winter says.

Most organisations working to improve clean-water access currently focus their attention on controlling known pathogens and toxins such as arsenic, Wright says. But her analysis showed the importance of ‘what the water tastes like, smells like, and looks like.’ Even if the water is technically safe to drink, that doesn't solve the problem if people refuse to drink it because of the unpleasant salty taste, she says.

By pairing village-scale electrodialysis systems – smaller than the industrial-scale units typically produced today – with a simple set of solar panels and a battery system to store the produced energy, an economically viable and culturally acceptable system could supply enough palatable water to meet the needs of a village of 2000–5000 people, Wright and Winter concluded.

The researchers estimate that deployment of such systems would double the area of India in which groundwater – inherently safer, in terms of pathogen loads, than surface water – could provide acceptable drinking water.

Both electrodialysis and reverse osmosis require the use of membranes, but those in an electrodialysis system are exposed to lower pressures and can be cleared of salt buildup simply by reversing the electrical polarity. That means the expensive membranes should last much longer and require less maintenance, Winter says.

In addition, electrodialysis systems recover a much higher percentage of the water – more than 90 per cent, compared with about 40–60 per cent from reverse-osmosis systems, a big advantage in areas where water is scarce.

The two researchers plan to put together a working prototype for field evaluations in India in January 2015. While this approach was initially conceived for village-scale, self-contained systems, Winter says the same technology could also be useful for applications such as disaster relief and for military use in remote locations.

Source: MIT News Office







Published: 4 July 2011

Assured sustainability reporting – navigating obligations

Nick Fleming

As the way in which organisations address environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues comes under increasing scrutiny, sustainability reporting is gathering importance and momentum. Yet reporting must be seen as a product of sustainable business practices, not the focus of it.

Emphasis on more robust sustainability reporting is helping to drive the wider assessment and reform of companies’ associated supply chains and logistics infrastructure.
Emphasis on more robust sustainability reporting is helping to drive the wider assessment and reform of companies’ associated supply chains and logistics infrastructure.
Credit: iStockphoto

While sustainability reporting is new territory for some organisations, many leading businesses have been engaged in reporting for over a decade. Indeed, sustainability reporting is typically one of the first vehicles for engagement with the topic and issues of sustainability, often at the encouragement of a few passionate staff.

However, the call for greater organisational accountability and transparency is growing. An increasing number of shareholder resolutions are placing pressure on company boards to ensure they are effectively identifying, disclosing and addressing ESG risks. Institutional investors are already using ESG data to differentiate firms and guide investment decisions.1

Powerful customers are also forcing their suppliers to become more transparent. The classic example is Walmart, which launched a supplier sustainability initiative in July 2009. Locally, Woolworths recently announced its own Sustainable Fish Sourcing Strategy.2

There is also an expectation for assurance. This reflects a stakeholder desire for reports to be relevant, reliable and free from bias, while the reporting organisation wishes to build a case for lower costs for finance and insurance. This all takes time and money; reporting can be a costly exercise and carries risks.

The banking sector provides an insight to the challenges posed by sustainability reporting. In Australia, banks have typically lead sustainability reporting and have performed well against international benchmarks such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. Yet this year, the big four banks have been publically criticised over their involvement with coal-fired power stations.3 People ask how an organisation that receives sustainability accolades can also finance environmental pollution. This questions the connectivity between sustainability reporting and governance.

Scrutiny is also being applied by the regulators. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has prosecuted cases against companies such as GM Holden and Prime Carbon for overstating their ‘green’ credentials. It’s clear that inaccurate communication on ESG matters presents serious risks to an organisation’s reputation – and that of the rating or assurance agency.

These issues have been behind recent reviews of reporting guidelines and benchmarking methods.4,5 The reviews found that ratings and reporting tend to be backward-looking measures of compliance with ‘good practice’, failing to enable a meaningful assessment of an organisation’s ability to create and sustain value, in the short and longer term.

What’s lacking is adequate interrogation and reporting of the strategic capabilities and the core competencies required to underpin business continuity and delivery of sustainable outcomes; that is, a truly sustainable enterprise.

However, the push for integrated financial and non-financial (sustainability) reporting may offer a silver lining – the trigger to focus conversations among executives and boards about the things that will drive genuine business continuity, profitability and sustainability. Without these conversations, there will neither be the understanding, focus nor commitment to cultivate truly sustainable enterprises.

The adage ‘What gets measured gets managed’ remains true; as does ‘It’s what you do, not what you say, that counts’. Reporting without subsequent actions to manage risks and create value is meaningless, and arguably harmful.

While there are growing market and stakeholder pressures for integrated reporting of financial and ESG matters, reporting should only be entered into with an eye on:

  1. material business risks

  2. core competencies for organisational continuity

  3. a core set of meaningful performance measures that offer real insight

  4. integrating reporting into governance

  5. commitment to real action in response to identified risks and opportunities.

Organisations that assume this approach take sustainability reporting beyond a ‘nice?to?have’ PR exercise to a ‘must?have’ business improvement tool. It’s a factor in the superior financial performance demonstrated by ethical and sustainable organisations. Getting it right is good for business – and good for communities.

Dr Nick Fleming is Chief Sustainability Officer Sinclair Knight Merz, leading the application of sustainability thinking in business operations and client services. Through his Sustainable Enterprise column, Nick provides insight to how businesses and organisations are effectively putting sustainability theory into practice.


1 Ernst & Young (2011). Shareholders press boards on social and environmental risks. tinyurl.com/social-environmental-risks
2 tinyurl.com/sustainable-fish
3 Greenpeace (2011). Pillars of pollution. www.greenpeace.org.au/climate/GI-profundo.php
4 Eccles RG, Cheng B, Saltzman D (Eds) (2010). The landscape of integrated reporting: reflections and next steps. Harvard Business School. tinyurl.com/integrated-reporting
5 SustainAbility (2011). Rate the raters: uncovering best practices. www.sustainability.com/library/rate-the-raters-phase-one




ECOS Archive

Welcome to the ECOS Archive site which brings together 40 years of sustainability articles from 1974-2014.

For more recent ECOS articles visit the blog. You can also sign up to the email alert or RSS feed